Cold Water on "Global Warming"

National Review Online: Skeptics To Gather In Gotham To Discuss The Cold, Hard Facts

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Thomas Sowell

---

It has almost become something of a joke when some “global warming” conference has to be cancelled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold weather.

But stampedes and hysteria are no joke - and creating stampedes and hysteria has become a major activity of those hyping a global-warming “crisis.”

They mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call them all “scientists” and then claim that “all” the experts agree on a global-warming crisis.

Their biggest argument is that there is no argument.

A whole cottage industry has sprung up among people who get grants, government agencies who get appropriations, politicians who get publicity, and the perpetually indignant who get something new to be indignant about. It gives teachers something to talk about in school instead of teaching.

Those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who are called scientists are really scientists and not all of those who are scientists are specialists in climate. But who bothers to check facts these days?

A new and very different conference on global warming will be held in New York City, under the sponsorship of the Heartland Institute, on March 2nd to March 4th - weather permitting.

It is called an “International Conference on Climate Change” that will examine the question “Global Warming: Crisis or Scam?” Among those present will be professors of climatology, along with scientists in other fields and people from other professions.

They come from universities in England, Hungary, and Australia, as well as from the United States and Canada, and include among other dignitaries the former president of the Czech Republic, Václav Havel.

All told, there will be 98 speakers and 400 participants.

The theme of the conference is that “there is no scientific consensus on the causes or likely consequences of global warming.”

Many of the participants in this conference are people who have already expressed skepticism about either the prevailing explanations of current climate change or the dire predictions about future climate change.

These include authors of such books as Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, and Shattered Consensus, edited by Patrick J. Michaels.

This will be one of the rare opportunities for the media to hear the other side of the story - for those old-fashioned journalists who still believe that their job is to inform the public, rather than promote an agenda.

Several films will be featured at the conference - including The Great Global Warming Swindle, a British television program that is now available on DVD in the United States. It is a devastating debunking of the current “global warming” hysteria.

Nobody denies that there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect. If there were not, the side of the planet facing away from the sun would be freezing every night.

There is not even a lot of controversy over temperature readings. What is fundamentally at issue are the explanations, implications, and extrapolations of these temperature readings.

The party line of those who say that we are heading for a global warming crisis of epic proportions is that human activities generating carbon dioxide are key factors responsible for the warming that has taken place in recent times.

The problem with this reasoning is that the temperatures rose first and then the carbon dioxide levels rose. Some scientists say that the warming created the increased carbon dioxide, rather than vice versa.

Many natural factors, including variations in the amount of heat put out by the sun, can cause the earth to heat or cool.

The bigger problem is that this has long since become a crusade rather than an exercise in evidence or logic. Too many people are too committed to risk it all on a roll of the dice, which is what turning to empirical evidence is.

Those who have a big stake in global-warming hysteria are unlikely to show up at the conference in New York, and unfortunately that includes much of the media.

[irliberal]

The "joke" in this article is the article itself. The author displays an alarming amount of ignorance on the topic which isn''t really worth trying to refute on this medium. Simply stating that the NRO holds to their ecological and environmental themes of "stay the course" and "mission accomplished" is really enough. Of course they are absolutely wrong, and most people know it, but when you''re so absolutely wrong and have been so absolutely wrong for such a very long time, perhaps you no longer have a choice but to remain absolutely wrong in the vain hope that your steadfastness will be mistaken for fortitude instead of foolishness.

[DrColes]

Over 400 World Wide Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007.
See http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz

[ubrew12]

Article: "The theme of the conference is that ''there is no scientific consensus on the causes or likely consequences of global warming.'' "

So, is there scientific consensus that there is no such thing as global warming or no consequences? Far from it. Should we wait for such concensus before taking prudent action?

The article admits that greenhouse gases are real, and in fact keep the planet from freezing. It doesn''t admit that a 50% increase in one of the most potent of these gases (CO2) in the last 100 years should have any impact on our climate. I call that wishful thinking.

Call yourself a skeptic and you get to proudly wear the label of ''independent''. The author is proud to wear it, certainly. He spends half his article excoriating the other side in this debate rather than discussing the merits of his case. But, at the end of the day, the fact that you''re a ''crusty independent'' doesn''t buy me an ounce of relief if sea levels rise 5 ft. Actions taken today may forestall just that fate for our children. You can act for them now, or you can stroke your ego and call yourself a ''free thinker''.

[doujoh101]

Just looking at the previously posted comments by the poor mind numbed liberals that have posted them we find the typical liberal arguments. Essentially the agenda behind the global warming alarmists is this- carbon dioxide levels have risen, the atmosphere has warmed slightly over the century (supposedly a little over one degree fahrenheit, speaking of which, can you really tell the difference outside between 59 and 60? or 8 and 9? And would common sense tell you that this supposed increase is by itself virtually insignificant?), the United States (soon to be overtaken by China and India) is the largest single generator of Carbon Dioxide, so therefore the evil polluting United States must be made to stop it. Liberals, you simply have too much time on your hands, get a life, the sky is not falling, love American or leave it (please). The truth about global warming is knowable, do some research yourself, quit following the lead of opportunist politicians and a corrupt academia.

[hypnotoad72]

I love the references to Greenpeace.

They lambasted Apple for being a do-nothing on the problem too.

Guess who''s been on Apple''s board since 2003?

Or maybe Al Gore has less clout than people think?

[lowell3456]

There is little argument that Global Warming is happening. The argument is whether man made generation of green house gases is a significant factor in the increase. Changing human industrial output drastically to decrease greenhouse gas emissions may make a difference but making changes "as a start" is silly without significant evidence that X strategy will produce Y result.

[hawksprings]

Now there''s info showing we''re actually headed into a colder period. And guess what''s causing it??
THE SUN!!
Who would have ever guessed the SUN has more impact on our weather than human beings do???

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors Report Worldwide Global Cooling/article10866.htm

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

[ubrew12]

Conservatives
20 years ago: No such thing as Global Warming.
10 years ago: Maybe there''s global warming, but its not caused by man.
5 years ago: Maybe its caused by man, but its not of any consequence.
today: Maybe its cause by man, maybe it''ll have a consequence. But there''s no scientific CONSENSUS of either, so lets not do anything.

Its called foot-dragging. Their foot dragging will end up costing future generations a bucketload of money. But there''s been alot of foot dragging even among scientists, and this is scarier. They didn''t think to look in the Arctic till 10 years ago. Five years ago they got clear evidence the Arctic was melting. NOW, gravimetric measurements made by passing satellites show both poles are dumping 200,000-400,000 tons of ice into the oceans each year. As that ice melts, the ocean/land underneath it absorbs FOUR TIMES more of the suns light than it did before. What else haven''t they looked at???

doujoh101 said: "love American or leave it (please)." If ''patiotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel'', you must be home.

[ajmarine1]

Changing human industrial output drastically to decrease greenhouse gas emissions may make a difference but making changes "as a start" is silly without significant evidence that X strategy will produce Y result.

Posted by lowell3456 at 12:32 PM : Mar 01, 2008


Watch yourself, know one wants to hear something that might make sense.

[ubrew12]

lowell3456 said: "Changing human industrial output drastically to decrease greenhouse gas emissions may make a difference but making changes ''as a start'' is silly without significant evidence that X strategy will produce Y result."

AJMarine1 said: "Watch yourself, know one wants to hear something that might make sense."

What in that comment makes sense? Reducing greenhouse emissions (and planting trees) IS the strategy. Reduce greenhouse gases and the amount in the atmosphere goes down. X leads to Y. So simple a caveman could do it.

[zorlacskates]

shocking, an nro piece against global warming. 5 years ago this may have been worth reading.

and because al gore is on the board of directors at apple he''s accountable for everything apple does?

[nycprof]

This article is just one of the last gasps by the Exon funded groups of people who still have their heads buried in the sand.

I happen to be one of those climate scientists, who publishes in peer reviewed journals. Let me make one point clear: IT HAS BEEN SHOWN THAT EVERYONE ONE OF THE NAY SAYERS ARGUEMENTS HAS BEEN REBUTTED A LONG TIME AGO. PERIOD.

Of course there is still some uncertainty in the degree of warming and exactly what percent is humanity contributing to it, but that world is warming faster than the last 10,000 years and that humanity is the major cause of it obvious and the time for arguing is over. It is a sad fact that the USA is the only first-world country that still has a debate about global warming and its causes. We seem to have more in common when it comes to science education with the Taliban and Saudi Arabia than with other developed countries. Point in case is the author of this piece, who is either willfully ignorant and or reality challenged.

[ajmarine1]

So simple a caveman could do it.

Posted by ubrew12 at 02:15 PM : Mar 01, 2008


Where does the sun and solar flares fit in with this?

Don''t get me wrong less is better, but will it stop a natural event from happpening?

All I see is companies and politicans getting rich by putting the "Green" label on everything.

[imnho]

Making a lot of money does not buy you much if your dead. It would be better if we deal with global warming before it gets beyond are capabilty to resolve it in a sound manner. Today it will cost a lot of money. In the future if might mean giving up the automobile. I would rather spend money now, then give up driving to work(I would rather give up work, but there is the small problem called eating).Most people don''t live close emought to work to walk.

[jimfinster]

The only "joke" is the opinion of Thomas Sowell.

[heartlight3]

That''s right, just keep dragging your feet. By the time you figure out that it is really happening it will be too late to do anything about it. Then how will you feel about wasting all the time you could have done something, in arguing about whether or not it was real.

[dostojevskij-2009]

What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/

[nodemotwit]

(cont)
. * Don''t we owe it to next US generations
. the legacy of unspoiled National Parks
. and Wilderness areas ? They will not
. remain so if opened for oil exploration,
. so why not just get off the oil teat?

If the US will invest in newer technology,
like fast-neutron nuclear reactors, and convert
all vehicle to battery and/or fuel cell power,
the whole global warming debate, as least as
far as US contribution to same, becomes a mute
point. Further, this technology can recycle
OLD technology nuclear waste, and result
in a very significant (over 100X) reduction
in the 1/2 life of the resulting waste,
reaching safe levels in several 100 yrs instead
of the tens of thousands of years required
for old technology reactor waste.

Let''s get beyond the ''global warming'' debate
and find common ground to do what must
invariably be done.

[nodemotwit]

Some points:
While the consequences and causes of the earths''
most current warming trend ARE open for debate,
despite a group of left-leaning scientists that
have assumed the mantel of
''we are obviously mental giants and therefore
refuse to debate the mathematics behind
our findings'',
there are OTHER valid and pressing reasons to
reduce our carbon emissions,
such as:
. * With huge middle class populations coming
. on line in China and India,
. who are just as entitled to a middle-class
. lifestyle as the anyone in the West,
. the projections of the worlds remaining oil
. supplies have to be adjusted radically downward.
. Recently Dutch Oil revised peak world
. production to peak in the next 7 yrs.
. Rather that risk the apocalypse of a global
. war for the oil that''s left, why not just
. get off the oil teat?

. * The massive particulate-contamination
. (coal, carbon fuels, etc) of the air
. mass that moves from China into the
. Western US is just going to get worst.
. These particulates are known
. causers of lung cancer. Why not save
. lives just get off the oil teat?
(cont)

[jcr103]

What this conference should really be called is the "head in the sand club." Thomas Sowell, naturally, can be the president.

[sinibaldi1]

The silent sound of a waterfall.

Near the bush
where singing
blackbirds describe
a signal of care
I see the beautiful
darkness, and
also that sunset,
when my sound
fades away, discovers
a dream and a
tender idea.

Francesco Sinibaldi

[it_oldtimer]

It just boggles the mind to think that even the ignorant neanderthals at NRO could STILL be so utterly clueless on this entire subject that they''d actually write an article as dumb as this one, and dare to present it as anything other than satire.

If ignorance is bliss, then the NRO staff have got to be some of the most blissful people on the entire planet. They truly are a bunch of evolutionary throwbacks.

[doujoh101]

I want to jump on the man made global warming scam bandwagon. I will sell carbon credits to any of true believers who may need them (do the lights on your house come on when you flip the switch?) I will plant 10 additional carpathian walnut trees this spring. Send me 500 dollars for each tree and I will send you the carbon credits for that amount. As a bonus, I will remove my coal stove from my house two months early (but only till this fall) for only 1000 dollars. There''s no use in your high priests Al Gore and Maurice Strong getting all of your money.

[lawyertom1]

I love it when the deep-deniers try to downplay the unfortunately overwhelming evidence that global warming is occurring. One can certainly argue about the rate of increase, and the percentage attributable to CO2 versus methane (e.g., from rice fields, ruminants). However, the most recent data analysis has tossed in the waste basket the solar cycle thesis as causation. But, let''s face it, until Florida and Manhattan are under water, these idiots will say it is not happening. How truly sad. But, then, as they say, neurotics build castles in the sky, and psychotics live in them. Obviously, the NR and its fellow travelers are deep into the latter.

[mediapreachr]

Posted by LawyerTom1 at 06:24 PM : Mar 01, 2008
Are you by any chance an environmental lawyer?
I hear those guys make 300 bucks an hour...

[aremes-2009]

At one point in a very recent past EGOLOGY degenerated into ECOORGY

[quatrops]

FOLLOW THE MONEY! That''s always good advice when you are trying to get to the truth in a controversy such as this.

That vast majority of scientists who believe in the reality of man-made global warming have very little to gain money-wise if they are right, and not much to lose but their reputations if they are wrong.

On the other side, there are trillions to be made by the deniers if they can convince the electorate and those in power that global warming is a "natural cycle" and there are no actions or precautions we must take. Think of the mega-$ flowing into the tills of the energy providers, automobile companies, etc. etc. if they can convince us it''s all phony science.

This article is just another puff piece marketing the lies of the corporate interests that want us to stick our heads further in the sand so we can''t observe how they''re ripping us off.

[the74blaster]

Are you by any chance an environmental lawyer?
I hear those guys make 300 bucks an hour...

Posted by mediapreachr,

What does being an environmental lawyer have to do with global warming? The majority people who have been researching this are scientists and do not have any significant monetary gain by communicating their results.

I would beleive that some of the scientists who have made statements opposing global warming have been paid very well by interests that oppose the global warming issue. I can assure you that there are times where engineers and scientists have had conclusions changed for political purposes. In short,they are called whistle-blowers.

If you are asking for my thought, I would say the payoff for a scientist willing to play politics and state what the Bush administration wants to hear is very profitable.

In fact it probably makes $ 300/hr look like pocket change.

[billjenks-2009]

The global warming goons are out in full force as usual. Our wonderful education system has prepared them for ignorance and allow them to call OTHERS ignorant.

Parts of North America are under more snow than they''ve been for 50 years. It snowed in Baghdad.

Oh yeah. It is now called "Climate change". It means global cooling means global warming.

Remember when Al Gore made wild claims of New York would be under 20 feet of water in the not-so-distant future? It isn''t going to happen. Now these jerks are putting their end-of-world claims at 70 years so this generation of fools will have forgotten how stupid buying into this *** is.

Climate change happens EVERY DAY. If the Anasazi had liberals back in the 1200''s, I''m sure they would have blamed their global warming and drought on the medicine man. Hell... they probably did.

People who have bought into global warming are ignoring simple common sense.

But, hey, I''m willing to take the bet of any of you suckers that the oceans will not rise 20 feet...hell, I''ll give you 10!!... in the next 30 years.

I doubt you fools would take that bet.

[ubrew12]

the74blaster said: "it probably makes $ 300/hr look like pocket change."
Exxon makes $10 billion every 3 months in oil profits. So, every 3 months they can delay any action on Global Warming is worth $10 billion to them.

I''m sure its a coincidence that they fund the Hearthland Foundation, who are sponsoring this ''conference'' of warming deniers. Exxon also funds Thomas Sowell and the NRO.

It''s just sad to see the number of deniers, like mediapreachr, who out a profound hatred of all things ''environmentalist'' are willing to sacrifice their own kids'' future on behalf of Exxon''s oil profits. Hey mediaprechr: if you''re going to be a corporate mouthpiece, at least get paid for it!!!

In the meantime, enjoy that $4.60/gall gas.

[ubrew12]

billjenks said: "I''m willing to take the bet of any of you suckers that the oceans will not rise 20 feet...hell, I''ll give you 10!!... in the next 30 years." I doubt it''ll rise by more than 3 ft in the next 30 years.

Our point is: when that happens (if it happens)
1. half of Florida will be underwater
2. all of Bangladesh will be underwater (100 million people displaced, and you think illegal immigration is a problem NOW).
3. And, if YOU don''t like it, nothing you can do, for 50-100 years, can do a God-DA*N about it. That''s how slowly our climate reacts to anything Man does to it. Remember, mans been pushing on the ocean-atmosphere system for 150 years. Once it reacts by raising sea levels, who''s gonna stop it? You? Not even your ego is that large!

[mediapreachr]

In the meantime, enjoy that $4.60/gall gas.
Posted by ubrew12 at 10:55 PM : Mar 01, 2008
My car was retrofitted with a hybrid compressed gas canister-I only use gas when in Od.
Actual cost-1.50 per gallon.Check Google to see how it works.
Also,in 5-7 years we''re going to have more nclear plants online so gas needs will decrease.

[ubrew12]

mediapreachr said: "My car was retrofitted with a hybrid compressed gas canister-Actual cost-1.50 per gallon."
Yeah. And a ''thousand points of light'' are going to solve poverty. It''s all romantic individualism for you people. Only it doesn''t work and never has. We work together, through our governments, or we fail divided.

[it_oldtimer]

The unseasonably cold weather in some regions this year was caused partly by the current El Nina; the Pacific water temperature cycle. It''s quite temporary. Global warming is not.

One thing we''ve all seen during the past few decades (much more noticeably in the North and Mid-West) is a slow southerly shift of the Jet Stream over North America. This has carried cold northerly winter air-flows well down into the middle belt of states, though it''s effects have been felt around the globe, bringing rare snowfall to some areas, as well as increased tornadoes and much more frequent and powerful hurricanes. It''s a shift caused by global warming''s effects in the higher latitudes.

People that still believe, at this point, that there is no such thing as global warming are a very, very small minority, thankfully, and they really ought to seek out some professional psychiatric help, I think.

[roger_inkart]

Cold Water on "Global Warming"? The only ''water'' here is the water being carried by the NRO for the clueless ultra-right wing loonies, brain-dead nature hating psychos and, most importantly, the big energy concerns.

[pparry1]

It is cold water - it is called La Nina and it is in the Pacific ocean. Here in Australia it has broken the drought on the east coast - but not helped southern Australia where the weather patterns due to a warming southern ocean have meant a gradually worsening fall off in rainfall over the past 30 years.

When El Nino - the warm water cycle in the Pacific - returns - it will be back to global warming as usual. The British Meteorology office forecast this to happen sometime around 2010/2011, though it is imprecise, but they say all indications is the next couple of years will be cooler because of La Nina and other cycles and both a reprieve and a distraction from the long term global heating threat.

Of course global warming skeptics and those of us who don''t want to feel guilty about our carbon expensive lifestyles (and I do feel guilty and am trying to reduce) will want to see the current weather as a sign we can just go on burning fossil fuels and cutting down rainforests for our floorboards without consequence.

[doctor--o]

William Buckley died last week. He was a man to be respected because he used the facts and good, logical arguments to create a case for his position; something unique among ''conservative'' thinkers of his day. I guess he was one-of-a-kind.

John Stuart Mills was right:

''While not all conservatives are ignorant, most ignorant people are conservative.''

I no longer ask myself why. After all these years I understand. I chalk it off to ''my principles''.

[mediapreachr]

Imagine for a second that "global warming"(problem),doesn''t exist.
Automatically,the "problem" solvers-bunch of bureaucrats,lawyers,and "scientists" that cropped up,smelling the reward(money)obviously,there will no reason for this group to exist.
When the population ceases to "believe" in the "message" then the funding and support will stop.
Basically,there is no difference between the "environmental" lobby today and the egyptian priesthood of the past.

[mediapreachr]

Always,when religion establishment is not what it used to be,and the science has abandoned basic research-then we have impostors,like the "global warming" bunch,competing for authority.
Second,keep in mind that all the natural resources are the property of the state-so most of the money in oil and gas industries are made by the state.

[doujoh101]

It''s amazing that so many have fallen for the man made global warming scam. The flawed propaganda of the IPCC-measuring ocean rise from a sinking delta, temperature rises as determined by thermometers surrounded by concrete, asphalt and air conditioners, the "candlestick" joke, and countless other examples of not allowing the facts to get their way. When they succeed in pushing American over the green precipice I only hope that there are enough common sense conservatives around to rescue it.

[mrbumpo]

"I''''m sure its a coincidence that they fund the Hearthland Foundation, who are sponsoring this ''conference'' of warming deniers. Exxon also funds Thomas Sowell and the NRO."

It''s not like Exxon Mobile - and other oil companies - support ''green'' initiatives. The rhetoric of ''all global warming sceptics are employed by the oil companies'' doesn''t float any more. The oil companies stand to gain from ''green'' initiatives, therefore they support them, as do most big businesses (including Kenneth Lay before the whole Enron fiasco).

[it_oldtimer]

"Better SAFE than SORRY, I always say!"

Isn''t that what you conservatives always say when it comes to things like funding these endless, massively expensive "anti-terrorism" initiatives, for example? Why should our absolutely vital physical environment be viewed with any less concern?

If it turns out to all be a big hoax, and we proceed assuming that it''s not, then in the end we''ll at least have cleaner, more sustainable energy sources for the future, which can''t be a bad thing in anybodies book.

If it turns out to be true, then we will have saved our own lives, and those of our children and all their offspring.

Erring on the side of caution is the smart choice, and the only win-win choice -either- way.

[danrogers5]

It is indeed better to be safe than sorry. But common sense has to enter into the picture at some point. One of the planet''s great killers is malaria, but we don''t all sleep under mosquito netting. Argon is an inert gas that will cause suffocation if it is allowed to proliferate, but we are not engaged in widespread argon capture and control measures (even though such measures would foster new industries galore).

It is now abundantly clear that carbon dioxide --- a gas vital to photosynthesis --- is a trace gas which varies in its atmospheric concentration with changes in global temperatures. It has little or no effect on climate. The grand attempt to convince the world otherwise has failed. It has been a grand attempt by some to pee on our legs and convince us that it''s raining.

[mrbumpo]

That whole environmental version of Pascal''s Wager is indeed bad because of what these carbon reducing efforts would do to the third world. But screw them right? They''re just poor, they don''t matter.

If we''re going to try to reduce carbon emission then we need to get rid of water because 95 per cent of carbon emmissions is water vapour.

[doujoh101]

Dear deluded wackos: If man is causing the very slight warming trend over the past century, which is, itself, debatable, then why is the entire solar system "warming". Do some basic research, join the intelligent crowd.
%u201CHabibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg%u2019s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.%u201C

MIT on Pluto

%u201Cthe average surface temperature of the nitrogen ice on Pluto has increased slightly less than 2 degrees Celsius over the past 14 years.%u201D

Since Pluto is moving further away from the Sun and continuing to warm despite that fact, it indicates that something doesn%u2019t fit into %u201CSolar Constant%u201D dismissal theories. MIT

%u201CAt least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming. Percentage-wise, it%u2019s a very large increase,%u201D said Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and director of the Wallace Astrophysical Observatory. The 5 percent increase on the absolute temperature scale from about minus-392 degrees Fahrenheit to about minus-389 degrees Fahrenheit would be like the Earth experiencing a jump of about 22 degrees Fahrenheit.%u201D

LETS SEND AL GORE TO INVESTIGATE!!!!!!

[mcc999]

Just look who''s behind all the rhetoric, pro warming. Mostly those that will benefit $$ "in a valiant attempt to reduce that gawd-awful CO2" to "save the planet". Tax credits or something like that, really at stake$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I''d settle for saving my lungs. The planet seems to be doing fine, considering CO2. We could throw some $$ at the Mediterranian Sea. And locally, clean up industrial pollution on a bigger scale.