On CNN, Beck provided Taylor with forum to advance global warming misinformation
On the July 6 edition of his CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck hosted James Taylor, a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, who claimed that "virtually every significant assertion that [former Vice President] Al Gore makes in that movie [An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Classics, May 2006)] has been refuted by sound science." Taylor went on to assert that there is an overall thickening of ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland. In fact, in its 2007 Working Group I report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that "the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are very likely shrinking," and that "[t]hickening of high-altitude, cold regions of Greenland and East Antarctica, perhaps from increased snowfall, has been more than offset by thinning in coastal regions of Greenland and West Antarctica." Indeed, in the report's Summary for Policymakers, the IPCC asserted that recent data show "that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003."
During the program, Taylor purported to rebut assertions that "Antarctica is melting" by claiming, "[T]he truth is that Antarctica is in a prolonged cold spell and has been cooling for decades. Indeed, the Antarctic ice sheet is accumulating mass as opposed to losing mass." Beck responded that he had "read" that Antarctica "is actually accumulating ice on the interior. It's actually losing ice around the shelves, but they still don't know why." Taylor then claimed that "the vast majority of the continent, East Antarctica, is getting colder, and the ice sheet is accumulating there."
Taylor's claim that "Antarctica is in a prolonged cold spell and has been cooling for decades" greatly oversimplifies Antarctica's temperature variation. In a May 16 article, New Scientist reported that "[i]t is clear that the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out from the mainland of Antarctica towards South America, has warmed significantly," but it also noted that a 2002 study found the continent's interior had cooled between 1966 and 2000. However, the article went on to report that the cooling of the continent's interior actually seems to be due to the strengthening of circular winds -- caused by a hole in the ozone layer:
[The stronger circular winds] prevent warmer air [from] reaching its interior. The increased wind speeds seem to be a result of cooling in the upper atmosphere, caused by the hole in the ozone layer above the pole, which is of course the result of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution.
Confusingly, it appears that one human impact on the climate -- the Antarctic ozone hole -- is currently compensating for another, global warming. If the ozone layer recovers over the decades as expected, the circular winds could weaken, resulting in rapid warming.
In its 2007 report, the IPCC similarly asserted that "where the ozone hole has played a role, it has resulted in cooling over 1971 to 2000 for parts of the interior of Antarctica but large warming in the Antarctic Peninsula region and Patagonia."
The 2007 IPCC report also contradicts Taylor's claim that "the Antarctic ice sheet is accumulating mass as opposed to losing mass." The report stated: "For East Antarctica, growth of 20 ± 21 Gt [Gigaton] yr-1 was indicated, with estimated losses of 44 ± 13 Gt yr-1 from West Antarctica. The balance of the Antarctic Peninsula was not assessed," meaning that although East Antarctica ice mass may fluctuate anywhere from losing a billion tons to gaining 41 gigatons of ice per year, it is estimated that West Antarctica will lose anywhere from 31 to 57 gigatons of ice. In fact, despite Taylor's suggestion that ice thickening in East Antarctica could outweigh the effects of ice loss in the West Antarctic ice sheets, the report went on to note: "Combining the East and West Antarctic numbers yielded a loss of 24 ± 25 Gt yr-1 for the region monitored."
Taylor similarly suggested that ice loss on the edges of the Greenland ice sheet is being offset by increases in the interior mass. He stated: "[T]he interior is accumulating snow mass rather significantly, and merely the edges, most particularly along the southwest edge of the continent, are the receding glaciers. And that's where, of course, we see the stories in the major media." In fact, the IPCC wrote: "Greenland has experienced mass loss recently in response to increases in near-coastal melting and in ice flow velocity more than offsetting increases in snowfall." The report later added: "Many recent studies have addressed Greenland mass balance. They yield a broad picture (Figure 4.17) of inland thickening (Thomas et al., 2001; Johannessen et al., 2005; Thomas et al., 2006; Zwally et al., 2006), faster near-coastal thinning primarily in the south along fast-moving outlet glaciers (Abdalati et al., 2001; Rignot and Kanagaratnam, 2006), and a recent acceleration in overall shrinkage."
From the July 6 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: James Taylor is a senior fellow for the environmental policy at Heartland Institute.
James, I got to put this one right out at the very beginning. You are almost a wholly-owned subsidiary of Exxon Mobil, are you not?
TAYLOR: Well, that's what the global warming alarmists of the world would like you to believe. Actually, at the Heartland Institute, we receive less than 5 percent of our budget from energy producers, and we receive more than 95 percent of our budget from energy consumers. So, certainly --
BECK: Right.
TAYLOR: -- if we're going to skew the science, I think the energy companies better beware, but fortunately, we don't sell out for money.
BECK: OK. And you know, I have to ask that question, and I think it's a fair question. I think it's also fair to ask the people who are pushing the global warming agenda how much they receive from places like the Sierra Club, but that's a different story.
The movie came out 2005, An Inconvenient Truth. How much of that movie now is under question?
TAYLOR: Well, virtually every significant assertion that Al Gore makes in that movie has been refuted by sound science.
BECK: Give me -- give me -- give me an example.
TAYLOR: Sure. Al Gore mentions Antarctica as being a canary in the coal mine for global warming and shows us pictures of ice calving off the ice sheet, and it leads people to believe that all of Antarctica is melting.
Unfortunately for Al Gore and global warming alarmists, the truth is that Antarctica is in a prolonged cold spell and has been cooling for decades. Indeed, the Antarctic ice sheet is accumulating mass as opposed to losing mass.
So, if there is anything that can be said about, say, for example, the musicians in Antarctica this weekend for Live Earth, they're more likely to show us a picture of a Sasquatch driving an SUV around the South Pole than they are likely to show us a picture of actual global warming occurring in Antarctica.
BECK: The Antarctica thing -- 'cause I read about this just a couple of months ago -- that it is actually accumulating ice on the interior. It's actually losing ice around the shelves, but they still don't know why.
They think it's the winds that are blowing across those ice shelves right at the corner, right? And that was -- wasn't that in an Ohio study?
TAYLOR: Well, Antarctica, a small portion of the continent, western Antarctica, is getting a little bit warmer. However, the vast majority of the continent, East Antarctica, is getting colder, and the ice sheet is accumulating there.
Al Gore in his movie, of course, points out the West Antarctic Peninsula and doesn't let us know that this is a cherry-picked, small portion of the continent.
In Greenland, for example, as you mentioned, the interior is accumulating snow mass rather significantly and merely the edges, most particularly along the southwest edge of the continent, are the receding glaciers. And that's what, of course, we see the stories in the major media about.
BECK: All right, James. Now go back and call Halliburton and tell them you've done well.
the july smithsonian magazine contains an article "chronicling the ice" by j. madeline nash. it's about lonnie thompson, who has spent over thirty years taking core samples of ice from glaciers and is considered the leading authority on high altitiude glaciers of the tropics. here is his statement: "what really stands out is how unusual the last 50 years have been compared to at least the last 2000 and perhaps the last 5000 years." and: " if nature alone were in charge, then glaciers would be growing in the lower latitudes of one hemsiphere and retreating in the lower latitudes of another. that's not what's happening."
OH MY GOD!!! Beck allowed somone on the air to offer an opposing viewpoint? Quick! get the torhces, grab yer pitchfork, and for gosh sake someone get a ROPE!!!
C'mon people. Our country is built on free speech and welcomes debate. If you are so sure of your opinion why would you be concerned about an opposing viewpoint.
And nobody is saying that the earth isn't getting warmer. The debate is over how much impact humans have on the increase in temperature. This is science and like it or not, there are facts that are in contradiction with Al Gore's stance.
cannon, you took the words right out of my mouth...or from my keyboard in this case;-)
since he took the words right out of your mouth, then maybe you can explain where i said a single word about beck or his guest or whether he should be banned. i said no such thing. maybe you two need your glasses checked. as for the "science" of this, i am quoting the words of a very qualified scientist, and you two are apparently content to see the views of some industry flack liar as equal in weight to his.
I like how you characterize misrepresenting scientific research as an "opposing viewpoint." If the science is against Gore then why do these think tank hacks have to lie about the science?
Taylor fabircated a quote for his Chcago Sun Times op ed. I guess that's just an opposing viewpoint as well, right?
There are some people who actually watch Beck and believe what he is saying instead of using his show as a drinking game.
Drink every time Beck or his guest misinform the audience -- probably not a good idea since nobody can drive home.
So we're supposed to listen to Beck when he says the world is going to end (literally) and Iran will drop a nuke on the US (even gives the date), but when it comes to what might be an actual threat, we're supposed to listen to him when he's all "LOL @ AL GOAR".
It's like some staggered ThreatDown.
Are you implying that Iran having nuclear capabilities is NOT a threat?
Not compared to global warming. Iran is not going to use a nuclear weapon to attack any nation. It is a defensive maneuver.
America only attacks weak nations, not stron ones.
Not compared to global warming. Iran is not going to use a nuclear weapon to attack any nation. It is a defensive maneuver.
America only attacks weak nations, not stron ones.
You're joking, right? Amadinajad has said they are looking forward to when Israel is "wiped off the map". I wouldn't bet on the fact that he's kidding about it.
Your post demonstrates a real problem in recognizing and prioritizing the problems we face. The Middle East is melting down and you're worried about fluorescent bulbs.
I have not seen any evidence to suggest that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.
I have not seen any evidence to suggest that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons - loonz / Tuesday July 10, 2007 03:59:37 PM EST
Yeah..they just want to be our friends...
Exactly. This administration doesn't need stupid evidence. Sarcasm will do just fine. The Bush Administration is the law! Who is gonna stop them anyway?
"Yeah..they just want to be our friends..."
I'm not sure what that means. And I don't really care if Iran is our friend or not.
Iran says they're doing it for energy purposes and there's no evidence that they're pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Wow, You certainly fit your moniker! Iran has said (also) that it will destroy Isreal when it develops nuclear weapons. Did you miss that? Do a simple google search. No, never mind, that is probably tooo complicated for you to handle. ASK someone else to do the search for you.
Since it is your assertion, it is your job to support it. You don't have to provide the legitimate link if you really don't care if anyone believes you.
http://antiwar.com/letters/?articleid=11257
Okay.
Thank you, but your post does not support your contention. Iran expressed a desire for the end of Israel. The translation of which is even up to debate. According to the link you provided, Achmedinijad never said that he was going to build a nuclear weapon in order to achieve that goal. You must have made that part of your assertion up.
You are putting words in his mouth, mindreading and/or speculating, but you are definitely not supporting your contention that "Iran has said (also) that it will destroy Isreal when it develops nuclear weapons" at all.
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to the late founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Imam Khomeini. Addressing some 4,000 students gathered in an interior ministry conference hall, Ahmadinejad also called for Palestinian unity, resistance and a point where the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come. "The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland," he said.
from: http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=200247
Yes, it does say that. Perhaps you aren't as open minded as you claim to be. He obviously says that Isreal needs to be removed from their heartland. He doesn't need to say "using nuclear bombs". He says Isreal should be annihilated. When he gets the ability (one way or another) he will do it. What works best to annihilate? Perhaps a nuclear bomb?
He doesn't need to say "using nuclear bombs".--autopsych
Thank you for admiting he didn't say what you said he said.
; )
Are you implying that Iran having nuclear capabilities is NOT a threat?
The only answer to that one is "YES", that can be the only thing he is implying. Past posts have shown him to be quite the....well, I just can't bring myself to say it.....ok...moron! Dang I hate to use such harsh words on such a devoted poster. But, since soooo many others use that word, I feel it is fairly safe to use to describe a poster who has no real clue to reality.
So we're supposed to listen to Beck when he says the world is going to end (literally) and Iran will drop a nuke on the US (even gives the date), but when it comes to what might be an actual threat, we're supposed to listen to him when he's all "LOL @ AL GOAR".It's like some staggered ThreatDown-iflurry8094 / Monday July 9, 2007 08:15:32 PM EST
Really, Beck gives a date? Why don't you check your facts before making such an accusation. Beck has never predicted a "date".
See, the deal is that Antarctica was cooling until 2000 and then it started warming. But as soon as a Democrat wins the Presidency it will magically begin cooling again until such time that a Republican wins again, (which could be awhile the way things look) but when that happens, look out because Antarctica is really really really going to start warming then. We need to keep Dems in power to prevent this from happening since they have taken all these precautions over the past 30 years (like what?)
at least the democrats don't deny there is a problem. at least democrats have been trying to work on things like increased mileage standards. at least democrats support bills to lessen pollution. according to you guys there's no problem. it's all natural.
at least the democrats don't deny there is a problem.... have been trying to work on things like increased mileage standards... support bills to lessen pollution.
Oh, really? What have democrats DONE?? What have the democrats done to increase mileage standards? What have the democrats done to lessen pollution? All I see is all talk-no action. Democrats have everything tied up in the system and NOTHING is getting done. Democrats have no more want to do things than republicans do! Democrats are hypocrits and liars just like republicans are.
according to you guys there's no problem. it's all natural.
"you guys" kind of narrows down who you're talking to, doesn't it? "I" see there is a problem and "I" see where it's coming from. Al Gore is NOT correct on many of his assertations and "you guys" are hypocrits by forwarding his misinformational message as being absolute truth.
More lies.
Democrats just recently gained control of the Congress. Under GOP control, Congress repeatedly defeated proposals to raise CAFE standards. John Kerry introduced an amendment to require the Army Corps of Engineers to consider climate change in all of its projects but that was defeated. Bush will veto any legislation that calls for curbing CO2 emissions.
So then, everything I said is CORRECT! All talk...no action! Democrats are just like the republicans, they can't (or won't) get anything done.
then everything i said was correct. bush and the republicans are blocking legislation.
Hmmm, blocking ALL the legislation? I don't think so. Blocking the illegal immagrant bill? Yes, but so did many democrats. Democratics couldn't even find common ground within their own ranks and (what was it) a third of them voted against it.
BTW, how are the 100-days promises going? I see Pelosi's approval rating has dropped to the mid-30's (in her home state) since she made her promises. Probably because none are getting done. When Bush's approval ratings dropped that low, liberals were wall-to-wall trying to be the first to talk about how bad he is. Geee, no one seems to even mention that Pelosi's approval ratings are as bad as Bush's. All within 6 months. Oh, yeah! Democratics are absolutely just as bad as republicans.
Bruce - we don't know what the truth is... but, it doesn't look good. And, no matter what we (the human population on this planet do)... there may not be any change or alteration of this current path...
Now, if you subscribe...even in the slightest...to the notions of science...well, you have to give this stuff some serious thought. Is there anything we can do about it? I don't know. But, it seems your party affiliates - for the most part - don't seem to care in the least! Is that 'responsible'? Don't you think that the notions of so-called personal responsibility should be adhered to...extended to something more than just making money or putting food on the table? Hell, even combined into a notion of global responsibility. It boils down to forcing fat cats to alter their ways of money-making... and that is a big no-go across the board.
If you really think this stuff is just fairy tales... well, I don't know what to tell you. And, honestly...by the time any of this has any real effect.... we'll all be dead. So who cares. Right?
...and, by the way... Beck is a moron. It doesn't help your argument semi-supporting this douchebag.
FWIW, I could give a rats a** about Glen Beck. The best thing he's got going is irritating liberals which is mildly amusing to me. I wouldn't use him as a source about Jack Squat.
Do I think there's global warming going on that's being caused by human activity? Yes
Do I think we can do anything about it? Not in 2007, maybe when we are more technologically advanced if we're still around we can do something about controlling the weather and climate but right now the genies out of the bottle as far as human lifestyles are concerned. And if Gore actually thought we could do something significant about this problem he would actually run for President and put himself in position to make real changes. Therein lies the rub...
Personally, I believe that it boils down to trying to force very, very rich people and corporations to change ther habits... something we will not see...probably ever. It just isn't in the human make-up. There will have to be an utter calamity, disaster for people to really take any of this seriously. But, as I said, it probably doesn't matter.
And, I appreciate your fervent denial of Beck. I can't stand that guy.
...also, I do think this is all probably an inevitablity... that is, something that cannot be avoided. To boil the discussion down to individual lifestyle, carbon credits and the like... all the while allowing the real polluters of the world to go unchecked - because they make LOTS of money... this problem is on both sides of the aisle. Money talks. One cannot become President of the United States and complain about global warming without being a hypocrite on some level. You're right... therein lies the rub.
oh please. there's nothing we can do about pollution and global warming? so why bother? that is the biggest load of garbage i've ever heard. whatever we start to do now is going to help in some way. you sound like bush. well, there may be a problem, but we have to study it for another twenty years and we can't make companies actually do anything, it has to be voluntary. what the hell is wrong with you people?
and by the way bruce, the idea that we have to wait until we are "more technologically advanced", ignores the fact that there are many things already available. japanese cars get more mileage than ours for the same size car. we could require flourescent bulbs that use 1/4 of the energy of regular, and save a bundle on top of it. there is technology to reduce pollution on factories but the companies don't want to spend the money. we should require those things, and pressure countries like china to start doing the same. they are becoming as big a polluter as we are. i realize this all might require a little more effort than just throwing up our hands, but it would be worth it.
I'm all for reducing pollution and being more energy efficient. I'm not driving a gas guzzling SUV and I live in a condo. So, you know, I'm not part of the problem.
But my desire for cleaner air and higher mileage cars has nothing to do with solving global warming, it's about health and trying to keep gas prices in line. I think global warming is a bigger issue than buying flourescent lightbulbs or driving a Honda will solve.
And what exactly do you propose we do to pressure China? What's the shoe that's going to drop if they don't do what we say since clearly we are such a leader on this whole issue?
One other thing, I used to listen to Air America all the time when they first got up and running when Janine Garafalo was on with Sam Ceder. She spent every night railing against the evils of corporate America and all the polluting and all the Right Wing corporate greed and blah blah blah...And you know what? During commercial breaks she would go outside and fire up her smokes and have her little puff fest and then come back on the air and blame everyone and everything else for why she might not be healthy in 20 years. Personal responsibility indeed, it starts with looking in the mirror. Gee I'm so shocked she's not on the air anymore...
damn, the fact some talk show host smokes is an answer to what i said? and i never pretended that one thing alone will solve global warming, but there are a lot of things we can begin doing. doing nothing qualifies as the least effective. and how do we pressure china. how about their huge trade surplus with us?
No, I really wasn't mentioning the Garafolo thing to answer you, it was just something I wanted to mention. Like I said, I'm all for conserving and limiting pollution and all that stuff, I just don't think it will affect the climate. In fact, I pretty much agree with THIS COLUMN.
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/07102007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_live_earth_self_deceit_show_opedcolumnists_.htm
">[link to www.nypost.com]I guess the link doesnt directly work but if you copy it into your browser it works.
i don't see any column on your link, but what you're saying makes no sense on the face of it. reducing pollution does nothing? then you're denying that pollution can have an effect on climate.
Yes, I should have said that I don't think these steps taken by individuals will be enough to stop global warming.
And if Gore actually thought we could do something significant about this problem he would actually run for President and put himself in position to make real changes.
Gore doesn't WANT to be in position to make real change. He is putting himself in position to profit from the global warming scare-mongering that he is promoting. He knows there's little that can be done with today's technology and he is trying to profit from the fear of 'end of world' visions that he propogates.
If he runs for a political office then his greed program will have to be divulged. This way he can gouge all the 'little people' he wants. By the looks of it, there are a lot of little people out there that are falling for his bunk, and many of them are calling Beck a liar because he can provide scientific fact that shows how much Gore is lying to the public. It's almost as if those people say that Gore can use scare tactics to make HIS money, but Cheney (for instance) cannot use scare tactics to make HIS money. These people are very hypocritical and shallow minded. They see the evidence but refuse to acknowledge Gore's demands are purely profit driven. The KNOWN fact is that today's technology allows LITTLE to be done to stop or even slow global warming down. And no one is interested in promoting the needed technology until they get financial rewards for doing it.
Talk about an ill-informed rant. You accuse Gore of sinister motivations (always the weakest form or argumentation) without providing any evidence, or even any reasoning. (Exactly how is Gore going to profit?)
But your big flaw comes when you assert that Beck provides facts that "that shows how much Gore is lying to the public." No, he doesn't. He doesn't provide any facts at all. That is why MMFA highlighted this piece. He provides misinformation.
Please explain how Gore is "lying" to the public.
He can't, and won't.
You can't be THAT naive! Gore pays himself with those carbon credit offsets. And, everyone else who does it pays him too!
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm
What is wrong with actually using your own product? Do you think it is a scandal for Bill Gates to run Windows Operating Systems and software on his home PC as well?
Ha ha ha hahha haha ...you can't REALLY be comparing microsoft usage by Bill Gates to carbon credits and al gore? Wow, you must really be "out there"! But, if that's the way you think...more power to ya. No wonder so many people think liberalism is a mental disorder.
They are comparable in that they are both products sold by the two CEO's. You complained that Gore buys his own product. Why don't you complain about Gates?
I don't understand why you have to resort to name-calling in place of an actual argument.
Oh well. Maybe that is all you have.
Gore isn't providing a product for consumption. He is providing a commodity, which HE benefits from when he commands others to use it. Gates only makes a product and hopes people buy it.
I can't believe you don't see the difference.
Wow. You have no idea. A commodity is simply a kind of product:
1 : an economic good: as a : a product of agriculture or mining b : an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment <commodities futures> c : a mass-produced unspecialized product <commodity chemicals> <commodity memory chips>
2 a : something useful or valued <that valuable commodity patience>; also : THING, ENTITY b : CONVENIENCE, ADVANTAGE
3 obsolete : QUANTITY, LOT
4 : a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (as brand name) other than price
5 : one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market <stars as individuals and as commodities of the film industry -- Film Quarterly>
I said they were both products. You tried to refute my by saying that one is a product and the other is a commodity -- which is a product also. What is your point?
A commodity isn't always a product. It can be a service. In this case, though it does appear to be more appropriate to label carbon offsets as a product than a service. I should have worded better with this information in mind.
Sorry about any confusion on that matter.
"Gore isn't providing a product for consumption. He is providing a commodity, which HE benefits from when he commands others to use it."--autopsych
Please quote Gore directly to support your claim that "[Gore] commands others to use it."
Because it looks like you just made that up.
Gore is providing a product/service/commodity/whatever that he consumes/buys and likely hopes other people will consume/buy it as well. Assuming you want to disqualify Bill Gates on apparently frivolous grounds, you simply cannot contend that there aren't CEO's all over the country that consume their own product/commodity/service or whatever you want to call it -- just like Mr. Gore does.
You are so stuck on trying to blurr the analogy of Bill Gates, you don't see that no matter how tightly you try to draw the comparison, I can find a CEO in a similar position, who consumes his own product.
You've obivously found the true fount of Democratic thought Bruce. I've been looking for it for 30 years with no luck. No vaugeness or uncertainty. obviously pure quill. Where do you plug into this source. I'm in despirate need here.
Why is Beck even interviewing him about this? I mean, I know James Taylor sang that song about how "I've seen fire and I've seen rain", but does that really make him an authority on climate change?
You Global Warming crazies don't even care at this point about most of the new scientific data that is coming out either reducing the hysteria of Global Warming.
Now, while many of you may say, "What's the harm asking people to clean the envirnoment."
Well, the harm is that crazy environmentalists like Gore, Kennedy, and Rachel Carson have objectively killed more people in Africa than Colonialism.
http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com/2007/07/joseph-stalin-mao-zedong-adolf-hitler.html
Settle down idiot . The adults are trying to have a discussion.
Okay, argue like an adult.
Tell me they haven't killed more people than colonialism.
Malaria kills a child every 30 seconds, 1 Million people a year.
But, environmentalists like Gore and Kennedy force those people to use fly nets instead of DDT.
Moreover, environmentalists like Gore and Kennedy prevent the use of fossil fuels that would save billions of lives in Africa.
No thanks.
Because you cannot dispute these unequivocal facts that Rachel Carson and her book Silent Spring has killed more people than Hitler.
Good thing Gore praised Carson in his recent book.
Maybe he should take his private jet and carbon credits and visit a 20 year old mother dying in Africa because of the dung and wood fires burnt in her home because liberal environmentalists prevent access to industrial power.
That's right. You win. Now go back to your blogspot.
You have no idea what you are talking about as usual. Why am I not surprised?
From wikipedia:
"Carson and the environmental movement were—and continue to be—criticized by some conservatives, who argue that restrictions placed on DDT have caused needless malaria deaths.[32] For example, the conservative magazine Human Events gave Silent Spring an honorable mention for Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries.[33]
Carson, however, never actually called for an out-right ban on DDT, instead arguing in Silent Spring that:
No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored. The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it is either wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are rapidly making it worse. The world has heard much of the triumphant war against disease through the control of insect vectors of infection, but it has heard little of the other side of the story - the defeats, the short-lived triumphs that now strongly support the alarming view that the insect enemy has been made actually stronger by our efforts. Even worse, we may have destroyed our very means of fighting.[34]
She noted that "Malaria programmes are threatened by resistance among mosquitoes"[35] and emphasized the advice given by the directer of Holland's Plant Protection Service: "Practical advice should be 'Spray as little as you possibly can' rather than 'Spray to the limit of your capacity'…Pressure on the pest population should always be as slight as possible."[36]
Furthermore, experts have argued that restrictions placed on the agricultural use of DDT (something Carson actually did advocate) have increased its effectiveness as tool for battling malaria. Pro-DDT advocate Amir Attaran has said, "The outcome of the treaty [banning DDT's use in agriculture] is arguably better than the status quo…For the first time, there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control only, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before."[37] And even Roger Bate, director of Africa Fighting Malaria, has said "A lot of people have used Carson to push their own agendas. We just have to be a little careful when you're talking about someone who died in 1964."[38]
Some recent criticism of Carson was funded by the tobacco industry, seeking to divert the attention of bodies such as the World Health Organization from campaigns against smoking.[39][40] Documents in the Legacy Tobacco Document Archive show that Africa Fighting Malaria—one the most vocal critics of Carson and advocates of DDT—was originally established with the support of the tobacco industry to divert resources away from efforts by the World Health Organization to reduce smoking.[41]. Another vocal critic, Steven Milloy, established The Advancement of Sound Science Center with support from Philip Morris.[42] Although funding from Philip Morris appears to have ceased, TASSC and the associated junkscience.org site continue to criticise Rachel Carson.
Some environmentalists consider the recent criticism of Carson and push for DDT to be an industry sponsored strategy to discredit the environmental movement. Monica Moore of Pesticide Action Network has written that "Renewed promotion of DDT and attacks on those who would limit its use isn’t about malaria, or even DDT. It is a cynical “better living through chemistry” campaign intended to discredit the environmental health movement, with support from the Bush administration and others who seek nothing less than the dismantling of health and environmental protections."[43]
As for your "20 year old mother dying in Africa because of the dung and wood fires burnt in her home because liberal environmentalists prevent access to industrial power." argument, that is a rehash of the pure communist propaganda from Martin Durkin's The Great Global Warming Swindle. Good work comrade. Stick it to those Western Imperialist pigs!
"Durkin and a number of others involved in the film had in fact been closely connected to the Revolutionary Communist Party.
"They felt passionately that the Green Movement was a deeply reactionary form of Western imperialism, which put improvement through science and industry of the welfare of people in Africa and the Asian subcontinent below its own decadent obsessions with biodiversity and so-called "sustainable development".
"A similar theme pervades The Great Global Warming Swindle. We are taken to those vast tracts of Africa where there is no electricity, and see families huddled round a fire in their mud hut. Then we are told that "five million children under five die every year as a result of respiratory diseases from indoor smoke". Remember that, the next time you read about the ecological purity of heating derived from "biomass". Next we are taken to some godforsaken health centre in the Kenyan hinterland, struggling to get by with electricity from a dilapidated but undeniably politically correct solar panel. It just about manages to keep alive the fridge with the medicine inside.
Using a blogspot to make an arguement for yourself? I thought you dissaproved of others speaking for you. You showed disdain when I refer to experts on subjects but you use a blogspot to argue a point you cannot argue yourself? Somehow complaints from you about me sending you to an expert on a subject lose their effectiveness when you do the same. Only you use a blogspot as the expert, at least I used a real expert.
BTW, You only made an illogical arguement on the one person (with none of the poster's claims discredited by your non-working link). How about the others? Does wikipedia have the same dis-claimers about them, too? Keep up the good work.
You don't know what you are talking about as usual. I didn't link to any blogspot. The above links are to wikipedia and the independent. If you have a substantive and/or relevant argument, now would be the time to post it.
The wikipedia link is to Rachel Carson's wikipage. It shouldn't require a genius to find it, but here is the link for those who aren't able to figure it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_carson#Posthumous_criticism
Hopefully you know how to cut and paste.
I know what you linked it to. Wikipedia is a site where idividual people provide personal opinion input to any given subject/person. Absolute truth is NOT a requirement to get your opinion posted on that site. Although, I use it often, I DO KNOW it isn't absolutely accurate. And, anyone else who uses it should know that too. Your opinion that you posted is just drooling with left-wing propoganda.
It can be true about wiki pages. They are not an absolute authority, but it is your burden to show where they are wrong. They aren't wrong just because you suspect they are wrong.
If you have a substantive difference with the post, now is your chance to mention it.
No, the burden is on you. YOU chose to use the site in an attempt to show 'authoritative evidence' of your opinion. You are required to show that your evidence is real. When you are able to show the statements made are made by an authority of that subject then your point can be validated. But, not until then. Anyone can simply write something on a web site, that does not make it fact.
Your not making any sense at this point. I suppose you have no substantive disagreement or else you would have posted it by now.
"You are required to show that your evidence is real."--autopsych
The wikipage cites its sources. It backs up its contentions about what Rachel Carson actually said, by quoting from her book. I don't know what else you need? Do I need to buy a book and ship it to you from Amazon? If you have a problem with one or more of the sources, you are welcome to bring them up as well. If you are going to argue this, you need to be specific about what you object to. Up until now, you have only been operating in vague useless generalities.
Of course, if you can provide evidence that proves Carson called for an "outright ban" on DDT, then you may have a point. No one to my knowledge has been able to do that yet. Good luck to you.
"Your opinion that you posted is just drooling with left-wing propoganda."--autopsych
Please provide us some examples of the "left-wing propaganda" in the article if you object. The article supports its main contention by quoting Carson herself in full context. I don't see how you can dispute that, but please list your grievances.
"I know what you linked it to. Wikipedia is a site where idividual people provide personal opinion input to any given subject/person. Absolute truth is NOT a requirement to get your opinion posted on that site."--autopsych
While that maybe true for some pages in wikipedia. I don't see where you are making that specific case against the Rachel Carson page by citing any examples. You are dismissing the whole thing because of what may have happened on other pages. Quite a silly argument.
Sure, let's make them use a chemical that has been outlawed (for a reason) HERE for about three decades or so. That'll fix'em right up.
DDT has not led to a single case of Cancer in the United States. It was outlawed because of Rachel Carson's book.
If your child was dying of Malaria, there is no way in hell you would tolerate liberal elitists telling to to put a fly net over your child.
In fact, the Health Minister of Uganda begged the Environmentalist to allow him to use DDT.
Where DDT has been used in Africa, it has saved lives in the Millions.
Okay, dude. This is all fine. And, I will concede your point. Fine. What this has to do with global warming... a circuitous attempt - by you - to lump the so-called 'environmentalists' as mass murderers or whatever... give it up. Again, go back to your blogspot and hold court.
Because at live Earth, Al Gore said we should reduce CO2 production by 90%.
That will result in the deaths of millions of Africans. We as Americans can handle experimenting with expensive new technologies. They can't.
They have no access to clean water because they have no pumping stations to clean the water.
The pumping stations need electricity. But Envrionmentalists prevent African Countries from using the cheapest and most powerful source of Energy: Coal and Oil.
African has plenty of these resources and could instantly modernize if it wasn't for these global warming idiots like Gore and Kennedy.
Great. Congratulations. I said 'you win'. I meant it. Gore and Kennedy are the devil. You love the African peoples. Case closed.
You are completely speculating here. You could likewise say that if we send a man to Mars, we could infuriate the Martians, who will attack Earth and destroy all life forms. Ergo, any one for space exploration is for the destruction of mankind.
Your argument has just about that much validity. You make wild generalizations not based on anything.
No, I'm saying if 1 Million people a year die of Malaria, and DDT is the cheapest and best killer of Mosquitoes in the World, by forcing people to use fly nets or threatening sanctions is killing them.
There is no other way around it.
The article is about global warming.
Do you even read your own posts? Here is what you said:
>>Because at live Earth, Al Gore said we should reduce CO2 production by 90%.
>>That will result in the deaths of millions of Africans. We as Americans can handle experimenting with expensive new technologies. They can't.
You weren't even talking about malaria! You are simply posting anything at this point.Again. DDT has never been banned outright in Africa. It's use has been wisely curtailed at times because over-use leads to the development of resistance, which makes the use of the pesticide much less effective over several years.
"The manufacture and use of DDT was banned in the US in 1972, on the advice of the US Environmental Protection Agency. The use of DDT has since been banned in most other developed nations, but it is not banned for public health use in most areas of the world where malaria is endemic. Indeed, DDT was recently exempted from a proposed worldwide ban on organophosphate chemicals."
How much CO2 does Africa produce in comparison to the U.S.?
Not even close, which is why Africa should be allowed to produce as much as they need to help their people.
So why are you complaining? They won't have reduce any CO2 if the rest of the world reduces its carbon footprint.
What??
Other enviromental elitists are micromanaging every step of African production.
They prevent the development of Coal and Oil Power. This results in the deaths of millions each year.
We don't need the development of more oil and coal power. Screw the oil industry.
Please provide direct legitimate links to backup your assertions and not just annecdotes from communist propaganda films.
Save Africa, Drive a Humvee, I guess. All those melting glaciers will be good for Africa, huh?
Must be great to be an ignorant, selfish, head-up-your-butt clown and STILL think you are doing more for the environment than Evil Liberals like Al Gore and Rachel Carson, who of course are only determined to MURDER millions of people through their ill-conceived policies.
Really, what a moron. Go read a book. They're those things with covers and pages. No, not TV Guide. The bigger ones. You can find them at libraries. You know, those places where you rent your videos for free.
Uganda? He probably wanted to use it ON the citizens.
So not only are you ignorant, you're a racist too.
Screw Africa. The only useful thing to come from that continent is the drum.
<neo-con humor/sarcasm>
When you bring up the leadership in Uganda, I can't help, but think of Idi Amin -- a terrible dictator guilty of some of the worst human rights abuses. That was what I thought of when jscott made the joke.
I don't see any reason at all to bring in the race-card here. I think you jumped the gun.
And that's what I was thinking when I wrote it. Typical right-wing knee-jerk reaction.
Are you working for Tom Delay?
Are you going to make a substantive argument?
When you argue with a fool, then there are two.
arguing on the Internet is as productive as phone sex.
Don't demean yourself that way. I'm sure your phone clients end up much more satisfied than your readers.
You don't seem to respond much to substantive arguments. Why bother?
"DDT has not led to a single case of Cancer in the United States. It was outlawed because of Rachel Carson's book."--copious
Carson indeed got DDT banned in the US, which no one has reasonably objected to as Malaria is a very rare disease in the US and was indigenously eradicated in the 1940's.
Do Gore and Kennedy PREVENT pharma from making available to those who need it, large quantities of low-cost Larium or Quinine?
Did Gore or Kennedy force bush (lowercase intentional) to stop donating to the Millenium Fund which helps PROVIDE mosquito (fly?) nets to those in need?
Did they?
Read my blog for the answers.
Wow, did something worse than usual happen on PLanet GOP today, or is it the heat? The righty posters, even the ones who are usually just "amusing crazy", have really gone batsh*t today.
Hey Huntington:
Why not make a substantive argument.
Explain to me how the Environmentalists are NOT killing people in Africa.
What does any of what you're posting have to do with global warming?
See
Monday July 9, 2007 11:07:06 PM EST
There's a reply there to the global warming part.
"Explain to me how the Environmentalists are NOT killing people in Africa."--copiousdissent
That's a pretty easy one to handle. DDT has simply not been banned outside of developed nations. In fact your entire argument is "arrant nonesense" according to an actual scientist who knows what he is talking about. Of course, how can anyone argue with an expert blogger such as yourself.
Here are the first three paragraphs from his letter:
"CHRISTOPHER Pearson (Inquirer, 24-25/1) blames "the environmental lobby . . . with direct responsibility for millions of needless deaths, mostly of children in the Third World, from malaria". The argument is that Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring falsely accused the insecticide DDT of dangers to both human health and the environment, that this accusation led to the banning of DDT in mosquito control programs in areas where malaria is endemic (mostly the tropics), and as a direct result of this ban, millions of people died.
"This argument is arrant nonsense, recycled from an article in Quadrant, in turn recycled from a number of unscientific and unsubstantiated websites. As professionals and teachers in the field of parasite disease control, we are only too well aware of how such rubbish can be transmuted from cyberspace junk to popular folklore. Your readers should be aware of the facts:
"The manufacture and use of DDT was banned in the US in 1972, on the advice of the US Environmental Protection Agency. The use of DDT has since been banned in most other developed nations, but it is not banned for public health use in most areas of the world where malaria is endemic. Indeed, DDT was recently exempted from a proposed worldwide ban on organophosphate chemicals.
He goes on at some length to completely eviscerate your recycled garbage with some more inconvenient facts that you seem to want to ignore.
Do Gore and Kennedy PREVENT pharma from making available to those who need it, large quantities of low-cost Larium or Quinine?
Yes. Most African Countries have more natural resources than anywhere else in the world, including Coal and Oil. Since many African Countries are threatened with sanctions if they build Oil and Coal power plants, it would increase investment, increase jobs for the people, and all those people could afford all the drugs they need.
Did Gore or Kennedy force bush (lowercase intentional) to stop donating to the Millenium Fund which helps PROVIDE mosquito (fly?) nets to those in need?
American's donate more money to Africa than any other Country in the World. Forcing Americans to give their money to Africa is not compassionate, it is immoral. I know you liberals think the only type of aid that counts is Government aid, but in truth, we Americans have proved that individual citizens can help others better than Governments without force.
You got me. Let's go halves on a case of DEET for the liberal victims in Africa.
BTW, the US donations to Africa are somewhere between Norway and Slovenia.
Seriously, that was a joke, but the truth is that as a percentage of our GDP, our contributions to the thirld world are bested by about 30 other countries.
And let's not forget that right after the Christmas Day tsunami, bush (lowercase intentional) announced that we would be sending something like $50,000 to "help" out. Once the magnitude of the disaster became more evident, they started scrambling around like a buttered cat on brand new linoleum.
What a bunch of clowns.
Why didn't you do something. Bush is not the President of those Countries.
Why don't you go to Africa and advise them how to judiciously fight malaria using your obvious expertise and knowledge of the matter. That should be good for a laugh.
Not with private donations. Private donations we donate more than anyone else in the World. Nobody is close.
That's because those countries tax the hell out of their citizens, so it's really not their money to begin with. When you factor in private/corporate donations the US is at the top.
You might want to consider the poor parts of the globe. After all, producing co2 provides food, heat and energy for the poor.
I find it humorous that some poor countries are trying to get reparations from rich countries because global warming has harmed them. The truth is if we implement Gore's theories, those countries economies and peoples will suffer even more.
A warmer climate also yields an increase in disease, particularly parasitic borne diseases. Doh!
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I mean, you really don't. The new science that comes out supports the theory of global warming. Almost every week a new study supports it.
That you believe the ban of DDT caused massive deaths shows how easily you buy into right wing propaganda. DDT was not banned in Africa. A simple web search would have revealed this:
http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm
That you would continue to spout something so silly really boggles the mind. What next, are you going to assert that Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster with his own bare hands? I know, you heard it somewhere, it sounds good, so you simply repeat it.
Careful. He's just looking out for the African peoples.
No, you're citing flawed sources.
[link to www.breitbart.com] is you my friend who don't know what you're talking about; both about DDT and Global Warming
http://www.afronets.org/archive/200706/msg00023.php
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/
Uganda did use DDT, according to the very article you linked. DDT was not banned, and countries in the continent of Africa used it widely.
They stopped using it because the insects developed a resistance to it. Not because of enviornmentaiists.
No where does your source support the outrageous claim that the banning of DDT (which never occurred) resulted in the deaths of millions of people.
After long succumbing to environmental activists' DDT scare campaigns and threats by the European Union to ban crop imports from nations that use DDT to fight malaria, several African nations have been buoyed by the growing international support for saving lives with DDT. Defying the EU and environmental activists, they have announced campaigns to apply DDT inside human dwellings, where mosquitoes most frequently spread malaria to vulnerable Africans.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19327
http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html
Here we go again. You link to a right wing website that repeats the myth that DDT was banned because of a book. That is simply not true.
Then you link to another website that is not right wing. Here is what this website says:
DDT is one tool of many in the malaria control worker's toolbox. The reason that it is being discussed at this site is that, unlike other tools, there is an imminent danger of it being taken away. This puts not just health, but lives, at stake. The MFI wants to see all possible tools for malaria control be readily available, because malaria is a serious, resurgent problem with drug resistance and increasing numbers of illnesses and deaths.
Note that it explicitly states that DDT was *not* banned. Do you even read what you post?
You are so clueless. These countries aren't defying anything. DDT is okay to use indoors in these developing countries. It has only been banned for use in agriculture, which more commonly leads to problems of resistance because of the persistance of the chemicals in the soil outdoors. Educate yourself!
"DDT usage for malaria control involves spraying the walls and backs of furniture, so as to kill and repel adult mosquitoes that may carry the malaria parasite. Other chemicals are available for this purpose, but DDT is cheap and persistent and is often a very effective indoor insecticide which is still used in many parts of the world.
"DDT is not used for outdoor mosquito control, partly because scientific studies have demonstrated toxicity to wildlife, but mainly because its persistence in the environment rapidly leads to the development of resistance to the insecticide in mosquito populations. There are now much more effective and acceptable insecticides, such as Bacillus thuringiensis, to kill larval mosquitoes outdoors.
"Reductions in the use of DDT did occur in a number of developing nations after the US ban in 1972. This reflected concerns over environmental consequences of DDT, but was also a result of many other factors. One of the important factors in declining use of DDT was decreasing effectiveness and greater costs because of the development of resistance in mosquitoes. Resistance was largely caused by the indiscriminate, widespread use of DDT to control agricultural pests in the tropics. This problem, in fact, was anticipated by Carson: "No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored . . . The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it is wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are rapidly making it worse."
"Malaria is a major, ongoing disease problem in much of the developing world. Increases in the incidence of the disease have occurred for complex reasons. Reduced insecticide usage is one, but others include the resistance to treatment in both the parasite and the mosquito vectors, changes in land use that have provided new mosquito habitat, and the movement of people into new, high-risk areas.
"Most nations where malaria is a problem, and most health professionals working in the field of malaria control, support the targeted use of DDT, as part of the tool kit for malaria control. Most also agree that more cost-effective, less environmentally persistent alternatives are needed. There are some effective alternative chemicals for the control of adult mosquitoes, but preventing their further development is lack of invest ment by industry, because malaria is largely a disease of the poor.
"Malaria is responsible for enormous suffering and death. The facts are readily available in the scientific literature. To blame a reduction in DDT usage for the death of 10-30 million people from malaria is not just simple-minded, it is demonstrably wrong. To blame a mythical, monolithic entity called the environmental lobby for the total reduction in DDT usage is not just paranoid, it is also demonstrably wrong. Your article is not only poor journalism, it is an insult to the people who work for the control of parasitic diseases that afflict developing nations.
Good grief! You make an absolutely hysterical claim that environmentalists have killed millions. You used a complete myth to support your argument. When I point that out, you simply say my source is flawed. At the same time, you accuse us of ignoring science!
Then you link to a study that supposedly refutes global warming. God, you don't know what you are talking about! If you knew anything about global warming, you would have known that scientists never said that the earth was warmer than it is now. Anti-scientist lunatics always point out how hot the earth was in the past. No scientist disputes this. Global warming means the earth is heating up because of man made co2, and that this heating up will cause major ecological damage which modern science won't be able to handle.
I think he's been snorting DDT.
It's been fun, getting late.....zzzzz
You Obviously didn't read my Afronets source.
Your afronets source shows that Uganda is indeed has been and is now using DDT. They complain that some nameless western environmentalists are making it hard for Uganda to sell their agricultural goods.
Considering the article did not name any names of these supposed western environmental organizations at all, I have to wonder if the claim is even really authentic. Giving the Ugandans the benefit of the doubt, this nameless western environmental organization is definitely in the wrong.
It is a darn shame they never took the time to give us the name of their foe on this matter so we could write letters on their behalf or do something positive on their behalf. Wierd.
Fine, let’s examine the data. This entire global warming panic is based on a correlative study, as CO2 goes up or down, so does temperature. (This is the part of Al Gore’s slide show where he says, “Didn’t these [lines] once fit together.”) Well, this doesn’t mean that CO2 causes temperature fluctuations. There could be other variables that cause the temperatures to rise or fall. For example, “swimming pool drowning” and “ice cream sales” are directly correlated; however, this is not because ice cream causes drowning. It is because more people eat ice cream in the summer…More people swim in the summer…More people drown as more people swim.One thing Al Gore won’t tell you, however, is that an increase in temperature can also cause an increase in CO2. How is this possible?? Well, the oceans give off more CO2 as temperatures rise. Moreover, the oceans give off more CO2 than any human ever could. So what is causing the increase in temperature? Many scientists believe that the Sun’s activity is actually causing an increase in temperature. Wow!! Who would have thought that our Solar system’s greatest source of energy is causing an increase in temperature? Maybe that explains why Mars’ ice caps are melting too.Furthermore, the Global Warming fanatics are acting like the temperature has never changed on this Earth. Well, we’ve had over five ice ages that came and went without any help from us. There was also the “little ice age” in the middle of the past millennium where people actually ice skated on the River Thames. Then the temperatures rose before the industrial revolution. Imagine that!! In fact, the warm periods before the “Little ice age” were associated with more prosperity because crops could more easily grow. Another added bonus to the Global warming, if it is true, is that CO2 is what makes plants grow (meaning more food to feed the growing population); it is not a pollutant, so this is not surprising at all.Lastly, whenever you hear someone say the IPCC report states that an overwhelming number of scientists support its findings on man-made Global Warming, let that person know that many of its lead authors don’t agree with its findings and spoke out about the Al Gore’s dishonesty in the Great Global Warming Swindle. The saddest part about this madness is that Al Gore has managed to convince an entire population of people not to question his statements and that there is overwhelming agreement. Nothing could be further from this inconvenient truth.
Okay... just for the record... let's cut the crap.
You hate envionmentalists, liberals, Democrats, etc... You can continue to cite all your 'data', etc. But. let's be honest. Good night and good luck.
You are totally making things up, and no one here is fooled. You didn't provide any links to support your accusations that many of the authors of the IPCC report spoke out against Al Gore's "swindle." Show me. You are lying right through your teeth.
The last link you provided didn't even show what you thought it did. You obviously don't know what you are talking about which accounts for your long rant and strawman arguments about swimming pools.
Yes, heating up the oceans causes the release of CO2. You don't think scientist don't now this? That is why the record shows that the heating up of the earth started slightly before the increase of CO2. (Al Gore did over simplify this in the movie, the only thing real scientists found at fault with it.) When more CO2 gets released, a so-called greenhouse affect happens, causing even more warming. Eventually something happens to cool the earth and the CO2 goes back into the ocean.
The problem is that now man is producing more CO2 than the earth can handle. That something that has cooled the earth in the past won't happen now. That is the verdict of virtually every scientist on earth.
The question I have for you is why I should listen to you, a right-wing blowhard, rather than the best scientist on earth. Did you publish a peer-reviewed paper refuting global warming that I am not aware of?
Richard Lindzen of MIT and the IPCC, Michael Griffin of NASA, John Christy of NASA and the IPCC, or * Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. * Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. * Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. * Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. * Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. * Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." * Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. * Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. * Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. * Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. * Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. * Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. * Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history.
Find More here
and here
"That is why the record shows that the heating up of the earth started slightly before the increase of CO2."
haha, the heating up of the Earth?? It has been up less than half-a-degree over 100 years.
[link to www.canada.com]
Yes, you keep posting garbage, tons of it, and hopes that we will be fooled.
We are not:
http://www.scmo.ca/LettertoPM20Apr06.pdf
[Here is just part of the response from 800 scientists to the nonsense.]
Contrary to the statement “no formal, independent climate-science review has beenconducted in Canada”, Canadian climate scientists from universities, government and theprivate sector have participated actively in an international review conducted by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This panel is comprised ofthousands of experts from all over the world including some of those listed in the openletter. The IPCC assessments are based on strict evaluations and open reviews of allaspects of published global climate change science. Through the IPCC, Canada hasbenefited from access to the best climate science expertise available not only in Canada,but around the world. Climate knows no boundary. Climate science knows no boundary.
You are bluffing, and I am not fooled. I asked you to give a link of the author of the IPCC report that called Al Gore's movie a swindle.
You did not. You were lying. You are making things up.
Instead, you posted a long rant (almost unreadable) from Wikipedia. If you really had facts, you would quote from a main stream news media source. (Any one can print stuff on Wikipedia.)
It would be impossible to state why each of those scientists is wrong. That would be fruitless. If these scientists really believe global warming is incorrect, they can publish a peer reviewed paper. They have not.
First in the list is Lindzen. Here is a scientist who is continually wrong and refuses to admit it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/lindzen-in-newsweek/
Again, why should I believe some right wing blowhard rather than the best scientists in the world? Did you publish a peer review paper I am not aware of.
Because there has not been a single peer reviewed publication refuting global warming. Not one.
"haha, the heating up of the Earth?? It has been up less than half-a-degree over 100 years."
That half a degree is doing a lot of damage. And some climatologist are saying a change of one degree could be the point of return.
And most of that half degree change has occurred our the last three decades.
That should "point of no return".
Another mistake: "our" should be "over".
“One thing Al Gore won’t tell you, however, is that an increase in temperature can also cause an increase in CO2. How is this possible?? Well, the oceans give off more CO2 as temperatures rise. Moreover, the oceans give off more CO2 than any human ever could.”
If we reduce our carbon footprint, this will lead to lower global temperatures which will lead to less water vapor which will lead to a further decrease in global temperatures. You and other cons are using a faulty argument. Water vapor occurs naturally and the only way to reduce it is to lower global temperatures. That’s why we need to reduce our carbon footprint.
The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is .054% of the total atmosphere. Human at its highest contribute less than 5% of that .054%.
We could go back to the stone age overnight, it wouldn't do a thing.
Little changes in atmosphere can go a long way so even if your numbers are correct that 5 percent could do wonders.
What a dumb argument! In fact, science has shown just the opposite, that the small change in the amount of CO2 that man puts into the atmosphere creates huge changes, as we can see in the arctic circle right now. I suppose one could say "well, how can a gun hurt you, because a bullet only weights less than an ounce, less than one percent of your total body mass."
Or "how can arsenic harm you? If you swallow a teaspoon it only changes your body chemistry by less than a thousandth of a percent."
Again, why should I listen to you, a right wing blowhard, rather than the best scientists in the world.
Prof. Tom Segalstad, expert reviewer to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's Third Assessment Report, disagrees with you about the effects CO2 and global warming.
- This is nonsense...The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes...They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process...
The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium...This total...represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world...
It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere...It is all fiction" - Segalstad
Do you denialists ever get tired of spouting crap? Tom Segalstad is a fraud.
"Tom V. Segalstad is a rock geologist at the University of Oslo and runs a Michaels/Idso like consulting operation with his family, most of which is his wife doing library information systems, astroturf to go-go on the side. In short, not the most authoritative thing you could find. RBTR go on to state [what he does]..."
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/12/gift-for-john-h.html
Further, Segalstad authored what is called an atrociously bad paper on ice core:
[link to www.someareboojums.org]
"This paper fails to present any coherent explanation of why ice core measurements in general should be considered unreliable. Instead, Jaworowski and colleagues develop an unconnected list of complaints regarding ice core methodology, without presenting any testable theories as to what the effects of those problems should be. In some cases, e.g. their assertion that the “age assumption” regarding firn consolidation is unproven, they ignore successful research that contradicts their thesis. In other cases, as noted in connection with the history of atmospheric CO2 measurement, they distort the conclusions of other researchers in an apparent attempt to spread a cloud of doubt over the entire enterprise."
Where did you get the idea that this man was an expert reviewer of the IPCC report? It sounds like he named himself that, not that the IPCC acutally hired him.
- Where did you get the idea that this man was an expert reviewer of the IPCC report? - funnymanpants
Well certainly not from the lame websites you referenced...it comes from the official IPCC website...give it a read...you might find something of interest.
rabett.blogspot...authored by Eli Rabett, who describes himself as "a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny".
He calls his administrators homicidal and delusional. His wife is thankful that "that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts."
Boojums? Citing a 1992 report...enter this website at your own risk.
Yeah, I'll take the expert reviewer Segalstad.
Why didn't you provide a link? He was one of about 100 reviewers for the *2001* Report. He is also a bad scientist.
I notice you do an ad hominem attack on both websites. You don't address the fact that Segelstad authored a deeply flawed paper and is not an expert in climate.
If Seglastad is right, why doesn't he write a peer reviewed paper debunking global warming? Why hasn't there been one peer reviewed paper refuting global warming?
Thanks for confirming his work as an IPCC expert reviewer...I new you could find the IPCC report.
Attack on your websites? Hardly. I simply reported what Rabett published about himself...directly from his website.
Boojums...I reported what I found...a 1992 report...and his website crashed my computer twice...hence enter at your own risk.
Peer reviewed work?...just like all that work by Al Gore...the climate expert.
Okay, question mark Tommy who can't even post under his own name. You haven't provided any refutation of my argument, that Segelstad is a bad scientist, and his science is junk.
And it's a nice gratitous remark about Gore having no peer reviewed work. The problem is, that Gore cites work that *is* peer reviewed. He uses the work of the best scientist in the world, who, believe it or not, I believe over you, just another right wing blowhard.
That is pure plagiarism.
You need to cite your source if it is not your own words.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/article.php?a=87
Nevermind. I see the link eventually goes back to your own little website. My bad.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I mean, you really don't. The new science that comes out supports the theory of global warming. Almost every week a new study supports it.
This fact is unavoidable and the most telling. After 15 years of research and study we still see a daily growth in the science that supports AGW. The trend is ONLY in one direction. The notion that some new fact or incongruity will come along to overturn a mountain of science across a wide range of disciplines is pure fantasy.
The Great Global Warming Swindle has been thoroughly debunked by numerous legitimate scientific organizations.
From Wikipedia:
Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, was featured in the programme. Afterwards he said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed.[21][4] He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two."[22] Wunsch was reported to have threatened legal action[22] and to have lodged a complaint with Ofcom, the UK broadcast regulator.
Why is Global Warming considered such a threat? Why is it so bad? I understand why pollution is harmful and should be reduced. I understand that energy conservation is a great idea. But why is the Earth warming or cooling a crisis? Especially if it is over hundreds of years.
If cities are gradually swallowed by the ocean, people can move and build new cities on new coast lines. If desserts, moderate, and tropical zones shift, then they shift; animals and humans can migrate. It has all happened before. Why do we think the climate has to stay the way we find it now? Why is it bad if it changes?
I think that we should stop our emissions, but activily doing something to cause Global Warming to reverse.... no way! That is way more scary than Global Warming itself. We'll only screw things up more if we try anything like that. This article, if anything, highlights how complex the cooling and warming systems are on the Earth. We shouldn't actively mess with it.
Wow!!
When common sense strikes...it can be stunning. Great post.
First of all, common sense has no place in scientific matters. (Which falls to earth faster, a light or heavy object--does that question mean anything to you, question mark Tommy who can't even post under his own name?)
Second, it lacks even in common sense. On the one hand, the denialists are claiming that man can't influence the climate, but then on the other this poster is saying that if we try to do anything about global warming, we will "mess up" the heating and cooling system of the earth, thereby contradicting the claim that man can't change the temperature of the earth.
Umm, this was such a dumb post I didn't think it needed a response. You don't think it is a problem that whole cities will disappear? Did New Orleans not mean anything to you?
As regarding how we have adapted in the past in comparison to now, the climate change in the past happened slowly. The current climate change is happening very quickly. We also live in a modern world, depending on electricity, water purification systems, etc. And we live in a world with many, many more people in the past. If you want to revert to standards of living when the life expectancy was around 40, then global warming wouldn't be a problem. If you aren't disturbed by millions dying, then global warming isn't a problem. Otherwise, it is a big problem.
As regarding how we have adapted in the past in comparison to now, the climate change in the past happened slowly. The current climate change is happening very quickly.
I need some help with the very slowly and very quickly, I'm not sure what is meant by that. I agree that if the ocean levels rose world wide 10 feet over night, then millions of people would die. That does sound like a crisis, but that isn't what the scientific community is warning us about.
I do believe that man can impact the equilibrium of our environment. And I know that we have caused harm in the past when we thought we were helping. (ie. removing or reintroducing predators into ecosystems).
I just believe that we are better off working to adapt to global climate change rather than struggling to control it.
No one is trying to control climate change. Scientists are actually trying to reduce our impact on it. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument.
"I think that we should stop our emissions, but activily doing something to cause Global Warming to reverse.... no way!"--normalguy
Who is advocating that? Do you even know what you are talking about? How is reducing our carbon footprint by reducing man-made CO2 emissions somehow an effort to "cause Global Warming to reverse"? It is an effort to remove man from the natural equation as much as possible, so nature can take its course. The argument is that right now we are influencing climate therefore we simply need to reduce that influence - not to continue influencing it, but in a different direction as you oddly suggest.
I think you miss the point completely.
Here is an example from an article titled "Good bye to Greenhouse Gas" http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc99/6_19_99/bob1.htm
"Japan, Norway, and Canada are planning to inject 50 to 100 tons of liquid carbon dioxide into the ocean off the coast of Kona, Hawaii, in 2001. Their aim is to study the possibility of dumping this greenhouse gas into the dark reaches of the sea—a tactic designed to slow the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and thereby reduce the threat of climate change."
I would much rather see our resources spent on what OPEN_MIND suggests: "we simply need to reduce [our] influence"
I was not aware of that. It looks like a huge shell game to me. Definitely a wrongheaded approach. I hope this isn't still going on.
I am not sure it is a very big part of the AGW debate as I haven't seen anything about it before. Sorry about the animosity before. You are right about this.
It just is really really sad. CNN surely can see the absurity of this guy?
There is a reason he is on here - anybody research a Morman link? HAs a buried Morman group purchased CNN?
What I don't understand, is if this man-made global warming stuff is a scientific dispute, why does it show up here at MMFA?
I think Coulter has it right when she talks about the liberal religion. Man made global warming must be one of the basic tenants. It seems that MMFA acts as the inquisitor so heretics to GW must be outed and then pilloried.
Did anyone see the pledge that Al Gore requested everyone give at the beginning of his recent concert? If that is not attempts at indoctrination, I don't know what is.
Why does anyone here care who Glen Beck has on his show or spouting's of Al Gore regarding this subject? Go buy fluorescent lightbulbs and let the scientists hash this out.
Wrong as always. There is no scientific dispute over global warming. There is a dispue between those who understand the science that global warming is real and man made, and the anti-scientific lunatics.
It's good to see that you are quoting Ann Coulter, a woman who calls those she disagrees with gay, a woman who lies every time she picks up her pen.
No, we can't let the scientist hash this out, because there is nothing to hash out. They know what the data says, that man is causing global warming and it is going to be catastrophic if we don't do something about it.
A small point but relevant. You'll notice in my first sentence I said MAN MADE global warming. That is what the dispute is about my friend.
You missing that part sort of negates the rest of your reply.
Ah, no. There is no dispute about what is heating up the earth except among anti-scientist lunatics. The studies say that global warming is man made.
Here's what I don't get, and I apologize if this was covered but I admit I didn't read every comment thoroughly. Why are conservatives so dead-set against the possibility of global warming? For example, I personally am pro-choice on the abortion issue, but I can understand how one (particularly if they have a deep faith in God and the Bible and all that) could believe that "life begins at conception". I get that; I just don't get how global warming has become such a political issue with the conservatives unwilling to admit the possibility of its existence.
I can't speak for everyone, but as a conservative I'll give you my two cents.
The issue as I see it is the insistence by the left and Al Gore that the global warming is due to man and specifically Man's production of C02.
It seems to me that Al has proclaimed the argument closed and now proposes wrecking the American economy in order to solve the problem.
It is the contention on the right that Al is full of hot air and his conclusions require bigger government while at the same time handcuffing the private sector while letting the developing countries, like China, have an unfair competitive advantage because they do not have to play by the same environmental rules.
Anyway, that is my take. Thanks for asking. :-)
>>The issue as I see it is the insistence by the left and Al Gore that the global warming is due to man and specifically Man's production of C02.
Yes, Al Gore and the "left," such as virtually every scientist in the world:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article516033.ece
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2843621
Yes, international scientists are leftists, and science has a left wing bias.
By the way, I find it humorous that the know-nothing fools who doubt the best scientists put their faith in economic models produced by right wing think tanks that predict dire economic results if we try to stop global warming. Because we all know how empirical right wing think tanks are compared to scientists.
I think that is a good questions. Certainly there are some on both sides of every issue who just want to think and say the opposite of what ever the other side says.
I am a Global Warming skeptic, but not because I don't believe it is happening. The problem I have is demonstrated by this quote from FUNNYMANPANTS, he says the effects are "going to be catastrophic". I don't understand how he can be so sure that the world is going to end because it gets warmer. And it is fine for people to believe that life and the Earth as we know it now shouldn't change. We can all believe what we want.
I wouldn't describe myself as "against" the global warming movement except where we start talking about strategies to purposefully change the direction of global climate change. We just don't know enough about all the interlinked systems on our planet to do that. Reducing our pollution to levels that we can measure and observe the Earth's systems absorbing and recycling them is the only course I can stand behind.
"I wouldn't describe myself as "against" the global warming movement except where we start talking about strategies to purposefully change the direction of global climate change. We just don't know enough about all the interlinked systems on our planet to do that. Reducing our pollution to levels that we can measure and observe the Earth's systems absorbing and recycling them is the only course I can stand behind."--normalguy
You are almost there, but your premise is wrong as I have pointed out above. If you view CO2 as a type of pollutant, maybe that will help you. The issue is that we do not want to be a part of that complicated natural equation by pumping in CO2 at current levels. By not pumping out man-made CO2, we are removing man from the natural equation as much as is possible. No one is trying to "reverse" anything unless you think cleaning up a polution filled lake and returning it to its natural form is "reversing" something as well. It is simply removing the evidence of mans impact on nature as much as is possible. It is allowing nature to make its own course as it has for millions of years before we came.
OPEN_MIND,Again, I agree with your take on it, but how can you say no one is trying to "reverse" anything when there are Geo-engineering strategies for Global Warming being talked about and experimented with. Some of these include pumping CO2 underground, or into the ocean, seeding the oceans with iron, and injecting sulfur into the earth’s stratosphere.
As stated above, I definitely agree with your point of view.
To be honest, I think you are right about your criticism of the project you mentioned above.
In my defense, pumping CO2 into the ocean or ground isn't really "reversing" CO2 levels. It is more like sweeping CO2 under the rug and hoping it stays there. A kind of a huge stupid shell game.
I hadn't heard of this before and I don't quite know that any AGW proponents I have ever heard of are actually advocating this approach. Obviously someone thinks it is a good idea. It would be good to find out who that is.
Of course, there are many possible problems with that approach of which we can agree. 1. How can anyone guarantee the CO2 will stay there? and 2. assuming we put CO2 in the ocean and it stays there, would it interfere with the natural rate of absorbtion that is already occuring or will occur in the near or distant future?
more heat! water trapped as ice helps no one
Down boy! Down! Bad dog!
My my my....the Anti-Americanism runs DEEP in here. Calling someone out and condemning them for an opposing opinion and view point. "Oh my god! He is opposing Global Warming! Lets all kill him!! Get me a rope!". You communist people make me and the rest of the Real Americans sick! Also, everyone knows that this site is a Clinton/Soros funded slime-site. All this BS is irrelevant anyway. When Americans wake up and realize that this Global Warming is nothing more than a political movement and another scam perpetrated by our wonderful and caring government, YOU (Media Matters and other like you) will be irrelevant.