Search This Site
News, sports, politics, blogs and forums Eden Prairie, Minnesota • (952) 942-7885
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
November 21, 2008 • (952) 942-7885
Keep up with the News! Sign up for email newsletters and RSS feeds.
Search
Advertising
Commentary: Beware of global warming extremism
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer friendly version
- Sign up for our Email Editions
- Delicious
- Digg
- Magnoliacom
- Newsvine
» Read similar stories filed under:
By Peter Bozanich
Here are three common techniques that global warming extremists use to shut down dissent.
(1) Shoot the messenger. Instead of taking on the argument, you try to cast doubt on the writer’s credibility. For example, suggest that the writer is “funded by the oil industry.” This does nothing to refute the argument, but it makes readers question whether the writer should be believed at all.
(2) Ride the bandwagon. One will frequently hear global warming extremists use the phrase “consensus” as in “there’s no point discussing this – a consensus of scientists agree that global warming is real.” This is a term which belongs in the realm of politics much more than science. Remember that there was once a “consensus” on the world being flat.
Richard Lintzen, an MIT scientist, calls global warming “junk science.” Dr. Timothy Ball, a climatologist at the University of Winnipeg, calls global warming “the greatest deception in the history of science.” Bill Gray, a climatologist from the University of Colorado (and the nation’s foremost hurricane expert), calls global warming a “hoax.”
In fact there is a film out now that refutes much of the current disinformation about global warming called “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” The program which aired earlier this month in Great Britain, features expert after expert in the fields of climatology, oceanography, biogeography, meteorology and paleoclimatology from reputable institutions such as NASA, MIT, The International Arctic Research Centre, the Pasteur Institut in Paris, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of Winnipeg, Ottawa, London, Jerusalem, Alabama and Virginia.
The documentary can actually be viewed for free online (just search “great global warming swindle video” in Google) and can even be purchased on DVD. The film won’t win any Oscars, but definitely destroys the myth that there is a consensus about global warming.
(3) Outright censorship. This is the most dangerous aspect of the current hysteria. Former Pioneer Press columnist Brian Lambert suggested in a recent column that global warming skeptics should now be silenced. Two state climatologists – David Legates in Delaware and George Taylor in Oregon – are being threatened with loss of employment because they have expressed doubts about global warming. The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen recently called for decertification of meteorologists who refuse to acknowledge global warming.
It’s like a religion shunning its heretics. It recalls the darkest days of McCarthyism – a time when people were afraid to speak the truth for fear of losing their job, their freedom and even their life.
No one is disputing that our climate is changing. But the theory that carbon dioxide emissions have any discernable effect on climate has always lacked solid scientific evidence. Yes, humans have an effect on climate, but it’s infinitesimally tiny compared with the vast natural forces which are constantly pushing global temperatures up and down.
The reason all of this matters is that once politicians have scared you into believing that the world is about to end, they leave you with no other choice but to let them fix it. And it is their solution – not global warming – that ought to terrify every one of us.
It turns out that the costs of committing our state to a lower standard of living, fewer jobs and higher prices are real and quantifiable.
Advertisement. Article continues below.
According to a Heritage Institute study the costs of limiting carbon emissions in Minnesota would include:
* A cost of $4.2 billion per year. That’s money that will no longer be available for schools, roads, fighting crime or health care.
* 30,000 lost jobs. Innocent people will be thrown out of work.
* $1.6 billion in lost wages. While government gets bigger, you get poorer.
* A drop in agricultural output. Watch your grocery bills skyrocket!
Real people and real jobs would all suffer. And for what? Because your politician saw Al Gore’s movie and believes every word?
When you hear the phrase “global warming,” think “big government” and “central control.” Because that is the ultimate goal. The global warming extremists don’t want to debate. But they do want your freedom.
And they’ll try to shout down anyone who stands in their way.
Peter Bozanich of Eden Prairie is the webmaster for the Senate District 42 Republican Party
A fanciful article -...
Back to page topA fanciful article - unfortunately fraught with talking points similar to those we seem to be getting from Senator Inhofe.
McCarthyism? I assume this is an attempt at humor.
I would recommend anyone who wants accurate information to visit:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/
or perhaps:
http://www.pewclimate.org/lomborg_critique.cfm
No need to worry - there are no evil minions at the door.
Actually, you’ve made my...
Back to page topActually, you’ve made my point. From your Pew Center on Global Climate Change link:
“The easiest context for seeing how an international compliance regime would work is if the global agreement involved common measures (e.g., a carbon tax). If one
country refused to comply with that approach, the rest of the world could simply impose a compensating tax on the relevant nation’s exports. Indeed, the other nations could
impose a PUNATIVE CARBON TAX -- i.e., a tax against the rogue nation’s exports equal to, say,three times the carbon tax that would have had to have been paid in the first place.”
And that, ultimately, is the goal, isn’t it? Scare people into supporting higher taxes, bigger government and central control. Punish them if they refuse to bike to work and give up their air conditioners. Meanwhile Al Gore continues to live like a king.
Sounds like a deal to me!
Economist (not scientist)...
Back to page topEconomist (not scientist) Lomborg actually is a guest of the Republicans in a house hearing - he is proposing a $2 per ton carbon tax.
So what you are telling me is that you don't accept global warming at all?
What we need is adult,...
Back to page topWhat we need is adult, good-faith discussion about these complicated issues, in which all sides are respected and held to high standards of argument. Anything less than that muddies the water, adds to public divisiveness, and wastes our time. Climate science is extremely complicated with a great number of factors involved. That is why I think it's important to read a number of books, by various authors with differing opinions.
If you truly want to find out more -- and aren’t just here to spew out DFL talking points -- I invite you to read three bestsellers currently on the market (all available from Amazon): “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years” by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery, “The Chilling Stars” by Danish physicist Henrrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder, and “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism” by Chris Horner.
The first book notes that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites. This book documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The second book talks about the why and how. The third book talks about why liberalism seems to be so anxious to capitalize on the global warming scare.
Avery and Singer have been in the Twin Cities a couple times before and have appeared on numerous Twin Cities talk shows (as recently as last Saturday). I believe they may be planning another visit. Perhaps we can persuade them to make a stop in Eden Prairie. Give me your contact information, EG, and I’ll make sure you get a front row seat.
Adult? Quoting you: If you...
Back to page topAdult?
Quoting you: If you truly want to find out more -- and aren’t just here to spew out DFL talking points...
You are accusing ME - when your original comment is a mishmash of talking points, without assessment?
Then why is your original piece basically a political polemic?
Honesty is the best policy.
Recycled talking points....
Back to page topRecycled talking points. The commentary would be hilarious if there were not so many gullible people sucking this nonsense up. I think this messenger deserves shooting because he is just riding the neocon bandwagon, telling the big lies that ExxonMobil sponsors. It's pathetic too, that these Republican hacks keep sending out the same message that blew up in their faces last election.
Well, the point of the...
Back to page topWell, the point of the "shoot the messenger" section is that ad hominem attacks really aren't much of an argument. If you can't refute someone's facts, you just call them "neocon" or "commie" or "nazi" or whatever. If someone's facts are sound, it shouldn't matter who is funding them - whether it's an oil company or a radical environmental group.
That's why I urge you and others to watch the movie "Great Global Warming Swindle" and try to get more than one side of the story.
Many scientists and even some left-leaning newspapers like the NY Times are starting to question some of the claims made by Al Gore. For example, Gore claims that sea levels will rise by 20 feet. The new U.N. study, on the other hand, puts the figure at closer to 20 INCHES. That's quite a difference!
Before we destroy our economy and start forcing everyone to live an 18th century lifestyle, doesn't it make sense to at least get your facts straight?
Is global warming a concern...
Back to page topIs global warming a concern no matter who or what caused it? What happens if sea levels rise 20 inches? Are there solutions that everyone can agree on? Please share any other resources on the issue.
(Karla Wennerstrom is the editor of the Eden Prairie News. She can be reached at editor@edenprairienews.com.)
Indeed. You make a good...
Back to page topIndeed.
You make a good point. There are consequences to our actions & inactions.
SOLUTIONS are important.
The article doesn't address Global Warming so much as tell us what to conclude politically. Intelligent people with a grasp of the science should be capable of doing that for themselves, if they truly study the issues.
If there is a cost to addressing Global Warming - there is also benefit from addressing Global Warming & its related effects upon our world.
Just as it is a benefit to Toyota for having the foresight to anticipate the future with the introduction of the hybrid Prius.
There is also a negative financial & quality of life consequence to IGNORING the effects of Global Warming.
Consequences will be visited upon us soon. There are signs now & consequences certainly visited upon one's children. They will be left to mop up the mess we make of this planet and this country.
The exact degree may be at issue - but not that it is happening. even the above article, despite referring to "hoaxes" admits that human activity has an effect on climate.
There are benefits to taking steps to mitigate our impact upon the world's climate.
Just as American auto companies are left in the lurch for ignoring the need for more economical vehicles which get better mileage & utilize new, alternative technologies.
Just as companies that had foresight - have benefited from that foresight.
Think about consequences next time you fuel you vehicle.
Your statements about it not...
Back to page topYour statements about it not really costing anything to develop an environmentally friendly economy prove 2 things.
1-You'll listen to anybody who says anything that falls in line with you predisposed thinking.
2-You haven't the beginning of a clue as to economics.
If developing environmentally were so cheap and easy, the Kyoto Protocol wouldn't call for tougher restrictions on developed countries while laxer restrictions on undeveloped countries.
With your line of thinking it would cost little or nothing to switch a plant from using one energy source to another. Or to just turn down the emission levels. If your thinking were correct, why wouldn't a developing country just switch over if the costs were negligible and the results so much better? Why would anyone build an energy inefficient plant, or environmentally unfriendly plant when an eco friendly were just as easy and cost effective?
Wind and solar energy are nowhere near as efficient as fossil fuels or nuclear energy. No where near, not even close. Recently solar panels were developed that are 40% efficient. Steam engines were more efficient than that. And it took technology 200 years to replace it.
Plus wind and solar are very sporadic. Solar power in the northwest would be useless. And wind power without constant breezes would be just as useless. They are both supplemental, but at this point in their evolution that’s all they can be.
Thanks for the attacks &...
Back to page topThanks for the attacks & putting words in my mouth. I did not say what you are saying.
1-You'll listen to anybody who says anything that falls in line with you predisposed thinking.
2-You haven't the beginning of a clue as to economics.
Well, I do appreciate your expert opinion & assessment of my grasp of the topic...
However, I don't see where you have managed to support either of the above 2 attacks.
Please explain - do you DENY Global Warming exists? You printed piece read differently than your later comment.
More and more folks are...
Back to page topMore and more folks are beginning to realize that Al Gore is pandering to the liberal elite, of which he wishes to be a member. Is the Earth warming? Of course it is, but not at the rate at which they would like you to believe. Go check out the facts. For every Al Gore there are many more "in the know" folks, you know, like scientists that will refute Al's claim that the sky is falling. Alot of this inforamtion is available if your willing to look for it. I think Al Gore has the fever, not planet Earth.
Why are you positioning this...
Back to page topWhy are you positioning this as Al Gore vs a handful of scientists?
The fact remains, this should not be politicized at all.
Gore is not running for anything.
This is about ver nearly the entire scientific community's assessment vs a few deniers.
Further, this HANDFUL decrying Global Warming are not even all scientists - and a few are not even expert in the field they criticize, as though they were expert in such, or have all done research in that area.
A number are funded by oil companies who have a vested interest in maintaining their hold on our sources of energy.
Yet, we keep hearing that science is somehow conspiring in the same way as the oil companies are possibly doing. Once you say that - we'd better start looking at motivations of the oil companies & benefit/risk assessments.
Point number one in the op ed states that questioning the credibility of the writer is not the same as refuting the argument. However, this is precisely the method you are employing by invoking Al Gore & political agendas.
Reiterating:
peer review studies. Testable theories & repeatable conclusions using good models.
Context is very important in framing the issue properly.
What we need is MORE debate,...
Back to page topWhat we need is MORE debate, EG, not less. "Shooting the messenger" is ultimately an attempt to shut down debate. "Consensus" and censorship are about shutting down debate.
Ask yourself, and answer honestly: Where did you get YOUR info? Do you actually read what skeptical scientists have to say, or you just take films like 'An Inconvenient Truth' at face value?
I suggest you give people you don't agree with a good listen, or read. You might learn quite a few things.
I am in awe of your...
Back to page topI am in awe of your self-important audacity, certainly. You make a few presumptions in your comment.
How is it that you deem it your charter to "talk down" to anyone in your responses above?
Your opinion is derived from reading a position you choose to espouse - and yet you accuse me of being ignorant?
You refer to arguments which are ad hominem attacks, "shooting the messenger," repeatedly, but employ a version of this yourself.
Again - science is about testable hypotheses, not debate hinged upon matters of opinion.
It depends upon peer reviewed studies - which replicate the results or assess the validity of the work based upon applicable, quantifiable data.
You are claiming I am making...
Back to page topYou are claiming I am making statements based upon a movie I haven't seen.
I guess I need to go see that "Inconvenient Truth."
Why are you so desperately arguing with something different than I've said?
What part of informed CONSENSUS shuts down debate?
Does the City Council know that every time they achieve consensus - its repressive? LOL.
Well, you won't hear this...
Back to page topWell, you won't hear this from Al Gore or his supporters, but we really do not have a good understanding of how our climate really works or what the long term weather trends are going to be across the planet. You may remember, back in the 1970's people were panicking about global COOLING:
Why did they come to that conclusion? Because for roughly 30 years, the earth was getting colder. On the other hand, why is global warming suddenly all the rage? Because from about 1970 to 1998, the earth got a little warmer. What's that? You didn't know that the earth hasn't gotten warmer in the past 8 years? It's true.
So, does that mean the planet is about to start cooling again? Is it going to continue getting warmer? Are we going to stay in place for a while? Is this something that man is doing somehow? We have no idea, folks. The earth has been getting warmer and colder for millions of years and not only do we not know exactly why that is, we have no effective way of differentiating between the earth's natural cooling and heating cycles and any temperature changes caused by man.
That's why, despite what you may have heard, there is no scientific consensus on global warming. To the contrary, "17,100 basic and applied American scientists," including "2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists" have all signed a petition stating the following:
But, let's set those dissenting scientists aside for a moment. Let's say that we all agree that man is responsible for global warming and that we need to do something about it. Great, now what exactly would that "something" be?
The stock answer would probably be, "Well, we could sign on to the Kyoto Protocol." So, let's talk about that option. First of all, even most environmentalists will admit that Kyoto is supposed to be a tiny, "first step". As Reuters points out:
So, the Kyoto Protocol is just a drop in the bucket. Yet, even in socialistic, environmentally conscious Europe, they're not coming close to meeting their targets under Kyoto:
When push comes to shove, the reality is that few countries are going to damage their economies today by slashing emissions in order to stave off a hypothetical disaster that might or might not occur in 100 years.
Even if the United States and a few European countries were run by the most hard core, tree-hugging, frog-licking, granola-eating environmentalists ever to walk the earth, it wouldn't change the fact that the majority of the world still isn't going to dramatically cut their greenhouse gas emissions. So, what then? What happens when huge, developing nations like China and India keep right on producing greenhouse gases at an ever expanding clip? Are they going to be hit with sanctions? Are we going to go to war with them to stop them from efficiently increasing the size of their economies? Of course not. What that means is there is no "Kyoto Protocol 2" coming down the pike that is going to be the solution to this problem, if there is indeed a problem that needs to be solved in the first place.
So, does this mean we should do nothing? Not at all. We should continue researching the climate, global warming, and new clean-burning fuel technologies. We should also consider putting more resources into emissions reducing energy sources that have already been proven to be cost effective and efficient, like nuclear energy. But, those are suggestions based on logic and science -- not hysteria, unworkable international treaties, and political agendas disguised as scholarship. Unfortunately, that common sense approach will probably be given little heed by the environmental extremists and the members of the media that are aiding and abetting their cause.
1.) What exactly is that: "a...
Back to page top1.) What exactly is that:
"a tree-hugging, frog-licking, granola-eating environmentalist" you refer to above? LOL
I should think you will alarm people who walk the cereal aisle in the local grocery stores after reading that bit of fun. Now Eden Prairie residents had better think twice about the cereal bars they buy!!!!
2.) "Common Sense" is rarely common.
It is a tool of persuasion to refer to common sense as though it always has logical validity.
People can easily devise logical constructs which clearly show that "commonsense" logic does not guarantee correct answers.
Science requires a more rigorous standard of proof.
The OPINION piece also said:
"Yes, humans have an effect on climate, but it’s infinitesimally tiny compared with the vast natural forces which are constantly pushing global temperatures up and down."
Macro trends across the lifespan of the planet vs rapid changes - maybe we should trust the potential asteroid strike in 2036 will take care of it.
You want scientists. I've...
Back to page topYou want scientists. I've got scientists. How many do you want?
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form." . . .
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
Karl explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karl.
Dr. Richard Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
Reference:
http://www.royalgenes.biz/soc.retirement/thread205.html
Cute sloganeering does not...
Back to page topCute sloganeering does not pass muster as legitimate science. This is not a political issue, but you fashion it into one in this op ed.
As such, this opinion piece is filed correctly under "politics."
You have no real references for your article other than invoking names & mystery studies - that is hardly the scientific method. Its telling people what to think.
Rather like the 9 minute melo-dramamtic introduction segment to the silly little film you suggest - which seeks to impart a general sense of authority for the people in the film. Yet which never really explains why one should take these as standout authorities, nor the fact they really have no peer reviewed assessment of their claims.
It does not address the fact that government scientists are in agreement with the prevailing view that Global Warming is an issue of great importance & that human behavior impacts it significantly.
The article is a political polemic & rant. Surely the science deserves more than that. This is a community with a fairly well-educated population & certainly deserves better as well.
The handful of people you cite - are somehow more believable than all the science which has undergone the scrutiny of scientific peer review? Peer reviews by other credible scientists looking at the underlying science & conclusions. Assessing the data & agreeing that it is sound.
One should note that of all the peer reviews done - none have concluded Global Warming does not exist - and the conclusion IS in fact, that human activity has seriously affected rapid climate changes that will have dire consequences. There is no debate because the science is solid.
Extracting a piece of the pew article & adjusting it to your agenda - does not address the thrust of the science in that article.
Your conspiracy theory about science doesn't follow from your premises. Context & accuracy count for something in our world.
Referring to heretics - is a great line culled from the film you cite, but unfortunately it is a poor analogy - and doesn't even hang with the next line in your paragraph about McCarthyism.
You've conflated nonsense together into a sentence -
just because they appear in the same sentence does not make your conclusions rational, correct or in any way equivalent.
In the same way that if I mention your name in the same sentence as the Queen of England,
makes you neither English, nor Royalty.
More links for people who read the source material:
The Denial Machine
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=522784499045867811&q=global+warm...
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/holdren-aaas1/
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
EG, your article is filled...
Back to page topEG, your article is filled with speculation. Check out these phrases: “is due more likely due to...” -- “it is believed that...” -- “alternative explanations” -- “based on current estimates”.
You are demanding massive tax increases and possible worldwide poverty based on . . . a guess?
The point is, it's not enough to repeat propaganda, even isolated half-truths, created by those with an agenda intended to benefit themselves, be it snake oil or man-made global warming. Reality always wins.
First, you and others may have accepted the common GW myth with some degree of certainty in your own minds, I'm sorry to inform you that real science has no such certainty at all. A consensus doesn’t create facts.
Second, there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures! It's just not there -- do a little research.
Third, as Dr. Timothy Ball relates, "The amount of our contributions relative to the global scale are miniscule. Consider CO2 where estimates of atmospheric CO2 range from 750 Gt (gigatons) to 820 GT or an error of estimate of 70 GT. We add 6 Gt to the atmosphere but remove 3 GT for a net contribution of 3 GT, in other words our contribution is about 4% of the error of the estimate. More important, every year when they calculate the carbon cycle there is at least 7 GT missing, hence it is known as the missing sink." Therefore, you should be able to see that our impact simply cannot be that significant!
He continues: "There is no doubt warming has occurred since approximately 1680, the nadir of the Little Ice Age. However, warming has also generally occurred since the major ice sheets started to melt about 18,000 years ago. In between there have been periods of cooling, the most recent from 1940 to 1980, hence the concern about cooling at that time. The mistake was in assuming the trend would continue. The fact is the climate changes all the time so you can pick any period you want to argue it was cooling or warming. The critical issue is what is causing the change and that is where it becomes very complicated."
So, I’ve given you an scientific argument and an economic argument. But now let me give you one more: a moral argument.
As Paul Driessen explains in the documentary “Great Global Warming”, environmental politics are having a devastating effect on Africa right now. Dreissen, a former environmental activist himself, reminds us that, in the name of environmental safety, a million Africans die every year from malaria, a disease which could have been prevented by DDT, which has been banned thanks to our country’s environmental policies.
“It was Environmental Defense and the foundations that created it that launched this nasty campaign against DDT just as they're doing on global warming. They just vilified anyone who tried to stand up in defense of DDT -- an inquisition threatening to burn them at the stake and they just beat them into silence.
“So that in the end you end up with the same situation you have now with global warming -- incredibly nasty attacks on companies, on users of energy -- a repeat of the same tactics, and they're gunning for the same power and control -- it’s not just over a chemical or the chemical industry or one particular insecticide (as in the case of DDT) but what is over the foundation of civilized society -- energy, abundant reliable and affordable energy, and you don't get there with wind power or solar power or any of these other clean, green, fanciful, imaginary energy technologies that they approve of.”
You are telling us that we must change our way of life by cutting our use of energy. For many Africans, however, changing their way of life simply means dying.
"Freeze or fry, the problem is always industrial capitalism, and the solution is always international socialism." -- Dr. Malcolm Ross, Harvard, commenting on the misuse of science to support political agendas
Please explain WHERE I...
Back to page topPlease explain WHERE I propose what you claim?
You are demanding massive tax increases and possible worldwide poverty based on . . . a guess?
Strawman arguments are beneath this topic.
Is Global Warming a MYTH - as you now propose?
That takes you opinion piece to a different place than I see in your printed piece.
You said: You are telling us that we must change our way of life by cutting our use of energy. For many Africans, however, changing their way of life simply means dying.
I said we need to cut our energy use? Again - where did I say this? - I didn't.
"We" -
Above you refer to "we," as though "we" are frozen in time - and what you propose about reductions, is reduced at an equal level from that point of stasis. EVERYBODY's got to tighten their belt...
That's a silly argument.
It's saying that because some of us are overweight - starving people in Africa ALSO need to diet. A false construction.
We no need an education to...
Back to page topWe no need an education to save the planet.
Regardless of warming's...
Back to page topRegardless of warming's causes, it is not a political issue. If someone actually thinks that industries dumping millions of tons of carbon pollutants into the atmosphere is good, they can breathe that air but I wouldn't think that it's a good idea to do that. This is our planet and even the smallest man-made change can cause some rather drastic global changes. Make some small changes on a personal level and the so-called "living in the 1800s" theory that the extremists who blindly state that global warming is a myth will never have to be thought of. My question to the naysayers is this: did the ice shelves melt during the previous warming trends? Do we actually know if they did? Wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution than be reckless with the only planet we have or are you happy letting your children and grandchildren face the consequences of your actions?
This op ed is clearly...
Back to page topThis op ed is clearly written as a political OPINION piece. That is unfortunate.
There is a lot of stuff getting kicked out there which muddies the water with respect to the assessments by qualified scientists.
We'll be dancing in place with these arguments forever if it is relegated to political posturing & never actually devise a clear strategy to mitigate our impact on the planet.
And of course, this has nothing to do with the silly rhetoric about frog-licking (wherever did THAT come from?).
It comes down to - what impact we have on this planet will be visited upon us later in our lives & also one's children.
Deniers will have to face their children in the future. It is a betrayal of faith in the future of those children, to leave it to them to resolve.
The economist mentioned above - Lomborg actually testified as a guest of House Republicans in congress this past week - which was televised on C-SPAN.
Despite Lomborg being a skeptic of sorts, who does not deny global warming nor a significant human impact, though does have a view contrary to most of the legitimate scientific community - he proposes a carbon tax to help address global warming.
Which is not any position I am specifically endorsing.
Only pointing this out to indicate that the "expert" witness (I believe he is the only one who would accept said invitation) was invited by conservative members of the House & even he, seems to find a need for action.
He addresses it from an economic perspective.
There were a few problems with his testimony the other day - because without some initiated action, there is scant likelihood of follow up (how do you "follow up" something which is not begun?) & instead we'll sit pat awaiting newer solutions in some unstrived-for future when we could have acted.
Mittens, these replies are...
Back to page topMittens, these replies are to you. (EG apparently has made it a goal to have the last word on every thread in this conversation).
Mittens, I am not against you making decisions for yourself -- whether it’s a vegetarian lifestyle or avoid using cosmetics or whatever -- but when you start fooling with people’s personal liberty and imposing heavy penalties for noncompliance, then yes, it DEFINITELY becomes a political issue.
How much carbon dioxide do you think man is dumping into the air? Do you know even know what you’re talking about?
Best selling author Michael Crichton (“State of Fear”) uses this analogy: I "Imagine the composition of the Earth's atmosphere as a football field. Most of the atmosphere is nitrogen. So, starting from the goal line, nitrogen takes you all the way to the 78 yard line. And most of what's left is oxygen. Oxygen takes you to the 99 yard line. Most of what remains is the inert gas argon. Argon brings you within 3 1/2 inches of the goal line. That's pretty much the thickness of the chalk stripe. And how much of the remaining three inches is carbon dioxide? One inch.
"You are told carbon dioxide has increased in the last 50 years. Do you know how much it has increased, on our football field? Three-eighths of an inch -- less than the thickness of a pencil. Yet you are asked to believe that this tiny change has driven the entire planet into a dangerous warming pattern."
Have there been periods of warming that were definitely NOT human assisted. The answer is obviously YES.
Well, glaciers once covered most of North America. All of this happened before Henry Ford built the first Model T.
Where you’re probably sitting right now at one time used to be covered by a mountain of snow and ice. How did that melt?
There is warming going on right now on Mars and Jupiter and Pluto. How can it be if man is not there to cause it? Could it be . . . the sun?
The answer is, I don’t know. And you don’t know. And EG doesn’t know. And until we know for sure, it is insane to wreck our economy and take away people’s freedom.
Well, let me turn this around, Mittens. If the global warming extremists are wrong, do I get my tax money back?
Yikes! Mittens, this is fear mongering. Right now there are children all around the world that go to bed fearing that the world is burning up and we are all about to die. Thanks to people like you, kids scared to death that there will be no tomorrow. Thanks a lot!
Everone needs to just calm down. It just isn’t going to get that warm.
And there isn’t much you can do about it anyway. Even if we totally shut down our economy, what are you going to do about China and India?
By the way, there is a group of grade school kids in Colorado who reviewed the evidence and you’ll be happy to know, they concluded that global warming is definitely NOT caused by man
A new TV game show asks “Are you smarter than a fifth grader”.
Al Gore is not a scientist. On the rare occasions when he tells the truth, he omits important details. The glacier on Mount Kilimanjaro is melting ... but it's been melting for 6,000 years. A computer model indicates the ice pack on Greenland might melt ... but not for 1,000 years. The devistating hurricanes that were predicted for 2006 never happened. The local meteorologists can't tell you with conviction what happened last NIGHT and you expect them to somehow know what the world will be like in 100 years?
It’s time that everyone take a breath, calm down and start learning about BOTH sides of this issue instead of just blindly accepting everything some politician tells you.
Wow, I leave for a three-day...
Back to page topWow, I leave for a three-day break and miss out on the global warming-o-rama rant of my dreams.
I'd chime in, but this guy says it better.
Leah -- I searched the site...
Back to page topLeah -- I searched the site you reference for proposed “solutions” to global warming and found two: Global carbon taxes and carbon offsets (aka “cap and trade). Both require government to get bigger. Both will mean much higher energy prices for consumers. But let’s look at these solutions in detail:
(1) Global carbon tax
This requires setting up an Orwellian worldwide taxing authority to literally tax countries who do not comply with some arbitrary limit. What happens if a country refuses to pay? Do we go to war with them?
(2) Carbon Offsets (aka “cap and trade”)
This is a shell game that allows some people to continue polluting because they’ve purchased emissions “credits” from those who have managed to stay under some arbitrary limit.
Of course, setting up a carbon market or imposing a carbon tax will boost the price of high-carbon fuels.
Carbon offsets, by the way, is how Al Gore explains why he gets to use 20 times more energy than the average American family, why he gets to have a heated pool, why he gets to fly around in private jets. And he purchases carbon offsets from a company he owns. So you have the high priest of global warming hysteria telling you that you have to change but he doesn't have to -- nice.
But let’s look at the cost of making these changes. As you may know, five governors have already committed their states to carbon emissions cuts. In California, the goal is to cut carbon emissions to 80% by 2050. It’s an ambitious plan that will provide very little environmental benefit while costing California taxpayers a ton of money. The U.N.’s worst case computer model says that the earth will warm by about 1.3 degrees. So, by my math, California's 145 million tons will slow warming by about 0.004 degrees -- an amount too small to measure.
Meanwhile every 7 to 10 days a new coal firing power plant starts up in China.
The other disturbing item in your link is the Q and A section. One of the questions: “But isn’t there still a debate about whether humans are causing global warming”. Answer: “No. The debate is settled”.
That is exactly the problem with the pro-global warming side. Lacking the will to debate the issue, supporters of global warming hysteria are now trying to shut down the debate. This is not how science works. This is how totalitarian religions work. We need more debate, not less. We need solutions that make sense, not more excuses for bigger and bigger government.
Oh . . . and welcome back. Please take time to enjoy the weather - it's great.
Global climates face threat...
Back to page topGlobal climates face threat of fearsome changes
Andy Coghlan @ NewScientist
http://tinyurl.com/2ahjkx
Quote:
Within a century, half of the world's climates as we know them will have vanished forever as a direct result of global warming, taking thousands of species with them.
-----------
Mathematical models are no way to save the planet - Fred Pearce
FOR some they are irreplaceable guides to a complex world. For others they are a curse, a barrier to understanding and a fig leaf for the self-serving and plain lazy. But love them or loathe them, much of our world is governed by mathematical models, and as the Pilkeys argue in Useless Arithmetic, often the more we are forced to rely on these "modern-day oracles", the less reliable they prove to be.
This is an easy and persuasive read. There is no maths, just plain argument. Take what was once the world's most famous fishery, on Canada's Grand Banks. If the fisheries scientists' models had been correct, the waters would still be teeming with cod. Instead they abruptly emptied in 1992, and show no signs of recovering.
With generous references to this magazine's Debora MacKenzie, the authors explain how the models used to calculate a sustainable catch were skewed by ...
If people are going to read - they probably need to read the real deal.
Arctic Voices Global Warming Tour comes to the Twin Cities April 30, 2007
A great opportunity to learn something, PB - without swindle movies!
Is Antarctica melting? The...
Back to page topIs Antarctica melting?
The link you provided sure seems to support that idea. It discusses yet another doomsday scenario which plays on people’s emotions.
Global warming enthusiasts in general like to constantly spin out fearsome tales that human-caused warming will melt the polar ice caps, cause the oceans to rise by 20 feet or more and devastate major cities around the world.
John Williams, the man who is quoted in your article claims: "It's the coldest climates that would be replaced. They would be similar, in 100 years time, but several degrees warmer, so glaciers would retreat and ice would disappear from mountains such as Kilimanjaro in Tanzania."
Here's what Al Gore said in the introduction to his "Inconvenient" documentary: "We are destabilizing the massive mound of ice on Greenland and the equally enormous mass of ice propped up on top of islands in West Antarctica, threatening a worldwide increase in sea levels of as much as 20 feet."
Or listen to Greenpeace: "Between the Greenland ice sheet and the Western Antarctic ice sheet the world could well be facing a 43-foot rise in sea level if we do not drastically curb our greenhouse gas emissions. Even a small fraction of this much sea level rise would be an economic and humanitarian disaster."
And the mainstream press has followed this lead. The Los Angeles Times ran a headline in June warning: "Greenland's Ice Sheet Is Slip, Sliding Away". They wrote: "The massive glaciers are deteriorating twice as fast as they were five years ago. If the ice thaws entirely, sea level would rise 21 feet."
But a funny thing happened on the way to global warming: many scientists are now questioning these assertions.
David Bromwich, a professor of atmospheric sciences and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University used to be pro-global warming (and used to be extensively quoted by Gore) but now expresses doubt.
"It's hard to see a global warming signal coming from the mainland of Antarctica right now," Bromwich told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco. "We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity, and it is hard to find at the moment."
Last year, Bromwich's research group reported in the journal "Science" that, contrary to the predictions of climate models, Antarctic snowfall hadn't increased in the past half-century. This year, he noted that temperatures weren't cooperating either, saying: "What we see now is that the temperature regime is broadly similar to what we saw before with the snowfall. In the last decade or so, both have gone down. The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica."
Charles Allegre, who was one of the original signers of the "World Scientists Warning to Humanity" 15 years ago now says he is not so sure. In a recent article entitled: "The Snows Of Kilimanjaro" that ran last September in the French weekly L'Express, Allegre cited evidence that Antarctica is GAINING ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other so-called warning signs, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown,” Allegre says, adding that there's no basis to say, as Gore does, the "science is settled."
University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andersen, an expert on thermodynamics. "It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the Earth," he says, which explains the repeated failure of computer models to predict even the past.
"A temperature can be defined only for a homogenous system," he says. "Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences in temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate."
While Gore & Co. make it look like this melt could happen, no credible scientist believes it.
As environmental reporter Gregg Easterbrook put it, "Gore says the entire Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets could melt rapidly; the film then jumps to animation of Manhattan flooded. Well, all that ice might melt really fast, and a UFO might land in London too."
So, you need to ask yourself, why all the wild and crazy doomsday scenarios?
For the answer, we need to to to the man who is credited for starting the current global warming hysteria, NASA’s James Hanson. He explains in Scientific American that in the past "emphasis on extreme scenarios" had been "appropriate" when "the public and the decision makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issues".
So there you have one of NASA’s top scientists admitting that they needed to intentionally LIE to the public in order to scare them and get their attention.
The trouble is the lies persist. The extreme scenarios continue. The scare tactics go on. We're still in crisis.
Hansen himself was caught making a wild prediction of his own in 1988 when he predicted that temperatures would rise over the next decade by 0.35 degrees celsius. He ended up overshooting the real number by 0.11 degrees or 219 percent.
Clearly, such doomsday prophets have an agenda. But do they have the facts?
A much publicized study released March 2 by scientists at the University of Colorado said Antarctica is losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice each year.
Sounds like a lot, but it's a mere ice cube compared with Antarctica's 7 million cubic miles of glacial ice. And how much would the seas rise when this 36-cubic-mile chunk of ice joined Earth's 320 million cubic miles of ocean? The study says a whopping 0.4 millimeters, or 0.0115 inch, per year.
About 20,000 years ago -- slightly before the first SUV -- global sea levels were 400 feet lower than they are now. In other words, the seas were rising long before the dreaded Industrial Revolution.
We're also told that the Larsen B ice shelf on the western side of Antarctica is collapsing. Yes, it is warming. But that's been the case for decades. Besides, it comprises just 2 percent of the continent; the rest of the continent . . . is cooling. Yikes!
A research team from the University of Missouri recently analyzed data from the European Space Agency's radar satellites ERS-1 and ERS-2 and calculated that between 1992 and 2003, the East Antarctic ice sheet gained about 45 billion tons of ice, thickening at an average rate of 1.8 centimeters a year.
In short, I wouldn't buy that ocean-front property in Arizona just yet.
Are you sure its ME that...
Back to page topAre you sure its ME that needs the last word? - I see you posting onto every single one as well.
WHY not just post the link, in order for people to do their own research, instead of telling them what to think?
What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
* Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
* The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
Your link sources the latest...
Back to page topYour link sources the latest IPCC report -- the fourth in the series -- which, we're told, now states that humans are "very likely" causing global warming. But the report has been widely criticized as a political -- not a scientific document.
You may remember the previous version of the report -- the third version -- which included the famous "hockey stick" graph (developed by the U of Mass's Michael Mann)? This graph showed a sudden and abrupt temperature escalation supposedly due to man's activities.
Mann neglected to include in his calculations the Medieval Warming Period (1100-1250) when it was warmer than it is now (and SUVs did not exist) or the Little Ice Age of the 16th Century. His flawed results were exposed when two Canadian researchers tried to replicate his study.
Author Michael Crichton noted, "They found grave errors in his work . . . calculation errors, data used twice, data filled in and a computer program that generated a hockey stick out of any data fed into it — even random data."
Is this the same IPCC report that you now believe as gospel?
It's interesting to note, isn't it, that the "hockey stick" has been dropped from this year's summary.
The second version of the IPCC report was adopted by a fairly balanced group of participating scientists in 1995. Then the leader, BD Santor, acting without approval of the IPCC, changed the report significantly to enhance the emphasis on imminent doom.
Fredrick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report. Nearly all the changes worked to remove skepticism with which many scientists regard global warming changes."
This report will not be released until May -- all we have right now is the summary -- but it may not be any different. We shall see. MIT professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen, who specialized in the study of clouds and water vapor for the IPCC's 2001 report, said this summary is primarily the work of political appointees and not scientists.
Again, politics -- not science -- seems to be driving this.
Christopher Landsea, who now is science and operations officer at the National Hurricane Center in Miami, resigned from the IPCC's fourth assessment team two years ago, saying the IPCC's public statements were "far outside current scientific understandings."
Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl suspects the technical report will be "adjusted" to fit the summary — a practice he calls "scientific misconduct." "These people," he says on his Web site, "are openly declaring that they are going to commit scientific misconduct that will be paid for by the United Nations."
As bad as that may be, shaping public policy on the basis of politicized "science" is even worse.
WHERE IS THE CENSORSHIP YOU...
Back to page topWHERE IS THE CENSORSHIP YOU CLAIM?
You've found all this, which you say is true, but again drives one position from a segment of fringe deniers.
It also takes selective slices & now invokes author Michael Crichton, who is no authority of any sort. Where are the peer review studies?
The IPCC being criticized -- by whom? Criticism is the same as refutation?
Why does the fact that there have been other environmental forces, before humans, which have impacted the globe - become a refutation of human caused effects?
Where is the censorship you claim? Your initial proposition is that there is censorship & practically that people are being killed over this "suppressed" stuff. There have been hearings in congress - and who kept the people you site - from appearing?
Something is amiss in this in a very oblique way & it feels a little like a conspiracy theory.
Perhaps that upcoming event on April 30th, mentioned on the Will Steger site is a good way for people to get their ducks in a row.
Examples of censorship on...
Back to page topExamples of censorship on the global warming issue.
Actually I gave you a few in my original article. The Wall Street Journal offers another example. Two U.S. Senators attempted to use their position to cut off funding for scientists who do not agree with their point of view.
That's censorship.
Actually the term "global warming denier" is itself an effort to shut down debate. The meaning is clear -- if you disagree you are in the same class as Holocaust deniers and should not be heard.
My purpose is not to prove you wrong, but to get you to stop and consider another point of view. As the WSJ article points out:
Don't you agree?
Maybe we should ask another...
Back to page topMaybe we should ask another Eden Prairie resident ...
(Karla Wennerstrom is the editor of the Eden Prairie News. She can be reached at editor@edenprairienews.com.)
Is Paul Douglas still an...
Back to page topIs Paul Douglas still an Eden Prairie resident? I thought he just bought a $2 million estate on Lake Minnetonka. He and Al Gore can both fight global warming together . . . from their heated swimming pools. Do as I say not as I do. Yikes.
Paul Douglas as an expert on global warming? Meteorologists use computer models to predict the weather in much the same manner as climatologists use them to predict the rising sea levels and the extinction of polar bears. If he can't get this weekend's forecast right, why would you believe his predictions for 2050?
Dave Dahl once said on the radio that they had an 80% chance of getting tomorrow's forecast right. The day after that, a 50/50 chance. Beyond that, they basically have no idea.
Dave Dahl, by the way, is 100% on the opposite side of the global warming issue as Paul Douglas. So even among Twin Cities meterologists . . . no consensus.
This is from blogger Joe...
Back to page topThis is from blogger Joe Malchow:
Global Warming Groundhog Day
One unfailingly entertaining aspect about the global Global Warming fracas is the intellectual sophistry -- though that may be too flattering a word, since sophists possess the veneer of plausability -- of the environmentalist movement. The argument, as it is played out in a peculiarly fractured way in the mass media, goes something like this:
— Listen, we’ve got global warming.
— Mmm.
— So will you sign on to this protocol?
— Nah. Gutting American industry doesn’t seem like a good idea to me.
— But the world is going to end in ten years.
— So how will not opening a few new car factories help? And wouldn’t this protocol encourage our chief competitors to open their own new factories while we’re hamstrung here?
— Because it will. Sign here, please.
— I don’t think that’s good policy.
— Listen. Why do you hate science?
— I don’t hate s—
— You’re a crazy Christian, aren’t you?
— What? Yes, the earth is getting warmer but this cycle’s been happening f—
— What we need to do then is sign this protocol here. Ready to sign?
— …
— Here’s a pen.
— …
— Sign.
— Look, the problem is that even if you can throw off a million years’ worth of evidence and demonstrate that human industry, in the plink of time we’ve had here, has caused a planet-killing shift in atmosphere, your ideas about fixing it are absolutely unworkable. I mean, it’s a gnat compared to the leviathan weight of human history you claim led us here.
— Stop it. OK? Just stop. Look at this picture. It shows a mountain with snow. Now, that was fifty years ago. Here’s another picture. What do you see?
— No snow.
— No snow! How can you not believe in global warming now, you planet-hating jerk? Don’t you understand that there is a scientific consensus? A consensus!
— Right, I know it’s getting warmer.
— Then sign on to my policy slate. Don’t read it. Just sign.
— No.
— When will we ever convince you Global Warming skeptics?
And that’s how it goes. For a glimpse of how this sort of tack is taken against President Bush, read this post on National Review’s The Corner, which details all the various times Bush has “finally” admitted the existence of Global Warming.
While this is not mine to...
Back to page topWhile this is not mine to answer -
You don't think this has gotten out of hand?
Above you accused me of all sorts of things - even arguments I did not espouse, in order to to have something to rail against.
straw man |strɔ møn|
noun
an argument compared to a straw image; a sham.
• a sham argument set up to be defeated.
But you are telling us that mainstream Global Warming people will shout you down - yet, you seem to be the most strident in following up your op ed!
You accused me of responding to every post, as though I want to control the conversation - yet never count yours?
I have provided links & other people have provided links - to investigate the positions at one's leisure.
Now please -
Dissenting a link to Paul Douglas' site?
Arguing against Paul Douglas because he is successful?
Arguing against Paul Douglas because he's a meteorologist (& not a webmaster, I guess - don't other residents & occupations have an opportunity)?
What does tomorrow's one day forecast have to do with the entire Global Warming issue?
And then you post a long inflammatory diatribe by a blogger. The person can't speak for themselves here - you have to quote a blog, as though it counts for anything in this discussion? Now THAT's "rich!"
I don't think you've done well by your arguments, if that's the culmination. It loses the flavor of "investigating the issue."
Time to leave it alone & for people to read the links instead.
Just to be clear - it is not...
Back to page topJust to be clear - it is not success that is at issue, it is hypocrisy.
Why do environmentalists need heated pools? Why doesn't Al Gore fly coach instead of insisting on a private plane? Why does Ted Kennedy fight that wind farm that they want to put up in view of his vacation home?
People who want to tell the rest of us how to live ought to walk the walk. Carbon offsets are simply a way for privileged liberal elites to lecture us unwashed peasants while they continue live like royalty.
Think about that the next time you see a "John Kerry" bumper sticker pasted on the back of an SUV. Think about that the next time you see how little money liberals donate to charities vs. conservatives.
I have shown you where your science is faulty. I have shown you very serious problems with your IPCC report. I have shown you several examples where "consensus" politics is threatening people's careers.
But global warming politics is ultimately not about the temperature at all -- it is about the control and coercion of others.
Here are sources for the...
Back to page topHere are sources for the original article. If I left any out, please let me know.
Richard Lindzen article -- “Climate of Fear” -- Wall St Journal, Wednesday April 12, 2006. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
Timothy Ball’s remarks: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Bill Gray’s remarks: http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_3899807
Learn more about the movie: “The Great Global Warming Swindle”: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
Also, you can watch the documentary for free online. I believe a DVD is either out now or will be available soon.
Discussion of Lambert column including a link to the original article:
http://www.fraterslibertas.com/2007_03_01_archive.html#6507697645750169512#6507697645750169512
Wikipedia discussion about David Legates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Legates
Article about George Taylor: http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=75&SubSectionID=767&ArticleID=30773&TM=33287.55
Have any of you read...
Back to page topHave any of you read anything you could share with us that caused you to question your own opinion on global warming? What was it and why was it so compelling?
(Karla Wennerstrom is the editor of the Eden Prairie News. She can be reached at editor@edenprairienews.com.)
This one gives me...
Back to page topThis one gives me pause:
ExxonMobil funds global warming sceptics
http://euobserver.com/7/23636
http://www.pulsetc.com/
"save the planet" upp