On Glenn Beck, Horner claimed Earth warmed "1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 150 years, most of which occurred before World War II"
SUMMARY: On CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute claimed that "[t]he warming that the alarmists are talking about is 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 150 years, most of which occurred before World War II. None of which occurred in the last decade." In fact, NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies stated in 2006: "Global warming is now 0.6° C [1.08° F] in the past three decades and 0.8° C [1.44° F] in the past century. It is no longer correct to say that 'most global warming occurred before 1940.' "
On the October 23 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, during a discussion of global warming and the forest fires occurring in Southern California, Chris Horner, senior fellow for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), claimed that "[t]he warming that the alarmists are talking about is 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 150 years, most of which occurred before World War II. None of which occurred in the last decade." In fact, the 2005 Annual Summation (updated January 12, 2006) of global temperature trends by NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) stated: "Global warming is now 0.6° C [1.08° F] in the past three decades and 0.8° C [1.44° F] in the past century. It is no longer correct to say that 'most global warming occurred before 1940'. More specifically, there was slow global warming, with large fluctuations, over the century up to 1975 and subsequent rapid warming of almost 0.2° C per decade,"as Media Matters for America documented.
Horner did not indicate on what he based his claim that the Earth has warmed "1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 150 years." NASA's GISS limits its surface temperature analysis to the period after 1880, due to "poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time." Additionally, the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Working Group II reported that the "data and the analysis techniques" for creating global temperature time series "have changed over time" and that their measurements of past global average temperature do not show "a high degree of consistency" for time periods preceding 1900. The Climate Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia does provide a chart of average global temperatures extending back to 1850, and according to the chart's associated data (smoothed), a majority of the warming over the past 150 years has occurred since 1939 (the official start of World War II), not before, as Horner asserted.
In introducing his guests for the segment, Beck said, "Chris Horner is the author of Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism. And R.J. Smith is an adjunct environmental analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute." However, according to CEI's website, Horner also works for the institute as a senior fellow, which Beck did not mention during the segment.
CEI has reportedly received funding from energy industry sources, including, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted, more than $2 million from the Exxon Mobil Corp. since 1998. According to the blog Think Progress, Exxon Mobil no longer provides funding to CEI. During the segment, Beck asked Smith, "How much money do you get from big oil?" Smith responded: "I don't think big oil has anything to do with -- with the forest fires," and added "[E]nvironmentalists get big oil money themselves, too."
From the October 23 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: But first, for the second consecutive day, wildfires are sweeping through California, especially beachfront cities like Malibu and San Diego. And I want to get one thing straight right from the start. Loss of life, property: tragic. The people who are fighting these fires: heroes.
But I got to tell you, the story just pisses me off. I grew up in the Pacific Northwest. Wildfire may be a natural disaster, but you've got to stop kidding yourself, America, and pretending that man isn't partly to blame for making things worse.
I remember spending my summers at my grandfather's house at his farm. I can still see him screaming at that old Zenith TV that we had in the living room, yelling about how the mismanagement of our forests is going to get people killed one day.
You ask any farmer, anybody who's lived closely with the land, and they'll tell you, you can't change Mother Nature. We're the ones screwing things up. Why does this global warming phenomenon only seem to happen in our part of the globe? Why have we -- why have we tried for decades to stop the natural cycle of burn and regrowth? And most importantly, why do we think that we can continue to believe that man knows best, when every bit of evidence tells us it ain't true?
Mother Nature is tough enough. We don't need to make matters worse with our bad environmental policies.
Chris Horner is the author of Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism. And R.J. Smith is an adjunct environmental analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Let me -- let me start with you, R.J. How much money do you get from big oil?
SMITH: I don't think big oil has anything to do with -- with the forest fires.
BECK: OK.
SMITH: And -- and I'm not sure. I mean -- environmentalists get big oil money themselves, too.
BECK: Look, here's the thing. We're going to talk about things that are politically incorrect. Nobody else on television is going to say this. And I know all the bloggers are right now going, "Oh, big oil, big oil, big oil. They're going to deny global warming."
I'm not denying global warming. But, Chris, let me ask you this. I keep hearing that this is global warming that's doing this. And I keep thinking to myself, how many years have we let the underbrush grow, and nobody will do anything? If these super fires are caused by global warming, wouldn't these super fires be happening all around the globe? Are they, or are they not?
HORNER: Well, fire happens everywhere. And it is a natural disaster if man's there. Otherwise it's a disaster purely for nature, but again, it is natural.
Global warming is not a likely suspect for the following reason. The warming that the alarmists are talking about is 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 150 years, most of which occurred before World War II. None of which occurred in the past decade.
OK. We can probably reliably take global warming off the suspect list.
Second, it's not clear that a warmer world would be a drier world. As you know, Glenn, they rely on computer models to scare us. The computer models disagree with each other.
The whole situation with Al Gore reminds me of the ending of the "Wizard Of Oz" where the "Wizard" bestows upon the Scarecrow a "diploma" and all of a sudden the Scarecrow is "brilliant". Well, when non-scientist AlGore is given baubles from Hollywood and the Nobel committee we're all supposed to think that the "debate is over".
As top notch journalist John Stossel might say, GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
October 24, 2007
The Global-Warming Debate Isn't Over By John StosselFirst he won the Oscar -- then the Nobel Peace Prize. He's being called a "prophet."
Impressive, considering that one of former Vice President Al Gore's chief contributions has been to call the debate over global warming "over" and to marginalize anyone who disagrees. Although he favors major government intervention to stop global warming, he says, "the climate crisis is not a political issue. It is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity".
Give me a break.
Global Warming Delusions The popular imagination has been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis. BY DANIEL B. BOTKIN Sunday, October 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will affect life--ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary.
stossel is a reporter. botkin is a biologist. get real.
and stossel claims in that article you're quoting from that the media won't talk about why greenland had warmer temperatures in the earlier part of the 20th century compared to the rest. maybe he would like to talk about the fact that scientists say the reason for that was black carbon soot from north american industry. when that was reduced in the early 50s, temperatures dropped again. so that fact actually proves man made global warming, mr. stossel. read the link.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2007/aug/science/ee_blackcarbon.html
Let's not forget this manmade disaster either!
Once again let's go over the facts. Temperature increase causes an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. CO2 levels follow temperature, not the other way around.
you made a comment below about how nice things will be with global waeming. i guess, as long as you were not one of the people hit by hurricanes dean or felix this year, the only year in which two category 5 storms made landfall. or then there was humberto, which set the record for the most rapidly intensifying storm close to land, texas. see link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Atlantic_hurricane_season
The leading experts on Hurricane formatino DISAGREE with that misinformation from Wikipedia. These experts assert there is NO proven connection between 'global warming' and either hurricane frequency or intensity.
"All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin." C. Landsea
"Global hurricane frequency and/or intensity has not been observed to undergo any significant trends as a result of the global warming of the last 30 years for frequency and for the last 20 years for intensity when global satellite data has been sufficient to give reliable estimates of maximum winds and MSLP. We have no theory as to why changes of global surface temperature of less than ・} 0.5oC should cause any significant alterations in global tropical cyclone frequency and/or intensity" Dr. Willliam M. Gray.
your landsea link is from january 2005, which was just before the catastrophic 2005 season, which produced a record four category 5 storms and 27 named storms. this year was the first to have two category 5 storms hit land in the atlantic basin. that is not "misinformation", but fact.
... And the 2006 & 2007 seasons have been calm Hurricane seasons, falling far short of predictions, exposing your observation about 2005 as a pointless and invalid generalization.
Find a more recent Landsea opinion which contradicts his 2005 statement on this subject. Otherwise, concede point.
Next point: Don't you think that the recent [2004] change in policy by the National Hurricane Center's political leadership to apply names to sub-tropical storms is disingenuous at best? [subtropical storm Nicole was the first such] The plethora of named storms reported by the media have created the misimpression amongst the public that Hurricane activity has somehow increased greatly in recent years when in fact all that has happened is the government has applied names to minor storm systems that in years prior to 2004 would have remained anonymous.
A prime example of this deceptive reporting: "The first named storm of the year formed Wednesday off the southeastern U.S. coast, more than three weeks before the official start of the Atlantic hurricane season, forecasters said"
It appears to me that these sort of tactics are endemic to your team's prosecution of the debate. Disinformation, misinformation and misimpressions are the stock and trade of the left when discussing climate change. I could even provide examples to generalize these methods even further. One might infer that to this body politic, the ends justify the means.
this year was the first and only time that two category 5 storms have hit land. that is hardly quiet.
You continue to overlook that a trend cannot be generalized from just one data point. What happened in 2005 cannot be generalized into a multi-year trend wiithout considering the adjoining years.
Your assertion that 2005 is the only year in which two Cat 5 storms have made landfall, is misleading, even outright false.
With respect to CONUS: "Only 3 Category Five Hurricanes have made landfall in the United States since records began" These occurred in 1935, 1969 and 1992. NO Cat 5 storms made landfall in the US in 2005. In fact, NO Cat 5 hurricane made landfall in North, Central or South America in 2005. the only land masses to be subjected to such punishment in that year were a few islands.
You could not be much more in error.
"Your assertion that 2005 is the only year in which two Cat 5 storms have made landfall, is misleading, even outright false."--nl205
That is because Mefirst didn't say that in the post you are replying to. Mefirst said "this year was the first and only time that two category 5 storms have hit land."
Mefirst did not mention "in the US" either as you appear to have added that in. A little advice - next time take the time and read Mefirst's short post before responding with a bunch of non-sequiturs.
if anyone wants to know how out of it you are, i've made it very clear that it was "this year", not 2005, that two category 5 hurricanes made landfall. and i did not say that it was in the united states. one hit nicaraqua and one hit mexico. you might want to lie down for awhile.
We were discussing the year 2005. In the context of such a discuission, the pronoun 'this' generally refers to the topic at hand, in this case, 2005.
As for 2007 activity, the National Hurricane center has not yet published its summary report for the 2007 Atlantic basin Hurricane season. It makes no sense to discuss in the absence of any aggragate analysis. 2005 is linked above. This is 2006. These will be the most accurate assessment. There are at presenty NO reliable numbers on the internet. Wikipedia, the liberal's favorite resource, is, much like all liberals, neither authoritative nor reliable.
My money says that when the final numbers come in, 2007 will be an average year based on ACE index.
uh, no. wikipedia has nothing to do with it. both dean and felix were category 5 storms this year. see link. felix also broke a record by being the fastest to go from a depression to category five. and i mentioned those two storms and said "this year", before 2005 even came up. anyone can go back and look at the posts. and when i discussed other years, i identified those by specific numbers. get some more rest.
http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/09/04/warnings-from-a-warming-world-hurricane-felix-makes-landfall-as-second-category-5-hurricane-in-two-weeks/
Whether the theory is accurate or not does not seem to hinge upon a year or two's data either. I'd imagine trends and averages are what are most important and hurricane activity has increased on average for quite some time consistent with global temperature increases over the same time period as the data has shown.
Bill Gray is a bitter old man whose views on global warming are way out of mainstream science.
IRONY:
Gray's "theories" are not peer reviewed, so they are not JUST "out of the mainstream of science" ... they are not considered scientific AT ALL.
On the other hand, ExxonMobil is paying big bucks to anybody with a degree who will help them debunk the Global Warming climate consensus, so it's probably been profitable for Gray to put his little "theories" forward, sans any nod to scientific method.
Wrong! Dr. Gray is an old man whose views on this topic are entirely within the mainstream of scientific thought on this topic.
It is the AGW activists who are out of step with that mainstream. Those who are predicting an increase in frequency/intensity of Hurricane intensity in the Atlantic basin in a causitive relationship with warming climate are promoting a theory which is not substantiated by the science.
This is what NOAA's most recet official position is:
"Consensus statements by the workshop participants
"1. Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point."
A repudiation of the bogus claims to the contrary contained in IPCC AR4.
Gray says in the link provided earlier there is no proven relationship between global warming and hurricanes which is exactly what the NOAA consensus says about this. The only opinion I have ever seen to the contrary was the highly controversial and discredited opinion contained in the the IPCC AR4.
Your view that he is "out of step with the mainstream" is just plain wrong and I hope for your sake the product of ignorance.
"discredited" by who?
more ad hominim. Thanks for your contribution.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/NWS-TPC-5.pdf
It's a pdf document. Check page 12.
Clearly shows that there is no statistical relevance to the "global warming is increasing hurrican strength" theory.
it's still a fact that 2004, 2005, and 2007 were active seasons. [and 2006, which had a normal number of storms, should have had fewer than normal because of the el nino effect.] the fact is that the number of category 5 storms has increased. that is a fact, not opinion.
If you look at jericho's link's own statistics, they backup the argument that hurricanes are becoming more intense and more frequent on average. I don't quite know what his point was to begin with.
I don't see any backup for your claim in the report. Perhaps you could quote the words or statistics you are refering to. The amount of hurricanes that have made landfall have decreased, but the overall hurricane activity has increased. "Landfall" would seem to be irrelevant to the argument regarding Global Warming and its effect on hurricane activity.
"Despite the increase in overall activity, the United States hasn’t seen a significant resurgence of exceptionally strong hurricane landfalls." -page 11 (emphasis mine)
Dogrun
So are you saying all these climate scientist somehow overlooked examining the relationship betweeen Co2 and temperature? So they never considered the nature of the relationship and still are avoiding it now, except for that John stossel, who of course, would never let his strong pro corporate libertarianism get in the way of honest scientific inquiry and factual reporting.
The paper you refernce is only about Greenland. It explicitly does not speak to any other climatological effects of industrial soot on any other land mass on the planet.
Only a muttonhead would generalize the statements made about Greenland's temperatures into a statement that this paper 'proves global warming'. It doesn't, nor do I believe it's authors would make any such claim.
Now, since you mentioned Greenland, this story recounts the fate of the Viking colonies established in Greenland during the Medieval warm period that many pro-AGW scientists deny existed. These colonies weren't the 50 -100 year affairs that I have seen them dismissed as many times here on MMFA. They actually lasted about 450 years and took advantage of conditions which existed on Greenland at that time and do not exist there even today, implying that the general warmth in that part of the world that existed in 1000AD still has not been equaled by the current warm spell.
Here's the link - it was actually a BBC documentary, shown on PBS - I stumbled across it on TV in September.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml
I saw that program also. At first I thought it was going to be a global warming is a hoax show. As I watched it I was amazed by what they said. I forget the islands they checked but it was obvious that they were affected by pollution from Europe and North America but that they were affected badly by the pollution.
people live in greenland now, so i don't know what your point is.
Noooooo!!!! Only a muttonhead would believe that over 27 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year is not adversely affecting our climate. Are you trying to ell us that it is good for the earth? Is it nuetral? Does 27 billion tonnes of Carbon Dioxide emissions per year help anything? Wake up!!!!!!!! Carbon Dioxide emissions are making the earth warmer. Christ!!!!! why do you refuse to believe what is right in front of you????????
for the same reason that you can't believe that man is not the only contributing factor to the subtly increasing temperatures of the earth.
Riddle me this: WHY is it also getting warmer on Venus and Mars? No coal plants or SUVs there.
Riddle me this: HOW did the earth warm out of past ice ages? No hairspray cans or diesel engines back then.
We don't disagree that the earth is getting warmer. We disagree as to the cause of the increase. In the grand scheme of things, humans are just a gnat on the arse of the earth. Mother Earth will shake us off like a bad habit... we are just too full of ourselves to realize that. The dinosaurs lived for 150M years... we've been around for 50k years. What makes us so damned smart?
27 billion tonnes of Carbon Dioxide emitted per year into the air sir. Riddle me this; How is that not adversely affecting our planet? We know industrialization has wreaked havoc on our water, oceans, wetlands, etc. what makes you believe that in the past 150 years if we can do that kind of damage to those areas that we can't adversely affect the tempreture through billion upon billions of tons of Carbon Dioxide pumped into the atmosphere? It's rather simple really, why you refuse to believe it I don't know why.
"Riddle me this: WHY is it also getting warmer on Venus and Mars? No coal plants or SUVs there."--cannonball
Obviously there are different factors that affect temperature - such as distance to the sun and atmospheric composition. You are apparently wrongly assuming that these factors are equal for each planet.
Scientists on Earth largely believe the evidence points to gases linked to human activity as a major factor here.
that is a lot of malarkey about mars getting "warmer". it's discussed in this link. more propaganda.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
There was also a documentary recently on PBS about a phenomenon called "global dimming" which suggested that the industrial particulate pollution from China and the rest of the developing industrial world is actually impeding the warming of global temperatures by blocking a substantial amount of sunlight. One scientist was studying the effect of jet contrails and found that immediately after the 9/11 attacks, the lack of jet contrails due to the grounded airliners actually caused a temperature spike for those several days nationwide. So, if not for pollution, our globe would likely be even warmer. Nice, huh?
And horner is a lawyer.
Too funny. Half of your party and all the religious sects (except the extremists) believe we need to be stewards of the earth. You are nothing more than a small minority opinion, BJ. Don't worry though, just be happy.
Top-notch reporter John Stossell? That's funny.
Stossel and Beck should have a show of their own, providing their expert opinion on global warming. These two are amazing, I am assuming someone is lobbying these two to spew these lies.
Why not? That ignoramus, Al Gore, made a bogus documentary movie about the subject and he is no more than a politician who earned the grade, 'D', in natural science in college. Why can't Beck and Stossel make their own presentation? They couldn't be any more wrong than Gore was.
Your biased partisan response is not even worth a rebuttal. Obviously you never saw the Gore movie, just what Rush told you.
---"Why can't Beck and Stossel make their own presentation?"---
Ignoramus. Nobody said those Albert Einsteins -Beck and Stossel- can't make their own presentation. So can my two-year old nephew, only his would make more sense.
Gore an "ignoramus"? Get back to me when YOU win the Nobel Peace Prize. What a brainwashed little putz you are.
Why not? That ignoramus, Al Gore
Oh Please, stop playing games.
Uh, perhaps because their 'presentation' would be inaccurate and riddled with partisan BS that skews to the Right? In other words... perhaps because it would suck?
JScott, Billybobsurrendermonkey may feel a close bond with top-notch journalist Stossel.Billybob's visits to MMFA are pretty close to Stossel's experience here
Now if we could only get Dr. D interviews with Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh, Malkin and Beck. I would be willing to pay to see any one of those.
"The whole situation with Al Gore..."
..has nothing to do with this item, Billiy the Troll.
Actually, this has everything to do with the topic. The left's new religion of "Global Warming" has one high priest - Algore. And the left will burn anyone at the stake who dares to challenge their faith.
I hope that there is still room in this world for free-thinkers who dare to challenge the orthodoxy of the establishment.
Beck, Stossel, and other brave truth-seekers deserve a lot of honor for their courage in daring to speak truth to power!
The item cites the Goddard Institute as an authority. Only a supreme nitwit trolling moron would claim the item is all about Al Gore.
Lol. I think both sides treat this like it is a religion at times. I don't see you as being any different. Pot meet kettle.
27 billion tons of Carbon Dioxide emissions worldwide per year Billy Bob. Despite waht Beck and Stossell may tell you, 27 billion tonnes of emission ain't good. Do a little experiment in your garage then get back to us.
Speaking of garage, a little math is elucidating. One gallon of fuel yields 20 lbs of CO2. I commute on about 1000 gallons gasoline per year and produce 20,000 lbs or ten ton of CO2 per year simply driving my car not counting the CO2 it took to get the fuel to me, or make the products I burn it in. Add it all in and there is a whole train load of CO2 produced every year for every car you see on the road as you are driving. A train load per year that persists for a century. Another for residential whole house air-conditioners fueled by coal or oil fired electric grid. Some more trainloads for all the products we use or eat. It starts to add up.
I had to ask myself, since a gallon of gas weighs about 6 lbs., how do you get 20 lbs. of co2? Does it combine with 14 lbs of oxygen? Apparently it does as you can see here.
This article has nothing to do with Al Gore, so thanks for bringing him up!
AL GORE: "the climate crisis is not a political issue. It is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity".
BILLIYBOBJESUS: "Give me a break."
Well, BilliyBobJesus...thanks for confirming that you are devoid of any sense of morality or spirituality.
But, lemme guess...you're a Chrsitian, correct? To borrow your line, BilliyBobJesus...Give me a break.
BILLIY:
Hate to interfere with your literary allusion, but you seem to have entirely missed the point about the Wizard giving awards in the Wizard of Oz.
The theme of the story was that each of the characters may have doubted themselves, but each ALREADY POSSESSED the virtues and qualities they claimed to be missing. The Scarecrow was ALREADY smart. The Tinman ALREADY had a heart (from the America song, "OZ never did give nothing to the Tinman; that he didn't already have."), etc.
So you see, Billiy, yours is a basic misunderstanding; you seek to suggest that Gore receiving awards does not "automatically" make him "brilliant", but your OZ allusion makes the point that Gore was brilliant BEFORE any award.
It's always a good idea to pick an analogy that actually SUPPORTS your position, rather than makes your point look idiotic. Just trying to help!
Hey Hey Hey, easy there Tex. If you keep up your relentless destruction of Billy's posts, we lose one of the most entertaining righties since savageforpresident!:)
I assume (hope that is not a mistake) that by "our part of the world", blooming idiot means Canada, the U.S., South America, Australia, the old USSR in Asia, and Africa? Those are the only places currently experiencing the wildfire phenomenon. Isn't it odd that they are also the only places with large habitat for such fire?
beck asks, "wouldn't these superfires be happening all over the globe?" uh, like they did in greece a few months ago?
-2003 Canberra brushfires in Australia destroyed 500 homes.
-2007 Milford Flat Fire in Utah burned over 300,000 acres.
-2004 fire season in Alaska was the most destructive on record with 6.7 million acres scorched.
-2002 MaNally Fire was the largest in the recorded history of the Sequoia National Forest.
1969 Paseo Grande
Pick any year in the last 25 - Colorado
One more thought: I keep wondering who was mowing all that undergrowth in the days before "global warming"? I mean, if that is the reason we now have a problem, but didn't then, I'd kick in a few bucks to re-hire them?
Well, there are a couple of things to consider. Before man started "managing" the forests, periodic lightning strikes could start fires that burned off undergrowth before it grew large enough to damage mature trees as it burned. Also, in some places, the Native Americans set fires to keep undergrowth at manageable levels. And from the mid 1800s to the late 1900s, a lot of forest land was open to livestock grazing, which kept undergrowth down (but created other problems). In the late 1900s, in the US, the decision was made that we should have no controlled burns of the forest floor and we should put all fires out as soon as we could. One other matter to consider, a lot of mature timber has been harvested and the resulting replants have left younger trees, more susceptible to fire damage. Extra moisture during growing season, drier late summer conditions, all contribute to the problem. Will we learn from our mistakes or will we continue to repeat history (short term)?
nice rejoinder. I will look into what you said because of the way you presented.
The Bush Administration politically blamed the Clinton/Gore camps in 2000 for western wildfires by not having controlled burns and not allowing harvesting of large trees.
What has the Bush Admin done in the last 6.5 years to fix the problem they blamed on Clinton/Gore? Just wondering.
You make all very good and valid points. I would add that GW enters into the equation based on extended draught and increased growing season to create more brush growth. In this case, I would agree with you that sprawling growth and our misguided system of forest management over the last century are one of the main problems here.
Beetle kill. Acid rain. There are too many humans, a tiny fraction are psychotic arsonists (as opposed to practical arsonists that burn down restaurants for the insurance, "Italian insurance policy") so with a population of 22m plus there are bound to be a few dozen sickos that will start fires, and they do every year during the Santa Ana season.
Are you denigrating Italians? Watch your back!!!
I would like someone who minimizes the effects of man on global warming, or minimizes the fact that it exists, to truly enlighten me, no pun intended, on the following posit-
What if YOUR side is wrong?
Why, that is so easy (even though I am not one of the doubters): very simply, we get to wait 500,000 or so years for the Earth to heal sufficiently as to allow some (hopefully, smarter) sapience to flourish.
If man really is totally responsible? Then according to the IPCC we might have oceans rising by 7 to 24 inches over the next one hundred years. We might see a continued increase in overall temps, which might creat a little more dry land around the equator and more livable/farmable land near the poles. Sounds like the end of the world doesn't it?
However, as Gore and his followers don't get, carbon dioxide increases BECAUSE of temp increases, not the other way around.
Nice strawman, starting off with the question "if man is totally responsible?" No one ever said that, it's always been mankind contributes. Understand?
Yes, I miswrote. I should have said "If man is the chief contributor?"
That doesn't change the argument or the facts.
I'd be more inclined to discuss if you actually posted said facts instead of just assuming everyone already knows them...
This isn't exactly the best forum for exhaustive research, but I have posted a few facts that I suggest you look into.
The debate has been declared "over" by Gore, but I do think there are some credible claims made by his opponents. Good science should not be marginalized to promote an environmentalist agenda (although I think the intentions are probably good).
I was actually hoping you would provide a few objective links for me to look at. Willing to debate, not willing to take you at face value.
The debate has been declared "over" by Gore
When and/or where has Gore declared the debate "over?" Your bias is showing.
Rather, the debate has so far gone something like this:
Science: Climate change is going to produce some problems.
Fundies: No it's not. Prove it.
Science provides proof.
Fundies: (Years later) Okay, so maybe something is happening. MAYBE. Still, not our fault. Proceed as normal. Oh, by the way, we call CO2 "Life."
Science: Um, lots of peer reviewed science shows that we are contributing to the problem.
Fundies: We've got six guys over here that say humans are not a problem at all.
Science: Six? Out of--
Fundies: And besides! Canada will be warm all year! HA HA HA.
Are you kidding? Gore has called this debate "over" several times that I know of. Once on the Today show with Katie Couric, in an interview with metroactive, and on the Charlie Rose show to name a few.
About 1000 peer reviewed papers supporting global warming.
Approximately 0 against.
The debate is over. It really is that simple. Please educate yourself regarding the scientific process. When a scientist disagrees with something his opinion means ZIP until he has produced a paper describing his methods and data and until his paper has been accepted by his peers for publication
This is what Al Gore means when he says the debate is over. He is 100 correct.
100% correct that is
"About 1000 peer reviewed papers supporting global warming." Appleboy
Please provide a link to what you think is the definitive peer reviewed scientific paper supporting global warming.
Ha. Why don't you start with the full IPCC report. It is a summary of all the research to date and provides references so you can read the original reports.
"When and/or where has Gore declared the debate "over?" Your bias is showing." Bittermarv
It's in here - several times
??? I'm sorry, but this would seem to violate the Conservation of Mass. I mean, yeah - if by "heat" you mean "burning things" then yes - "heat" creates CO2. (Or maybe becaue we run the AC more when it's hot? Thus using more power, which is generated by burning things...) But increased ground temperature increasing CO2 in the atmosphere? Please explain... fill in the gaps left by my university education.
One huge increase would be when permafrost is no longer frosty, thus microbes get to work decomposing vegetable matter and voila, C02 and methane, and worst of all H20. Check out realclimate.org for pro and con discussion of all these climate change facets.
Yeah - PERMAFROST MELTING! Causing more CO2! That's part of the problem!!! Gore (and the enviornmentalists is general) DEALS with that! They don't DENY it! They USE it! It's one of the things they WARN ABOUT! So please explain: WHY IS THE FROST MELTING IN THE FIRST PLACE?!!!
Oh yeah - that whole "greenhouse effect", and yeah the microbes... I'm sure they have so much of an effect that human contibution is negligble. You know - the BILLIONS of TONS of gas that WE generate by ourselves. Nah... no effect.
Like I said - the'll deny it until the clouds catch fire. And then they'll call it "rapture."
However, as Gore and his followers don't get, carbon dioxide increases BECAUSE of temp increases, not the other way around.
HIS FOLLOWERS?????
This false claim tests everyones patiences and seeks to misinform. It is not AL Gore or his "followers who make this claim. It is THOUSANDS of scientists who make the claim. Al Gore and his folowers are only repeating it, you twit.
This stupid claim of your is not accepted in any scientific circles except for the deniers who are paid by Exxon (and a few quack scientists who are routinely debunked.)
You need to get up to speed. None of the serious deniers are still spouting this particular piece of crap.
One Question:
What does the Competitive Enterprise Institute have to do with climate change? If they are a business lobbying group, I can see them providing their opinion on how various mitigation strategies for carbon reduction could effect business. That could be helpful. What I don't understand is how these economists and business leaders are somehow experts on what actually is going on in the atmosphere.
Many have noticed that it is simarly to getting health advice from the tobacco industry.
there are several warming deniers in this "environmental group", the natural resources stewardship council. impressive, huh? turns out that most of the leadership are lobbyists.
http://www.desmogblog.com/discredited-friends-of-science-emerge-as-the-natural-resources-stewardship-project
project, not council
This is no different, and perhaps better than, that pack of scalawags working for the UN that some folks call the IPCC.
Examine their 4AR. Look in the appendices at the authorship. Very often you will see people claim that IPCC represents the work of 2500 scientists [IPCC findings represent the consensus view of 2,500 scientists ] who all agree that Global Warming is a man-made problem. The truth is right there in the annexes to the report. I count at most approximately 600 distinct individuals in authorship and it is clear that they are not even all of them are purely researchers. Moreover, it is equally clear that they don't all think the that man is having a sifgnificant effect on global climate.
So if only 600 of the IPCC's staff of 2500 are working scientists, then what are the functions of the other 1900? Could they be lobbyists, lawyers, publicists, press agents and politicians? Why would an organization devoted to assessing the scientific basis of climate change need 3/4 of its staff in professions other than science?
"So if only 600 of the IPCC's staff of 2500 are working scientists, then what are the functions of the other 1900? Could they be lobbyists, lawyers, publicists, press agents and politicians? Why would an organization devoted to assessing the scientific basis of climate change need 3/4 of its staff in professions other than science?"--nl207
Well the burden to show who the other 1900 others are is on you. I don't see anyone, but you who claims they could be "lobbyists, lawyers, publicists, press agents and politicians". You are merely using wild speculation to attempt to make a point instead of referring to actual evidence.
If these 1900 others are indeed "lobbyists, lawyers, publicists, press agents and politicians" then you should be able to demonstrate that - otherwise I'm sorry, but you aren't really making a valid point at all.
It's o.k. OPENMIND. Some folks believe that dumping 27 billion tonnes of Carbon Dioxide into the air is not a bad thing. The ol' Ann Coultier "rape the earth" crowd is beyond help. The bad thing is that there will be no enjoyment in telling all of them "I told you so" if it is too late.
We have to do to them what we need to do to people like O'Reilly; marginalize them. Let them spout their drivel, let them fiddle while Rome burns, all the while the rational thinking people will make policy that will do some good. The days of spending 2.2 trillion dollars in Iraq are coming to an end (I hope) and once the neo-cons and chrisitan taliban in this country are marginalized our government can do some good again like during the FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Clinton years.
lol, im not who you were talking to, but thanks.
I'm not spouting steam out the top of my head now.
GW really gets my dander up when people pooh poo it. See, I live in one of the areas that may well be underwater one day.
I know. You can show them the scientific data all day. they will rebut with a scientist employed by Exxon Mobile or some right wing think tank and parade it as direct scientific rebuttal. Then you have the crowd like OLD MARINE who actually tries to discount the effects of 27 billion tonnes of Carbon Dioxide being emitted each year worldwide. As if that has no effect; but natural events are the problem. But, the real laugher is that only until recently have the "flat earthers" conceeded that the earth is really getting warmer. It used to be that such a thought was just liberal, tree hugging propoganda. Now that the reality is upon them they refuse to beleive that man has caused any problems. I wonder what their argument will be once they are forced to conceed that man has actually caused global warming. I'm sure they will try to sell the merits of a warmer planet and how global warming has made life better, thanks to the energy companies and the free market system. Perhaps when Christ returns and tells them that it was man who destroyed the earth they will listen. I doubt it though, he will then be summarily labeled as liberal, unpatriotic, and a loon. One thing I have experienced over the years is that liberals have an easier time of admitting when they are wrong. Conservatives tend to rationalize over and over to cover up the fact that they were initially wrong on an issue. Just a personal observation. No scientific support.
Glenn Beck - Worlds expert on Global Warming. Unbelieveable. CNN please drop this man.
Thinkprogress reports that during this show Beck stated...“[I]f I hear global warming one more time, blood is going to shoot out of my eyes.”
One can only hope. I think it's fair to say he will hear about it again.
What I find quite humorous are the recent actions of Barbara Baxter on the Global Warming issue.
First she accuses the white house of editting research documents on Global Warming. Then she goes on national tv and blames the California fires on Global Warming. The fires have been declared arson.
The democrats keeping making such asses out of themselves on this issue.
The fires have been declared arson.
Correction. Some fires have been declared arson. But that's not the point. If rainfall had been normal and summer temperatures normal the fires would have been easier to extinquish and much slower to spread.
The Global warming crowd loves to talk about CO2. They deliberately ignore the gas which is a couple of orders of magnitude more important than CO2 in creating the "green house" effect: WATER VAPOR! That fact and the effects of changes in emissions from the sun constitute basically the whole argument against man-made global warming.
Face it, folks. It's a political issue - just another way for those who want to control your life to grab some more of that control: carbon tax, etc.
You ought to hook-up with Billiy the Troll, further up the thread. There's plenty of sand for both of you to bury your ignorant heads in.
"Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor"
I can produce 4 or 5 more references that say the same thing. All most all heat trapping takes place in the troposphere. Anyone who has monitored the temperatures outside an aircraft flying in the stratosphere can attest to that.
Now who is it that is a hillbilly? Pull up your pants. Your ignorance is showing.
"I can produce 4 or 5 more references that say the same thing"
Well golly gee. Problem is, I responded to a post that dismisses global warming as all political, designed to collect carbon tax money. That's simply being ignorant of science. That ignorance must be what attracted you.
What you seem to be unaware of is that when you break out the classic "water vapor" argument, it makes you look like a bafoon. Do you really think that climatologists aren't aware of the water cycle? We all learned that in 5th grade!
What you apparently did not learn during your exhaustive research into the water vapor connundrum is that your points are correct, but irrelevant. Water vapor is the majority item, but it is a constant. Think of it this way: I am wiping my kitchen counters down with bleach water to kill germs. My concentration is 0.01% Chlorine and 99.99% water. If I increase my Chlorine to 1%, I still have 99% bleach, but me and my family could get violently ill by eating food that touched the counter.
Bottom line, the water vapor argument is the dumbest straw man of them all in the anti-GW arsenal.
It's all due to water vapor
Another favorite denier myth. Water vapor is responsible for most of our heat retention but it is NOT causing global warming. Water vapor is feedback mechanism not a forcing mechanism. Add all you want and it tends to drop back out of the atmosphere. The earth system can handle the extra water vapor. It doesn't stick around for very long in the air and there are ample feedback mechanisms and sinks to control it. That little bit of CO2 that we add is a much more serious problem because it sticks around for centuries and keeps warming again and again and again.
A new study just came out, see Realclimate.org. It reports that CO2 is rising even faster than anybody predicted just a couple of year ago. There is legitimate concern that we have begun to saturate the CO2 sinks of biomass and the oceans.
Yep I heard about that.
What these denying buffoons seem to think is that the entire earth will heat up all over the place. Of course this is not true. (kinda makes you laugh to hear them talk about it though, that is till you realize their ignorance might just affect our environmental policies)
but.....here is some relatively new - news from just last year.
Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels will produce a 3 percent reduction in the density of Earth's outermost atmosphere by 2017, according to a team of scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and The Pennsylvania State University (PSU)
"We're seeing climate change manifest itself in the upper as well as lower atmosphere," says NCAR scientist Stan Solomon, a co-author of the study. "This shows the far-ranging impacts of greenhouse gas emissions."Carbon dioxide cools the thermosphere, even though it acts to warm the atmosphere near the Earth's surface (the troposphere). This paradox occurs because the atmosphere thins with height.
Recent observations by scientists tracking satellite orbits have shown that the thermosphere, which begins about 60 miles above Earth and extends up to 400 miles, is beginning to become less dense. This confirms a prediction made at NCAR in 1989 by Roble and Robert Dickinson (now at the Georgia Institute of Technology) that the thermosphere will cool and contract because of increasing carbon dioxide levels. The new study is the first to analyze whether the observed change will become more pronounced over the next decade.
and this......
“Many people don’t realize we are committed right now to a significant amount of global warming and sea level rise because of the greenhouse gases we have already put into the atmosphere,” says lead author Gerald Meehl. “Even if we stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations, the climate will continue to warm, and there will be proportionately even more sea level rise. The longer we wait, the more climate change we are committed to in the future.
So...
I would just like to take this time to thank all the deniers who want to bury this "climate change" under the rug, for my grandchildren who will have to live with the effects that the deniers want to do NOTHING to slow down the changes.
With climate change comes many things, emerging diseases, famine, fires, freezes, lack of water in some areas, too much water in others, increased and dangerous weather patterns like hurricanes, tornadoes etc.
Heck we already see some of this beginning to happen with the tiny bit of climate change now. We have seen it happen in the past it is documented facts folks. No other time has it happened as quickly as it is beginning to happen now though.
We know why, yet it is still debated as if it is not happening. As if it is a global hoax people of the earth are playing on "the far right". I say that because it is mostly the far right that believe it is a lie.
This earth is not a disposable tissue people, wake up, it is the only planet right now we have to live on. Do not DEPEND on a god to come rapture you off it once you have destroyed its resources.
.
A new study just came out, see Realclimate.org. It reports that CO2 is rising even faster than anybody predicted.
Sorry I mispoke. That news was seen on ClimateProgress.org website.
Carbon emissions race past all predictions
Field informed the audience, at the Norwegian Embassy’s annual Science Week/Climate Action conference, that atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions have risen 35 percent above 1990 levels–the benchmark by which the world’s industrialized economies were supposed to set their stabilization and reduction scenarios. “We are in unknown territory about where the climate is headed,” Field said. Emissions are rising faster than the IPCC’s fastest-growing computer model scenario–even the one that was not included in the latest report because scientists thought it was unrealistically high. The main scenarios for the 21st century, remarkably do not assume that China and India will continue to grow at the rate they have for the last decade.
Thanks Middleleft. The neverending water vapor bad Carbon Dioxide not bad argument is reminiscant of round earth bad, flat earth good. I love to keep driving the 27 billion tons of Carbon Dioxide emissions point to these folks who deny what they see. They have never, I mean never, been able to tell anyone how such emissions do not adversely effect our climate. 27 billion tons folks, that is each year. That is a hell of alot Carbon Dioxide.
Its a political issue for you OM. You do not change the earths ecological balance with impunity, and survive is my position.
Politically active scientists are a rare breed, beyond the skills needed to aquire funding. Granted these folks that study the atmosphere, would like to continue to do so. I think they should continue to do so.
So per your paranioia all these scientists somehow decided to engage in a collective cospiracy to attain political control. They attained this coordinated effort with what training/experience? If you knew many scientists, you would know that the usual deffinition of two scientists is an argument. They are rarely collective action people. That there is a consensiss on GW, amoung legitimet atmospheric scientists is an amazing thing all by itself.
Nobody has yet shown than man is upsetting the Earth's climatological balance. Its ecological balance has nothing to do with teh prevailing climate. Ecology is the relationships between lifeforms. Climate is the prevailing weather conditions. These are not at all the same things.
Nobody has yet shown than man is upsetting the Earth's climatological balance. Its ecological balance has nothing to do with teh prevailing climate. Ecology is the relationships between lifeforms. Climate is the prevailing weather conditions. These are not at all the same things.
Wow that's a mouthful of untruths.
Nobody got prize for publicizing the fact that thousands of scientists claim to have evidence that man is upsetting the climate.
Ecological balance has nothing to do with the prevailing climate. (did I read that wrong?). Even the smallest change in climate WILL UPSET the ecological balance. Change any damn little thing in the climate and it WILL change the ecological balance. The opposite is also true for many factors. Change the ecology by shifting vegetation or water usage and you can change the climate
You made only one true statement. Climate and ecology are not the same thing.
This statement about ecology and climate ranks right up there with your water vapor comment earlier as monumentally ignorant of basic science. I don't think I could even find the right words to stress how ridiculously wrong that viewpoint is. You would fail a high school biology course with that thinking.
I'm literally trying to think of a way to briefly explain why that is so wrong, but it is based on such a fundamental ignorance of ecology and biology, that I don't even know where to begin. I hope you can do a little research on your own, or just listen to people who are educated and trained in the field and learn how closely environmental conditions such as temperature and weather events are linked to ecosystems.
Sure there is, slash and burn the lungs of the planet, and we die.....
pretty simple really.
CEI doesn't sound like a scientific outfit to me. Hmmm... think I'll stick with the 'real scientists' instead of a bunch of 'suits' at a capitalist 'think tank' when it comes to scientific issues. After all... as a comparison, why would anyone want to get their weather forecasts from the radio/tv station janitor?
The Hype surrounding GW is what scares me. Just google GW under the news link and you will see what I am talking about. Reading the links, you would think the world was coming to a end. It is pathetic. To think the world can not adapt to its surroundings is irrational. To think mankind can be the sole cause of the warming affect we ARE experiencing is also up for debate.
Global warming to cause mass extinction: report
Global warming could wipe out most species
Would Eating Kangaroos Solve Global Warming?
City’s Parks Contributing to Global Warming
Apocalypse Now?
Health consequences from global warming need attention
Mass Death Decades Away?
History of mass extinction is a grim lesson
After reading those headlines, does this seem rational?
The earth can adapt.
It is the fragile homo sapiens that may not be able to, along with many other species.
You think extinctions don't happen?
Guess again, they do....humans were almost to the edge of extinction once.....look it up.
"To think the world can not adapt to its surroundings is irrational."
Sure. We polluted our lakes & air, but we can filter water somehow or just stay indoors on smoggy days, eh?
The "hype" as you call it is there for a reason: because we face a serious problem. Made more serious because of the deniers. If anyone's hyping it, it's because of folks like you who'd rather hide the stories under the rug.
Nobody has yet shown than man is upsetting the Earth's climatological balance. Its ecological balance has nothing to do with teh prevailing climate. Ecology is the relationships between lifeforms. Climate is the prevailing weather conditions. These are not at all the same things.Actually there are several examples in this thread of how MAN is affecting the climate. Re-read the entire thread and LOOK at the links people have provided. (We emit burning fossil fuels which contribute to a warmer atmosphere, which affects climate) I'll give you one more isolated example too that might be eaiser to understand, SMOG.
some excerpts and some examples for you of how one effects the other....from.....http://www.prbo.org/cms/docs/observer/Obs130web.pdfWithin the past decade, global climatic fluctuations of longer time duration than the 6- to 18-month El Niño have been identified for the first time; these include the 10- to 30- year-long Pacific Decadal Oscillation
climate changes can produce collapses of wildlife populations and even entire food websClimate change may be causing mismatching in timing between the breeding of animalsShifts in timing have been noted in locations from around the globe—Asia,Australia, Europe, North America, Russia, and elsewhere—for all majorgroups of animals, including invertebrates, amphibians, birds, and mammals. Changes have been observed in the timing of calling by frogs (which reflects timing of breeding) in North America, migration arrival and departure of birds in Europe and North America, peak insect abundance (which reflects the time of emergence from dormant life stages) in Europe and New Zealand, and bud burst and blooming by trees in North America and Asia—and these are just a few examples.The combined effects of rapid temperature rise and other stresses are likely to become one of our most serious global-change problems. Two possible consequences are 1) numerous extinctions of populations and even entirespecies, and 2) “decoupling” of interdependent species that are ecologically linked in communities—when some species shift and others do not. The patterns of ocean currents and atmospheric winds that transfer the Earth’s heat energy fluctuate—ultimately with consequences for fish, seabird, and marine mammal populationsScientific understanding of the ecological consequences of global warming—and actions human can take to help mitigate the effects—will become increasingly important, not only for our sake but for the sheer existence of many wild animals and plantsCommonly asked questions:www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/cover.htmlUpdated El Niño information:www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/1997.htmlPacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO):http://tao.atmos.washington.edu/pdo/Concerned Scientists’ position:www.ucsusa.org/index.html (click on“Common Sense on Climate Change:)
I think it's funny how some say "Well, it's only 1 degree fahrenheit difference, so no big deal". The problem with that is of course that if the difference is 32 to 33 degrees fahrenheit somewhere... it can be quite the deal.