Don't Believe the (Global Warming) Hype
Twitter
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Stumble
Reddit
From the “Isn’t That Special?” files we have more Liberal hype concerning saving the planet:
Gordon Brown (England’s Prime Minister) said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the “impasse”.
He told the Major Economies Forum in London, which brings together 17 of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas-emitting countries, there was “no plan B”.
“In Britain we face the prospect of more frequent droughts and a rising wave of floods,” he told delegates.
“The extraordinary summer heatwave of 2003 in Europe resulted in over 35,000 extra deaths.
What Mr. Brown failed to point out was that almost 15,000 people died in France because they didn’t have air conditioning.
Mr. Brown then pointed out:
Gordon Brown warned today of a catastrophe for the planet if action to tackle climate change is not agreed at forthcoming UN talks and said that global warming could be more costly than two world wars and the Great Depression.
What Brown failed to take into account was this admission:
In a speech last week at the U.N.’s World Climate Conference in Geneva, Professor Mojib Latif of Germany’s Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, one of the world’s foremost climate modelers and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledged that the Earth has been cooling and is likely to continue that trend for the next couple of decades. Al Gore, call your office.
Latif conceded the planet has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering “one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.” Latif still believes in a warming trend and thinks it will resume. But he at least acknowledges the empirical evidence of cooling, that there are factors at work here other than your SUV, and that doom will not occur the day after tomorrow.
Latif and others conclude that, at the very least, we have time to think about it and analyze and learn. We don’t have to fight global warming by inflicting global poverty. More things on Earth affect climate than are dreamed up in computer models.
Brown would send us all into the poor house by establishing a $100 billion per year “fund” to fight the whopping 0.117% CO2 content that is produced by humans.
Did you like this article? Get new articles daily for free via RSS or Email.
2:10 PM
note that prof. latif modified, not abandoned, his global climate change theory (also mentioned in this link, bottom of column).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
because if he said he was wrong, he prob would lose all his funding. but that’s just my theory.
smarmyness aside, it is nice to see noted scientists finally questioning the legitamacy of global warming.
still, i hate those freakin’ noah wyle commercials…..
2:15 PM
Yes… a “modification” indeed. He should get credit for that but the cracks in the Global Warmer’s dikes are just beginning.
2:10 PM
I suppose it depends on who or what you read. I have definitely noticed a change in climate and dread where the world will be ten years from now if we do not address this. But then, Al Gore won a Nobel Prize just like Obama did. Should that serve a the discrediting factor?
.-= askcherlock´s last blog ..MEDICAL MARIJUANA: THE TIME HAS COME TODAY =-.
2:13 PM
The weather over tens of thousands of years matters, not just the last couple. Al Gore won the Nobel for inventing the Internet?
3:20 PM
So are you saying that the solution to global warming is building more air conditioners? Maybe you should go to Copenhagen to propose that.
.-= Joe Markowitz´s last blog ..Dick Cheney should shut up. =-.
4:13 PM
Good one. Of course, we’d have to point them backwards which would make it pretty hot in our homes.
3:33 PM
Someone is missing the point. Al Gore and Brown have a lot in common – they tend to fabricate scientific models that agree with their position. Why has Gore never agreed to an in-depth global warming debate?
.-= theLibertyPen´s last blog ..Another Assault on Gun Rights? =-.
4:13 PM
Because he would lose. Badly.
6:57 PM
An Ice age comes about..I think it’s every 25,000 years maybe the numbers wrong, but ice ages are a natural occurrence….Let’s see many of the deserts were once fertile valleys..give or take a few thousand years..Maybe we get rid of all the cars, planes and all carbon emission and just live with the cows(by the way has anyone studied how much cow farts damage the ozone) anyway maybe then we’ll make it to 24,500 years before another ice age..
10:47 PM
Scientific questions are not subject to “debate” in the way you are using the term. You do not test scientific theories by trying to assemble arguments to support one theory or another in the way that you would score points in a debate. You also cannot establish the validity of a theory by counting the number of scientists who favor one scientific theory or another. The only valid way to test scientific theories is by scientific experiment. So if you question the theory that increased CO2 emissions created by human activity is causing global warming, what you need to do is conduct an experiment and get it published in a scientific journal, proving your counter-theory. There is plenty of money available to fund such experiments, as all of the oil companies have been very willing to support such research for years. Too bad they haven’t come up with much in the way of science, however.
.-= Joe Markowitz´s last blog ..Dick Cheney should shut up. =-.
10:12 AM
Tell that to the Global Warmers! The biggest problem is that so many of these people are not following the Scientific Method. How do you think these people are coming up with their “projections” on what the weather will be like in the next 1-20 years? They are essentially “guessing” what data to use and the computer just spits out an answer.
And if oil companies are a bad source of funding as you suggest you do not think that rabid anti-capitalist/socialist agencies are not an equally bad source of funding?
10:57 AM
If “global warmers” are not following the scientific method, then other scientists should be able to disprove their assertions. And if their data are faulty, then someone else should be able to make a different projection using better data. Or are you saying that no one should try to make projections as to what future weather will be like? Don’t you have to input the best data you have, and then see what the computer spits out? How else would you do it? My point is that you can’t make stuff up in science, because your results must always be available for all to see. If they cannot be replicated, then your experiment is not valid. And if your assumptions are questionable, then anyone can point out the basis of your assumptions.
And I do not suggest that the oil companies are a bad source of funding. My point is that there has been no shortage of funding available for studies to attempt to prove that global warming is not happening, but they haven’t come up with much so far.
.-= Joe Markowitz´s last blog ..Dick Cheney should shut up. =-.
11:17 AM
There are plenty of scientists who have been saying this for years but you don’t get the Nobel and the Oscar for this type of honest (if politically unpopular) scientific discourse, do you?
1:27 PM
Like I said, it doesn’t really matter how many scientists are on each side of an issue. It so happens that the vast majority of scientists accept the theory that increases in CO2 are causing global warming, but of course they could all be wrong, and those few scientists who question the theory could be right. Galileo was right that the earth goes around the sun even though most scientists believed the opposite. That is why it is pointless to debate this issue. If you don’t accept the theory, you need to disprove it by conducting an experiment that disproves it.
What I can’t understand is why you think the entire scientific establishment is corrupted into accepting a “politically popular” theory, and why you think it would be more politically popular to believe that we are headed for disastrous climate change. I’m guessing it is because you think there is some kind of scientific conspiracy to put scientists in charge of the world so that they can gain the power to destroy industry and force us all to adopt an agrarian lifestyle. Somehow I don’t think that is plausible. I actually think most scientists like driving cars and flying in airplanes as much as the rest of us. I actually think there are plenty of scientists who know that they could make themselves really popular, and rich too, if they could only prove that global warming is not happening. So if they could come up with some respectable science to prove that, they have every incentive to do it. And they probably would get a Nobel if they could demonstrate to the satisfaction of the scientific world, that global warming is not occurring.
.-= Joe Markowitz´s last blog ..Dick Cheney should shut up. =-.
1:42 PM
Almost all “scientists” work for organizations that get grant money. If they work on their own they usually get grant money themselves… usually from the U.N., a government, or a government-affiliated “non-profit” organization or a university. Not every scientist who applies for grant money gets it yet without this they usually can’t do any work. Many of these organizations lean Left so, getting grants tilts towards those who tow the ideological line and you have so many organizations that feed into this like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, etc…
Just recently, under Obama, a report that questioned “global warming” was suppressed:
“The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml
This is not an isolated incident, either. It happens all the time. It is more politically popular to believe man is causing the climate to change because it feeds into the belief system of these people that we need to tell people how to live from what they eat to what they drive, etc. Al Gore wins an Oscar and gets a Nobel for this stuff yet he won’t debate anybody on the subject. When was the last time an anti-global warmer had the same kind of positive press or awards that someone who believes the opposite got? I can’t count any.
There is plenty of respectable science to support that, in fact, we are in a natural cycle where temperature shift but, again, these types of facts do not gel with the belief system of many foundations, award organizations, or press.
If you want to see a good site on the subject of man’s role in “global warming” you can look here:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
If you want to read a good book on the subject with one hundred footnotes and plenty of facts try State of Fear. It is fiction but only barely.
And your suggestion that if I would like to “disprove” global warming I should study the issue would be like if you told me I should work for the police if I wanted lower crime or become a fireman if I wanted fewer fires.
And people like Al Gore and Prince Charles (who are the most well known global warmers) have not scientific training and fly private planes and own tons of cars and use more resources than most people yet they are preaching to us about the Earth.
You also fail to make the connection that Liberals want to scare people about “global warming” because it will enable them to pass into law all sorts of laws that will increase taxes on people giving them a new source of “revenue” to fund all of their social policies that they want. This “revenue” will not be used to “save the earth” but to fuel an ideological belief system. So there is a financial incentive to promote “global warming” as well.
And the nuclear bomb should be given the Nobel Peace Prize because it has prevented more wars and saved more lives than any other person who has won the award, including Obama. But somehow I don’t think the Nuke will get the award. Could politics play a part?
5:10 PM
I feel like I am being drawn into a debate about something I do not want to debate about, but so many of your facts are wrong I have to respond again. Sure lots of scientists get grants from governments, but there has also been plenty of money to support research from private companies, who are very interested in funding research that disproves the theory that human activities are causing global warming. ExxonMobil alone has spent millions trying to disprove global warming, and funding groups that are spreading a lot of misinformation on this issue.
Scientists have a range of political views just like the rest of us. They are not that much more liberal than everyone else, yet there is near unanimity on the climate change issue. Surely some scientists would dearly love to prove that humans are not causing global warming, but have been compelled to the opposite conclusion by the evidence. Lonnie Thompson, for example, who did years of research drilling ice core samples, was a Reagan supporter, but became firmly convinced by his research that CO2 increases are causing global warming.
As far as reports being suppressed, the “report” you are talking about was not by a scientist, it was by an economist. My understanding was that it was just an amalgamation of a bunch of information anyone can find on climate change-denying websites like the one you are citing. The most prominent actual scientist whose work was in fact suppressed by the government was Dr. James Hansen, a NASA climate scientist, whose views were suppressed for political reasons by the Bush administration. Do I need to mention that Michael Crichton was not a climate scientist? He was a doctor before he became a screenwriter and novelist.
I still don’t understand how it can possibly be more politically popular to suggest that we are headed for climate disaster than to suggest that everything is going to be fine. Most people would much rather believe that everything is going to be fine and they can keep driving their SUVs without guilt or fear. So most politicians liberal or conservative would of course prefer to tell people what they want to hear.
Rather than assuming that there is some kind of liberal conspiracy to make everyone’s lives miserable just to satisfy liberals’ supposed urge to run everyone’s lives, why not assume that a lot of people, both liberal and conservative, have identified a problem and want to do something about it even though the solutions will cost money and perhaps force some changes in our lifestyle that might not be so pleasant? It is no different from when scientists figured out that aerosol sprays were cutting a gigantic hole in the ozone layer, and the world got together to ban those harmful substances. Now, because it is CO2, which is not by itself a harmful substance, everyone wants to make this a political issue. But it is not a political issue. It is something that is either happening or not happening regardless of who is funding the research or what political desires people may have. It is good for laypeople like you and me to study the issue, but I would suggest that if you really want to study it, you should be taking an unbiased read of credible sources like Science magazine rather than Michael Crichton’s novels.
.-= Joe Markowitz´s last blog ..Dick Cheney should shut up. =-.
6:32 PM
Joe, I never cited as a FACT that all scientists are Liberals or that all funding comes from Liberal sources, only that the UN, univerisites, foundations, etc… trend towards liberalism. If you want me to furnish quotes, links, etc… I can.
There is NOT “near unanimity” that “global warming” is caused by man. In fact, the debate is wide open with plenty of people on both sides.
As for Hansen, the man is bankrolled by George Soros (who is very Left in fact) and even though Hansen critisizes “special interests” he himself is a beneficiary of a big one.
Crichton was not a scientist although his book, State of Fear, is filled with almost 100 citations from people who ARE scientists. I urge you to read the book which is entertaining and rings true overall. And if you read the book (and the footnotes) you would see he cites plenty of sources, scientists, studies, government organizations, including Science magazine.
You dodged my statement earlier about climate models and predicitons. These are the things that people use to say the oceans will rise 2 feet in 10 years or whatnot. These climate models are flawed because they contain estimates used to project answers. You have Mojib Latif of Germany’s Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stating the projections are wrong and the earth has been cooling for a decade and will continue to cool for decades more which is an admission that “predicitions” are wrong.
You also ignore the basic facts, proven time and time again, that water vapor is the main stuff that traps and retains heat while CO2 is a very, very poor medium for trapping heat. You also ignore that man made CO2 is responsible for 0.117% of all CO2 on earth.
How is it more politically popular to suggest disaster is coming? Well, if you are trying to advance an agenda then FEAR is a pretty good method, isn’t it?
You also ignore the fact that Liberals are trying to impose hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes because of “global warming” that will be used to fund their agendas. MONEY is almost always the main motivation for people and “global warming” can provide a lot of it if people believe in it enough which is why the Left can’t allow themselves to fail.
11:35 PM
I told you I am not going to get into a debate with you about the science. That would be stupid and pointless. I am not a scientist. The only issue that I am prepared to debate is whether or not this IS a question of science. If it is science, then it has to be settled by scientific methods, not by you and me picking and choosing arguments to support different positions. You want to believe that all of the scientists that have accepted the theory of man-made global warming are corrupt and have some kind of political agenda, fine. I don’t believe that. But what makes you so sure that the scientists who are skeptical of that theory are all pure and not motivated by anything other than the desire to find the scientific truth?
.-= Joe Markowitz´s last blog ..Dick Cheney should shut up. =-.
12:01 PM
This site is great very informaational and seems to be right on. I think that we need to stop making politics such a huge part of a major problem like climate change. Like Markowitz I feel scientists should only be motivated by the scientific truth.
.-= Dan´s last blog ..What if Glenn Beck is Right? =-.
12:34 PM
Thanks for your comment. There is too much funding out there for all scientists to be that honest. And as I showed in my little article, people who write for the press on this stuff are just perpetuating lies and false data, probably out of either personal bias or because they think they will make a name for themselves among like-minded thinkers.
6:05 AM
There are two groups one supports Al Gore and the other rejoice in condemning him.
The real fact and the percentage of people supporting Al Gore are more and this become more and more.
But if it is hoax then it is a thing to be rejoiced also.
Thank you.