Wash. Times cherry-picked Nat'l Geographic article to support theory that warming is caused by sun, not humans
In his March 2 Washington Times column, nationally syndicated columnist John McCaslin claimed that a February 28 National Geographic News article "cites 2005 data" showing similar warming trends on Earth and Mars as "evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun." McCaslin wrote that had the article been printed before the Academy Awards -- at which An Inconvenient Truth, a film featuring former Vice President Al Gore's presentation on global warming, was awarded the Best Documentary Feature -- "Al Gore might have flown home empty-handed." McCaslin went on write: "The question now is whether Mr. Gore's coveted Oscar can be recycled." In fact, National Geographic News did not itself assert the existence of evidence that "changes in the sun" are largely responsible for global warming -- as McCaslin suggested -- but, rather reported on "one scientist's controversial theory." McCaslin further ignored the numerous climate scientists quoted in the article criticizing the theory promoted by this single scientist.
The February 28 National Geographic News article focused on the views of "Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia," who has noted that "2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey" show "that the carbon dioxide 'ice caps' near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row." According to the article, Abdussamatov claims the data represent evidence that "the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun."
After explaining Abdussamatov's theory, the article reported that the theory has "not been well received by other climate scientists." The article first quoted "Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University" saying that Abdussamatov's "views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion" and that they "contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." The article added that "[t]he conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun" and that "most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now."
Finally, the article reported that "the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect," and quoted Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who said that "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice."
McCaslin included a quote from the article in which Abdussamatov appears to approve of the theory. But McCaslin failed to make clear that the theory actually originated with Abdussamatov and that the article quoted numerous scientists debunking it.
From the column (which was also linked to on The Drudge Report):
It's a good thing National Geographic News waited until after the Oscars were presented in Hollywood on Sunday night before publishing its story on global warming, or else Al Gore might have flown home empty-handed.
Three days after "An Inconvenient Truth," Mr. Gore's global warming show, took home an Oscar, National Geographic's Kate Ravilious reports that it's not just Earth, but Mars too, that "appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures."
She cites 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions, revealing that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars' south pole are diminishing, "evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun."
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory, is quoted in the article as saying the Mars data is evidence that the "long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars."
The question now is whether Mr. Gore's coveted Oscar can be recycled?
And pollution is the fault of air...
just give it a minute. all the right wingers will be on here saying that there has been natural change in the past. so therefore that's all the present global warming can be attributed to.
Yea, but think about the implications of this NG report. Now we can't send all the Republicans back to Mars... where they came from. ;>)
The latest global warming trend, despite all it's new precedents, is deemed natural because of what's happening on a planet that we've only seen through telescopes and robot cameras?
Considering the skepticism and denial we've seen from the big-oil-loving right, I think I'm entitled to a little skepticism with regard to Abdussamatov.
Oh goddess, here come the deniers. Look, I'll save you all some time:
Can we just go home for the weekend now?
Hey Val, the hysterical rantings from The Sky Is Falling crowd go way back to the 1800s. This latest rendition, like the one in the 1970s, is just the latest round from the loony Left. The traction you folks are gaining just proves that there really is a sucker born every minute. Why do you people seem to gravitate to the democrat party?
Suit yourself.
There is more solid evidence that global warming is a serious threat to our way of life than there was evidence that Iraq had wmd or Al Qeada ties. So, why are the neocons 'snot prepared to reek some shock and awe on polluters? Where the 1% doctrine when the threats are real?
Global warming hates our freedoms.
We have to fight global warming over there so we don't have to fight global warming here.
The carbofascists want to kill you.
Hillary said on CNBC yesterday that global warming is crashing our stock market.
I'm not kidding, she actually said that.
could we have the exact quote?
Leatherhelmet back-up his statements? You don't want hell to freeze over do you? Be careful what you ask for.
"...a sucker born every minute"?
LOL...! And you guys elected George W. Bush, President of the United States? Priceless....
Seriously! This irony is apparently lost on every idiot right-winger who insists that science is 'fake' or made up by liars with some sort of nefarious agenda. Hmmm. Sound familiar?
The delusional fantasies the rightwing so prefer to factual reality make you guys say the dumbest things. Was there any scientific consensus in the 70's about Global cooling? No the question was just raised that is what the scientific method is the quesiton is raised reserach is done. You pretend the first part done rationally in the 70's somehow invalidated the ENTIRE process done now. Its dumb, its rightwing propaganda parrot nonsense but we forgive you since its all you have and propaganda parrots gotta do what propaganda parrots gotta do.
Someone explain to me how it is controversial that the major source of Energy in our Solar system caused Earth to rise a few degrees??
I mean...there is a massive ball of gas that heats our Planet, and to suggest that it has caused our Planet to change in temperature is now somehow a crazy hypothesis.
Sorry, I'll give priority to the concensus to the scientific community, not you, as to who's theories are whacky concerning global warming.
Then again Habibullo Abdussamatov's theory isn't really point of this thread. The specious ommission of peer dissent by McCaslin is the point. And on that point you have to admit that McCaslin has an agenda to politicize science.
"Sorry, I'll give priority to the concensus to the scientific community..."
BUSH = EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY
EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY = ANTI-SCIENCE
BUSH = ANTI-SCIENCE
REPUBLICANS = OIL INDUSTRY
OIL INDUSTRY = ANTI-GLOBAL WARMING
REPUBLICANS = ANTI-GLOBAL WARMING
Global warming, its causes and its effects are SCIENCE based conclusions. The anti-science tone of this administration was set from the get-go. Is it simply a coincidence that it is the oil-ndustry and Republican crowd that are so opposed to acknowledging the scientific consensus that man contributes to global warming. Many Republicans still refuse to acknowledge that global warming even exists. Sad commentary, indeed...
OIL INDUSTRY = GREED
EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY = IGNORANCE
AMERICA = SCREWED
I-ROONEY=MACULAR DEGENERATION (apparently).
Don't shout.
Shrill.
your "reply" just proves that you have no answer to the points made. you have conceded the argument.
Right.
Hafta go out and buy a goofy outfit now to march in your parade.
any more inspiration for us?
Sorry, I was not attempting to shout... just happily unconcerned and not particularly well-informed about cyber protocol. And the word equations simply looked better, to my eye, in bold caps. GET IT?
My lack of typing skills and disdain for proofreading should be well known by now, too. I also snore. I'll try to be a better person, I promise.
You know more about cyber protocol than me.
Don't tell anybody.
you wanted to know what the "renewable resources" were for "green power switch", the company to which gore pays extra money for power generation. this is from the tva website: "they must be photovoltaic [sun] or wind turbine systems." gore offsets his entire energy use through this program.
Because man causes the most important 3 percent of the greenhouse gasses and we all know that this 3 percent is caused by evil non-recycling, carbon-hogging, big mac-gorging Americans who are using up all the world's resources and won't enact universal healthcare.
Yeah, that is right. When 25% of all resources go to your country, that creates a lot of waste. We're one of the biggest populations, the resources are finite and need to be used effeciently. We are currently experiencing a big depletion of fishing grounds. Pollution in the oceans ALONE is so bad that eating canned tuna causes mercury poison. Americans eat a LOT of tuna. Mercury drives people insane first, then kills. American public is kept from this. To promote the general welfare, this fact is kept FROM every mother giving a new child tinned tuna several times a month.
Alternative energy sources, more effecient waste management and updated methods of farming look vital. A government not for the welfare of the people is a bad government.
I suggest all you members of the global warming religion stay off the tuna! The earth's temperature as been rising and falling since the dawn of time. Claiming that suddenly humans are the cause of something that as been naturally occurring for as long as man has inhabited the planet is obviously absurd. Isn't there some other way for these scientist and politicians to get money...like solving some problems that man really IS responsible for?
Humans create very large amounts of particulate. air-borne dust. That creates clouds. So does all the contrails from our jets, quite a bit actually. And nothing does greenhouse like more clouds. Just ask the planet Venus. To say that humans are not affecting this warming is to ignore every firepit and smokestack since the day we learnt to make fire. All that particulate being sent into the air. It does add up eventually. Our affect on oceans through pollution alone is well documented. Our affect on the air must be as profound. No other species creates so much emissions, makes so much particulate and pollution. We are affecting the planet with our waste products. The tuna is just one example of how it's coming back to bite us.
The solution is not to point fingers except at those who keep us from green policies and technologies. We just blew up a country, destryed it's pollution-treatment systems, covered it with DU, all in the name of oil. That's a dirty, messy, polluting situation, for a dirty, messy, polluting energy source. Shows where our national priorities are at, just why we need to go Green.
I didn't realize you could actually talk to planets. (Careful with that tuna!)
If I COULD speak to planets, I would ask them about their temperature variances over time. Scientist suggest other planets in our solar system experience temperature increases and decreases over time similar to those experienced on earth. Doesn't that make you wonder if the global warming theory isn't over-hyped for political and financial reasons? Could the real culprit be the sun?
Scientists do not deny that the sun warms our planet. But solar output has increased merely 0.05% each decade since the 70's, which is NOT ENOUGH to have warmed the earth at the alarming pace (See end of the hockey stick graph) that it has warmed since the 70's.
So stop spinning things and using idiotic logic implying that "the sun contributes to some of the warming therefore man doesn't contribute more than the sun".
Rush has talked a lot recently about how "only" 90% of climate scientists support current Global Warming conclusions so it can't be considered consensus.
I have to wonder if Rush had a serious disease, for which the best course of treatment was only supported by 9 out of 10 doctors, would he refuse treatment?
I doubt it.
Is there any legitimate scientific dispute:
1. That CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been staedily increasing for as long as that data has been recorded?
2. That CO2 levels in the atmosphere are now at record levels?
3. That modern industries and developments in modern lifestyles produce increased emissions of CO2?
4. That global temperatures have risen at the same consistent rate as the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere?
5. That increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere result in increased global temperatures?
6. That polar ice caps and glaciers have been melting at an increaed rate?
While it may be true that throughout earth's long history there have been naturally occurring changes in global temperature, has this occurred since the development of modern technology and industries that produce increased levels of CO2? Isn't it therefore logical to look for explanations other than naturally occurring changes?
Why is there such politically charged outrage when scientists conclude there is a correlation between man-made CO2 contributions and present changes? Considering that the doubters are led by the politically powerful oil industry, which does introduce more CO2 into the atmosphere, and that the oil industry fears reduced profits if forced to reduce CO2 emissions, isn't it clear why this has become a political issue rather than a matter for science?
And the stakes are high...
That would depend on whether the nine doctors making the diagnosis would be financially rewarded for their diagnosis like those scientist claiming man is the cause of global warming.
I believe that the Earth is in a warming period caused by natural cycles as seen time and time again throughout the Earth's existence. The only difference now is that claiming man is responsible will insure a stead income stream for those making the dubious claims.
Tell me that oposition to recognizing and finding solutions to global warming are not based on political and anti-science religious interests:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/us/03evangelical.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
second to last paragraph: "in interviews, some signers of the latest letter said they were wary of the global warming issue because they associated it with leftists, limits on free enterprise, and population control, which they oppose." how do you get around that kind of thinking?
Exactly... you would think that Christians would have been the first to recognize the moral imperative to be good custodians of the physical world that God had given humankind... that it would dishonor God to trash the gift that he had bestowed. And to also consider future generations.
However, only now are some of them are beginning to come around. Bu they're fighting amongst themselves over it because it's still considered a political issue, not a moral issue. Why? Because that's what the political leaders of the religious right have been preaching... like Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and others. All hail the great Republican Church of Jesus Christ!
one of the funniest parts of al franken's "lying liars" is called "supply side jesus".
Damn it, I guess someone should tell these guys the debate's over
http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=AverDenn
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html
http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=266711
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28u12g2617j5021/fulltext.pdf
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/20/2/2/1
and many, many more. My point is this....the scientists are still debating the THEORY of man caused global warming. And please don't respond with the tired "Exxon paid them all" argument. Secondly, let us not forget it is the eviromental movement that opposed nuclear power and that the myths behind the dangers of DDT have killed MILLIONS by allowing the mosquitos that carry malaria to flourish in third world countries. With these blothches on the enviromentalists' record could we at least wait until we are sure we're causing global warming before we put the American economy on the scrap heap thereby allowing China and India (who produce more TOTAL pollution than America) to put us in their rearview mirrors? Oh, and let's not forget who REALLY benefits from the global warming scare....Al Gore.
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528
Cling to your dogma, Savage. That's fine it is a free country, you can believe what you want.
It's pretty obvious what's at work here. Righties are muddying the debate on global warming in a strategic initiative to discredit all environmental stances.
Why? Because the church of market fundamentalism extolls the virtues of DEREGULATION.
You will not dissuade good environmental stewards from communicating their noble message. There are simply more people who value a healthy environment than those who would cede our precious ecology to the highest bidder. The sportsman and the environmentalist are brothers in spirit separated only by hackneyed political rhetoric.
The smoke is clearing, Savage. This isn't really about global warming is it? This is about keeping the flock hemmed in with emotional appeals to culture clash. This is about cleaving to market fundamentalism. This is about the sovereign rights of polluters to profit from despoiling our streams, forests and skies.
You are on the wrong side of history, Savage.
See above argument on DDT. Obviously by jumping on the bandwagon of the enviromentalist theory that it was killing birds we have, through theories on the pesticide which have since been proven false, given malaria a jumpstart and caused MILLIONS of deaths. My point is that sometimes enviromentalism goes wrong, ie. the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Therefore I would argue that I'm on the right side of history
The stakes are too high if the scientistific consensus that global warming is man made is correct... even if there is just a remote chance they are correct something should be done. Is a 90% degree of certainty not sufficient for you?
Better yet, go put your head phones on, stick your head in the sand, and listen to your hero, Michael Savage, for distraction. Just don't think about reality, dude... it ain't for you.
Tell it to the kids killed because junk science said ddt was going to destroy the world's bird population. Even if the U.S. joined kyoto and issued a hybrid to every adult in the country China and India would continue to churn out a high volume of new coal plants, thus making our sacrifice moot.
Then f*ck it, Sav... we're all doomed. Party on, dude. Mybe the Exxon station will spring for a six pack.
Until you have a better solution than the U.S. conforming to the "sky is falling" theory of man-caused global warming while not factoring in the fact that we produce more pollution PER CAPITA, not total, than India and China, and the fact that we're pretty much not going to get them to stop, IF man caused global warming is a fact then I guess we are screwed.
As I said "f*ck it"... we obviously don't have the leadership who are willing to tackle these problems, including the economic impacts, because the oil industry has seen to it that they don't. Any rational, SANE leaderership that has not been prostituted by the oil industry would have jumped on this, starting with KYOTO (which was not the final solution... it was just a START).
No, dude, let's go get high and listen to Savage... he ROCKS, huh? We'll all be dead by the time the polar ice caps melt anyway so f*ck all those people. I don't care. Do you? Hey, man... Anna Nicolle was FINE, huh?
Unfortunately, Kyoto doesn't even help at all
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/OpEds/LindzenWSJ.pdf
fortunately, we've gone up somewhere around .7 dgrees in the last 100 years. Not exactly cause for alarm. I'm not sure if you know this but the world, at one time was almost completely covered in ice. It was called the ICE AGE. Luckily, aliens from mars came to the earth with power plants and SUVS to put enough CO2 in the air so the earth could heat up. Those martians are now back on Mars, polluting their own enviroment, thus explaining the shrining ice caps on that planet. At least that's my theory (JK). Or do you blame us for that as well? Newsflash, the earth has NEVER had a mean temperature. It fluctuates meaning it goes up for a while and then down for a while. You know who I blame on global warming? Vegetarians. You see, cows fart. The gas emitted from these evil creatures dwarfs the CO2 emitted by man. If there weren't any vegetarians in the world, we could eat more cows and therefore cut down on CO2. Or we could just kill all the cows. I'm pretty sure that theory would make enviromentalists head explode. They would have to decide between intentionally making a species extinct or saving all of us from spontaneously combusting when we go outside. 0.7 degrees. BTW, it's March 4, and it might FREEZE in Houston tonight. That's 3 days after we usually have our last one. OMG, we're gonna be SO hot at 30 to 34 degrees tonight! I better shut off my SUV!
savage brings up all the old discredited doubters. his canada free press link is an article by dr. timothy ball, a guy who had to opt out of his last group "friends of science" because the canadian paper "globe and mail" traced alberta oil money to it. now ball heads a "new" group with a lot of the usual energy company suspects in attendance. ball has also been in a controversy about padding his resume. come up with some new liars.
Wow, 1 guy....I guess that discredits them ALL. Methinks no. Here's something that cannot be denied...0.7 degrees of temperture increase in 100 years. Again, I'm not saying that we're definitely not causing global warming I'm saying we might not be and that the jury's still out.
"1 guy" your first link: dennis avery, an author of: "why punish oil companies just when we need more energy?" poor little oil companies.
Who has received a whopping 10,000 dollars in his career from oil companies. That's it! Now I see the light! I'm walking home 27 miles from work today! No more gas for me! Thank you!
of course no one suggested you walk home, but you guys have to make it into these "either or" situations. as if we can't still drive a car while trying to reduce both consumption and pollution. not possible according to you right wingers.
You mean right-wingers like "W" who's ranch in Texas is infinitely more energy efficient than "the godfather of global warming" Al gore's? Or the senator whose family owns 4 oil companies....what is that right wing anti-enviromentalist nut jobs name...OH YEAH! Ted Kennedy.
gore pays extra to get all his power from solar or wind sources. it's a direct subsidy. you guys have fought energy conservation for decades and you're still doing it. that includes bush.
So does Kennedy, in fact he's DIRECTLY fighting a company that wants to install a wind farm in Cape Cod. Point granted on Al gore's effecient energy purchases but please explain why he must fly around the globe making speeches and polluting along the way when he could simply log on to the internet (he should know how, he invented the damn thing) there fore cutting down on his "carbon footprint"
maybe so he can get his mesage out to counter know nothings who insist there's no global warming? again there is nothing he can do to satisfy you guys. i'll be gone for a while.
Again, he should use the internet this would greatly cut down on his "hypocrisy footprint"
there is nothing like publicity from a live appearance to get your message across. but again, you ridicule gore for riding in a plane, when he has been trying for many years to put into place policies that will help reduce pollution by a factor of a million times over that plane ride. but gore's a bad guy. bush and his administration have been fighting conservation proposals for years and have attempted to suppress the views of his own scientists, but he's your hero. i think that makes you the hypocrite.
BTW, never said there was no global warming, just said that we might not be causing it
don't play dumb. nor have i denied there's such a thing as natural climate change. you know what's being discussed here. you are putting yourself in the company of the human-cause deniers and then claiming you're not denying global warming. hypocrite and game player.
savagerocks at 1128am: "it's march 4 and it might freeze in houston tonight. that's three days after we usually have our last one." only problem with that is i went to a site called myforecast.com and went to historical data for houston, and they list "days with temperatures below freezing = 3". and that was for.....april.
Those arguments suffer from a lack of imagination. Consider the benefits of inventing our way out from under our addiction to foreign oil. An entire new emergent economy based on homegrown renewable energy could be the boon the middle class needs to re-establish our pre-eminence as a global economic super power. Imagine a race to energy independence as fevered as was the space race.
The falling sky scenarios are coming from the right with their Kyoto crashed economy voodoo, so don't lay that alarmist tag solely on environmentalists. How is energy self reliance or regulation going to damage us? Could we not export clean fuel technology to the rest of the world?
You can argue for the status quo and in many instances conserving the best of our accumulated wisdom is what works. Remember too, that we must change with the times and dirty energy is so behind the times. The only reason to oppose renewable energy research and clean fuel technology is fear of risk.
Roundhouse, well said.
But your argument assumes that our leadership is capable of ethical and creative thought. Besides, the 1% of the population that controls more personal wealth than the bottom 90% combined wouldn't stand for it.
I'm pessimistic too. Fortunately, leadership in a democracy is not a static entity it is organic and adapts to the external pressures.
We must find the leaders who are willing to follow our lead on the moral imperatives of economic fairness, equal rights and environmental stewardship.
DDT is still available for purchase outside the US, and it is still used in malaria zone regions. The current, most acceptable DDT uses are yearly or twice yearly home sprays, treated nets, DDT impregnated mosquito traps, etc. Not enough to cause problems for higher organisms, but enough to control mosquito populations. But never let reality stop a good conservative talking point.
Furthermore, DDT is really only useful for six to seven years, as mosquitos develop resistance to DDT over a short period of time. Wholesale spraying increases the chances of resistant strains showing up.
But if you want to talk malaria, the malaria zones are increasing in size. Why? Because as global temps increase, it increases the territory that vector mosquitos can live in.
Also, studies have verified the DDT induced thinning of shells and the mechanisms for said thinning.
But wait! the UN, a group whom libs site as always right on the global warming issue don't agree with you.
http://www.aaenvironment.com/DDT.htm
Whoops!
SB, your reading comprehension appears to be fairly low. That link did not dispute any of my statements in any way.
You're right it was a ringing praise for NEVER using ddt esspecialy the part that said
In 2000, say World Health Organization and other studies, malaria infected over 300 million people. It killed nearly 2,000,000--most of them in sub-Saharan Africa. Over half of the victims are children, who die at the rate of two per minute or 3,000 per day. Since 1972, over 50 milion people have died from this dreaded disease.
Where DDT is used, malaria deaths plummet. Where it is not used, they skyrocket.
Oh and about the "poor birds"
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html#ref6
Damn it!
Junkscience, an incredibly biased and unreliable site, interestingly has no recent research articles. Recent articles that demonstrate thinning and the scientific mechanisms by which DDT causes this thinning.
Lets see. He is former oil/gas lobbyist who writes from anti evolution, anti environmental science, anti anti smoking position, anti food safetly wingnut who cherry picks data to come to predetermined conclusions. Hell, he's even against companies moving to "green" their corparate cultures. Nice source! Try again with real scientific information.
Does this one work?
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/DDT.html
BTW, I love the "that website /person's opinion doesn't count" defense....it's totally legit.
When a person is wrong and a liar, what is wrong with pointing out both? Milloy is not a reliable source, not just because of his ethically poor history, but also because he is wrong in his science.
Alright, take that ONE example away, there are still many more which back up my claims....including....and you may have heard of these...BOOKS!
yeah, "books". how bout your next door neighbor?
An non-scientific article from a non-scientist in a highly non-scientific rag? No. Just becausee it has science in the title doesn't make it science. Certainly not from a LaRouche nut. Heh. Try to find an actual scientist, next time.
Also, her claim that Carson has been debunked is false. Some, but not all, of Carson's work was later shown to be wrong, but that is how science works. Science deniers like Milloy, on the other hand, refuse to change with new evidence because they are paid not to. You are likely not aware that Carson supported use of DDT in moderation in malaria zones.
OH, so now science site YOU deem un-scientific don't count....interesting. With the fact I can use the 'cause I said so argument I'll never lose. Not to mention the article I posted earlier which EMPHATICALLY stated that ddt saves millions of lives but was stilll widely banned due to lib "science"
I'm not the gatekeeper of science, peer reviewed journals are. Reading comprehension. Try it. And before you start buying into more astroturf, try googling the authors or the pubs. You could have saved yourself some embarassment with Milloy and 21st century LaRouche.
You sight 2 individuals yet I've given many examples, sorry if I can't triple check everything, I am SLIGHTLY outnumbered and in various discussions at once. If you'd be so kind as to double check every one of my posts for me that would be great. So get to work, 'cuz you've still got many to go!
you're the one that offers them. if they get shot down or shown to have a conflict of interest, then you cry you're too busy to check them out. mean ol libs. so unfair.
Our economy is already on the scrap heap. And it's US firms running to China and India for poverty-level labor that's doing it, NOT global warming. Alternative feul sources and pollution prevention at home woulr CREATE jobs, not loose them.
I totally agree with you. I'm ALL FOR alternative fuel. It would help with jobs, and it would hurt nations such as Iran. My whole point in this discussion is to convey the fact that it man caused global warming is still a THEORY.
"My whole point in this discussion is to convey the fact that it man caused global warming is still a THEORY"
Well, then allow me to say that you are not doing a very good job of conveying anything more than a naive and politically motivated view that jeopardizes the safety of Americans for the sake of economic interests. You are one of the malleable dupes that the Republican Party adores.
Actually the repubs probably DON'T like me, I'm an Independent
"I'm an Independent..."
I'm sorry, I didn't know "independent" meant being ethically and intellectually bankrupt. My mistake...
What it means is looking at both sides of the issue and deciding which is more factual and/or important.
And so you choose the side with no scientific evidence?
How... Independant of you...
I've already posted scientific evidence CATCH UP SIR!
You posted science denial, not science.
Reading comprehension, sir.
Call it whatever you want, experts wrote it so unless you know more about those topics than they do I guess it COULD be right. Then again Al Gore didn't say it so it MUST not be true
Milloy is not an expert. He is a tobacco/oil lobbyist running an astroturf website meant to fool people like you into believing that you have evidence for your ascientific beliefs. The current scientific evidence supports the theory that DDT is harmful to the environment when present in large ammounts. Overuse also is demonstrated to promote the rise of resistant mosquito strains.
The evidence also supports the theory (concept supported by lots of evidence, reading comprehension) that global warming is occuring now, is affecting the environment now, and that humans are responsible for these changes. Very few so called experts dissent from this view, and their arguements are easily deomstrated to be false.
My point is not that global warming ISN'T happening, it is at a whopping 0.7 degrees a century OH NO! My point is that the debate is still going on
Not among working scientists. Only among oil lobbyists, talking heads and politicos.
Wow, so you're pretty much a one trick prony. There are many scientists out there who dissagree with the "man made" global warming theory. Try as hard as you can but not ALL of them are paid by big oil
And yet, you can't trun them up. Funny, that.
Except the ones that i did, not all my examples are funded by oil companies
Lets see. Hudson Iinst- conservative think tank. anti environmentalist bias. Avery is not a working environmental scientist.
Bob Carter, weak connections to oil, publishes opinion pieces on climate science, but not research.
Timothy Ball, another letter writer, runs a Canadian special interest group, and makes untrue and misleading statements regarding environmental science. Not a working scientist.
Ronald Bailey, once skeptic, now supporter of global warming theory. Not a scientist but journalist. Once recieved oil money for his work.
Citing Inhofe was simply histerical. He is more flat earther than anything.
Richard Lindzen, coal and oil man, way outside of scientific mainstream on climate change. Major supplier of sour grapes.
Of Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian, I can say nothing, other than they suggest that another cycle may override that of CO2 influenced warming.
So, from your links, how many are working scientists, not funded by big energy? The Zhen-Shan and Xian are it, and they offer a competing, but not exclusionary, theory that has not impressed the scientific community.
Its been a real gas, but I have some serious reading to do.
But you are not supporting those of us who would bring the alternatives in. You are supporting those who are continuing to keep things getting worse. If it takes a scare to get the factories cleaned up, then so be it. We need to get creative with our waste products and not whine about what other countries do with theirs. The Alpha leads by example amd the rest follow because of it.
You mean people like Kennedy? I've already pointed out his hypocrisy on the matter.The democratic party is FULL of people who profit from big oil, not just the Repubs. I personaly don't support either party they're pretty much playing each other against the middle. I do agree that we need alternate fuel supplies but until then we shouldn't hurt our economy to the benefit of the rest of the world. BTW, about the "following the "alpha" thing, what about slavery? We got rid of it here but it goes on today. Women's rights don't fly too well in Saudi Arabia and many others. Are child labor laws haven't caught on everywhere. Genocide still happens. China has 65 different crimes which call for the death penalty. My point is that the "rest of the world does as we do" theory hasn't panned out
I'm not a Democrat, I am a Green. You can insult the worthless Kennedys all ye want, it doesn't work on me. I know about Nancy Pelosi's top donor being Occidental Oil, the US oil company recently thrown out of Ecuador for gross environmental abuses. I know all about that stuff.
But all I'm hearing are excuses NOT to support alternatives and push for greener policies. All US research is being devoted to armaments, bogus drugs, gm foods, and consumer products. Not an eco-friendly environment when the poisoners are controlling the research funding programs. The amount of effort being given to alternative energy sources is practically nil. They'd rather fund a new prison than build a windfarm, put up a missile battery than build a tidal turbine. Then they complain of the "guy over there" when we start asking to change things. Off on the road to Mordor.
An example of ignoring scientists' warnings...
http://www.nola.com/speced/lastchance/t-p/index.ssf?/speced/lastchance/articles/day1.html
For 30 years or more scientists had predicted the catastrophic effects a hurricane could have on New Orleans because of coastal erosion (much of which was caused by the oil industry). They were ignored. While campaigning in 2000 Bush promised to make coastal restoration a top priority. Instead he cut the budget. My family and I suffered, first hand, the results from the Katrina catastrophe. The scientists were wrong in one respect. They said my neighborhood could be flooded in six feet of water... we got twelve feet instead. Disasters like this ain't pretty, my friends. Trust me...
Even if there is only a remote chance that we could reduce or even slow down the effects of global warming we should be doing this "yesterday". This shouldn't be a political issue... it's a moral imperative.
Holy crap! It was the OIL companies fault that Louisiana was built below sea level? Did they also place San Fran and LA on the San Andreas fault line? Don't forget that 'twas big oil who supplied the gas that got all the victims OUT of the big easy. At least those who LISTENED when they were told to evacuate. Of course, it was NOT big oil's fault that Nagin failed to take advantage of the gas, supplied through big oil, that sat in buses which went no where....DAMN YOU BIG OIL!
I have been fishing in the Louisiana marshes since I was a child. When the oil companies began dredging more and more canals deep into the marshes it allowed the steady intrusion of salt water into the marshes from the Gulf of Mexico. Year by year I saw the regualr and steady erosion of the marshes. Vast areas of marshland virtually disappeared... I SAW IT.
The marshlands acted as a natural buffer from the surge of hurricanes and diminished the intensity of the stormss by the time they reached us. The natural buffer no longer exists as it did before the oil companies began dredging the marshes. I SAW IT... you didn't. I SUFFERED THE EFFECTS... you didn't.
If you had any personal experience, or any decency and compassion, as well, you might have a different view about prioritizing the safety of Americans over economic profits of politically powerful interests. You are so naive... why do I even waste my time responding to you?
But hey, dude.. Savage rocks, huh?
He does! finally we agree on something. Tell me, did the oil companies build the levees? I think it was said best by the late Sonny Bono, when asked about his stance on Gore's global warming doomsday theory. "Al gore should start walking everywhere or shut-up." BTW, I was living in Pascagoula when Katrina hit so I MIGHT know something about what happened as well.
Pascagula...?
Same hurricane but an entirely different situation than the (former) Louisiana marshland and the warnings of scientists that were ignored that I'm talking about...
Levees? That's another topic entirely if you care to defend the dereliction of the U.S Army Corps of Engineers. (BTW, there's a paper trail...ooops)
And if you believe Michael Savage rocks then you've said all anyone needs to know about you... Why waste my time...?
Then don't waste your time. I'm sorry that the "great" sate of Louisiana has a history of being one of the most corrupt states in the union along with the fact that the incompitence of mayor nagin and the unwillingness of people to evacuate got people killed but if the oil companies do deserve any blame it's FAR down the line of those most responsible
BTW, don't take it from me
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051010/10louisiana.htm
don't kill the messenger
Please, I know more about Louisiana and New Orleans politics than you could learn in a lifetime. But that's not the point here. Once again you evade the important lesson of ignoring scientific warnings... because you have no credible argument of an ethical or intellectual nature to do so.
You're blaming Katrina on "big oil" my point is that there MANY other entities/people with more responsibilty. NOT TO MENTION that some scientists disagree that global warming causes stronger hurricanes.
You are an idiot...
Wow, nice retort, you must be a freaking genius. With debate skills like that I'm suprised you can type while wearing you helmet and using your drool rag.
Your ignorance speaks for itself. While I have never claimed to be MENSA material, your posts have demonstrated exactly what a mental midget you are. (Your worship of Michael Savage, alone, speaks volumes.) No, you are not worthy of my time...
Then quit while you're behind....
Sadly, and what you fail to see, is that AMERICA is the one behind, (not me in this discussion)... because of malleable idiots like you who overestimate their intelligence because they can operate a computer, but who aren't smart enough to even get out of the rain.
I thought you were done...glutton for punishment hm? I never said it wasn't happening what I said is the juries still out. It' happening at an extremly SLOW rate (0.7/century), that I'm FOR alternative fuels, I just realize that until we have them if we drastcally cut back on our industry to stop a "theory" we are screwed economically
same horse manure the auto companies put out in the late 70's when carter forced fuel standards on them. we can't do it that quickly, it will add too much to the cost of a car. they were wrong. more of the right wing garbage that energy conservation equals a drag on the economy.
There's no way I'm ignoring scientific warnings...I'm still shopping for sweaters and coats to counteract the global cooling "scientist" warned me about back in the seventies! Some more "decided science" down the tube.
I will say this, global warming IS the best science money can buy!
Those buses you are talking about were owned by a private companies which decided it would be more cost efficient to let them sit one more day.
The gas you talk about, was it donated or supplied for profit?
What conservatives will not allow themselves to consider is that those who died in New Orleans died needlessly because of the conservative model of government. It's the you are on your own conservative model of government, the no responsibility to the people conservative model of government that failed. They can ease their guilt by convincing themselves that the people who were left behind had it comin' because they were feckless, had no discipline. If that makes dead Americans easier to tolerate or less human to you then have at it. That way of thinking isn't for me.
Government is of, by and for the people and is responsible for the general welfare of the people. If carnage and neglect is your idea of general welfare, then good for you, conservative government is a success.
As for me I think we need a government that reflects the traditional values of community. We are in this together.
Yes, and it was the DEMOCRATIC government of Louisiana who failed to get those people out, along with the people themselves. I never said that the oil companies GAVE the gas away, but they DID make it available...that is unless the people of New Orleans were drilling and refining their own oil.
The storm could be seen coming from outer space for three days. Five long days after Katrina did her damage and people were still dying in the streets. .
When it became apparent that nothing was being done for the people who could not get out, under responsible government management, it would have been ethically and morally necessary to get the people out.
So like I said, whatever it takes to justify the callous disregard for accountability, have at it.
BTW, I'm not a democrat so don't bother trying to bludgeon me with the tired antics of political relativism. I am a liberal, the democratic party no longer reflects my values.
I wasn't trying to suggest YOU were a dem, I was pointing out that New Orleans was under dem control, therefore I'd say they weren't cons
That's fine.
We are experiencing a failure to communicate. I understand your point of view exceedingly well, you are saying that the democratic state government of LA is to blame for those who died during and after Katrina. You are also saying that the people who could not get out got what they deserved. I disagree. I am saying that the federal government had a moral obligation to step in when it became obvious that the state and local government was overwhelmed and were failing to serve their citizens.
Furthermore, I am saying the death reeked by Katrina are all too easily rationalized by the they had it coming crowd.
It just may be that our failure to communicate is intentional.
No, I don't think that they deserved it, though they DO deserve some blame. My argument was that it wasn't big oil's fault, as irony posted, and that if big oil did have a role in the tragedy that role was dwarfed by Nagin and the re4st of the stae and city Gov. Yes the federal government dropped the ball to, but my point was that if big oil had a role in the situation it was minute compared to the other guilty parties involved
I'm not IRONY 101 and don't recall the focus of our (you and I) discussion being big oil. Having said that, I have to sign off for now. I think maybe both of us maybe gained a little something from our exchange. Maybe, just a smidgeon.
Have a good'n
You 2
Roundhouse: In case I didn't make my point clear enough...
My point is that over 30 years of dire scientific warnings about coastal erosion were ignored, apparently for economic interests. Had those warnings been acted upon the physical force of Katrina would not have been nearly as devastating when it hit New Orleans because it would have been diminished in force by the natural "buffer" of the marshlands... and therefore the same opportunity for these obvious failures of the Corps of Engineers, Ray Nagin, FEMA, etc., etc. etc. would not have existed.
Again....correct me if I'm wrong New Orleans was built BELOW sea level yes?
ROUNDHOUSE SAVE ME!!!!!
-IRONY
No saving needed here... To anyone reading the entirety of the posts on this piece, except you perhaps, it should be obvious who is the one in need of saving...
BTW, tell us again why you worship Michael Savage...
Once again your ignorance is astounding. Use your computer skills, or go to a library and do some real research instead of just reading right wing crap. New Orleans was originally settled on high ground near the Mississippi (where it stood in realation to sea level, I'm not sure to say without researching it in more detail, but it was and still is "high ground") but eventaully New Orleans expanded over a couple of hundred years to ground that was lower (below sea level, I am sure). But I guess that was the fault of our forebears, just like those in California who eatblished a state on a fault line subject to eartquakes, or in Florida, for example, which is vulnerable to hurricanes.
Nevertheless, we had been given the assurance by our federal government since early last century that it would construct and maintain a hurricane levee system that would protect the city from flooding by hurricanes. They failed in protecting us in that regard. (And I could go into several pages of details here if space permitted.) We had also been given assurance by George W. Bush in a 2000 campaign pledge that he would reconstruct our eroded marshlands. Instead he cut the budget.
A hurricane is a naturally occurring destructive event, but it was the failure of government, state and federal, that resulted in the extent of the unbelievable, massively widesprad devastation in New Orleans. And I'm not talking about what happened in the days after the hurricane. My point, which you continue to evade is the lesson to be learned from ignoring scientific warnings about (preventable or reduceable) potential catastrophies that people and industries cause or contribute to. Accordingly, if there is even a remote chance that we can counter the potential effects of global warming then let's do it NOW... because just like scientists were warning (and being ignored) about how industries were causing and contributing to a potential disaster to New Orleans, scientists worldwide are issuing the same kinds of warnings about global warming. And politicians are ignoring thoe warnings... for economic reasons, just like in Louisiana.
You fail to see (or purposely ignore) the obvious parallels and speak of unrelated events that occurred in the handling of the aftermath of Katrina. You miss the point entirely... and maybe that's intentional because what you have cited here in "support" of your rambling arguments does not reflect the consensus of the scientific community. It is nothing more than the typical crap that right wingers try to pass off as accepted acience. Show me "peer-reviewed studies" (if you know and appreciate the importance of the phrase "peer-reviewed studies") that debunk the present consensus of the scientific community regarding global warming. You can't...
You're point was that "big oil" deserved much of the blame for what happened in N.O. My point was that IF it did have some responsibility it was minute compared to the other parties. I'm not saying maybe they didn't have something to do with it, but the other parties desreve more blame
Again, you are clueless... the oil industry was a MAJOR force of the destruction of the Louisiana marshland. It is historic fact and I've seen it with my own eyes since I was a child. You know NOTHING about this. Stick to what you know best... worship of Michal Savage.
I don't "worship Michael Savage"....I actually disagree with him on many points. However I DO use logic, not just emotion to view the issues. I'm sorry that Katrina happened but to give the blame to big oil is completely asinine.
Are you insane? My point was about drawing parallels from different events involving scientific warnings. The involvement of the oil industry in either case is well founded, but that's an ancillary point. My point has been about scientific warnings... you are the one who wants to keep this discussions on a sidetrack.
"i don't worship michael savage, i actually disagree with him on many points". but you go out of your way to name yourself "savagerocks". another intellectually dishonest winger, who when he's called on something, simply retreats into: that's not what i think. too much of a punk to own up to it.
...and you're lying, too. Re-read your posts.... those weren't the points you were trying to make.
Holy crap! It was the OIL companies fault that Louisiana was built below sea level? Did they also place San Fran and LA on the San Andreas fault line? Don't forget that 'twas big oil who supplied the gas that got all the victims OUT of the big easy. At least those who LISTENED when they were told to evacuate. Of course, it was NOT big oil's fault that Nagin failed to take advantage of the gas, supplied through big oil, that sat in buses which went no where....DAMN YOU BIG OIL! - Me
You mean that one? This is before you pointed out your stance on the depletion f the marsh land, at which point I conceded that maybe they had contributed to the problem but their guilt is PEANUTS compared to the rest of those involved
You're blaming Katrina on "big oil" my point is that there MANY other entities/people with more responsibilty. NOT TO MENTION that some scientists disagree that global warming causes stronger hurricanes. - Me
As you can see here I implied that perhaps you are right that Big oil contributed but that there are other with MORE responsibility
New Orleans is below sea level what do you expect? Katrina exposed the underbelly and failures of Liberalism and the Democratic party. After 50 years of Democrat rule, New Orleans was a hell-hole even before Katrina struck. High crime rates, one of the worst educational systems, government corruption, drugs, prostitutions, etc, etc. If this is the result of 50 years of Democrat rule, then Liberalism obviously sucks! Could the Federal gov't have done a better job? Of course it could have. Plues "hindsight has 20/20 vision. But in my opinion, the local Democrat gov't. and the State Gov't failed it's people very badly, then they attempted to place all the blame on Bush with their willing partner a.k.a. The Mainstream Liberal Antique Press, which usually does their bidding.
Some people are just far into letting Big Business pump toxins into our air, our water, our food and our bodies to give a damn about the effects of man's waste products on the environment. Pollution should be fought on the health issues alone. Clean air and water means healthier people, healthier people means lower health care costs. But hey! Let's poison everyone with too much mercury dumped into the oceans and then whine we have to pay for their doctor bills. Let's make more DU and spread it over the world's battlefields. Let's turn all our cities' air into smog and lower the life expectancy of our people by giving them all damaged lungs. Far easier to kill and destroy than care about people, isn't it?
This comes down to the essential difference between a liberal and a conservative. A liberal wants what's best for himself, his family, and his people and thinks to that future. A conservative just hates everyone and wants to poison them all in the name of immediate profit margins. Empathy versus sociopathy. Nurture versus nihilism. Good versus evil.
"A conservative just hates everyone..."
Red, I hope that doesn't mean that I'm turning into a conservative because I'm beginning to hate the ignorance, greed and lack of compassion of the human race... ;>)
Yes, us evil cons want to destroy the environment and KILL everyone....wow. That has got to be the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. Red, refer back to my comments on DDT third world GENOCIDE the enviromentalist left is responsible for and then tell me who's REALLY the evil group
> A liberal wants what's best for himself, his family, and his people and thinks to that future. A conservative just hates everyone and wants to poison them all in the name of immediate profit margins. Empathy versus sociopathy. Nurture versus nihilism. Good versus evil. <
Hopefully, they keep sharp objects away from you.
If you want to castigate the WashTimes, you should do it for incomplete reporting. If they had checked the scientific literature from the past 5-10 years, they would have found similar evidence of planetary warming on Pluto, Uranus, and Neptune, Triton, Saturn, and Jupiter, in addition to Mars. Damn those Oil Companies!
Damn you and your logic!
Well, done with work, and I'm done with this discussion. You libs may now have your website back.
CTT2 (SW) Mathis
Here is another Inconvenient Truth For Rev. Al Gore: Global Warming is a Liberal Democrat New Age Faux-Religion. Due to the simple fact that many Dems are nothing more than "socialists-in-disguise" and atheists, they need to place Humans front and center of our Universe. It's a form of narcissism, and demonstrates obvious arrogance as well. Another trait they continue to manifest is guilt over their creation and defense of their main "sacrament" a.k.a. abortion which is a "de-facto" slow motion Holocaust. So the Libs need to show the World that they "care" about saving lives. They have decided that Humans, and American Capitalism are the cause of Global Warming. G.W.is nothing more than another Liberal attempt to grab Uncle Sam's wallet, and make him pay for what he has not caused. More Socialism. Yet the Libs/Dems blindly ignore the simple fact that Planet Earth has gone through several Ice-Ages, along with subsequent Global Warming periods, and there were NO Humans, no SUV's, no Industrial Revolution, no Bush.... Then you must factor in the reality that planet Mars has also seen warming and reduction on it's polar ice caps at the SAME time Earth may be showing signs of Global Warming. This demonstrates that the Sun and or undersea volcanic activities may be the real reason behind the apparent Global Warming. So, kindly stop your fear-mongering Dems, If Humans have not cause G.W., we cant' stop it, that is the ultimate arrogance, to play God. Gore has already been proven to be a "snake-oil" huckster and hypocrite. Once again the Dems motto is : "Do As We Say, Not As We Do"! Just check out Gore's utility bills, and the two mines he has in his Tennessee properties that pollute two rivers there.
I think that hits the nail on the head...Thank you!