Have a look at this graph comparing the moderate warming of the Medieval warming period to the recent unprecedented spike.

There is no comparison in the amount and rate of rise. These historical warmings cited were very moderate and gradual compared to what has happened in the last 50-75 years.

BTW, it’s important to note that the Heartland Institute has received extensive funding from ExxonMobile and the tobacco industry. One of their missions has been to champion smokers rights and to produce science refuting the dangers of smoking.

By Pam on 03.07.08 8:55 am

Pam, are you suggesting that all 700 scientists cited here are “bought off by tobacco companies?”

By chowdog2 on 03.07.08 9:35 am

The 8 inches of snow Dallas got yesterday begs to differ with the global warming freaks…

By Ty on 03.07.08 9:43 am

No, just giving you a glimpse into the integrity of the Heartland Institute – driven by politics and money, not science.

The American Meteorological Society & the American Geophysical Union have stated “the case for man made global warming is compelling.” Note that they didn’t say “proven.” Any scientific body worth it’s salt won’t ever make absolute claims based on political agendas as the “scientists” for the Heartland Insitute are so desperately trying to do.

This shows which side of the argument is based on politics and which side is based on political agenda. It is a common trait of authoritarian conservatives to uncritically accept evidence that supports their political position with out evaluating the motives behind the information. They make much of the moives of granting agencies in climate research, but much of the science comes from government supported international climate labs around the world that have essentially reached the same conclusion, the rate and level of present warming is clearly anomalous and corresponds exactly to the rate of fossil fuel burning. You can argue that it is just coincidence, but only a fool or someone with a political agenda would believe that.

By Pam on 03.07.08 9:53 am

The report that Terry Frank champions here was authored by Dennis Avery who is not a climate scientist but studied agricultural economics at Michigan State University. He is a fervent supporter of the pesticide industry, has stated “that organic food is more dangerous to eat than food produced using chemical pesticides”, and has refuted claims that DDT was harmful to the environment. The Hudson Institute which employs him is heavily funded by the chemical industry (Dupont, Monsanto, etc…).

The other author, 88 yr old S. Frederick Singer is not a climate scientist but a physicist who received his degrees in the 1940’s. He has been both an oil and tobacco industry contractor whose mission it was to fight environmental and health regulations. His Science & Environmental Policy Project received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO and from the Rev Sun Myung Moon.

Think about the credibility, background and motives of these individuals and what type of people would uncritically support their agenda.

By Pam on 03.07.08 10:18 am

The graph on Wiki posted by Pam is a colloberative effort between UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre and University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. But even thought they apparently agree on the warming issue, they differ on other theories related to that. The UKMO predicts droughts while the CRU is predicting record rainfall in areas. That would beg the question: is the type of data different? Are the bits of data different? Is the interpretation of the data different? Could it be a combination of all of the above?

These two groups would hardly represent a worldwide effort to prove global warming since both are in the UK. I would also have to question how precise the temperature estimations are when it comes to the past. I know that they claim that they can get close, but how close? Were the gazillion (yes, a very technical term thrown about by the learned people drinking beer with me) temperature monitoring stations that we had up in the 1700’s as accurate as the ones we have today? I still question the cause and effect of carbon dioxide and global warming. There are numerous graphs that show the warming trend came before the CO2. So maybe it is possible to answer, which came first: the chicken or the egg? It is looking like the chicken might have come first after all. But mine is theory like all of these are.

By BCB on 03.07.08 11:06 am

Yet another reason to throw some doubt in the direction of long term forecasting is to look at how successful they were on forecasting the winter just for this year. Here is a blast of science from the past, the recent past. See what they were saying in the Climate Prediction Center as recent as Oct 2007! And yet we are to believe the infallibility of longer-term forecasts that take into account more variables?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071010131931.htm

By BCB on 03.07.08 12:57 pm

None of those prior warm spells were associated with CO2 levels anywhere near what exists right now. In fact, no natural trend over the past 800,000 years has driven CO2 to current levels. This stuff is just not relevant.

By Catha on 03.07.08 4:50 pm

BCB,
Meaningless comment. Year to year weather summaries are meaningless in observing long term trends.

I am amazed at the persistence of this blogger to cite unathoritative and blatently political agenda-driven sources. Pam is right. Doesn’t anyone else Google these sources or are you just too happy to grasp at any straw that supports your politics on it’s face? So much for critical thinking. So much for the ability to logically discern the validity of sources and information. It’s no wonder that many of these same people believe what they do about the world. It’s like Limbaugh -Hannity-Faux News fantasy denial land. And BTW, you’ll never hear me championing Al Gore as a “scientific source” … so you can give the ‘war on Gore’ a rest.

By William on 03.07.08 10:35 pm

You might as well stop shouting in the wind because if you believe mankind is going to stop creating CO2 no matter how much taxation you put on it your out of your damned minds. China and India are just crankin’ up, so amp those C02 models up and go ahead and get the praise ready for just how clean the US is. They’re gonna make LA and NYC (where all the smog and enviromentalists are) look like a freakin’ rainbow gathering once you see the SUVs rollin’ through Beijing by 2020 baby. So go over to Gray Sasser’s blog and see if any of his Chinese buddies are worried about their “carbon footprints”. He’s the head of the Democratic party chair I’m sure he’s deeply concerned and getting something done about it for all you planet huggers.

By Malcolm Tent on 03.08.08 12:37 am

Hey Malcom,
What you say has nothing to do with the science, it has everything to do with agendas. My point is, you and most every conservative look past the science with great concern to what the liberals are “going to do” to try and stop global warming.

I am nearly certain that mankind has contributed to global warming. The science can not be denied. But, where you are wrong is to assume that everyone who believes in man made global warming, also believes in a man made solution.

As liberal, and one who is aware of the science… I agree with you nearly 100% (except that the Chinese won’t be driving SUVs, they’ll be polluting with coal). Man made solutions to this problem are possibly too late and impractical in our short life times. Impractical for precisely the reasons you stated.

By William on 03.08.08 1:35 am

William, I beg to differ. While I am not saying that an abnormal temperature today, yesterday or three weeks from now prove anything. A warm winter does not claim to illustrate global warming anymore than a cold winter refutes it. My point is, how can we claim accurate forecasting ability on a long-term global scale, when the experts (often times publicized the a media looking to prove a point) are claiming gloom and doom? A long term forecast showing a warm winter. Not individual days. And quite frankly, I don’t’ care if the article said it would be warm or cold. The point is that their long-term models were wrong. They only had to guess 6 month in advance and mucked it up. THAT is my point. How can I trust them with long-term guesses? And why should I when these guesses all magically seem to want to bring increase cost and decreased enjoyment to my life?

I am smarter than to point out that a single point on the line illustrates anything other than GEE-WHIZ information.

As far as all of us conservatives looking past the science goes: I also noticed that the graph initially cited by Pam, while it is useful in the argument, is also based on data from people trying to sell climate forecasting software. It is amazing how much better someone’s science is when they are trying to sell it. Internet research had articles where each of these groups were developing and selling software. Hey, that is great. It is an example of the very type of capitalism that some in the global warming crowd are trying to end. How much stock am I to put in a man that drives an Escalade to a CONSERVATION SUMMIT when he tells me I am going to have to “cut back” and have the price of my stuff go up so that the manufacturers can afford these magic “carbon credits” that Gore stands to profit from? Is he profiting now? When he became an unemployed former civil servant after the VP gig went away and his bid for the presidency failed, what was he worth? Under 2 million dollars. He is worth over 35 million now. Either we pay WAY too much to our former VPs or he has one hell of a racket going on. So like the forecasting ability, I question exactly how “objective” Captain Planet actually is. He only “greened up” his house in Carthage after being caught dirty. Did it slip his mind because he was so busy preaching his sermon on the mount? Or maybe he doesn’t like the light cast by the little curly light bulbs, and the other energy saving measures that I am supposed to run out and do on my limited budget. A test of one’s beliefs is how much is their money backing up their mouth? What is more important to him? Cleaning the planet so that we don’t go extinct for his grandchildren? Or securing their financial future? Why should my priorities be any different?

And for those that question my continuing interest in Al Gore, he is the poster child. He is part of the problem. I want what he wants. I want to be rich. I want to have a house 3 times bigger than I need and keep it heated and cooled. I want to drive big luxury SUVs and fly on private jets. I want people to justify my noncompliance to the very standards I am demanding for others. I want a free pass so those that want me not to have it will pick on another cause.

When forecasters can’t agree, the champions of a cause do not believe in it enough to change THEIR lifestyle; I see no reason to buy off on it myself. And you can call me whatever you want for those beliefs.

By BCB on 03.08.08 8:49 am

[...] Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years – Frankly Speaking [...]

By Saturday Afternoon - Watching Snow Melt - Laundry Time , An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings on 03.08.08 2:31 pm

Do not assume that pollution created in China stays in China. When Chernobyl blew, we were able to detect it in Oak Ridge within a few days.

By SemiPundit on 03.08.08 2:43 pm

BCB- you are right on the money! There is no other more in-exact science than ‘forecasting’. . .

By TNOPINION on 03.08.08 4:39 pm

BCB, you still don’t have the fundamentals down. Climatologists are not trying to make long-term forecasts. They are trying to understand what the impact of pumping 7 billion tons of greenhouse gases or more per year into the atmosphere might be.

We can’t forecast how much air pollution humans will be producing in 2050, so we can’t possibly predict what impact that pollution will have on winter temperatures. Forecasting is simply not relevant to an actual scientific discussion of this subject.

The pertinent scientific questions are: Can the planet absorb our emissions? What impact will these emissions have on climate? Are there feedback mechanisms or tipping points that might exacerbate or ameliorate those impacts?

By Catha on 03.08.08 7:05 pm

BCB,
You started out ok, then slipped into the partisan ‘war on Gore.’ I know, you can’t help it. Conservatives are known for their persitence of habitual responses that don’t vary much with new information.

I’ve cited previously on thios blog computer models from 8 different climat labs from Germany to Australia to Tokyo that show the same thing. No matter what evidence we put in front of you, it doesn’t matter, it’s all a big political scheme with Al Gore as front man. It’s really sad to be so narrow in your thinking.

By William on 03.08.08 8:16 pm

Catha’s back…and she still hasn’t explained the expanded ice from this post. Catha wants to pick and choose her stop and start points for averaging, as seen in the post linked above.

And while you may not say that Mr. Avery is a “climatologist” per se, how about his citation of 700 scientists who agree that warming is part of a 1500 year cycle? He notes that in this piece and yet Catha, William, and Pam gloss right over it.

Will you give me a rundown of the money strings attached to all 700? And while you’re at it, how about a run down of the money strings attached to all the global doomsday crowd.

By Terry on 03.09.08 7:47 am

The forecasting I speak of is not whether or not I need an umbrella. The “guessitmation” I try to address has to do with:
A) What are we putting into the atmosphere
B) What is it doing to the climate
C) Is there an historical data that would support these conclusion?

We know what we are putting into the air. What it is doing to the climate is still up to interpretation. And nothing like this has ever occurred before so we are just guessing as to the outcome.

I see studies that came out that would have already put us 10 or more degrees warmer. They were obviously wrong. I here people “forecasting” a rise in the levels of the ocean. The oceans are getting deeper so maybe they aren’t taking all the variables into account.

My attacks on Al Gore have merit. They are true. And they point out the problems with the global warming cheerleaders. I know that there are rabid UT Vol fans that would not question why our little orange clad cheerleaders are doing the Gator Chomp. Are people that blind? Do THEY not ask questions? I do. It is hard for me to follow leadership except by example and Al and his type of person are dumping sewage into the Chicago River, driving big cars, private jets and are often the worst offenders on an individual basis in our culture. Explain to me why I should believe them again? I will not buy off on things just because they seem to fit a “Hate America-Hate Capitalism” agenda.

By BCB on 03.09.08 8:46 am

Make no mistake. My questions regarding Al and his action are not rooted in political party affiliation. I will criticize McCain when he attacks those who aren’t conservative, I will question how much I will listen to Dan Rather when he tells me to verify sources. And of course, I will probably not be going to any temperance lectures by Ted Kennedy. It is the “do as I say and not as I do” mentality that pervades the global warming movement. Maybe the movement needs to clean house before I am mandated to clean my emissions so that we know we are only getting GOOD information, not anecdotal, bent or downright disinformation. You have to admit there is WAY too much of that out there that definitely clouds any real discussion.

By BCB on 03.09.08 12:11 pm

I always love to hear the verbal impact of 7 BILLION TONS OF GREENHOUSE GAS. Always makes me think of Dr. Evil with his pinky up to his lip for some reason. Catha, for sake comparison could you give the readers the total atmospheric volume that way we might be able to have a little perspective including those evil greenhouse gasses along with those other more friendly huggy, smily gasses (We’ll call them “Yes We Can Gasses”) so that 7 BILLION TONS might not keep up us awake tonight.

By Malcolm Tent on 03.09.08 2:39 pm

Terry, what exactly do you want me to respond to in that previous post? Rick Forman’s inability to tell the North Pole from the South Pole, or his idiotic suggestion that the coldest winter in 15 years is somehow “record setting cold”?

My goal here is not to persuade the closed-minded. I have no doubt that you all can keep arguing endlessly, since your intent is merely obstructionism, not a pursuit of truth. I offer a rational counterpoint in hopes that lurkers can tell that your mockery of this serious issue is just emotional and not actually relevant to the science.

BCB is correct that we are just guessing about what impact our air pollution might have, but our guesses are far more educated than he cares to admit. I’ve seen models that predict a 10 degree rise under worse-case scenarios a century from now, but not a rise that significant this soon. If someone predicted that back in the 1980s, they were obviously way off base. Fortunately, there have been major advances in computing power, understanding of atmospheric cycles and more since then, and the best current guesses make no such projections. If BCB had some integrity, he’d confront quality models rather than hand picking some lame, stale crap to beat up on.

Malcolm, look up the volume of the atmosphere for yourself. I’m not doing your homework. 7 billion tons per year is more than the atmosphere can absorb, as the radical increase in atmospheric CO2 plainly proves.

By Catha on 03.09.08 8:03 pm

I don’t know if I found any integrity, but here are some people that call into question the integrity of a lot of the “facts” that people cite as to why I have to abandon any hope of an industrial, capitalist culture. Here is SOME of what I found. Now I know that someone out there will call these people “crackpots” or say that they work for someone with an agenda, well that works on both sides.

Alan Caruba

——————————————————————————–

The Year the Global Warming Hoax Died
By Alan Caruba
MichNews.com
Sep 3, 2007

When did the global warming hoax die? Historians are likely to pinpoint 2007. It will take another decade to insure it cannot be revived, but the avalanche of scientific studies and the cumulative impact of scientists who have publicly joined those who debunked the lies on which it has been based will be noted as the tipping point.

It took some forty years to unmask the Piltdown Man hoax that began in 1912 alleging that the skull of an ancient ancestor of man had been found in England. Any number of British anthropologists unwittingly contributed to the hoax by confirming the authenticity of the skull until it was found that the jaw of an orangutan had been cunningly attached. The unmasking of “global warming” has taken less than half that time.

The hoax has mainly been a creation of the United Nations Environmental Program and took off in earnest with the 1992 Earth Summit. It culminated in 1997 with the Kyoto Climate Control Protocol, an agreement to reduce the generation of carbon dioxide, a “greenhouse” gas (CO2) said to be the cause of an accelerated warming of the earth. By 2005, 140 nations had ratified the pact, agreeing to reduce CO2 emissions. Notably exempt from the pact were nations such as China and India. Few, if any, nations have ever met the limits that require reductions in CO2 production, attributed to the use of so-called “fossil fuels” such as oil, natural gas, and coal.

The United States refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and, at one point, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution rejecting it. This has not kept the U.S. from spending billions on so-called “climate research” intended to address climate change with the aim of reducing or capturing CO2 emissions. Had that money been devoted to maintenance of the nation’s infrastructure, tragic events such as the collapse of the Minnesota bridge over the Mississippi might have been averted.

In August, it was revealed that NASA scientists had corrected an error that resulted in 1934 replacing 1998 as the warmest year on record in the U.S. Repeatedly the data put forth to justify the global warming hoax has been debunked.

As Dr. David Wojick recently noted, “The real significance is that such a small correction can make such a big difference. The reason is that the much touted warming of the last three decades is merely a return to earlier warm times, after an equally long period of cooling…There is no way this pattern constitutes a warming trend…In short, there is no evidence for human-induced global warming in the U.S. temperature record.”

“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing a new study that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research authored by a Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. A former Harvard physicist, Dr. Lubos Motl, said the new study has reduced global warming fear-mongers to “playing the children’s game to scare each other.”

The new research concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as a series of reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has asserted for years. The IPCC reports have been increasingly dismissed as deliberate distortions of data that amount to little more than propaganda to advance the “global warming” hoax.

Having testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, paleoclimate scientist, Bob Carter, noted in a June 18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped. There has been little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 17 percent. Thus, the connection between CO2 and “global warming”, the key to the claims that it is occurring and will increase has been proven wrong.

Dr. Roy Spencer, another critic of the global warming hoax, has noted that “At least 80 percent of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems.” The computer models used by advocates of global warming have been unable to include the actions and impact of clouds, thus rendering them seriously flawed.

Prior to and during 2007, one research study after another revealed that the central premise of “global warming” lacks any scientific merit. One by Dr. Tim Patterson concluded that, “The earth temperature does respond to the solar cycle as confirmed by numerous studies.” The solar cycle is known to be about eleven years in length and reflects increased or decreased sunspot (magnetic storms) activity. It is the Sun that largely determines the Earth’s temperature, which is never the same throughout the planet, given seasonal and solar changes.

In 2007, meteorologist Anthony Watts who led a team of researchers revealed that, “The U.S. National Climate Data Center is in the middle of a scandal. Their global observing network, the heart and soul of surface weather measurement, is a disaster.” It had been discovered that many of the measuring stations were placed in locations such as on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels, beside heat exhaust vents, and even attached to hot chimneys and above outdoor grills!

By BCB on 03.09.08 9:09 pm

Catha,I know the diff between the poles. It’s the agenda between the earlobes of some I question. Pictures of a polar bear sitting on a chunk of ice in the middle of summer in the Arctic to elicit donations from unsuspecting fools does not represent the AGW movement well. Nor the false claims that these cuddly looking bears will soon be extinct.

Why is it that when Katrina hit the AGW crowd screamed global warming although the climatologists warned against making such claims. Yet when the U.S. is experiencing one of the worst winters on record the same AGW crowd dismisses it as being an anamoly or in some instances attributes it to AGW?

It’s a no win situation for those seeking reliable sustained data patterns instead of swallowing the Kool-aid. They are viewed the same as the first explorers who set out to prove the earth was round while the “consensus” held the earth was flat. Anyone who questions the concept of AGW is regarded as a heretic now.

And before you start berating the 700 “scientists” mentioned in the report above take a look at the so called consensus of IPCC “scientists”, their backgrounds, field of study and monetary motivation. I picked 15 at random. None were scientists but politicians or economists.

The result of the AGW manifesto has the potential to bomb this nation economically back to the stone age. With the exception of those like Al Gore who will profit quickly from the trading of phony carbon credits until the collapse. That seems to be goal for these radical environmentalist orgs. But the genie is out of the bottle and the public is not going to go quietly into the night for a theory. They like their IPODs, vacations, HDTV and internet too much.

Sorry, I’ve been using the incorrect term. It’s not global warming nor even anthropogenic global warming. The new term is climate change. Evidently not enough people were drinking the Kool-aid so the advocates for mass economic suicide began using a new term for their political agenda to scare up the panic.

By Rick Forman on 03.10.08 12:12 am

If you boys want to argue about carbon credits or polar bears, find a venue where someone cares. I’m just trying to remind everyone that the fundamental issue here is that our emissions have significantly altered the composition of the atmosphere. That is not a forecast or a prediction, it is here-and-now fact.

You don’t dispute it, of course, you just change the subject. There is plenty of hysteria on both sides, and you are obviously fond of your brand. Claiming that investments in energy efficiency will return us to the Stone Age is far more irrational and unsupported than anything Al Gore has ever claimed. Make fun of him all you want, the bottom line is that even Dick Cheney’s buddies in the coal industry are taking emissions seriously. You are part of the dwindling minority that refuses to recognize the problem.

By Catha on 03.10.08 11:31 am

Every single global warming denialist here has stated denial of the science because of a political agenda of fear of the “AGW Manifesto” (whatever??). None have produced any mainstream data based arguments by unimpeachable sources. For example, every single person cited by BCB is suspect and can be debunked here. It is pathetic that an authoritarian politically motivated fear can determine peoples’ critical thinking and ability to reason logically. If Al Gore says it, then it must be wrong, because he makes money and flies on jets. I’m not sure if it’s willful ignorance or some sort of Gore derangement syndrome because you are so jealous that he has been correct all along. Grasping at straws like “expanded ice for one year” and “700 scientists” just makes you lok dumb.

By Pam on 03.10.08 3:27 pm

Catha–you obviously have things quite mixed up. You are the commenter who needs a new venue, not “the boys” who don’t believe in the concocted science.

There are numerous scientists out there who don’t agree with your emissions warming theory, there are numerous that believe warming is related to solar activity.

Claiming that those who disagree with you here on this site should find a new place to argue is not effective or convincing.

And Pam, if this were scientific FACT, then why isn’t there 100% agreement? Are there still scientists out there arguing against the effects of gravity?

By Terry on 03.10.08 6:09 pm

“It is pathetic that an authoritarian politically motivated fear can determine peoples’ critical thinking and ability to reason logically.”

Authoritarian? Who is following who here? Are we to blindly walk off into an economic abyss while our competition (at best) or enemies (worst) take advantage of us?

Politically motivated? Many of those that carry the banner for the international global warming group also hate America. Coincidence? Why are so many global warming concerts magically transformed into anti-Bush, anti-America rants? Why does that bastion of objectivity and global justice want the United States to ratify the treaty and work to drop OUR emmissions while China and India (our chief competition in the world market in many areas) get a free ride? Why don’t we make it interesting and tie both of our hands behind our back? No, nothing politically motivated there and the fear is of the United States. Some of the biggest adherants of this fear doctrine are here in this country.

Since I have had my integrity questioned, all of my sources are to be debunked easily and my attacks on anyone famous that might “Talk the talk, but not walk the walk” mean that I have some derangment syndrome. Ignorant? I doubt it, I actually try to practice what I preach. And I do always look for new information, how else do you think I found out how much Captain Planet had profitted? Or did you just want that to be a secret?

Or I could use the fall back position of name calling when I disagree. Instead, I try to do research and talk about it, not just call people stupid names. In other words, I try to make a point to continue the dialogue.

I am not a stupidhead- you’re a stupidhead -sticks out tongue-

By BCB on 03.10.08 6:22 pm

Why don’t I leave the part-time Carthage resident alone for a while and use someone else to show why it is hard to buy off on just how important all of this is.

No one has ever told us that our changes would come cheap. Some have told us of ways to make this all better by paying for these modern day sins through the purchase of “carbon credits.” Does this make sense? Will I be ok if I plant some trees? What kind would be best?

So while I am going to have to pay more for what I want and wish to do or even to eat since the ethanol production is driving up food costs, there are those that are actively working to destroy the environment. Nope, not gonna name the one that you think I am.

In 2005, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told a United Nations conference on the environment “Today, California will be a leader in the fight against global warming,”

“I say the debate is over. We know the science, we see the threat and we know the time for action is now,” he said.

“Time will tell whether the governor’s ‘Global Action Plan’ is really ‘action, action, action,’ or nothing more than ‘talk, talk, talk,”‘ said State Treasurer Phil Angelides

Is this “action”? As the Los Angeles Times reported last week, the governor has been spending nearly every night in his Brentwood mansion, shuttling between Sacramento and Southern California in his private jet.
“The question is how can I be with my family, because that is extremely important, to be with my kids. They are all growing up. They are in their teens. They need their father around. … I felt it took a toll on my family not being at home every day. So what I am trying to do is find that balance between the family and running the state.”
I know that there are many people in this country who wish they could spend more time with their families. Threat? Time for action? Leader in the fight against global warming? I think I need to do some REAL catching up here to get to the Gov’s level of environmental sensitivity.
I think Rule number seven is being changed out in the barn.
John Travolta: “Everyone can do their bit. But I don’t know if it’s not too late already. We have to think about alternative methods of fuel.”
John Travolta is doing his bit. He OWNS 5 jets. Oh and his “bit” to global warming is ONLY an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions in one year.
We all know that we could come up with quite the sum of eco-hypocrites if we wanted to. Is it any wonder that I am just not that worried? Do I really need to take fashion advise from these emperors with no clothes? Or are we going to just live with Rule 7 being changed here on our Animal Farm?

By BCB on 03.10.08 9:14 pm

What economic abyss are you talking about? Under the ‘pollution president’ environmental regulations have been rolled back in exchange for energy company profits – forget about global warming, what do we get? Mercury contaminated fish and polluted water. The price of a barrel of oil has nearly quadrupled under Bush and you’re worried about an economic abyss caused by ‘the liberals’?
What a joke.

By William on 03.10.08 10:33 pm

William: So what are you saying about the price of oil?

The lion’s share of the blame clearly rests with environmentalists like yourself who feel so accomplished that you put up roadblocks to new refineries, exploration, or drilling.

As IBD says, it’s like having tons of cash in the bank but charging everything to high interest credit cards. We’re sitting on plentiful natural gas and oil reserves, but yet your lobby feels holy and clean buy forcing us to import.

You of all folks, William, ought to be happy with $108 a barrel oil. You gave it to us.

And as far as pollution, compare us to the rest of the world. We clean up our messes. And a lot of folks get plenty rich doing it, too.

You offer zero solutions–just your typical bean bag rhetoric where you toss names without any facts to back up your allegations.

And as far as energy “profits” of which you write, no one profits more from energy use than your government. Head over to the National Taxpayer Union website and you can find how much gov’t profits off of gas taxes. They’ve even got a nice little chart comparing oil profits versus gov’t revenue.

By Terry on 03.11.08 4:57 am

Terry, my gripe with “the boys” is not that they disagree with me; it’s that they aren’t even conversing with me. I haven’t said a thing about Katrina or carbon credits or any of the crap they keep harping on. In fact, I frequently chide my environmentalist friends for blaming Katrina on global warming, just like I chide you for using weather events to advance your agenda.

I’m not trying to stake out a political position, just a scientific position. I don’t own a mansion or a jet. I’ve never seen An Inconvenient Truth. I have been following climate science for about 20 years, however. In my opinion, many people on both sides of the public debate are missing the point.

Claiming that the Sun or some mysterious natural cycle is responsible for the observed warming trend misses the point. Those 700 scientists are 700 people who have missed the point. It is the observed trend in air pollution that is critical, and guess what? The Sun did not cause the huge spike in greenhouse gases over the past century. We did.

A scientific rebuttal of the consensus among climatologists would take the form of a credible model showing how the planet will absorb our emissions without flinching as those emissions rise to 10 and 15 billion tons per year, year after year. No such model exists.

A political rebuttal takes the form of foaming at the mouth about Al Gore. The conversation around here is strictly political and largely irrelevant to the science. Making fun of Al Gore is easy; figuring out how much air pollution our planet can take is hard.

By Catha on 03.11.08 10:16 am

Where are the gas station waiting lines?

By SemiPundit on 03.11.08 12:00 pm

http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=130951

Or am I going to be accused of being on a political rant again?

By BCB on 03.11.08 8:01 pm

Pam, nobody is denying global warming. People are denying that there is any human-caused component of global warming. Basically, the problem is that climate researchers saw more CO2 going into the atmosphere, and concluded that because extra CO2 can cause warming, that CO2 MUST BE the cause of the current warming. If you watch, Catha’s entire argument is based on that.

Unfortunately, scientific errors are never discarded easily. There’s too much money involved.

By Russell Nelson on 03.20.08 2:22 pm

[...] reading:NY Climate Conference: Journey to the Center of Warming SanityUnstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years Posted by Mark A. Rose at 10:22 AM 0 comments Links to this post Labels: [...]

By March, 2008 Archive « Right Minded Online on 08.08.08 6:11 pm

The temperature anomaly graph is much like the Mann hockey stick. It is a mathematical manipulation that hides the truth. Temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period were one to two degrees warmer than today and warming rates were similar.

By Richard Quinn on 04.23.10 9:28 am