About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

WSJ's Freeman: "[T]here hasn't been any [global] warming since 1998"

November 21, 2009 2:31 pm ET

From the November 21 edition of Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Quick Fact: WSJ's Freeman claims "there hasn't been any warming since 1998"; climate experts disagree

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by DAWUSS (November 21, 2009 2:35 pm ET)
      1 14
      Sometimes it gets warmer, sometimes it gets cooler. The climate changes every day. What's the big deal here?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (November 21, 2009 2:47 pm ET)
           
        The "big deal here" is people who don't know the difference between weather and climate.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by snewkirk (November 21, 2009 3:44 pm ET)
           
        WEATHER changes everyday, not climate
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (November 21, 2009 7:40 pm ET)
        12  
        For your own sake, please look up the definition of climate before you make another attempt at discussing it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by hughjass7955 (November 22, 2009 5:12 pm ET)
             
          Er, check out the headline from The Daily Telegraph.... this same article also appeared in the uber-liberal Guardian... so much for the global warming nonsense... they can't predict the weather for tomorrow, so how can they predict it years out?

          "Climate scientists accused of 'manipulating global warming data'
          Some of the world’s top climate scientists have been accused of manipulating data on global warming after hundreds of private emails were stolen by hackers and published online.

          Published: 8:00AM GMT 21 Nov 2009"
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Sharpe (November 22, 2009 11:50 pm ET)
        1  
        1998? What happened in 1998?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by galileonardo (November 24, 2009 2:25 am ET)
             
          I don't know. Maybe we should ask one of the experts. Let's try Phil Jones, director of CRU. Hey Phil, has it been cooling since 1998? His alleged answer:

          "The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant."

          It's all right Phil. We won't tell anyone. It'll be our secret.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Sharpe (November 22, 2009 11:55 pm ET)
        1  
        HELLO!!!! Nothing changed in 1998. This is real life facts below, not just predictions of the future for the most part. THIS IS NOT WEATHER, THIS IS GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Warming_Predictions.png

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glacier_Mass_Balance.png
        Report Abuse
        • Author by galileonardo (November 24, 2009 2:33 am ET)
             
          Maybe we can turn to Nobel laureate/NCAR/IPCC guru Kevin Trenberth for an answer. Kev, it hasn't been cooling like all those crazy "deniers" have been saying, has it? And even if it was, surely those "robust" models could account for it, right? His alleged answer:

          "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

          C'mon, travesty? Don't you remember that the "science is settled?" I don't agree with that last statement. Would you care to elaborate? Kevin's alleged answer:

          "How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!"

          Oh. Well then. I guess I was mistaken. I'm just going to slink away and dump my stock in Big Al's Discount Carbon Offset Emporium now. Cheers!

          Report Abuse
      • Author by Sharpe (November 22, 2009 11:58 pm ET)
        2  
        The idiocy in this country is absolutely astonishing. Say global warming won't have an impact as bad as expected. Say the economy is more important than global warming. Say you just don't care about the future at the expense of the present. Say wall street is more important than natural disaster. BUT PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT DENY THE EXISTENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING! It is an assault on America's intelligence - that is if we still have any : (
        Report Abuse
        • Author by galileonardo (November 24, 2009 2:38 am ET)
             
          Agreed. These deniers need to be set straight. Surely if we brainstorm we can come up with a solution to this whole cooling mess. Gavin? Tom? Mikey? CERES ain't cutting it? What about CMIP3? Guess not.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Bad News (November 21, 2009 2:37 pm ET)
      12 2
      If the Polar Ice Caps are receding that is all that Matters.

      It can be freezing in Miami but if the South Pole Ice Cap is receding we are in deep Do-Do.

      That's what we need to hear, not if its nice and cool outside your window.


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
    • Author by oustudent11 (November 21, 2009 2:37 pm ET)
         
      when it comes to the environment, you lean on the side of caution because by the time theres proof (which in fact there is) its too late.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (November 21, 2009 2:57 pm ET)
      13 1
      Really?

      I find it kind of funny how Global Warming stopped just about the same time as the Monica Lewinski witch hunt began.

      Glad we got that figured out. Thanks Mr. Freeman for clarifying things...

      Putz!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mwjarv (November 21, 2009 3:42 pm ET)
      11  
      Are things really so hard to look up?
      http://climate.weather.com/science/global-warming/observation.html
      Report Abuse
      • Author by diamonds (November 22, 2009 1:46 am ET)
          15
        The truth hurts.

        Fact is, we really have no clue what is going on. Climate research is one of the most unscientific "sciences" there is - a 50% margin of error in any other field would be laughed out. Yet a margin of error of many degrees when we are talking about single degree changes over a decade is somehow acceptable. Consider that as cities grow, heat on the earth will be redistributed. Cloud patterns will change. Visible pollutants - as opposes to greenhouse gases - cool the earth, rather than heat it up, yet no one takes account for this. The various theories are that greenhouse gases heat the climate, clouds will cool the earth in response to changing humidity, the dynamo will affect cosmic rays and change the atmosphere's response to various factors, the ocean operates on cycles, the sun operates on solar cycles, and all of these have valid evidence and can be tested in a lab (or just solid examples - take Mars for instance, it was wiped out by the Sun from a Earth-like atmosphere, and has its own temperature cycles, right now Mars is heating up, but no one can explain that). There is still a LOT more research to be done, the amount of information politicians and the public (and a few particularly outspoken scientists on both sides) are accepting as fact is foolish.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by soze169880 (November 22, 2009 2:40 am ET)
             
          Fact is, we really have no clue what is going on. Why we don't float about on Earth is one of the most unscientific "sciences" there is - a 50% margin of error in any other field would be laughed out.Yet a margin of error when we are talking about some mysterious force that supposedly keeps us on the ground is somehow acceptable. Consider that if I throw this cup out the window I don't see your so-called "gravity" appearing to force it down, so it must not exist. There is still a LOT more research to be done, the amount of information politicians and the public (and a few particularly outspoken scientists on both sides) are accepting as fact is foolish.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Jollymon (November 22, 2009 9:17 am ET)
          6  
          Well, you seem to be somewhat smart, but you are throwing out a lot of "what ifs" about global warming/climate change. But why are you ignoring the EVIDENCE of receding glaciers, melting ice caps and the rise of the average mean temperature globally? Those things aren't foolish or unscientific. Those are document-able, provable facts.

          And even if you are right, and we don't really know how or why all those things are happening, or if its just a cycle of solar activity, or ocean currents changing...what is wrong with trying to cut down on the pollutants we produce? How and why is that a bad thing? Global warming has become less of a scientific debate as it has become an ideological debate. That is what is foolish about this.

          If you got really bad heartburn every time you ate spicy foods, and wasn't sure if it was a certain food or pepper or spice that was causing it, wouldn't you start cutting down on the spicy foods all together? Or would you just keep eating spicy foods hoping your body will adapt to it eventually and hope the heartburn goes away on its own?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by ReasonAndResolve (November 22, 2009 11:28 am ET)
            4  
            And certain things we don't have to quantify to understand that they have an effect. We know that plants take in CO2 and emit oxygen. We also know that the earth supports considerably less vegetative life now than thirty years ago - since we know that the rain forests are being cut down around the globe. Therefore, we can also know that the earth's capacity for recycling CO2 has been diminished.

            It shouldn't take a scientist to understand that an atmosphere that is laden with CO2 is not healthy for oxygen-breathing life forms.

            I don't need a climatologist to tell me that we are heading down a path toward an unsustainable ecosystem. It isn't a question of whether we will destroy the planet, anymore, but a question of when.

            We can listen to the Rushbots, the George Wills, and the other mouthpieces for unfettered capitalism, or we can plan for a longer future by being better stewards for the planet.

            Simple as that.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by diamonds (November 22, 2009 9:07 pm ET)
                4
              Capitalism usually protects the environment. Foresting companies, for instance, are careful to replant trees in such a manner that maximizes their growth. Other instances that are problems, like overfishing, is due to a lack of property rights - no one is currently allowed to own ocean, so people take as much as they please. Another good example is poaching, after a government allowed citizens to own elephants (and do whatever they want, even kill them for ivory) populations went up, because they were privately protected.

              As other cases, for instance if emitting carbon dioxide does harm the planet, then you could make the case that to some (though not all) people have been harmed and those polluting their property are in violation of property rights. This could only be claimed after damage, after a specific person has done harm, and would be a hard claim to make since it affects so many people, but (and maybe I am wrong about this, nothing like this has happened before) in theory that is what would happen. Again it is an unusual situation to be in, any call is hard to make.

              So I agree, we are on an unsustainable path, but for different reasons.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by ReasonAndResolve (November 22, 2009 9:55 pm ET)
                1  
                The whole "capitalism protects the environment" idea breaks down drastically when we consider that the environment is global. Capitalism has destroyed the equatorial rainforests (and capitalism will not be sufficient to replace the CO2 scrubbing that has been decimated). As the population continues to grow in those parts of the world that have been unable or unwilling to find reasonable ways to work toward zero population growth, the drain on global resources becomes profound - and that means it impacts the entire globe, not just those areas where the population growth outpaces the local resources.

                The time to start preparing for a century from now was a century ago - we can only play catch up from now on. So, global climate change aside, the time is now for CO2 control, for alternative energies, and for general stewardship of a planet that is being used up.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Sharpe (November 23, 2009 1:10 am ET)
                1  
                CAPITALISM is inherently self serving and does nothing to help that which does not benefit the owner. It is basically evil. It goes again both democracy and all of the world's major religions by allowing the poor to be trampled, the environment to be destroyed and people's rights to be abused. It advocates for dictatorship over democratic process and individual over everything else. Capitalism is a threat to the environment as much as it is a threat to most things this country supposedly holds sacred. Social capitalism is ideal - capitalism should work to improve the economy as a whole while government protects the rights of the people and defends against threats to the nation's welfare and best interests that are abused by the unrelenting greed of the capitalist market.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Sharpe (November 23, 2009 1:16 am ET)
                1  
                Capitalism - inequality, social injustice, restricting workers rights, against unions, individualism, greed in fact works directly against democracy and the ideals embodied in the constitution and declaration of independence - equality, liberty, tranquility, justice, general welfare, common good, more perfect union. AND CAPITALISM IS SHOCKINGLY NEVER MENTIONED in any of this.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by jjamele2880 (November 23, 2009 6:39 am ET)
                2  
                You are so full of crap. Capitalism was roaring it's way through our natural resources until GOVERNMENT stepped in and rescued millions of acres of forests at the end of the 19th century. Capitalism had no interest in preserving resources for the future- industries use up resources and then move on to something else, unless checked by the GOVERNMENT.

                I'm pretty convinced that you simply do not know ANYTHING.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by PurpleState (November 22, 2009 9:51 am ET)
          2  
          Visible pollutants - as opposes to greenhouse gases - cool the earth, rather than heat it up, yet no one takes account for this.


          So what are we saying about the pollution then? That it's good for the temperature changes?

          Here is what we need to do: we need to reduce pollution not only for the sake of climate change, but for many things.

          For cleaner drinking water.

          For more stable eco-environments.

          For healthier people.

          People are standing in the way of this progress for what...an easier-to-earn dollar? Business? Better living through advanced technology? While that all may sound easy and beneficial, I would rather earn my money without adding to the pollution. I would rather walk or ride a bike than use a car.

          Don't just look at conservation as an attempt to stop global warming/climate change; do it to save the pains the environment is going through.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Boxer1979 (November 22, 2009 10:48 am ET)
          2 2
          GO AWAY!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by diamonds (November 22, 2009 8:37 pm ET)
              6
            Aww how typical, someone who wants to remain in a cave and keep thinking that they are correct and refuse to argue facts. You go away, come back when you want to present objective evidence.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ReasonAndResolve (November 22, 2009 9:03 pm ET)
              3  
              Well, actually, unless you are claiming that CO2 is not toxic to humans, we still have a problem, regardless of the fallibility of the climate models - maybe not next year, maybe not even fifty years from now, but we have a problem.

              And it coincides with another problem: no matter how much coal or oil you believe we have left, you certainly don't believe that it is an infinite resource, do you?

              Isn't it a convenient truth that by reducing our dependence on non-renewable fuel sources we can also reduce our production of CO2? Isn't it also a convenient truth that the very thing that filters CO2 from our atmosphere also replenishes our supply of oxygen? All we have to do is put an end to the wholesale deforestation of our equatorial rainforests.

              See, these are things we can know without flawed climate models. And these are things we can know will benefit us. Oh, and IF there is such a thing as global climate change (which is really pretty much a given among the overwhelming majority of climatologists, in spite of the flawed models) then we can actually have a positive influence while doing what we ought to be doing, anyway.

              Another convenient truth: reducing our dependence on fossil fuels will also reduce our dependence on OPEC and Venezuela, thereby bringing an improvement on the national security front.

              Win:win:win
              Report Abuse
              • Author by LKL (November 23, 2009 10:21 am ET)
                1  
                "Win:win:win"

                I know this has nothing to do with MM, but was that an Office reference??
                Report Abuse
            • Author by Boxer1979 (November 23, 2009 12:10 pm ET)
              1  
              Aww how typical, someone who wants to remain in a cave and keep thinking that they are correct and refuse to argue facts.

              Why do I need to debate someone who thinks global warming is fabricated. So you go away and come back with facts that man-made pollution is changing the environment and not argue that is not.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by New Frontier (November 22, 2009 3:48 pm ET)
          2  
          To repeat one of the commenters to that linked, BBC weather reporter's blog post:

          There's a reason you have to reference a blog by some armchair enthusiast - it's because peer-reviewed science from credible sources do not say what you want them to.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Sharpe (November 23, 2009 12:05 am ET)
          1  
          Yea - maybe we should start mass production of chlorofluorocarbons again - I mean if we have no idea what impacts our own environment LETS REPEAL THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL. Was that not entirely based on the mockery that is the science of climate and atmospheric changes. WHY DID WE PHASE OUT CFC's? Did that not hurt the most important thing in the world which is big business? Who cares if we have alternatives now? I say lets start MASS CFC production and see what happens to the ozone layer. LETS SAY SOME HORRIFIC EFFECTS FIRST AND THEN, WE CAN ACT LATER. Why not right? Why rely on science when we can mess up the globe so bad first there is no turning back rather than rely on a bunch of pseuo scientists.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Sharpe (November 23, 2009 12:15 am ET)
          2  
          Remember when cigarettes and cancer was a bunch of hooey? Remember when evolution was fiction? Remember when the solar system revolved around the earth? Remember when second hand smoke was irrelevant? Remember when AIDS was some man-made experiment or a curse by god or could only affect homosexuals? Remember when people would put oil instead of sun block on their skin and didn't know why they got skin cancer? Remember when the earth was flat and if you went to far, you would fall right off of it? Remember when CFCs and a hole in the Ozone layer were completely unrelated? Remember when medicine was the balance of the four humors of the human body? Remember when blood letting was used to treat like 95 percent of ailments and is now hardly ever used to treat almost anything? YEAAAA. Who disproved all of this? I believe it was the scientific community in the face of immense backlash from the old guard, the church, the community at large or those who just were stuck in the past and would resist a change of facts at all cost. Global warming is just more of the same - a refusal for conservative types to accept the newest scientific facts of our day.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (November 22, 2009 10:47 am ET)
        5  
        Yes, the truth does hurt!

        Objection: Even the scientists don't know that the climate is changing more than normal and if it's our fault or not. If you read what they write it is full of "probably," "likely," "evidence of" and all kinds of qualifiers. If they don't know for sure, why should we worry yet?

        Answer: Probability is the language of science. There is no proof; there are no absolute certainties. Scientists are always aware that new data may overturn old theories and that human knowledge is constantly evolving. Consequently, it is viewed as unjustifiable hubris to ever claim one's findings as unassailable.

        But in general, the older and more established a given theory becomes, the less and less likely it is that any new finding will drastically change things. Even the huge revolution in physics brought on by Einstein's theory of relativity did not render Newton's theories of classical mechanics useless. Classical mechanics is still used all the time; it is, quite simply, good enough for most purposes.

        But how well established is the greenhouse effect?

        Greenhouse effect theory is over 100 years old. The first predictions of anthropogenic global warming came in 1896. Time has only strengthened and refined those groundbreaking conclusions. We now have decades of very detailed and sophisticated climate observations, and super computers crunching numbers in one second it would have taken a million 19th century scientists years with a slide rule to match. Even so, you will never ever get a purely scientific source saying "the future is certain."

        But what certainty there is about the basic issue is close enough to 100 percent that for all practical purposes it should be taken as 100 percent. Don't wait any longer for scientific certainty; we are there. Every major institute that deals with climate-related science is saying AGW is here and real and dangerous, even though they will not remove the "very likely" and "strongly indicated" qualifiers. The translation of what the science is saying into the language of the public is this: Global warming is definitely happening and it is definitely because of human activities and it will definitely continue as long as CO2 keeps rising in the atmosphere.

        The rest of the issue -- how high will the temperature go, how fast will it get there, and how bad will this be -- is much less certain. But no rational human being rushes headlong into an unknown when there is even a 10 percent chance of death or serious injury. Why should we demand 100 percent certainty before avoiding this danger? Science has given the human race a dire warning with all the urgency and certainty we should need to prompt action.

        We don't have time or reason to wait any longer.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Handyman (November 22, 2009 11:18 am ET)
          2  
          Very well stated!!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by diamonds (November 22, 2009 8:44 pm ET)
            5
          Except that the whole point of the article I linked to is that all of those climate models haven't predicted correctly. We should be one or two degrees hotter than we are right now, why is that?

          Indeed, there are no absolute truths, no theorems in the physical world, but as I pointed out climate research is far more uncertain than other fields of science. Doing nothing is acceptable, we wouldn't want to bleed the patient more, would we?

          To put it another way: We need to first determine if there even is global warming that would be damaging - that is a valid question. Indicators largely point to "yes the earth is warming" but there is reasonable doubt, as I pointed out. Next, we would need to figure out "What is causing it?" Are we causing it? Is a change in the oceans causing it? A change in the sun? Magnetic field? What? After that, can we stop it? Just because you can push a truck down a hill doesn't mean you can stop it. Even then, we need to consider, is it economical to stop it? Indications are right now that preparing for global flooding would be far, net cheaper than restraining production. Only after all that can we consider taking governmental action.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Sharpe (November 23, 2009 12:30 am ET)
            2  
            First, bleeding patients is more likely the medical treatment of the 1800s than today. There are very few indications to even begin bleeding a patient and then, yes extensive bleeding of the patient may be required in cases of polycythemia vera and a few others.

            We have determined it exists. That is more than sufficient to begin to make efforts to curb the massive increases in CO2 and massive reductions of the polar ice caps. There is absolutely almost full consensus in the entire world that global warming is happening and the result of CO2 and is man-made. That is all we need to know. Even if the risk of catastrophic consequences is 1 percent, it is time to act because the risk is just too great to do nothing.

            iF a doctor told you that you may or may not have cancer, would you sit back and wait to see if you have it or would you allow the doctor to take further steps to address the issue? Doing nothing, is looking possible disaster in the face and saying that the present is more important than the future. Im sorry but you are dead wrong.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by galileonardo (November 24, 2009 2:45 am ET)
           
        Your link has a main graphic showing the Earth in flames and I'm supposed to take that as a balanced source of information? Give these a read if you want an insider's view into AGW and the "robust consensus." Apparently unadulterated. Undoubtedly very revealing.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dmhack (November 21, 2009 4:06 pm ET)
      12  
      These fools are never going to change. No matter what the facts are, they are simply unwilling or incapable of understanding them.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by galileonardo (November 24, 2009 2:56 am ET)
           
        Agreed. AGW cultists are essentially brainwashed fundamentalist fools. No matter how much was exposed in those CRU emails (coordination of destruction of FOIA material; journal gate-keeping/manipulation; IPCC manipulation; continued propping/manipulation of weak data; lack of data sharing/method transparency; lack of public error acknowledgment even after confirmation; media collaboration/manipulation; out-of-proportion influence of a small number of scientists; marginalizing/discrediting skeptical scientists), they will still believe. It's a matter of blind (and apparently deaf) faith.

        It does appear that there is some hope on the horizon...chip...chip...chip...you know if Monbiot of all people is "dismayed and deeply shaken" this story has legs, more legs than an AGW cultist parade in fact. The house of cards teeters. Get out while you can.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by New Frontier (November 21, 2009 4:25 pm ET)
      9  
      [T]here hasn't been any [global] warming since 1998"
      No planes have crashed into buildings since 2001, so let's stop thinking about airport security.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (November 21, 2009 8:08 pm ET)
        10  
        That's funny, NewFrontier, I thought of the exact same thing.Shouldn't we free everybody in Gitmo since terrorism is now proven to be a hoax (according to wingnut logic)?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Onyxcat (November 21, 2009 6:05 pm ET)
         
      One report is that the pine trees are dying. They have become infested with a beetle that dies when it gets cold. It has not been very cool in the north for years. Global warming is true.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ReasonAndResolve (November 21, 2009 6:16 pm ET)
      9  
      There is a reason that scientists have come to prefer the name "global climate change". People like this (and George Will) will come along and make the claim that there is no global warming. In fact, there is, but it is undeniable that there truly has been global climate change. The polar ice caps are disappearing at an alarming rate, the sea level has risen, and parts of the globe are experiencing unprecedented drought.

      These luddites need to get a clue.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (November 21, 2009 10:52 pm ET)
        11  
        It's not that difficult to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people...

        Hell, look at what Bush did to us! There is a segment of the American people who will buy this Fake News stuff hook, line and sinker. They just haven't got the critical thinking skills.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (November 22, 2009 1:27 pm ET)
        3  
        There is a reason that scientists have come to prefer the name "global climate change".


        Reason, I always get a laugh out of that. Deniers tried (ok, are still trying) to refute Global Warming by noting short intervals of cooling, so part of using "Climate Change" was dumbing it down for them , helping them to understand.

        Then they think they've got a "gotcha" by pointing out that the name was changed , as if it was a CYA move, or a change in position.

        It's really similar to the wingnuts confusion with the Establishment Clause. They were led to believe it prohibited favoring one denomination of Christianity over another, so some grown-ups used the "separation of church and state" phrase to simplify it for them.

        Now they've been trained to point out that the "separation..." phrase is not in the Constitution.

        They insist on having everything translated into stoopid for them, then think they've won by noticing this.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by zx3 (November 22, 2009 4:38 am ET)
         
      "Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published (July, 2009) in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity"

      "The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling"

      As the science behind man-made global warming fears utterly collapses, many of the biggest promoters of the theory and environmental activists are growing increasingly desperate.

      If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree based on credible science?

      If you disagree, they call you ignorant. I have even seen websites which call for the execution of deniers of man-made global warming. It is getting worse than fundamentalist religion and is a type of religion in some respects. I really have to wonder what drives the fanaticism of it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Boxer1979 (November 22, 2009 10:47 am ET)
      3  
      WSJ's Freeman: "[T]here hasn't been any [global] warming since 1998"

      Yep. That is why where I live at in the Missouri and Illinois area we really had no winter here since I was a kid. Try again FREEMAN!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tmaloney (November 22, 2009 8:32 pm ET)
         
      Check out the documentary EARTH - THE BIOGRAPHY, Part 2; Episode: ICE.

      The melt-water lakes that have been forming on top of the Greenland ice sheet since 1997 are described, with photographs, at these URLs.

      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080417-greenland-lakes.html

      http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/earth-the-biography/3131/Overview#tab-Photos/4

      In the documentary video, the meltwater is shown flowing into a fissure in the ice at a prodigious rate. It looks to me like about ten bathtubs-full per second. That water can't be dismissed as a figment of some unreliable computer model – it's right there to see.

      The water is going somewhere. There are two possibilities.

      1. It's flowing into a cavern deep in the ice sheet, and there re-freezing. In that case the total mass of ice is staying constant, but just getting more densely packed. The hollow openings are just being filled .

      This is possible, but not likely. How can large hollow caverns exist beneath the crushing weight of the ice mass above?

      A camera lowered into the fissure to a depth of about 200 feet (the average Greenland ice thickness is about 7000 feet) have not been able to find any caverns. The attempt to find them is displayed in the documentary.

      2. The water is flowing all the way down to the bottom of the ice sheet. In that case, liquid water is changing the friction interface between the continental rock (Greenland itself) and the bottom surface of the ice.

      With liquid lubricating the interface between two solid surfaces, movement of the upper solid, the ice sheet, wold be enhanced. That's the working hypothesis for why the movement of Greenland's ice has been accelerating since year 2000. There has been no deviation; every year the distance moved by a marker in the ice has been greater than the year previously.

      Is it possible that this acceleration is just a coincidence with the extraction and transfer of ancient carbon from the earth's crust into the atmosphere and the seas? Yes, it's possible. But what do you think is the probability?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pilotx (November 23, 2009 3:11 am ET)
      2  
      I have to agree with Diamonds that most climate researchers do not have a good handle on why the planet is warming. There are natural fluctuations and biofeedback responses that can explain some of our recent climate variability but the problem is this issue has become political and people on both sides of the issue are ignoring the science. This woman, Limbaugh and Gore are not climate scientists and we should not listen to anything they have to say about atmospheric science. One of my former meteorology professors is a recognized authority in the field of climatology and his favorite analogy is the pasta scene in Lady and the Tramp where the two dogs are eating the same string of pasta and don't even realize it. His point is the atmosphere is a complex and fragile environment and we don't really know what effect our pollutants such as CO2 will have in the future and honestly that scares me. I think we should go green as possible because we don't know what the threshold level is when it comes to CO2 and like pollutants. Maybe we should err on the side of caution just in case.
      Report Abuse