Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics

[GaryC 7]

Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics

October 17, 2006

Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted scientific “consensus” on climate alarmism.

Claude Allegre, a former government official and an active member of France’s Socialist Party, wrote an editorial on September 21, 2006 in the French newspaper L'Express titled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” (For English Translation, click here: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264835 ) detailing his newfound skepticism about manmade global warming. See: http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribunes/doss....asp?ida=451670 Allegre wrote that the “cause of climate change remains unknown” and pointed out that Kilimanjaro is not losing snow due to global warming, but to local land use and precipitation changes. Allegre also pointed out that studies show that Antarctic snowfall rate has been stable over the past 30 years and the continent is actually gaining ice.

“Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France, the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes,” Allegre wrote. He also accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”

Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.” See: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/sciwarn.html

Allegre has authored more than 100 scientific articles, written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States.

Allegre's conversion to a climate skeptic comes at a time when global warming alarmists have insisted that there is a “consensus” about manmade global warming. Proponents of global warming have ratcheted up the level of rhetoric on climate skeptics recently. An environmental magazine in September called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics and CBS News “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley compared skeptics to “Holocaust deniers.” See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568 & http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/pu...ry1431768.shtml In addition, former Vice President Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers."

This increase in rhetorical flourish comes at a time when new climate science research continues to unravel the global warming alarmists’ computer model predictions of future climatic doom and vindicate skeptics.

60 Scientists Debunk Global Warming Fears

Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called “consensus” that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists.

“Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future…Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,” the 60 scientists wrote. See: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financi...be-4db87559d605

“It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas,” the 60 scientists concluded.

'Climate Change is Nothing New'

In addition, an October 16, 2006 Washington Post article titled “Climate Change is Nothing New” echoed the sentiments of the 60 scientists as it detailed a new study of the earth’s climate history. The Washington Post article by reporter Christopher Lee noted that Indiana University geologist Simon Brassell found climate change occurred during the age of dinosaurs and quoted Brassell questioning the accuracy of computer climate model predictions.

“If there are big, inherent fluctuations in the system, as paleoclimate studies are showing, it could make determining the Earth’s climatic future even harder than it is,” Brassell said. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6101500672.html

Global Cooling on the Horizon?

In August, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun’s output. See: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html

Sun’s Contribution to Warming

There have also been recent findings in peer-reviewed literature over the last few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing and a new 2006 study in Geophysical Research Letters found that the sun was responsible for up to 50% of 20th-century warming. See: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027142.shtml

“Global Warming” Stopped in 1998

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter has noted that there is indeed a problem with global warming – it stopped in 1998. “According to official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK, the global average temperature did not increase between 1998-2005. “…this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” noted paleoclimate researcher and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia in an April 2006 article titled “There is a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998.” See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...09/ixworld.html

“Global?" Warming Misnamed - Southern Hemisphere Not Warming

In addition, new NASA satellite tropospheric temperature data reveals that the Southern Hemisphere has not warmed in the past 25 years contrary to “global warming theory” and modeling. This new Southern Hemisphere data raises the specter that the use of the word “global” in “global warming” may not be accurate. A more apt moniker for the past 25 years may be “Northern Hemisphere” warming. See: http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/09/southern...res-global.html

Alaska Cooling

According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was “0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average.” See: http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases...noaa06-065.html

Oceans Cooling

Another bombshell to hit the global warming alarmists and their speculative climate modeling came in a September article in the Geophysical Research Letters which found that over 20% of the heat gained in the oceans since the mid-1950s was lost in just two years. The former climatologist for the state of Colorado, Roger Pielke, Sr., noted that the sudden cooling of the oceans “certainly indicates that the multi-decadal global climate models have serious issues with their ability to accurately simulate the response of the climate system to human- and natural-climate forcings.“ See: http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/09/

Light Hurricane Season & Early Winter

Despite predictions that 2006 would bring numerous tropical storms, 2006’s surprisingly light hurricane season and the record early start of this year’s winter in many parts of the U.S. have further put a damper on the constant doomsaying of the global warming alarmists and their media allies.

Droughts Less Frequent

Other new studies have debunked many of the dubious claims made by the global warming alarmists. For example, the claim that droughts would be more frequent, severe and wide ranging during global warming, has now being exposed as fallacious. A new paper in Geophysical Research Letters authored by Konstantinos Andreadis and Dennis Lettenmaier finds droughts in the U.S. becoming “shorter, less frequent and cover a small portion of the country over the last century.” http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...re-the-droughts

Global Warming Will Not Lead to Next Ice Age

Furthermore, recent research has shown that fears that global warming could lead to the next ice age, as promoted in the 2004 Hollywood movie “The Day After Tomorrow” are also unsupportable. A 2005 media hyped study “claimed to have found a 30 percent slowdown in the thermohaline circulation, the results are published in the very prestigious Nature magazine, and the story was carried breathlessly by the media in outlets around the world…Less than a year later, two different research teams present convincing evidence [ in Geophysical Research Letters ] that no slowdown is occurring whatsoever,” according to Virginia State Climatologist Patrick Michaels, editor of the website World Climate Report. See: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...ning-ocean-hype

‘Hockey Stick’ Broken in 2006

The “Hockey Stick” temperature graph’s claim that the 1990’s was the hottest decade of the last 1000 years was found to be unsupportable by the National Academy of Sciences and many independent experts in 2006. See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?pa...p&id=257697

Study Shows Greenland’s Ice Growing

A 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showed that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass. See: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...s/V8/N44/C1.jsp Also, according to the International Arctic Research Institute, despite all of the media hype, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930’s than today.

Polar Bears Not Going Extinct

Despite Time Magazine and the rest of the media’s unfounded hype, polar bears are not facing a crisis, according to biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government of Nunavut. “Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,” Taylor wrote on May 1, 2006. See: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...id=970599119419

Media Darling James Hansen Hypes Alarmism

As all of this new data debunking climate alarmism mounts, the mainstream media chooses to ignore it and instead focus on the dire predictions of the number-one global warming media darling, NASA’s James Hansen. The increasingly alarmist Hansen is featured frequently in the media to bolster sky-is-falling climate scare reports. His recent claim that the Earth is nearing its hottest point in one million years has been challenged by many scientists. See: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...9/N39/EDITB.jsp Hansen’s increasingly frightening climate predictions follow his 2003 concession that the use of “extreme scenarios” was an appropriate tactic to drive the public’s attention to the urgency of global warming. See: http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html Hansen also received a $250,000 grant form Teresa Heinz’s Foundation and then subsequently endorsed her husband John Kerry for President and worked closely with Al Gore to promote his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” See: http://www.heinzawards.net/speechDetail.asp?speechID=6 & http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dai_complete.pdf

American People Rejecting Global Warming Alarmism

The global warming alarmists may have significantly overplayed their hand in the climate debate. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll this August found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of any recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe that climate change is due to natural variability has increased over 50% in the last five years.

Senator Inhofe Chastises Media For Unscientific & Unprincipled Climate Reporting

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, commented last week on the media’s unfounded global warming hype and some of the recent scientific research that is shattering the so-called “consensus” that human greenhouse gas emissions have doomed the planet.

“The American people are fed up with media for promoting the idea that former Vice President Al Gore represents the scientific ‘consensus’ that SUV’s and the modern American way of life have somehow created a ‘climate emergency’ that only United Nations bureaucrats and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve. It is the publicity and grant seeking global warming alarmists and their advocates in the media who have finally realized that the only “emergency” confronting them is their rapidly crumbling credibility, audience and bottom line. The global warming alarmists know their science is speculative at best and their desperation grows each day as it becomes more and more obvious that many of the nations that ratified the woeful Kyoto Protocol are failing to comply,” Senator Inhofe said last week. See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?pa...p&id=264616

“The mainstream media needs to follow the money: The further you get from scientists who conduct these alarmist global warming studies, and the further you get from the financial grants and the institutions that they serve the more the climate alarmism fades and the skepticism grows,” Senator Inhofe explained.

Eco-Doomsayers’ Failed Predictions

In a speech on the Senate floor on September 25, 2006, Senator Inhofe pointed out the abject failure of past predictions of ecological disaster made by environmental alarmists.

“The history of the modern environmental movement is chock-full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation, and the projected death of our oceans. None of these predictions came true, yet it never stopped the doomsayers from continuing to predict a dire environmental future. The more the eco-doomsayers’ predictions fail, the more the eco-doomsayers predict,” Senator Inhofe said on September 25th. See: http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

Related Links:

For a comprehensive review of the media’s embarrassing 100-year history of alternating between promoting fears of a coming ice age and global warming, see Environment & Public Works Chairman James Inhofe’s September 25, 2006 Senate floor speech debunking the media and climate alarmism. Go to: (epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759)

To read and watch Senator Inhofe on CNN discuss global warming go to: (http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264308 )

To Read all of Senator Inhofe’s Speeches on global warming go to: (http://epw.senate.gov/speeches.cfm?party=rep)

“Inhofe Correct On Global Warming,” by David Deming geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (ocpathink.org), and an associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma. (http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264537)

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

[WifeOHunkyJohn 2]

In order to "prove" that global warming was indeed a problem, scientists failed to mention the (very googlable) Medieval Warm Period - Details of this historic warming of the planet are posted below, as well as articles relating to the scientists reworking their argument through excluding it in order to better argue the current problem as a new and worrying situation.

Read for yourselves:

Medieval Warm Period, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was a time of unusually warm climate in the North Atlantic region, lasting from about the tenth century to about the fourteenth century.

The MWP is often invoked in contentious discussions of global warming and the greenhouse effect. Some refer to the event as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly as this term emphasizes that effects other than temperature were important.

Initial research

The Medieval Warm Period was a time of unusually warm weather around 800-1300 AD, during the European Medieval period. Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented.

It was initially believed that the temperature changes were global. However, this view has been questioned; the 2001 IPCC report summarises this research, saying "…current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries".[1]

Palaeoclimatologists developing regionally specific climate reconstructions of past centuries conventionally label their coldest interval as "LIA" and their warmest interval as the "MWP".[2][3] Others follow the convention and when a significant climate event is found in the "LIA" or "MWP" time frames, associate their events to the period. Some "MWP" events are thus wet events or cold events rather than strictly warm events, particularly in central Antarctica where climate patterns opposite to the North Atlantic area have been noticed.

The Medieval Warm Period partially coincides with the peak in solar activity named the Medieval Maximum (1100–1250).

Climate events

North Atlantic and North American regions

During the MWP wine grapes were grown in Europe as far north as southern Britain[4][5][6] although less extensively than they are today[7] (however, factors other than climate strongly influence the commercial success of vineyards, for example wine is made in Alaska today; and the time of greatest extent of medieval vineyards falls outside the MWP). The Vikings took advantage of ice-free seas to colonize Greenland and other outlying lands of the far north. The MWP was followed by the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling that lasted until the 19th century when the current period of global warming began.

In Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, researchers found large temperature excursions during the Medieval Warm Period (about 800–1300) and the Little Ice Age (about 1400–1850), possibly related to changes in the strength of North Atlantic thermohaline circulation.[8] Sediments in Piermont Marsh of the lower Hudson Valley show a dry Medieval Warm period from AD 800–1300.[9]

Prolonged droughts affected many parts of the western United States and especially eastern California and the western Great Basin.[3] Alaska experienced three time intervals of comparable warmth: 1–300, 850–1200, and post-1800 AD. [10]

A radiocarbon-dated box core in the Sargasso Sea shows that the sea surface temperature was approximately 1°C cooler than today approximately 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and approximately 1°C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period).[11]

Other regions

The climate in equatorial east Africa has alternated between drier than today, and relatively wet. The drier climate took place during the Medieval Warm Period (~AD 1000–1270).[12]

An ice core from the eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula, clearly identifies events of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period.[13] The core clearly shows a distinctly cold period about AD 1000–1100, neatly illustrating the fact that "MWP" is a moveable term, and that during the "warm" period there were, regionally, periods of both warmth and cold.

Corals in the tropical Pacific ocean suggest that relatively cool, dry conditions may have persisted early in the millennium, consistent with a La Niña-like configuration of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation patterns.[14] Although there is an extreme scarcity of data from Australia (for both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age) evidence from wave built shingle terraces for a permanently full Lake Eyre during the ninth and tenth centuries is consistent with this La Niña-like configuration, though of itself inadequate to show how lake levels varied from year to year or what climatic conditions elsewhere in Australia were like.

Adhikari and Kumon (2001) in investigating sediments in Lake Nakatsuna in central Japan have verified there the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.[15]

For further discussion of regional and global temperature variations see: Temperature record.

See also

* Holocene Climatic Optimum

* MWP and LIA in IPCC reports

References

1. ^ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis 2.3.3 Was there a “Little Ice Age” and a “Medieval Warm Period”?. Retrieved on 2006-05-04.

2. ^ Jones, P. D., and M. E. Mann (2004). "Climate over past millennia". Rev. Geophys. 42 (RG2002): 404-405. DOI:10.1029/2003RG000143.

3. ^ a b Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Henry F. Diaz (2003). "Climate in Medieval Time". Science 302 (5644): 404-405. DOI:10.1126/science.1090372. (links to pdf file)

4. ^ The History of English Wine: Domesday & Middle Ages. Retrieved on 2006-05-04.

5. ^ Jones, Gregory (August 2004). Making Wine in a Changing Climate. Geotimes. Retrieved on 2006-05-04.

6. ^ Schmidt, Gavin (2006). Medieval warmth and English wine. RealClimate. Retrieved on 2006-07-12.

7. ^ The Vineyards of England and Wales. English-Wine.com. Retrieved on 2006-05-04.

8. ^ Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th Century Temperature Variability from Chesapeake Bay. USGS. Retrieved on 2006-05-04.

9. ^ Marshes Tell Story Of Medieval Drought, Little Ice Age, And European Settlers Near New York City. Earth Observatory News (May 19, 2005). Retrieved on 2006-05-04.

10. ^ Hu FS, Ito E, Brown TA, Curry BB, Engstrom DR (2001). "Pronounced climatic variations in Alaska during the last two millennia". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98 (19): 10552-10556. DOI:10.1073/pnas.181333798.

11. ^ Keigwin, Lloyd D. (29 November 1996). "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea". Science 274 (5292): 1503 - 1508. DOI:10.1126/science.274.5292.1503. Retrieved on 2006-05-04.

12. ^ Drought In West Linked To Warmer Temperatures. Earth Observatory News (October 7, 2004). Retrieved on 2006-05-04.

13. ^ Khim, B-K; Yoon H.; Kang C.Y.; Bahk J.J. (November 2002). "Unstable Climate Oscillations during the Late Holocene in the Eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula". Quaternary Research 58 (3): 234-245(12). Retrieved on 2006-05-04.

14. ^ Cobb, Kim M.; Chris Charles, Hai Cheng, R. Lawrence Edwards (July 8, 2003). The Medieval Cool Period And The Little Warm Age In The Central Tropical Pacific? Fossil Coral Climate Records Of The Last Millennium. The Climate of the Holocene (ICCI) 2003. Retrieved on 2006-05-04.

15. ^ Adhikari DP, Kumon, F. (2001). "Climatic changes during the past 1300 years as deduced from the sediments of Lake Nakatsuna, central Japan.". Limnology 2 (3): 157-168. DOI:10.1007/s10201-001-8031-7.

* Bradley and Jones, 1993

* M.K. Hughes and H.F. Diaz, "Was there a 'Medieval Warm Period?", Climatic Change 26: 109-142, March 1994

* Crowley and Lowery, 2000.

The Global Warming Two-Step

The Global Warming Two-Step

By William Tucker

Published 1/23/2007 12:08:03 AM

I'm in an interesting dilemma. I'm just finishing up a book on global warming and nuclear power. The premise is this:

A. Global warming is a serious problem that should be solved.

B. Nuclear power is the only way we're going to solve it.

It's a simple premise that defies both liberal and conservatives -- fair enough. But ultimately it could get both on the same side. Then we might get something done in the country. Environmentalists hate nuclear but they worry about global warming more. Conservatives pooh-pooh global warming but they do like nuclear power. So maybe we could get going on a nuclear economy that would at least free us from coal (the worst polluter) and maybe eventually cut into our imported oil.

When I came to the chapter on global warming, the argument seemed fairly cut-and-dried. I employed the graph put out by the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change in 2000. It shows global temperatures staying on a very even keel over the last 1,000 years until suddenly jetting upward into unknown territory since 1980. What could be simpler? Global warming is real.

Although I didn't know it at the time, this graph is commonly referred, in good Silicon Valley fashion, to as the "hockey stick."

Two months ago I tested the waters by writing a Spectator.org column called "Endorse Kyoto." As I expected, a lot of people wrote in denouncing me for giving in to the liberals on global warming. What I didn't expect was that many alert readers clued me in to something that has emerged over the last five years -- the hockey stick is a fraud.

THE BIG PROBLEM FOR GLOBAL WARMING alarmists is a period called "The Medieval Warming," which occurred from about 950 A.D. to 1350 A.D. It's well known from the history books. The Vikings colonized Greenland in 982 A.D. and stayed until 1425 A.D., when the cold weather and permafrost drove them out. While there they mapped the northern coast of Greenland, which is now encased in ice (although it's slowly melting). Leif Ericsson, blown off course while headed for Greenland in 1000 A.D., discovered "Vinland" -- probably Nova Scotia -- where he found wild wheat and grapes growing in abundance. Today the land is barren.

In fact, the IPCC had known about the Medieval Warming all along. In 1996 it published a temperature graph that clearly showed the Medieval Warming. There wasn't any dispute at that point.

What happened? Somehow a Ph.D. student at the University of Massachusetts named Michael Mann did some fancy things with some tree-ring data from California in 1998 and came up with the "hockey stick." Such a blatantly ahistorical effort would have only raised eyebrows under ordinary circumstances, but it turned out to be just what the UN wanted -- proof that global warming was unprecedented! The IPCC made the hockey stick the centerpiece of its 2001 Climate Report. Bill Clinton also used it as the centerpiece of his 2000 National Report on Climate Change. The government of Canada sent a copy of the graph to every household in the country. In the end, the IPCC appointed Mann editor of its Journal of Climate -- not bad for a lowly Ph.D. student.

Slowly the criticisms trickled in. Two Canadian statisticians, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, examined Mann's algorithms and found that any random data plugged into the equations produced the same hockey stick. The hockey-stick fraud was also the subject of Michael Crichton's State of Fear.

The Hudson Institute has just published an excellent book, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, chronicling the whole controversy and more. Authors S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery present their own counter-theory -- that the earth goes through regular 1,500-year cycles of warming and cooling, driven by the fluctuating intensity of the sun. There was a Roman Warming from 200 B.C. to 600 A.D. -- and of course the well-documented Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850, when Europe nearly froze to death.

All this is part of the guerrilla warfare that is going on between proponents and skeptics of global warming. Dennis Deming, a climate scientist at the University of Oklahoma, recently told the Senate about his experience in the field:

In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.

With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them.... One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

All this was very encouraging news. While I was researching all this, temperatures on the East Coast were in the '60s and '70s and people were sunbathing in January. I still miss winter, but it was encouraging to know that we had been through this once before and the world didn't fall apart, as generally predicted by alarmists. Greenland may become habitable again, but at least Miami isn't going to be underwater.

THERE WAS ONLY ONE PROBLEM: What about my book? I was willing to make a concession on global warming in order to try to win liberals over to nuclear energy and now the whole thing had fallen apart.

I spent a very intense two weeks in study. There's lots of literature on both sides and of course alarmists and skeptics each accuse each other of the most nefarious skullduggery. Environmentalists are now pillorying Exxon of spending $16 million trying to refute global warming. Each side is at the point of trying to outlaw the other's opinion.

What finally occurred to me is that maybe both are right. It's possible that the sun forces a 1500-year cycle of warming and cooling and that recent carbon emissions from industrial civilization are exaggerating the pattern. That would suggest there's nothing too unusual about the recent pattern (everybody agrees it's getting warmer), but carbon emissions could still be playing a part.

I finally found a handful of scientists who support this view. One is Nir Shaviv, a very intelligent Israeli astrophysicist who has written the following on ScienceBits.com:

The truth is probably somewhere in between, with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. Following [the] empirical evidence... about 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes.

The others are S.K. Solanki of the Max Planck Institute and M. Fligge of the Institute of Astronomy in Zurich, who have done extensive research on solar activity and show that it corresponds very closely with temperature changes. In particular, their data explains the slight decline in temperatures from 1956 to 1970 -- a period that carbon-emissions advocates have a great deal of trouble in explaining.

Solanki and Fligge are generally acknowledged by both sides to be very objective chroniclers of the solar theory. Yet when I read one of their leading papers, I found this:

Since approximately 1975 the situation is clearly different...with solar irradiance showing a comparatively much more modest rise than air temperature....nless the influence of solar variability on Earth is very strongly non-linear, at least this most recent temperature increase reflects the influence of man-made greenhouse gases or non-solar sources of natural variability.

So I'm back in business. As far as I'm concerned, both sides have a point. Yes, there was a Medieval Warming and yes, the sun is the main agent of temperature change, but something is also happening with carbon emissions that is pushing us into unknown territory. It's worth doing something about it.

I hope this convinces both sides to take another look at nuclear power.

William Tucker writes every week for The American Spectator online.

Further reading on the Medieval Warm Period and the "Hockey Stick" chart of global warming that excludes this period are found all over the net, including:

'The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today'

Weren’t temperatures warmer than today during the “Medieval Warm Period"?

Tropical Seas Sink Hockey Stick

The `Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science

I would go on but you get the point

[GaryC 7]

Yeah they have a very selective way of looking at the "facts". I remember 2 years ago when we had a very active hurricane season with Katrina to top it all off the GW crowd held it up as "proof" that GW is real. But Steve tried to hammer me when I pointed out how cold it is right now and said that a local fluctuation didn't prove anything.

They fail to see that the southern half of the world is getting colder and that Antarctica's ice sheet is growing.

“Global?" Warming Misnamed - Southern Hemisphere Not Warming

In addition, new NASA satellite tropospheric temperature data reveals that the Southern Hemisphere has not warmed in the past 25 years contrary to “global warming theory” and modeling. This new Southern Hemisphere data raises the specter that the use of the word “global” in “global warming” may not be accurate. A more apt moniker for the past 25 years may be “Northern Hemisphere” warming. See: http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/09/southern...res-global.html

These two bits of information don't see much play either:

“Global Warming” Stopped in 1998

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter has noted that there is indeed a problem with global warming – it stopped in 1998. “According to official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK, the global average temperature did not increase between 1998-2005. “…this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” noted paleoclimate researcher and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia in an April 2006 article titled “There is a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998.” See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...09/ixworld.html

Oceans Cooling

Another bombshell to hit the global warming alarmists and their speculative climate modeling came in a September article in the Geophysical Research Letters which found that over 20% of the heat gained in the oceans since the mid-1950s was lost in just two years. The former climatologist for the state of Colorado, Roger Pielke, Sr., noted that the sudden cooling of the oceans “certainly indicates that the multi-decadal global climate models have serious issues with their ability to accurately simulate the response of the climate system to human- and natural-climate forcings.“ See: http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/09/

The GW alarmists don't want to see facts that contradict what they want to believe. It's become PC to follow that GW is real. They want to believe it so that makes it true to them. I'm sure that no matter what anyone tells them and no matter what evidence you can offer to show the error of their thinking they will go on believing it like it's some religion to them rather than fact.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[one...two...tree 2,762]

...sigh...here we go again...

Gary, can you find ONE legitimate scientific journal publication that specifically contradicts the consensus among the scientific community that Global Warming is real?

As to your cited sources...

The National Post - The Post was founded in 1998 by Conrad Black to combat what he saw as an "over-liberalizing" of editorial policy in Canadian newspapers. From the beginning, the Post had a strongly conservative editorial stance by Canadian standards. It was widely considered to be the unofficial mouthpiece of the Reform Party of Canada. Its editorial page featured the writings of many prominent neo-conservatives and libertarians from the United States and Canada...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post

.......

“If there are big, inherent fluctuations in the system, as paleoclimate studies are showing, it could make determining the Earth’s climatic future even harder than it is,” Brassell said. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6101500672.html

I'm not sure where you copied this from, but that statement was written by Christopher Lee, a staff writer for the Washington Post. However, if you do take hold of what the Washington Posts publishes, just do a search on the website under global warming and you'll find a plethora of articles on it. But again, this is not a scientific journal.

....

World Climate Report, a newsletter edited by Patrick Michaels, was produced by the Greening Earth Society. It presented a skeptic view of global warming. Early editions were paper based; it then transferred to web-only. It appears to have ceased publication as a "report" with volume 8 in 2002. It appears to have re-invented itself in "blog" format at http://www.worldclimatereport.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Climate_Report

.....

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...s/V8/N44/C1.jsp

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is a non-profit organization based in Arizona. Its stated purpose is to "disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climatic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content."

The center recieves funding from the ExxonMobil corporation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation Craig, Keith and Sherwood Idso have all done work for the Western Fuels Association in the past. The Western Fuels Association is a suspected funder of the center.

....

This one is interesting... on the claim about JAMES HANSEN receiving a $250,000 grant from Theresa Heinz's Foundation.

Grants are drastically different from direct funding - grants are handled and awarded by a trust. Those who establish grants are not connected to the dispersment beyond setting specific guidelines - they do not choose who gets the grant.

He was awarded the grant in 1988 and here's what he had to say...

"In the current issue of Audubon Magazine, I suggest that the President appoint a commission of scientists, businessmen, consumers, and environmentalists to recommend actions to slow global warming. We can take common sense steps to do that. Our industry and our technology hold the key. We should reduce air pollution including low level ozone and soot, improve energy efficiency, and develop renewable energy. Collateral benefits improve public health and reduce dependence on foreign energy sources justify the cost. This practical approach could gain bipartisan and international consensus for addressing climate change."

Sounds reasonable to me.

....

Gary, until you can get past the idea that science can and should be debated in a public forum (politicizing science), it's pointless to continue getting into discussions about it.

How about we talk about ways to reduce air pollution? Lower our dependency on foreign oil? Reduce mercury levels in our oceans? Renewable energy (solar)? Higher fuel efficient cars?

[GaryC 7]

...sigh...here we go again...

Gary, can you find ONE legitimate scientific journal publication that specifically contradicts the consensus among the scientific community that Global Warming is real?

As to your cited sources...

The National Post - The Post was founded in 1998 by Conrad Black to combat what he saw as an "over-liberalizing" of editorial policy in Canadian newspapers. From the beginning, the Post had a strongly conservative editorial stance by Canadian standards. It was widely considered to be the unofficial mouthpiece of the Reform Party of Canada. Its editorial page featured the writings of many prominent neo-conservatives and libertarians from the United States and Canada...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post

.......

“If there are big, inherent fluctuations in the system, as paleoclimate studies are showing, it could make determining the Earth’s climatic future even harder than it is,” Brassell said. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6101500672.html

I'm not sure where you copied this from, but that statement was written by Christopher Lee, a staff writer for the Washington Post. However, if you do take hold of what the Washington Posts publishes, just do a search on the website under global warming and you'll find a plethora of articles on it. But again, this is not a scientific journal.

....

World Climate Report, a newsletter edited by Patrick Michaels, was produced by the Greening Earth Society. It presented a skeptic view of global warming. Early editions were paper based; it then transferred to web-only. It appears to have ceased publication as a "report" with volume 8 in 2002. It appears to have re-invented itself in "blog" format at http://www.worldclimatereport.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Climate_Report

.....

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...s/V8/N44/C1.jsp

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is a non-profit organization based in Arizona. Its stated purpose is to "disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climatic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content."

The center recieves funding from the ExxonMobil corporation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation Craig, Keith and Sherwood Idso have all done work for the Western Fuels Association in the past. The Western Fuels Association is a suspected funder of the center.

....

This one is interesting... on the claim about JAMES HANSEN receiving a $250,000 grant from Theresa Heinz's Foundation.

Grants are drastically different from direct funding - grants are handled and awarded by a trust. Those who establish grants are not connected to the dispersment beyond setting specific guidelines - they do not choose who gets the grant.

He was awarded the grant in 1988 and here's what he had to say...

"In the current issue of Audubon Magazine, I suggest that the President appoint a commission of scientists, businessmen, consumers, and environmentalists to recommend actions to slow global warming. We can take common sense steps to do that. Our industry and our technology hold the key. We should reduce air pollution including low level ozone and soot, improve energy efficiency, and develop renewable energy. Collateral benefits improve public health and reduce dependence on foreign energy sources justify the cost. This practical approach could gain bipartisan and international consensus for addressing climate change."

Sounds reasonable to me.

....

Gary, until you can get past the idea that science can and should be debated in a public forum (politicizing science), it's pointless to continue getting into discussions about it.

How about we talk about ways to reduce air pollution? Lower our dependency on foreign oil? Reduce mercury levels in our oceans? Renewable energy (solar)? Higher fuel efficient cars?

Yep, here we go again. When you can't dispute what I post you attack the source. Just because it is from a conservative leaning person it is automatically disqualified in your eyes. Your just making my point. You will believe this "scientific" drivel because it's more of a religion to you and the other GW alarmist than anything scientific.

How do you explain that the southern hemisphere isn't getting warmer? How do you explain how the oceans have suddenly cooled off? How do you explain the current winter where everyone is cold? It was in the 50's in Hawaii yesterday! We had no major hurricanes this last season. If you want to use one kind of environmental facts to prove GW is real then you should look at all the facts including the facts that disprove rather than prove.

One last thing, did you notice the source of my first post? It is the US Senate web site. But I assume that since the Reps had the senate when this was posted it disqualifies it in your eyes. Funny how if it's from a pro GW source the information is impeachable but when the dreaded conservative has a thought it has no credibility for you.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[GaryC 7]

Here is an article from one of your own that backs up at least one of my points. The Antarctic is getting colder. This is from NPR:

Jan. 21, 2002 -- The Earth's surface has warmed significantly, especially over the past few decades. Some of the most dramatic warming has been recorded in the northernmost reaches of Alaska, Canada and Siberia. But the extreme southern part of the Earth is not warming, as some had predicted. For Morning Edition, NPR's Richard Harris reports on two new studies that show a far more complicated picture of Antarctica's weather.

The first study involves one of the few places in Antarctica where there's an actual community of living things stashed away on the desolate continent -- the McMurdo Dry Valleys. The region, one of the few areas in Antarctica that isn't entirely blanketed by snow and ice, is a stark but beautiful landscape of ice-covered lakes, ephemeral streams, exposed bedrock and alpine glaciers.

But under the thick ice that covers some of the lakes, simple life forms like phytoplankton and bacteria manage to survive. A team of researchers have been studying one site in the Dry Valleys for well over a decade, with the goal of building a long-term record of its ecosystem.

That team, led by University of Illinois at Chicago researcher Peter Doran, has put years of data together to reach a startling conclusion. While the globe as a whole has been getting warmer, Doran's team, reporting in the journal Nature, has documented a sharp cooling trend in the Dry Valleys over the past 14 years.

Doran says the cooling in the region is not only reducing the flow of fresh water from the glaciers into the lakes, it's also making the lakes' surface ice thicker, so the plankton that use sunlight for energy are getting less light. If this admittedly short trend continues, Doran says, it would be tough on the life forms struggling to get by in this already harsh environment.

"The ecosystem would continue to diminish," says Doran, "and eventually it would essentially go into a deep sleep, like a freeze-dried ecosystem."

The cooling isn't limited to the Dry Valleys' lakes. A record of all Antarctic temperatures compiled by Doran and his colleagues shows an overall cooling of the continent since 1966, particularly during the summer and autumn months.

Doran attributes the cooling to unusually sunny and less stormy weather patterns. Usually, storminess helps warm parts of Antarctica by creating winds like the warm chinooks that flow off the high plateaus of the American West.

It's still unknown whether that change in the weather is linked to global climate change. And to add to the mystery, not all of Antarctica is getting colder. Temperatures have been rising sharply over the past 50 years on the long Antarctic Peninsula, which juts north toward South America. There, ice floes have been melting and some penguin populations have fled their historic breeding grounds.

But the biggest question about Antarctica isn't about local impacts of these climate trends, it's about potential global consequences -- in particular, the potential for rising sea levels.

There's enough water in the West Antarctic ice sheet to gradually raise global sea levels by a staggering 20 feet. Glacier experts are eyeing this ice warily. In the long run, global temperature changes could affect this ice, if the surrounding ocean water warms significantly. But even in the absence of ocean warming, the ice is changing. Previous studies suggested it could be in the midst of a slow-motion meltdown. Now Ian Joughin of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory reports in the latest Science magazine that the ice sheet is actually growing, as snow accumulates on its surface.

But Joughin says it's too early to relax. Glaciologists are still concerned about the behavior of another part of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which appears to be sloughing off into the sea.

Meanwhile, there's a real-life reminder that weather trends can be fickle. Doran's co-author, Montana State University researcher John Priscu, hiked across the Dry Valleys' Lake Bonney last year on the spiked shoes known as crampons. He reports from Antarctica by e-mail that this summer -- underway right now in Antarctica -- the weather is so unseasonably warm he has to use a boat to get out to the ice floating on the lake.

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/featur...antarctica.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

...sigh...here we go again...

Gary, can you find ONE legitimate scientific journal publication that specifically contradicts the consensus among the scientific community that Global Warming is real?

As to your cited sources...

The National Post - The Post was founded in 1998 by Conrad Black to combat what he saw as an "over-liberalizing" of editorial policy in Canadian newspapers. From the beginning, the Post had a strongly conservative editorial stance by Canadian standards. It was widely considered to be the unofficial mouthpiece of the Reform Party of Canada. Its editorial page featured the writings of many prominent neo-conservatives and libertarians from the United States and Canada...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post

.......

“If there are big, inherent fluctuations in the system, as paleoclimate studies are showing, it could make determining the Earth’s climatic future even harder than it is,” Brassell said. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6101500672.html

I'm not sure where you copied this from, but that statement was written by Christopher Lee, a staff writer for the Washington Post. However, if you do take hold of what the Washington Posts publishes, just do a search on the website under global warming and you'll find a plethora of articles on it. But again, this is not a scientific journal.

....

World Climate Report, a newsletter edited by Patrick Michaels, was produced by the Greening Earth Society. It presented a skeptic view of global warming. Early editions were paper based; it then transferred to web-only. It appears to have ceased publication as a "report" with volume 8 in 2002. It appears to have re-invented itself in "blog" format at http://www.worldclimatereport.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Climate_Report

.....

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...s/V8/N44/C1.jsp

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is a non-profit organization based in Arizona. Its stated purpose is to "disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climatic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content."

The center recieves funding from the ExxonMobil corporation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation Craig, Keith and Sherwood Idso have all done work for the Western Fuels Association in the past. The Western Fuels Association is a suspected funder of the center.

....

This one is interesting... on the claim about JAMES HANSEN receiving a $250,000 grant from Theresa Heinz's Foundation.

Grants are drastically different from direct funding - grants are handled and awarded by a trust. Those who establish grants are not connected to the dispersment beyond setting specific guidelines - they do not choose who gets the grant.

He was awarded the grant in 1988 and here's what he had to say...

"In the current issue of Audubon Magazine, I suggest that the President appoint a commission of scientists, businessmen, consumers, and environmentalists to recommend actions to slow global warming. We can take common sense steps to do that. Our industry and our technology hold the key. We should reduce air pollution including low level ozone and soot, improve energy efficiency, and develop renewable energy. Collateral benefits improve public health and reduce dependence on foreign energy sources justify the cost. This practical approach could gain bipartisan and international consensus for addressing climate change."

Sounds reasonable to me.

....

Gary, until you can get past the idea that science can and should be debated in a public forum (politicizing science), it's pointless to continue getting into discussions about it.

How about we talk about ways to reduce air pollution? Lower our dependency on foreign oil? Reduce mercury levels in our oceans? Renewable energy (solar)? Higher fuel efficient cars?

Yep, here we go again. When you can't dispute what I post you attack the source. Just because it is from a conservative leaning person it is automatically disqualified in your eyes. Your just making my point. You will believe this "scientific" drivel because it's more of a religion to you and the other GW alarmist than anything scientific.

How do you explain that the southern hemisphere isn't getting warmer? How do you explain how the oceans have suddenly cooled off? How do you explain the current winter where everyone is cold? It was in the 50's in Hawaii yesterday! We had no major hurricanes this last season. If you want to use one kind of environmental facts to prove GW is real then you should look at all the facts including the facts that disprove rather than prove.

One last thing, did you notice the source of my first post? It is the US Senate web site. But I assume that since the Reps had the senate when this was posted it disqualifies it in your eyes. Funny how if it's from a pro GW source the information is impeachable but when the dreaded conservative has a thought it has no credibility for you.

Gary, you don't really understand my argument here, do you? I'm saying that science can't be seriously debated in a public forum. You keep politicizing science and polarizing the theory of Global Warming with these pointless posts. I'm not going to debate you on something as complex as this that neither one of us are qualified to even begin to discuss. This is silly.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, you don't really understand my argument here, do you? I'm saying that science can't be seriously debated in a public forum. You keep politicizing science and polarizing the theory of Global Warming with these pointless posts. I'm not going to debate you on something as complex as this that neither one of us are qualified to even begin to discuss. This is silly.

Hmmmm.... I see. Ok I guess that means you will not be posting anything more about Global Warming? Nothing at all? If thats the case then I will also no longer post about it. Does that logic also translate to any other thing we might want to talk about? If the subject is about something we are not qualified to discuss then we will not post about it?

[mawilson 2,133]

How about we talk about ways to reduce air pollution?

Unfortunately, reducing air pollution would only exacerbate the problem.

Lower our dependency on foreign oil? Reduce mercury levels in our oceans? Renewable energy (solar)? Higher fuel efficient cars?

Sounds good to me.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, you don't really understand my argument here, do you? I'm saying that science can't be seriously debated in a public forum. You keep politicizing science and polarizing the theory of Global Warming with these pointless posts. I'm not going to debate you on something as complex as this that neither one of us are qualified to even begin to discuss. This is silly.

Hmmmm.... I see. Ok I guess that means you will not be posting anything more about Global Warming? Nothing at all? If thats the case then I will also no longer post about it. Does that logic also translate to any other thing we might want to talk about? If the subject is about something we are not qualified to discuss then we will not post about it?

Post what you want on Global Warming. I'm just stating that baiting the issue into whether it's even legitimate science or not, here in a public forum, as if non-scientists like ourselves can have a meaningful debate is silly. The issues you seem to have with Global Warming are twofold - first you are skeptical that Global Warming is happening right now and then you are skeptical whether humankind is causing it.

Most of what I read and what I post focuses on the need for us to change public policy with regard to the environment, which is really the underlying problem that gets Exxon/Mobil to pour millions of dollars into debating the science. They don't want to lose their profits and power with regard to our energy consumption

Do you think we should be reducing air pollution? Reducing our dependency on foreign oil? Reducing oil consumption? Investing in alternative fuel sources? How about lowering mercury levels in the oceans? Where do you draw the line between industry and the environment? Should profit always trump sustainability?

[GaryC 7]

Post what you want on Global Warming. I'm just stating that baiting the issue into whether it's even legitimate science or not, here in a public forum, as if non-scientists like ourselves can have a meaningful debate is silly. The issues you seem to have with Global Warming are twofold - first you are skeptical that Global Warming is happening right now and then you are skeptical whether humankind is causing it.

Yes I am very skeptical on both points.

Most of what I read and what I post focuses on the need for us to change public policy with regard to the environment, which is really the underlying problem that gets Exxon/Mobil to pour millions of dollars into debating the science. They don't want to lose their profits and power with regard to our energy consumption

Since most of the CO2 comes from coal fired powerplants I don't see why you vilify Exxon. Making a lot of money selling a product we all want and need shouldn't make them a target.

Do you think we should be reducing air pollution?

yes

Reducing our dependency on foreign oil?

yes

Reducing oil consumption?

yes

Investing in alternative fuel sources?

yes

How about lowering mercury levels in the oceans?

The ocean is a big place. I doubt if it is possible for us to do any significant pollution there.

Where do you draw the line between industry and the environment?

When they are doing harm to the environment. I just don't buy into the whole GW thing. If a company was making another "Love canal" they should be made to stop it, pay for clean-up and pay a fine.

Should profit always trump sustainability?

Thats the nature of a free market. When a source is running out and the company can no longer satisfy demand then they find an alternative. I trust the free market. You don't. There is the big difference between us.

[Lurker 0]

My take on all this including second hand smoke is this.

How do you know that a woman gets pregnant from a man? Maybe she gets pregnant from drinking milk.

Of course she gets pregnant from a man, because of the EXACT evidence of the matter.

Like all the scientists say that second hand smoke causes 50,000 people a year to die. Hmmm lets take 200,000,000 people that we have in the US. How do we exactly know this is happening with a very few amount of people? There is no direct evidence supporting this.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that smoking or any kind of smoke is good for your health. I am only saying that there is no stone cold evidence (Example: How a woman gets pregnant (ie sperm/egg, microscope and shite)) linking second hand smoke to those 50k a year deaths.

This same theory applies to the GW #######.

I call hog-wash on all this stuff until I see stone cold evidence.

Hmmmm....not too long ago every retard in this world thought the world was flat...even some of the greatest scholars.

Sometimes you have to put down the crack pipe/bong/joint and just listen to common sense.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Where do you draw the line between industry and the environment?

When they are doing harm to the environment. I just don't buy into the whole GW thing. If a company was making another "Love canal" they should be made to stop it, pay for clean-up and pay a fine.

Should profit always trump sustainability?

Thats the nature of a free market. When a source is running out and the company can no longer satisfy demand then they find an alternative. I trust the free market. You don't. There is the big difference between us.

My brother, when it comes to your health or the health of the environment, the market is the last entity I'm going to look for to watch my back.

[GaryC 7]

My brother, when it comes to your health or the health of the environment, the market is the last entity I'm going to look for to watch my back.

The government or some watchdog group keeps the companies in line with pollution. I don't have a problem with that as long as that government acts in a reasonable manner and use sound scientific reasons for any sanction. If a company is bealching sulfer or benzine into the air then shut them down until they have it fixed. But I firmly do not believe that this Global Warming thing is settled in any way. To do such a radical shift of our economy and culture over something that MAY be or think might happen is much more irresponsible.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

My brother, when it comes to your health or the health of the environment, the market is the last entity I'm going to look for to watch my back.

The government or some watchdog group keeps the companies in line with pollution. I don't have a problem with that as long as that government acts in a reasonable manner and use sound scientific reasons for any sanction. If a company is bealching sulfer or benzine into the air then shut them down until they have it fixed. But I firmly do not believe that this Global Warming thing is settled in any way. To do such a radical shift of our economy and culture over something that MAY be or think might happen is much more irresponsible.

Say 'yay' or 'nay' to each of the following:

1. Gov't impose higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles.

2. Reverse Bush's lowering of mercury levels from industry back to the recommended reduction during the Clinton Administration.

3. Remove all tax breaks and subsidies to Oil Companies.

4. Take those tax breaks and subsidies that were being given to the Oil Companies and match them for renewable energy research and development (wind, solar, geothermal).

What I think everyone can agree on is that we all want a sustainable future - for children and generations to come. We have the opportunity in this country to lead the way in technology that will switch our dependency on fossil fuels to renewable sources, and we can actually make our economy stronger for it.