Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny

[wes mantooth]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article

Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny

June 30, 2007
BY JAMES M. TAYLOR

In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.

If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.
A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.

Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past.

Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.

Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."

Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.

Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute.

[ruckstande]

He'll never change his tune because environmental extremists will listen to nothing but his garbage and threaten anyone with a dissenting opinion in his name. He's like a rock star for environmentalism.

[MrBogey]

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

Global temperatures have been rising. Find out the shocking reason why.

[caniseeyourtaint]

Science be damned! What next...the rains of fire and brimstone will be debunked. Harumph!

[Larz]

What the fuck is this guy talking about? Its been documented that huge chunks of the ice sheet have been breaking off, in 2005 something like 1/2 trillion tons. In Norway we have areas of permafrost that are turning into mudbogs.

Whether its man made, natural, or some combination of both, global warming and the resulting rise in sea levels is for real.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

It's the solar systems fault, maaan.

[Capt.Caveman]

I blame Bush....................why not we blame him for everything anyway

[bethm1b]

Mother earths way of flicking off those annoying human fucks.

[yellowstonesteve]

WTF is the Heartland Institute?

[Southpaw]

WTF is the Heartland Institute?

Right wing think tank/shill for the tobacco industry:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

[wes mantooth]

Right wing think tank/shill for the tobacco industry:


That they may be but the sources cited for this story are not.



.

[abudabit]

I blame the Jews.

[Larz]

That they may be but the sources cited for this story are not.


Call Me crazy but I prefer studies from organizations like NASA.

Sat Imagery of Arctic Sea Ice 1979 vs. 2005


http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z135/larz12126/seaice1979.jpg http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z135/larz12126/seaice2005red.jpg


"For the perennial ice to recover, sustained cooling is needed, especially during the summer period. This has not been the case over the last 20 years, as the satellite data show a warming trend in the Arctic, and it is not likely to be the case in the future, as climate models predict continued Arctic warming."

[Xyn]

It's Bill Clintons fault.

[BIV]

What the fuck is this guy talking about? Its been documented that huge chunks of the ice sheet have been breaking off, in 2005 something like 1/2 trillion tons. In Norway we have areas of permafrost that are turning into mudbogs.

Whether its man made, natural, or some combination of both, global warming and the resulting rise in sea levels is for real.
You wouldn't know it from the media bullshit, but real scientists don't agree with you. Most of them say it's a cycle and that we will all be laughing about this shit in 20 years when things are back to normal.

How this global warming bullshit has been allowed to propigate like it has is beyond me.

[Creampier]

Call Me crazy but I prefer studies from organizations like NASA.

Sat Imagery of Arctic Sea Ice 1979 vs. 2005


http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z135/larz12126/seaice1979.jpg http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z135/larz12126/seaice2005red.jpg


"For the perennial ice to recover, sustained cooling is needed, especially during the summer period. This has not been the case over the last 20 years, as the satellite data show a warming trend in the Arctic, and it is not likely to be the case in the future, as climate models predict continued Arctic warming."

Weird! Maybe I'm too shit hammered, but it looks like some ice was gained just north of NE Alaska and north central Canada? Am I wrong?

The chunk next to Russia though... that's a big drop!

[Sam_Adams]

If you read the studies you will find a lot of those glaciers they say are disappearing are actually NOT. They are losing ice around the edges but they are gaining mass because the central areas are growing thicker. Just because it looks like it's melting away because of a smaller perimeter doesn't mean that it's melting away.


I sure know we have global warming here. It's the middle of summer and it's been in the 80s with rain for three straight weeks here in the middle of the nation.

Nothing significant in this world is changing and we can't expect for things to stay constant. Earth is not constant. The only constant on this planet is change.

[BeerBelly]

in my part of tx in 1980 we saw temps of 116+ and then never saw it again.
Follow the money trail, who will benefit from this global warming pitch?

[wes mantooth]

Call Me crazy but I prefer studies from organizations like NASA.

Sat Imagery of Arctic Sea Ice 1979 vs. 2005


http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z135/larz12126/seaice1979.jpg http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z135/larz12126/seaice2005red.jpg


"For the perennial ice to recover, sustained cooling is needed, especially during the summer period. This has not been the case over the last 20 years, as the satellite data show a warming trend in the Arctic, and it is not likely to be the case in the future, as climate models predict continued Arctic warming."



Yeah, OK I'll use NASA as a source too. Even if it exists it may not have shit to do with human activity but try telling that to the alarmists.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/06/tech/main2891713.shtml


NASA Head Sorry For Global Warming Doubts
LOS ANGELES , June 6, 2007

(CBS/AP) The head of NASA told scientists and engineers that he regrets airing his personal views about global warming during a recent radio interview, according to a video of the meeting obtained by The Associated Press.

NASA administrator Michael Griffin said in the closed-door meeting Monday at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena that "unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it."

"All I can really do is apologize to all you guys ... I feel badly that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this," he said.

Griffin made headlines last week when he told a National Public Radio interviewer he wasn't sure global warming was a problem.

"I have no doubt that ... a trend of global warming exists," Griffin said on NPR. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."

Griffin added: "I guess I would ask which human beings, where and when, are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

The radio interview angered some climate scientists, who called his remarks ignorant.

An international panel this year predicted that uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions could drive up global temperatures and trigger heat waves, devastating droughts and super storms. Observations by NASA satellites show evidence of rapidly melting glaciers and shrinking of critical marine plant life due to warmer seas.

Griffin reiterated that NASA's job was to provide scientific data on global warming and leave it up to policy makers to decide what to do with it.

Griffin told JPL workers he tried to separate his opinions during the NPR interview, but that it got "lost in the shuffle."

"Doing media interviews is an art. Their goal is usually to generate controversy because it sells interviews and papers and my goal is usually to avoid controversy," he said.

© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


.

[Larz]

Weird! Maybe I'm too shit hammered, but it looks like some ice was gained just north of NE Alaska and north central Canada? Am I wrong?

The chunk next to Russia though... that's a big drop!

Nice observations... yes you're absolutely right. Remember that you can't look at the situation like a melting ice cube where losses are 100% uniform. There will be losses in some areas with small gains in others and this is how the good folks at the heartland institute are able to manipulate data by focusing on the small gains rather than net losses.


Here is NASA's report on polar ice sheets if anyone cares: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/ice_sheets.html

And the Cliff's notes: "The survey shows that there was a net loss of ice from the combined polar ice sheets between 1992 and 2002 and a corresponding rise in sea level. The survey documents for the first time extensive thinning of the West Antarctic ice shelves and an increase in snowfall in the interior of Greenland, as well as thinning at the edges. All are signs of a warming climate predicted by computer models."

[Larz]

Yeah, OK I'll use NASA as a source too. Even if it exists it may not have shit to do with human activity but try telling that to the alarmists.

Why the bait and switch? The whole gist of your original article was to demonstrate that global warming isn't happening, who said anything about causes?

The data about warming trends especially regarding arctic and polar ice is fucking conclusive, the causes are up for debate.

[ruckstande]

Call Me crazy but I prefer studies from organizations like NASA.

Sat Imagery of Arctic Sea Ice 1979 vs. 2005


http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z135/larz12126/seaice1979.jpg http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z135/larz12126/seaice2005red.jpg



Okay that appears to be a huge chunk of ice lost so should there be water at my front door right now seeing that I'm about 60 miles from the ocean? At least should the Jersey shore be under water?

[wes mantooth]

Why the bait and switch? The whole gist of your original article was to demonstrate that global warming isn't happening, who said anything about causes?

The data about warming trends especially regarding arctic and polar ice is fucking conclusive, the causes are up for debate.

This is the first two paragraphs and what I think is the main gist of the article. It's not saying whether global warming exists or not. It's saying that there is data that refutes the claims of an "Inconvenient Truth". There is only one side in this debate that refuses to look at any other alternatives. They are so certain that their view is right that they refuse to look at any other data that contradicts their stance. My perspective of the article was that it's showing other data from reputable sources that should make a logical and reasonable person take note and maybe back away a bit from their zealotry. I'm not sure what Gore's motives are but I think he cares more about his legacy and power than he does about the environment. He's the Mike Nifong of environmentalists.

I think the part in bold more accurately tells what the article is about. Notice that it doesn't say anything about global warming not happening? In fact it says that there should be a cooperative and honest discussion about it. The bait and switch part is all in your head sir.


In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.

If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.
A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.

[Schmed]

If dinosaurs were still around they'd be complaining about global cooling.

[ern]

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Its true, it was a piece of an alien spaceship that hit chicken little on the head. He saved the day in the end.

[BigDickGuzinya]

Call Me crazy but I prefer studies from organizations like NASA.

Sat Imagery of Arctic Sea Ice 1979 vs. 2005


http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z135/larz12126/seaice1979.jpg http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z135/larz12126/seaice2005red.jpg


"For the perennial ice to recover, sustained cooling is needed, especially during the summer period. This has not been the case over the last 20 years, as the satellite data show a warming trend in the Arctic, and it is not likely to be the case in the future, as climate models predict continued Arctic warming."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/sanandaji9.html
An interesting example of how media sometimes gets it wrong is how journalists reported that there had never been so little ice in the Arctic than in 2005. This claim was based on satellite images by NASA which showed that the geographic extent of the ice sheet had never been so small since measurement began in 1979. One must however keep in fact that about half of the ice in the Arctic melts each summer and that two months before this measurment the extent of the ice sheet was the same as the previous year. The problem is that satellite images show the surface of the ice but not the thickness.

[Fruit Monkey]

You know whatr bothers me most about that picture.

Not the part about we would be in Water World by now being im a 1/4 mile from the Ocean. Nor the part that other ice spots are 100% dead on the same. (like South of Alaska.)

But its the FACT THAT 26 YEARS LATER THE PICTURE IS OF THE SAME EXACT QUALITY! Im assuming we have made ZERO progress in film developement in those years.

[poopiebottoms]

I don't understand why some people argue so vehemently against the possibility of global warming.

[Larz]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/sanandaji9.html
An interesting example of how media sometimes gets it wrong is how journalists reported that there had never been so little ice in the Arctic than in 2005. This claim was based on satellite images by NASA which showed that the geographic extent of the ice sheet had never been so small since measurement began in 1979. One must however keep in fact that about half of the ice in the Arctic melts each summer and that two months before this measurment the extent of the ice sheet was the same as the previous year. The problem is that satellite images show the surface of the ice but not the thickness.

Ehh heh.. Lewrockwell.com? This guy doesn't even understand that the point of this particular NASA study was to only track surface Ice and nothing else. Instead he's going off on shit that was never part of the study such as ice thickness. The part I highlighted in red is just plain ridiculous. How much of a difference is there going to be year over year in a 26 year study??? Another example of blatant misdirection.


Here's why surface ice was the focus of the study:

"Because of its light appearance, ice reflects much of the sun's radiation back into space whereas dark ocean water absorbs more of the sun's energy. As ice melts, more exposed ocean water changes the Earth's albedo, or fraction of energy reflected away from the planet. This leads to increased absorption of energy that further warms the planet in what is called ice-albedo feedback."

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/arcticice_decline.html

[BIV]

I don't understand why some people argue so vehemently against the possibility of global warming.
Because this bullshit is going to cost us vast amounts of money while continuing to slow down our progress all for junk science and the ability to "feel good."

[Trucker Pat]

When are people going to realise that global warming and cooling is a natural cycle that the planet goes through every few centuries? A warming period took place in the middle ages, about the time the vikings settled Greenland (named after the rolling grasslands). A mini ice age hit europe and wiped out most of those settlements at the same time. This little ice age was responsiable for spurring on the fir trade in north america. We're just in a warming cycle....

I also read that not only are the polar ice caps melting on Earth, but their melting on Mars too. How are we causing that too?

[yellowstonesteve]

Because this bullshit is going to cost us vast amounts of money while continuing to slow down our progress all for junk science and the ability to "feel good."

since when has this nation ever cared about spending vast amounts of money? maybe if the pusseys in congress forced the president to get us out of this "war" that we're stuck in (like they promised, not backing down like an abused puppy and striking the deadlines, which weren't even real but thats another issue, out of the last funding bill) money wouldn't be an issue.

and, how is the science "junk"?

[Larz]

and, how is the science "junk"?

It's junk because its coming out of NASA and JPL rather than homeschooling textbooks and Rush Limbaugh's newsletter.

As a republican the one thing I'll never understand is the Anti-science faction of the right. I'm a civil engineer and consider myself to have a pretty decent background in science. One of my core areas of study was soil mechanics. when I see areas that have been permafrost since the ice age turning to into huge swaths of mud in Norway firsthand, then read reports of the same thing happening in Alaska, Russia, and other regions along the arctic, theres no way to deny whats going on.

[Fr. Dougal]

http://ask.yahoo.com/20070419.html

Dear Yahoo!:
Are cow farts really that bad for the environment?
Farmer Ted
Dear Farmer Ted:
Cows provide us with milk, meat, and footballs. Alas, all that fun and functionality comes at a price -- a very gaseous one.

This article from The Independent explains the seriousness of the problem. The United Nations has declared the methane from cow emissions the "greatest threat to the climate, forests, and wildlife." Livestock emissions are responsible for 18% of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. That's more than all forms of transportation put together.

So, aside from corking every heifer in the world, how can humans address this? The Straight Dope mentions that administrating antibiotics to cattle could reduce their methane output. But the site goes on to explain that these antibiotics are already in use in the United States. Furthermore, they'd be difficult to administer in less affluent countries.

Truth be told, many sites explain that this is a huge problem, but few offer ideas on solutions. That's understandable because there are clearly no easy answers. As the human population grows, the demand for meat will also rise. That means more cows and more methane. Here's hoping scientists will find an answer soon.

[Fr. Dougal]

And this:


Climate Cassandras say the facts are clear and the case is closed. (Sen. Barbara Boxer: "We're not going to take a lot of time debating this anymore.") The consensus catechism about global warming has six tenets: 1. Global warming is happening. 2. It is our (humanity's, but especially America's) fault. 3. It will continue unless we mend our ways. 4. If it continues we are in grave danger. 5. We know how to slow or even reverse the warming. 6. The benefits from doing that will far exceed the costs.

Only the first tenet is clearly true, and only in the sense that the Earth warmed about 0.7 degrees Celsius in the 20th century. We do not know the extent to which human activity caused this. The activity is economic growth, the wealth-creation that makes possible improved well-being—better nutrition, medicine, education, etc. How much reduction of such social goods are we willing to accept by slowing economic activity in order to (try to) regulate the planet's climate?

We do not know how much we must change our economic activity to produce a particular reduction of warming. And we do not know whether warming is necessarily dangerous. Over the millennia, the planet has warmed and cooled for reasons that are unclear but clearly were unrelated to SUVs. Was life better when ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there? Are we sure the climate at this particular moment is exactly right, and that it must be preserved, no matter the cost?

It could cost tens of trillions (in expenditures and foregone economic growth, here and in less-favored parts of the planet) to try to fine-tune the planet's temperature. We cannot know if these trillions would purchase benefits commensurate with the benefits that would have come from social wealth that was not produced.

In 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol's essential provisions were known, a "sense of the Senate" resolution declared opposition to any agreement that would do what the protocol aims to do. The Senate warned against any agreement that would require significant reductions of greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States and other developed nations without mandating "specific scheduled commitments" on the part of the 129 "developing" countries, which include China, India, Brazil and South Korea—the second, fourth, 10th and 11th largest economies. Nothing Americans can do to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions will make a significant impact on the global climate while every 10 days China fires up a coal-fueled generating plant big enough to power San Diego. China will construct 2,200 new coal plants by 2030.

[bethm1b]

Wether you believe in global warming or not, all this pollution can't be good.

[Fr. Dougal]

Wether you believe in global warming or not, all this pollution can't be good.

Agreed. It's amazing how different the air smells in other countries. I love going to Ireland and breathing the fresh air in the countryside. A few years ago, though, I went to Prague expecting the same thing -- and it smelled like the typical NYC air back home.

[ruckstande]

The only down side to global warming is that it is going to kill people, not the Earth so who gives a fuck. The planet needs to purge itself of some parasites and nature will allow this to happen. Are we so fucking important that every human must survive till infinity?

[Grem]

hahaha Ricky Gervais and Chris Rock were joking about with the host on Live Earth on the BBC and Chris said "White people are getting so tanned they be calling each other niggaz" and amazingly enough everyone laughed! I never thought he would have gotten away with it at 6pm on BBC 1. At least the UK still isn't as politicaly correct as the USA.

[Kugzilla]

If dinosaurs were still around they'd be complaining about global cooling.

We all know that the smart dinosaurs left on their spaceships before their kind died out. It was on Star Trek.

[yellowstonesteve]

And this:

I am aware of and completely understand all of these arguments. But, since theres not really any way anyone could argue the idea that burning these fossil fuels like we have for the past 100 or so years can't possibly have a negative side effect, wouldn't it be prudent to make some changes and plans now to stop doing that? even if its "just in case"? how is it that the major piece of technology from the industrial era (the internal combustion engine) is the only thing that hasn't seen any scientific advancements at all. The only thing that has changed are the things they keep placing around it, but at its core it is still the same old engine.

and as far as the cow farts goes, thats simple: eat more beef :action-sm

[BIV]

It's junk because its coming out of NASA and JPL rather than homeschooling textbooks and Rush Limbaugh's newsletter.

As a republican the one thing I'll never understand is the Anti-science faction of the right. I'm a civil engineer and consider myself to have a pretty decent background in science. One of my core areas of study was soil mechanics. when I see areas that have been permafrost since the ice age turning to into huge swaths of mud in Norway firsthand, then read reports of the same thing happening in Alaska, Russia, and other regions along the arctic, theres no way to deny whats going on.
You are being fed bullshit. The majority of the claims are just not true and what is true has never been accurately connected to so-called green house gasses. How arrogant human beings are that we think we can have any real effect on the planet. At worst it's a long term cycle that we can do nothing about. Most likely it's a short term cycle that's going to make you all look like retards in 20 years.

This crap remainds me of the "Oh Noes" hole in the ozone layer we were so worried about in the 80's. You know, the same hole in the ozone layer that is almost completely gone now?

As for the costs of this vs. the war, the war has cost me, the average citizen, at worst some extra money at the pump. But take a good look at Jersey and how their power bills are going to double or more in the next few years. It has to in order to cover the costs of these completely unneeded regulations.

And don't lump me in with the Limbaugh retards and the religious crowd (which is what you were implying by the home-school crack). I'm a moderate and an athiest that actually believes at looking at science rather than wishful thinking. Most of the world's scientists, especially outside of the U.S., agree that global warming does not stand up to scientific scrutiny but the hippies in the news media are more worried about feeling good because they "did something for the Earth maaaaan" then actually reporting the facts.

It's a classic case of "Correlation does not imply causation". Just because I coughed this morning just before the phone rang, it doesn't mean my cough caused the phone to ring. Likewise, just because the rate of polution has gone up while the weather is supposedly getting increasingly temperamental it doesn't mean one is causing the other. That's aside from the fact that there is no real proof that the weather is doing anything out of the ordinary.

Is pollution bad? Sure. But if everyone stopped driving the air would clear up in a month and smell real good, we would all feel better about ourselves and it would have no effect on the overall environment.

It's been said before, but it's worth repeating. The eruption of Mt. Saint Helens released more "global worming causing gasses" into the air than human beings have since the beginning of the industrial revolution. If we are really having that much of an effect then the ice caps should have all melted in 1980 after the eruption and we'd all be dead now.

[BIV]

This is a great interview you should listen to. The guy does a good job of quoteing sources for his info, at least as much as you can do in an interview.

http://sea.bonnint.net/easterbrook.mp3

You may have to cut and paste that.

EDIT: This one is good too.
http://sea.bonnint.net/easterbrook.mp3

[yellowstonesteve]

You are being fed bullshit. The majority of the claims are just not true and what is true has never been accurately connected to so-called green house gasses. How arrogant human beings are that we think we can have any real effect on the planet. At worst it's a long term cycle that we can do nothing about. Most likely it's a short term cycle that's going to make you all look like retards in 20 years.

This crap remainds me of the "Oh Noes" hole in the ozone layer we were so worried about in the 80's. You know, the same hole in the ozone layer that is almost completely gone now?

As for the costs of this vs. the war, the war has cost me, the average citizen, at worst some extra money at the pump. But take a good look at Jersey and how their power bills are going to double or more in the next few years. It has to in order to cover the costs of these completely unneeded regulations.

And don't lump me in with the Limbaugh retards and the religious crowd (which is what you were implying by the home-school crack). I'm a moderate and an athiest that actually believes at looking at science rather than wishful thinking. Most of the world's scientists, especially outside of the U.S., agree that global warming does not stand up to scientific scrutiny but the hippies in the news media are more worried about feeling good because they "did something for the Earth maaaaan" then actually reporting the facts.

It's a classic case of "Correlation does not imply causation". Just because I coughed this morning just before the phone rang, it doesn't mean my cough caused the phone to ring. Likewise, just because the rate of polution has gone up while the weather is supposedly getting increasingly temperamental it doesn't mean one is causing the other. That's aside from the fact that there is no real proof that the weather is doing anything out of the ordinary.

Is pollution bad? Sure. But if everyone stopped driving the air would clear up in a month and smell real good, we would all feel better about ourselves and it would have no effect on the overall environment.

It's been said before, but it's worth repeating. The eruption of Mt. Saint Helens released more "global worming causing gasses" into the air than human beings have since the beginning of the industrial revolution. If we are really having that much of an effect then the ice caps should have all melted in 1980 after the eruption and we'd all be dead now.

so, we should never look for anything better or more efficient than the internal combustion engine? is the oil & coal supply unlimited? wouldn't it be nice to tell the arabs to fuck off, we don't need your oil? change is bad?

[Larz]

You are being fed bullshit. The majority of the claims are just not true and what is true has never been accurately connected to so-called green house gasses. How arrogant human beings are that we think we can have any real effect on the planet. At worst it's a long term cycle that we can do nothing about. Most likely it's a short term cycle that's going to make you all look like retards in 20 years.

This crap remainds me of the "Oh Noes" hole in the ozone layer we were so worried about in the 80's. You know, the same hole in the ozone layer that is almost completely gone now?

As for the costs of this vs. the war, the war has cost me, the average citizen, at worst some extra money at the pump. But take a good look at Jersey and how their power bills are going to double or more in the next few years. It has to in order to cover the costs of these completely unneeded regulations.

And don't lump me in with the Limbaugh retards and the religious crowd (which is what you were implying by the home-school crack). I'm a moderate and an athiest that actually believes at looking at science rather than wishful thinking. Most of the world's scientists, especially outside of the U.S., agree that global warming does not stand up to scientific scrutiny but the hippies in the news media are more worried about feeling good because they "did something for the Earth maaaaan" then actually reporting the facts.

It's a classic case of "Correlation does not imply causation". Just because I coughed this morning just before the phone rang, it doesn't mean my cough caused the phone to ring. Likewise, just because the rate of polution has gone up while the weather is supposedly getting increasingly temperamental it doesn't mean one is causing the other. That's aside from the fact that there is no real proof that the weather is doing anything out of the ordinary.

Is pollution bad? Sure. But if everyone stopped driving the air would clear up in a month and smell real good, we would all feel better about ourselves and it would have no effect on the overall environment.

It's been said before, but it's worth repeating. The eruption of Mt. Saint Helens released more "global worming causing gasses" into the air than human beings have since the beginning of the industrial revolution. If we are really having that much of an effect then the ice caps should have all melted in 1980 after the eruption and we'd all be dead now.

Take a step back from your hang-up on whats causing it. I for one don't subscribe to any particular theory on causes and its definently outside my area of expertise. The one thing thats conclusive is that parts of the arctic are warming and the ramifications should be studied in detail.

The problem is that resistance to even acknowledging that something is happening borders on fanatacism. Civil Engineering journals have multiple articles on oil and transport companies working in Alaska that are having problems with changes in terrain due to permafrost thaw as it relates to piplenes, railroads, and other structures.

Here's a decent layman's description of the problems caused by thaw.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4120755.stm

"The observations reiterate the recent findings of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report, which attributed the northern polar region's summer sea-ice loss and permafrost thaw to dramatic warming over the past half-century.

Thawing permafrost can cause buildings and roads to droop, and pipelines to crack."

If you're going to argue that the hard data is really just harmless non-sense drummed up by hippies with an agenda, all it shows me is that your stance is being shaped at least in part by ideology.

[Larz]

so, we should never look for anything better or more efficient than the internal combustion engine? is the oil & coal supply unlimited? wouldn't it be nice to tell the arabs to fuck off, we don't need your oil? change is bad?

Iceland has reached the 100% renewable mark for electricity generation through a combination of hydro + geothermal power. Granted they only have a population of 300,000 but regardless, 100% renewable 0 emissions (with plenty of power to spare) is the holy grail of power generation and we should be paying more attention to it. They also have a longterm plan to be completely energy independent (zero petroleum based fuel imports) in 40 years.

[Capt.Caveman]

warming shmarming


AEROSOL 4 EVERYONE

[Jim T.]

I don't understand why some people argue so vehemently against the possibility of global warming.

I don't understand why some people argue so vehemently that there is no other possibility.

[izzy izkowitz]

"Is Al Gore Willing to Put His Money Where His Mouth Is?
Friday, July 06, 2007

By Brit Hume



Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:

Forecasting Bet

Last week we told you about an expert in forecasting who challenged Al Gore to a $10,000 bet over who could more accurately predict global temperature increases.

Professor Scott Armstrong contends that most climate change forecasts use bad methodology, and that global temps will not rise dramatically as Gore predicts.

Now the professor has received his answer from Gore — thanks, but no thanks.

A Gore representative said the former vice president is too busy to take on any new projects at this time.

Environmental Concerts

Gore's Live Earth concerts are set for tomorrow at several sites across the globe.

But now thePeople for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is furious that the concerts will feature vendors who sell hamburgers and hot dogs.

PETA says selling meat at an environmental concert is like selling cigarettes at an anti-cancer fundraiser. PETA campaigner Yvonne Taylor says in Life Style Extra — "There's no such thing as a meat-eating environmentalist. It would be hypocritical to be serving meat at an event for the environment, and if you really cared about the environment, you wouldn't be eating meat in the first place."

A U.N. report says the meat packing industry, with transportation, preparation of feed and then all the methane emitted by the animals creates more greenhouse gases than all the cars, trucks, ships and planes in the world combined."

food for thought?

[SatansCheerledr]

Is it warm in here or is it just me?

[BIV]

so, we should never look for anything better or more efficient than the internal combustion engine? is the oil & coal supply unlimited? wouldn't it be nice to tell the arabs to fuck off, we don't need your oil? change is bad?

You misunderstand me. I don't object to getting off of oil. I think that is a good thing. What I object to is the scare tactics and the "oh noes the world is going to end" bullshit that is just not true. The point is that there is not a crisis and no rush. You want to get rid of dependance on foreign oil (this can be done without getting off oil, BTW) then I accept that. That's a good reason. You want to make the air easier to breath and stop pollution from spills? Fine, I'm down. But stop trying to sell Global Warming, it's a crock of shit.

Since I doubt anyone actually took the time to listen to the interviews I posted (the second one is the best), let me make a few points.

*The current warming trend started in 1910, well before we started dumping any significant amount of crap into the atmo.
*Temp increases are still no where near the levels of the time frame called the "Medieval Warm Period" that lasted from 700 AD to 1300 AD.
*Since the "Medieval Warm Period" there have been three cooling periods, one of them drastic, and we are currently on the third warming period since then.
*Our peak warming in this period was in 1998. We have not reached those temps since. Again, since 1998, there has been no warming.
*The entire global warming movement, including the Kyoto Agreement, is based off a projection graph referred to as the "Hockey Stick Graph." This graph has been repeatedly debunked as using bad information, bad sources, leaving out information that didn't support the conclusion and overall inaccurate. Yet policy is based on this.
*Current projections from scientists not using the hockey stick graph show the current warming trend ending in 10-20 years and peaking well below the highest temps in the "Medieval Warm Period". Overall temps may never even reach the levels achieved in 1998.
*Sea levels will likey rise about 8 inches in the next hundred years. This would be normal and consistant with sea level rise since the end of the big ice age. Sea levels may drop soon after. Note that this is at odds with the rediculous statements made by Al Gore and global warming supporters that sea levels will rise 16 inches to 20 feet in the next 100 years.

I beg everyone to go to this fantastic link and read about this. It's extremely well sourced and backed by real science.
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm