March 1, 2008
Cold Water on "Global Warming"
National Review Online: Skeptics To Gather In Gotham To Discuss The Cold, Hard Facts
-
(CBS/iStockphoto)
-
Photo Essay A Warming Effect A behind-the-scenes look at the 60 Minutes team's trip to Patagonia, Chile and Antarctica.
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.
By Thomas Sowell
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online.
 | America's Premier Site for Conservative News, Analysis, and Opinion. |
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 46 CommentsI''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.
%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!!!!!!
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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''.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 46 Comments