Showing posts with label Environmentalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environmentalism. Show all posts

Monday, July 9, 2007

It's a Wonderful Day in the Neighborhood





I admit it, this is a

R


ant.

Live Earth, Dead Air


Like a lot of people on this globe, I experienced the music on Live Earth. I witnessed Al Gore's hologram and all the brainwashed children brainwashing other children. I found it boring and repulsive, like Mr. Roger's Neighborhood without the intelligence.

Youthful Rebellions Have a Purpose, Sometimes


When I was growing up, we rebelled, like all good teenagers, by absorbing Elvis, Bob Dylan, then the British invasion, headed by the Beatles, and culminating in Woodstock.

Our rebellion with Elvis was the slicked back hair, the swiveling hips, the curled lip, the sex of it all. Our upheaval with Bob Dylan was anti-war and pro-intellectualism.










Our insurgency with the Beatles was against anyone older than we were, the way these oldsters dressed, how they conducted their love lives, and their whole religious and sociological point of view. Woodstock was the ultimate breakdown of society.

All four of these singers, groups and movements led to genuine revolutions. We weren't attempting to emulate Bobbysoxers that loved Frank Sinatra. We were not trying to be anything. We were exuberant youth and actually did believe in the Age of Aquarius.


Heavy Metal and Hip-Hop


The kids of today have heavy metal and hip-hop. Complaining for the sake of complaining. Teenage angst looking for someone to blame, and without a cause.

The Religion of Political Correctness


So, their cause becomes political correctness. They have no religion, so they believe in environmentalism; in the inclusion of all of mankind in their loving embrace, including terrorists; in unbridled hedonism coupled with a hatred of everything military, conservative, and traditional.

Yearning for Woodstock


They've seen Woodstock, and think it was cool, so they emulate it. They lack the revolutionary fervor, though, that we had as kids. They want that fervor, and they think that it consists of chants and slogans and mantras.

True Revolutionaries


I am not totally proud of what we Baby Boomers have wrought on this earth. Yet, we were true revolutionaries. I renounce some of the fanciful ideas of my youth, having seen the value now of business and family and religion. I am happy that we have made advances in environmentalism.

Wannabees


I am not proud, though, of this crop of kids, and this gaggle of celebrities.

Little do they realize that they are the establishment. They are not the revolutionaries.



They agree with all the major news channels and newspapers and PBS and on and on, in their maniacal attack on whatever is good in the world. Their robot-like pronouncements require no moral or political courage. They march in lockstep with everyone else.

The Harm They Do


What's more, they hurt people and damage the world. They slaughter innocents by not supporting the Iraq War. They snatch food away from the poor with their socialism. They bloody the wounded with their socialized medicine. They will wind up mangling the environment too, by not embracing science, and instead praying to their green forest gods in the hysterical religion of irrational environmentalism.

Live Earth is Dangerous to Your Health


The death blow Live Earth strikes is to brainwash our children. There is no room for intelligent discussion on this kind of show. It's all goose stepping and saluting the gods of green and St. Al Gore. The celebrities spout their meaningless banter and proclaim to the world, "See what a good person I am! I am a liberal."

Stop Patting Yourself on Your Backs


Liberals, to me, are not the good people. The saints, the heroes of our society are in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the few back home who speak up for liberty and freedom.

Real Revolution


A genuine revolutionary, with a message worth listening to, will not be serenading ethanol and electric cars. He or she will be belting out pro-American songs that encourage the country in its fight against terror. That person will be the next Bob Dylan. He or she is nowhere in sight.

Let the brain-dead celebrities and vacuous youth show me some courage by speaking the truth, rather than their Marxist slogans, and I'll respect them. I'll worship them, in fact. Isn't that what they want? I'd even bow down to St. Al if he admitted that the sky is not falling.


Common Sense


Yes, let's clean up the environment. No, though, let's not make it a religion. Keep it in the realm of science, open to discussion. There is no room on our planet for Nazi-type propaganda machines, be they Al Gore's, or Michael Moore's, or Madonna's.

Think for yourself people, that's all I ask.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post:
, , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Monday, April 23, 2007

Sometimes I Stand Alone

Happy Un-Earth Day


God is
reen





The Madness


I usually write some kind of a researched piece. Today, though, there is no need. Those of you who are convinced, are convinced. On the other hand, those of you who get the truth, get it. I've tried to present the logic and background of my position on this issue, but it doesn't seem to work. The globe is in the grips of a mass hysteria.


The reasons for it are that many liberals have no religion, so this has become their religion. Plus, many religious people are joining the hysteria too, because the arguments for the mythology seem reasonable.

I'm speaking, of course, of the green madness. The Inconvenient Truth illness. Arrogant Hollywood stars fly in their jet planes, ride in their limos, and live in their air-conditioned mansions while advising the rest of us to ride the bus and use one-ply toilet paper. It's disgusting.


Yes, Let's Go Green


Again, I don't mind that we go green. I do care, though, that we be reasonable. I know many of you don't hear this on the media, who are co-conspirators in the myths, but hundreds of scientists do not believe that global warming is caused by mankind's actions—but rather by the natural cycles of the Earth. Tell that to the masses.

To Sheryl Crow: Do Some Reading


To Sheryl Crow, stop ruining the environment with your obsessions. To the people who want to get things right on this issue, it is your responsibility to get educated. Go back to school or do some relevant reading, and learn the scientific method, which requires evidence, not mantras. Do the world the favor, too, of exploring the opposing arguments. Believe me, Al Gore and you, Sheryl, are not experts on what is or is not happening to the world's climate.

Global Warming?


For the last time, yes, there might be global warming. But, Kyoto will not help. Read how little Kyoto will do to offset the warming. You'll be shocked.

The Best Ways to Save the Environment


For the last time, yes, go green, but don't ruin the world doing it.

You want the two best ways to save the environment? Control population growth, and develop technology. The more people—the more cars, the more air-conditioners, the more ... you get it—the more CO2. Plus, technology is not the enemy. Industry is not the enemy. Just the opposite.

Fewer people. Better technology. Simple.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post:
, , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Monday, February 26, 2007

Hollywood's Night



Oscar




Not a Big Fan


I'm a big fan of movies, but not of present-day Hollywood. Since the present crop of stars are so shallow, in my opinion, I am not overly eager to watch their annual self-worship.

One thing I dislike is the hypocrisy. These guys, with their air-conditioned limousines, energy-guzzling mansions, gas-powered boats, private jets, and other toys for the rich deliver more CO2 into the atmosphere than a thousand coal plants, yet they are so sanctimonious about the environment.

Fact: A Gulfstream III private jet releases 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide an hour.


See Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe - USATODAY.com:
Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

They bash capitalism, which provides them their living. They are anti-business, while at the same time stuffing cash in their pockets from the companies paying for commercials they star in. They are anti-war, any war, just or not, though it's these wars that ensure them their freedom. Many of them are even anti-American, with a snobbism about the country that elevated them to fame and fortune.


It Wasn't Too Bad


The Oscars last night did not inflame me as much as they sometimes can. I am always aware of watching them with two personas. One persona is Rock the everyday guy, who likes to just relax and have a good time with them. The other persona is Rock the concerned citizen, who is focused on the usual harm that Hollywood does to our society. I was able to relax most of this Oscar presentation and not get overly concerned. One reason might be that I TIVO the thing now instead of listening to it raw. So, I skip over the endless Thank You's and most of the commercials. I admit that maybe I missed some inflammatory remarks.

All Praise Be to Gore Almighty


The segment that did bother me was the hero worship of the inconveniently truthy Al Gore.

click to show/hide the rest of the post


I know that some of my Republican friends are taken in by the global warming hysteria too, so I find myself quite alone sometimes in calling for calm and perspective on the subject. Nonetheless, every week now, more and more reputable scientists are saying that we don't yet know if global warming is a serious problem or not, and we certainly aren't sure that it is manmade. Yet, for leftists, the thing has taken on the air of a religion, much like liberalism in general.

Al Gore is God now. They might as well just open up the heavens and take him up. I'm convinced that if he ran for president this time, he'd have a real chance.

Most of the Time, They Shut Up and Sang


Anyway, Hollywood seemed to be somewhat muted on the political front this Oscars, thank goodness. Ellen DeGeneris only made one dumb liberal remark, the usual leftist slur that Al Gore really won the election, laugh laugh. Most of the time, though, she and the actors, actresses, singers and dancers shut up and sang. Of course, there were the usual liberal choices for awards, like Gore's flick and Melissa Etheridge's song for it, I Need to Wake Up. I do agree that she needs to wake up, as do all her liberal friends. If she wants to go green, then let her carpool to the next Oscars.

Good Day for Minorities


I'm happy that it was a good day for African Americans and other minorities, except for Eddie Murphy. Forest Whitaker won best actor for his charismatic performance as Ugandan dictator Idi Amin. Jennifer Hudson, a former American Idol contestant, scored the best supporting actress award for her debut performance in the musical Dreamgirls. Murphy was the favorite in the Best Supporting Actor category, but Alan Arkin got the nod. Some say it was because of Murphy's recent release of the low-brow Norbit that hurt his chances.

click to hide most of this post


It Was a Bit Boring, and I Know What Could Rev It Up


DeGeneres, I think, did a good job, but the show was a bit boring. They ought to ban people reading from lists. Thank goodness for TIVO.

I repeat, again, and again, just think what a patriotic Hollywood could accomplish for themselves, let alone for America. Their ratings would soar. They'd have the country cheering and tuning in, I believe, if they were gung ho behind the troops, praising the President, and showing respect for America. I'd watch that show without my TIVO.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Monday, January 8, 2007

Bush Report Card


Today, I'd like to grade George W. Bush on his performance in office as President of the United States, on the issues that are important to me. I don't pretend to be the authority on this, but present my opinions as one interested voter who is attempting to be honest about his feelings. I invite you to grade him also, on all or some of these issues, or on other issues that might be more important to you; and of course your opinion is just as valid as mine. When speaking of this kind of a grade, there is no such thing as the truth, but rather there is our collective wisdom.

The Initial Decision to Invade Iraq


A+



I believe that the Middle East is changed forever because of this decision, and that there is now a chance for peace in that region because of it.

Conduct of the War in Iraq


D



Actually, I'd give Mr. Bush an F except for the fact that he is finally firing generals and thinking hard about a new strategy. Maybe he'll get it right this time, and then I'll give him a higher grade.

The initial days of the war were a spectacular victory for the U.S., but we went in with too few troops to even guard the arms caches that we discovered. Hence, those looted arms are now the I.E.D.'s that kill our soldiers. We banished the soldiers of Saddam's army and they are now the insurgents. We had too few troops to hold ground we had taken. For example, in Fallujah, we'd go in, wipe out the terrorists, then they'd come back when we'd leave. This was not an effective strategy. I could go on, but I think this war was not waged intelligently.


Conduct of the War in Afghanistan


B



We did a better job in Afghanistan, but the same argument can be made about too few troops. The Taliban is making a comeback; they are using heroin to fund their ventures; and Al-Queda is salivating for the day when the U.S. leaves the area.

Immigration


F-



President Bush is single-handedly ruining our country by turning it into a Third-World nation. I want to make it clear that I am not talking about race. Race and color do not enter into my equation. I'm talking about flooding our nation with uneducated people with no skills, no allegiance to our country, no desire to learn English, and no interest in becoming American. I'm talking about increasing our underclass, prison population, gang membership, and entitlement demands.

Our country has about the dumbest immigration policy in the world. If you are English, check it out, you cannot hope to become a citizen of the United States, even if you have a Ph.d. or an M.D. If you are a gang-banging, drug-running, human-trafficking Mexican, though, we will soon be giving you amnesty. Again, I want it made clear that if you are a doctor, I want you, regardless of your race. If you are a heroin-dealer, I don't want you, regardless of your race. Why on earth do we, the United States of America, under the leadership of George Bush, give preference to the drug dealers, or even just to the underclass, over people that could elevate our nation?


click to show/hide the rest of the post


Taxes


A


Finally an issue where Bush is acting like a conservative, and holding the fort against the communist left and their class warfare.

The Environment


B


I don't think Bush is ruining the environment as the left believes. I think he could be more proactive about alternative fuels, though, as this is also a security issue. I think that Kyoto is unnecessary. Still, going green is not a bad thing, so I don't mind if we move in that direction, as along as we are sane about it.

Vision for America


F


Bush is one of the worst communicators ever in office, not only because of his inability to express himself, but also because of his penchant for secrecy. He is a bit patronizing and reveals only the barest of his thinking on matters. What comes out is a repetition of themes instead of a real discussion with the American people. He pays for this with low poll numbers and a lack of support for his policies.

Social Security Reform


D


The demagogues of the left are winning on this issue because Bush has never adequately explained his position. It's amazing how over half the nation can be so ignorant on this issue, but that's what the Democrats depend on. You could invest your SS funds by throwing darts at a list of stocks and come out way ahead in any thirty-year period over what Social Security will pay you, but the demagogues on the left scream, "He's trying to take your Social Security away," and their non-thinking followers believe it. I don't know if Reagan could have sold the issue any better, but he could have at least made a clearer case for it.

Health Care


B


I give Bush credit for staving off the coming socialism that the Democrats will bring. Here, again, though, Bush has not adequately explained the conservative side of this issue. People are left feeling that government can provide every person in America with gold-standard health care, free, and that it's not doing it just because they're mean and love big business. Health care deserves a credible solution, but it will take an insightful man or woman with great communicative skills to create and legislate it.

Our Reputation in the World


A


Here I differ with most of America, and with most of the world. Oh, well. I am aware that our reputation is not good in the world at present. I don't blame Bush though. I blame the left, the Democrats, the press, and half of the American people. They are the ones who have besmirched our name. Instead of backing their president, they have sided with the idiots in Europe who condemn us for being imperialists, when in reality we are a good nation that battles evil and protects the good. Going into Afghanistan was a good and noble thing. Invading Iraq was a good and noble thing. Standing by Israel is a good and noble thing. We ought to be lauded. Instead, all of Europe and half of America bash us.

click to hide most of this post


My Overall Grade for Bush's Performance


C-



My estimation of the importance of going into Iraq is so high that my grade for Bush is lifted to a C-. I doubly admire him for doing this since most of the world is against him on this issue. The other major issue that is important to me, though, is immigration, and Bush fails miserably on it. So much so, that I teeter on the brink of giving him an overall grade of D- or even an F because of it.

The Future


I have some hope for Iraq, as Bush is finally trying to become a Lincoln, firing his generals and looking for an effective strategy. I have no hope on the immigration issue. The American people are just not paying attention to it. We will wake up one day in a bi-lingual nation with a huge underclass, much more Third-World than even now.

As far as the other issues go, that's what '08 will be about. I see no great Republican champion on the horizon. The fight for the Democratic soul looks interesting, as the Blue Dogs battle the mad dogs of the far left.

Overall, though, we must always remain hopeful. This is the obligation for citizens in a democracy.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, January 7, 2007

Warm is Better than Cold



Going green.
reen leaves and trees and grass.
reenbacks.

This is the third in a series of posts questioning the validity of arguments by the global warming alarmists. The first two posts were An Inconvenient Truth, exposing the lies and exaggerations in Al Gore's movie; and, The Sky is Falling, So Give Me Some Money, revealing the hidden agendas driving the global warming alarmists; and this post presents some positives about global warming.

Is Global Warming Always Bad?


Is Global Warming Always Bad?: by Patrick J. Michaels. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media. He says:
Have you ever read anything good about global warming? Why is all the news always bad? Objectively speaking, any environmental change should have both positive benefits and negative effects.




For example, theory predicts and observations confirm that human-induced warming takes place primarily in winter, lengthening the growing season. Satellite measurements now show that the planet is greener than it was before it warmed. There are literally thousands of experiments reported in the scientific literature demonstrating that higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations -- caused by human activity -- dramatically increase food production. So why do we only hear one side about global warming? Perhaps because there's little incentive for scientists to do anything but emphasize the negative and the destructive. Alarming news often leads to government funding, funding generates research, and research is the key to scientists' professional advancement. Good news threatens that arrangement.


Some Positives About Global Warming


Global Warming's Silver Lining: Wired News. Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University, said: "From a purely evolutionary point of view, warm periods have been exceptionally good to us. Cold periods have been the troublesome ages." The possible positive side effects of global warming have researchers like Peiser ready for changes to come.

While Peiser admits the price of global warming will differ for every region of the world, "the benefits outweigh the costs by far," he said.
This could be especially true in regions of Russia where the harsh winters can kill hundreds in a single city.


click to show/hide the rest of the post


A group of 26 scientists and economists contributed to The Impact of Climate Change on the United States Economy, a book edited by Yale University professors Robert Mendelsohn and James E. Neumann. The book finds that a moderate warming will have a positive economic impact on the agriculture and forestry sectors. Since carbon dioxide is used by plants to capture and store energy, there may be a fertilizing effect as levels of the gas rise. This, combined with longer growing seasons, fewer frosts and more precipitation, among other factors, could benefit some economic sectors.

Another economic boost could come from the establishment of new trade routes as a direct result of global warming.
As rising temperatures melt glaciers in the Arctic and particularly in Alaska, a new, faster trade route could open up. The Bering Strait, a legendarily difficult passage for ships, could become an oceanic highway between the hemispheres as ice sheets disappear.

Business investors in the Arctic region (a former oxymoron) are anticipating an influx of everything from tax revenue to tourism. The seldom-used strait is set to become the Suez Canal of the north, cutting down travel time between Europe, America and Asia by as much as one-third. Experts predict the passage will be open for year-round travel within a decade. Less fuel will be consumed using this route,

A final potential upside to global warming is that with every degree Celsius warmer our planet gets, we could have up to 20 percent more calamari. Phillip Lee, director of the National Resource Center for Cephalopods, points out that squid are extremely sensitive to temperature, and individual cephalopods react to warmer weather by developing a larger body mass.
Squid, which are mostly protein, can grow significantly faster than other animals. The largest squid ever captured was 16 feet long and weighed in at 330 pounds. But stories of monster squid up to 60 feet have been around since the 1800s.

While optimists know not every outcome will be positive, they believe the overall effect will make us think back to the hysteria and wonder what the fuss was about.

Global Warming May Boost Crop Yields, Study Says: John Pickrell for National Geographic News.
Escalating greenhouse gas levels may significantly boost production of fruits and seeds in crops such as wheat, rice, and soybeans, according to a recent study.

Other researchers have summarized the positive effect of elevated carbon dioxide on leaves, stems and roots.

Damages and Benefits of Warming: "Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming" Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
A somewhat warmer climate would probably reduce mortality in the United States and provide Americans with valuable benefits. Regressions of death rates in Washington, DC, and in some 89 urban counties scattered across the nation on climate and demographic variables demonstrate that warmer temperatures reduce deaths. The results imply that a 2.5 deg. Celsius warming would lower deaths in the United States by about 40,000 per year. Although the data on illness are poor, the numbers indicate that warming might reduce medical costs by about $20 billion annually. Utilizing willingness to pay as a measure of preference, this paper regresses wage rates for a few narrowly defined occupations in metropolitan areas on measures of temperature and size of city and finds that people prefer warm climates. Workers today would be willing to give up between $30 billion and $100 billion annually in wages for a 2.5 deg. C increase in temperatures.

It could. Higher levels of CO2 would be conducive to plant growth. Additionally, higher average temperatures would mean longer growing seasons. Both of these factors would mean increased food production.

click to hide most of this post


Conclusions


I have presented for you only the tip of the iceberg on this subject, forgive the pun again. The effects of global warming of course will not all be good. On the other hand, when you read any liberal site, or any work by a scientist who depends on funding for his anti-global warming theses, there is nothing good stated about the phenomenon. Common sense tells you otherwise. Every change in circumstance has its positive effects and its negative effects.

The reason why these scientists and liberal sites lie, exaggerate and present only one side of the truth, as in Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, is that they do want the green. Only not the green of the earth, but the green in their pockets. Environmentalism is big business, replete with grants and funding and devices and reputations. Al Gore pumped more CO2 into the atmosphere with his criss-crossing the globe condemning pollution than many factories do in a year, to say nothing of all the air-conditioned and the at-the-source coal-heated venues at which he spoke.

Another thing that nobody is speaking about is that ice ages do occur, and we cannot predict when one will arrive, or why. What if we are on the verge of an ice age, right at this moment? We will need all the global warming we can get if this would occur. These things are always in flux.

What I request is truth. This post in and of itself presents only one side of a truth, exactly as the global warming alarmists do. The whole truth will contain evidence from both sides whether global warming is really happening; the good things about global warming, the bad things about it; and accurate likely predictions of what life will be like if global warming occurs.

This series of posts demonstrates that it is not universally agreed that global warming will occur; that if it does occur it will not be as bad as the alarmists predict; and that if it does occur, there will be both positive and negative effects from it.

I again say that going green is a good thing, as long as we don't get hysterical about it. I repeat, you are not the devil if you buy a Hummer, and you are not an angel if you purchase a Prius.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post:
, , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Saturday, January 6, 2007

The Sky is Falling, So Give Me Money

The Real Green in Global Warming, Greenpeace, and Salad for your Dog


Green is good.



Say It Aint So


I'm going to reveal a dirty little secret in today's post that might help explain for some of you why special interest groups, political activists, and other crusaders might lie or at least exaggerate the facts. I'm speaking of all kinds of organizations, left wing and right wing, from Greenpeace to MoveOn.org to PETA to the Minutemen. I'm also speaking of left and right wing newspapers and other print and electronic media.

Raising Money for Chappaquiddick
Ted and Hanoi Jane


A long time ago, in a universe far far away, in 1988, I was a fundraiser for Tom Hayden, the radical progressive politician ex-husband of Jane Fonda. (by the way, I also ran Ted Kennedy's Israeli operation to gather votes of Americans overseas for his 1980 primary run for the presidency. I was apolitical at the time, just doing my duty for the Kennedy family, who I thought were all JFK's.) I turned out to be the top fundraiser for Tom and Jane (they were married still when I worked for their organization) .

Can You Give Twenty Dollars to Help Fight AIDS?


The thing that I want to reveal is that each day we had a meeting, before we went out to raise funds door-to-door. We were given literature and a topic on which to raise money for the day. At that time, one of the big tear-jerkers (and deservedly so) we were pushing was A.I.D.S. We had brochures and talking points all about the subject and this was what we would be raising money for on that day. We'd ask people to give money to help fight A.I.D.S., work for political change on A.I.D.S. and so on. As I say, I raised more money than anyone else in the organization, even though I was apolitical at the time.

The dirty little secret is that each day's funds that we collected always went into the organization. The money we were raising that day, supposedly to fight A.I.D.S., went instead into the same pot as the money we raised the day before to help save the water around Santa Monica Pier. I can't say that this was entirely a fraud, as Hayden and Fonda did actually push for A.I.D.S. legislation etc. and to clean up the Santa Monica Pier water, but the monies we collected on those days did not go into any fund for specific purposes. Rather, it went into the campaign coffers of Hayden and Fonda.






I'm not revealing this to besmirch Hayden and Fonda. All the politicians do this. I am making the point, though, that people use causes to raise money. The best way for them to raise this money is to scare you. They must hammer one-sided presentations about everything, from global-warming to homelessness, to get you to part with your dough.


Dogs Are People Too


This goes double for any activist group. PETA will exaggerate the harm being done to animals, and make dogs the equivalent of people. Greenpeace will demonize industry. MoveOn.org will demonize conservatives. The Minutemen. will emphasize the negatives about illegal immigration.

I knew a PETA guy once who was also a vegetarian. He forced his poor chocolate Labrador to be a vegetarian too. The dog was skin and bones, and salivated uncontrollably whenever it was around meat, looking longingly at it. His "dog-loving" master would instead give it a vegetable pellet, which the dog would ignore. I almost became PETA-like myself when I interacted with that dog. It used to gaze at me so soulfully that I thought I could hear it say, "Meat! Please, give me some meat!" Then, this PETA guy would go out and raise money, complaining about the abuse of animals.


click to show/hide the rest of the post


Show Me the Money


The same goes for one-sided political pundits. Keith Olberman makes money by bashing Republicans, as does Media Matters. Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage get their dollars by lambasting liberals.

Follow the money. Not everything said by these sources is false or exaggerated, but at least know from whence they get earn their livelihoods.


Be Discerning


As consumers, it might still be important that we fight A.I.D.S. and clean up the waters at the Santa Monica Pier. Just realize that the pitch you will hear about these things is going to be jacked up a notch to get you interested; plus, the spiel you are hearing might not be for the cause mentioned—it might be about the candidate, not the cause. In some cases, the exaggerations do no harm, as when speaking about the homeless. As long as the money you give really does go to help the homeless, you can't go wrong.

Iffy Scare Tactics


Global warming, though, and other fundraising topics, are not that clear cut. See my recent post, An Inconvenient Truth, about the global warming hysteria, founded on a one-sided presentation of the facts. The hype does have economic consequences. It influences people's decisions about what cars to buy and the development of alternative fuel sources and so on.

click to hide most of this post


Most activists, on either side, are not entirely honest; and some of them are not even role models of decency.

To quote the godmother of the entire modern environmental movement:

I would rather save the life of one bird than the lives of a million human beings. Screw the malaria-ridden Africans! – Rachel Carson

Wow! The things we were allowed to say back in the day!

With global warming, it's good to go green, as I've said. It's not good, though, to get hysterical about it. If anyone comes to your door claiming to raise money to fight global warming, you have the right to remain silent, and keep your hands in your pockets. You have the right to say, "Show me the science!" and "Show me how you're gonna' stop it!"

Tomorrow's post will be about the positive effects of global warming.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Monday, January 1, 2007

An Inconvenient Truth



Global warming.






The Trailer


for An Inconvenient Truth

An Inconvenient Reality


I repeat in this blog how I believe that conservatives are usually brighter than liberals. I know this must be insulting to those of you liberals who are genuinely bright. After all, there is nothing inherent in being a liberal that makes one less intelligent. Progressives can legitimately hold and preach their views based on sound beliefs, facts, and arguments. In fact, in my opinion, any liberal who reads this blog more than once is probably brighter than your average liberal.

More than this even, if you dispute me with sound arguments, or stand up for true classic liberalism with the idea that progressive thinking is a better way—that big government, for example, can solve society's problems, or that the war in Iraq was wrong, I will respect you far more than if you merely state your mindless Bush-, religious-, conservative-, America-, military-bashing mantras. Tell me how we can make a better world and I'll listen.

click to show/hide the rest of this section

Unfortunately, the state of present-day liberalism is not like this. Present-day liberals are worshipping at the feet of demagogues, who presume their audience's lack of brainpower, and merely repeat falsehoods so often and in so many ways that the falsehoods become "truths."

One day I will relax my attack on liberals as being unintelligent. For now, I am reacting to the incessant liberal repetition that conservatives are stupid. Conservatives, according to these mindless liberal Websites and shows, get their "talking points" from their leaders. I don't find this to be the case. I experience that conservatives are varied in their opinions and have a "show me" attitude about positions. They are as likely to criticize George Bush as praise him. They don't swallow whole hog what Rush Limbaugh says. They do, however, like me, come down on the side of conservatism after a serious consideration of all sides.

You cannot say the same thing about liberals at this time in history. They are single-minded in their ideology, mantras, and actions. It is their religion. This is why I consider them less intelligent. There is no thinking involved. They see glaciers retreating and, bingo!, they know that global warming is happening, New York City will be under water, and mankind is to blame. Therefore, again, and as usual, Republicans, business, and America are evil.

These are the same people centuries ago who were cheering all the scientists who insisted that the earth most certainly did not revolve around the sun, and "if you disagree with us we'll put you to death!" Their chant was probably, "No Earth Around the Sun! No Earth Around the Sun!" This was the only mantra they could chant back then because there weren't any oil companies.

click to hide most of this section














The Inconvenient Truths about An Inconvenient Truth


I finally saw Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. It is a masterpiece of demagoguery. It contains lies, half-truths, and unexamined "truths" that all go to support his major thesis, that we are causing a disastrous global warming but that we can prevent it if we just go green.






I am always suspicious of any presentation that is one-sided. This goes double for one given by a non-scientist who starts out with a theory that he wants to prove. Especially, when the subject is so complex as climate. Weathermen, despite all our modern advances, can't predict what the climate will be like in one month let alone fifty years. Scientists can't even tell if a storm will become a hurricane until a few days before it hits. Predicting global climate change in the next twenty years based on computer models, therefore, is not very reliable, and I've found a host of scientists who agree with me on this point.

I'd be more likely to trust what Mr. Gore says in this movie if he would have extensively covered the hundreds of scientists who disagree with him. Yes, that's another lie in the movie, and even in Wikepedia, that the number of scientists who disagree with Gore is small, and that the ones who do disagree are all funded by the oil industry. Lies.


Hundreds of Reputable Critics


The number of scientists who dispute global warming, its causes, and its future is huge. In the second part of this post, below, I'm listing some of these scientists and their views. Go to the Wikepedia article for a more complete list, with references. Plus, there are sources all over the Web of scientists who dispute Al Gore's assumptions. Just look them up. Set aside about a week, because there are many. And, among them are many scientists not connected with industry nor with oil companies; scientists without an agenda, except for a search for truth.

Following, I am going to list my conclusions after reading all the literature. I am trained in the scientific method. Although I am no longer a practicing scientist, I retain a keen interest in the area and am most dedicated to presenting the truth about scientific findings. I don't ask you to take my word for things, though. Instead, read what I have to say, and then do your own research. Go to the list at the end of this article, and to Wikepedia on the subject, and please also do a Google search for pro and con on An Inconvenient Truth. You will find that my conclusions do come from the studies and literature of hundreds of reputable scientists.

Also see this letter presented to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in April of 2006, Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit
the science of global warming.


A Few Inconvenient Truths

What Are the Facts?

Is global warming happening?

The majority of scientists do say that global warming is really happening. Still, there are several scientists who disagree. For example:

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Another prominent scientist, Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology. Lindzen is identified as a contributor to Chapter 4 of the "IPCC Second Assessment", "Climate Change 1995", which is one of the major works relied on by Al Gore for his movie.

The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."

"I think the odds are about 50-50," he said.


click to show/hide the rest of this section

If There is Global Warming, How Much?

This is in dispute too. This is a tricky thing to measure, and despite Gore's proclamations, there is not agreement even about whether the warming is unusual. There is a large group of scientists who say the warming is within normal fluctuations.

Dr. Lindzen, again, says about the IPCC report

As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The summary began with a zinger -- that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this.

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute writes:
The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate "realistic" simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance.

If there is global warming, is it caused by human activity?

This is in dispute. Hundreds of scientists say that No, the global warming we have is caused by natural cycles. And, it is untrue that all these critics are funded by oil companies.

Lindzen wrote that, of the Kyoto Accord:

there is no controversy over the fact that the Kyoto Protocol, itself, will do almost nothing to stabilize CO2. Capping CO2 emissions per unit of electricity generated will have a negligible impact on CO2 levels.

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified:
In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.

On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?

If Greenland and the Antarctic melt, will the oceans rise 20 feet?

Many scientists say No. The rise will be much less dramatic, almost negligible. New York City will not be under water.

Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admit when Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," KarlÈn concludes.

For an example of how complicated the science is just to determine whether sea levels have risen or will rise, see Wikepedia, sea level rise.

There are thousands of variables. Anyone who says he knows New York City will be underwater in ten years is a bold-faced liar.


Are Scientists Pressured to Criticize the Global Warming Theory?

Dr. Lindzen has been a strong critic of manmade global warming theories and wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal wherein he not only contested media assertions that the Bush administration has been putting pressure on scientists to oppose climate change principles but insisted that exactly the opposite is taking place:
Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.


In the same piece, Lindzen also wrote:
In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

click to hide most of this section


Conclusions

The facts are:

    (1) Measuring actual temperatures of the earth is difficult, and open to interpretation.

    (2) Predictions of the future are based on computer models, which are unreliable.

Gore's Arguments

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."


click to show/hide the rest of this section

Those Poor Polar Bears

Even the fear-mongering about the cuddly polar bears is exaggerated:
There are no data indicating a downward trend in U.S. or global polar bear populations – that’s according to the FWS’ own fact sheet for the proposal. There apparently are some reports of lower-weight polar bears and reduced cub survival in certain areas, but there are no firm explanations for these reports and their significance is unknown.

Now here’s the kicker: the U.S. government, the same one that now wants to classify the polar bears as “threatened,” also sanctions the hunting of polar bears for trophies. In the proposal’s media release, the FWS stated in an unconcerned, matter-of-fact fashion that, “[s]ome Native communities in arctic Canada also obtain significant financial benefits from allocating a portion of their overall subsistence quota to trophy hunters from the United States and other nations…

The FWS says that the projected threat to the polar bears is the future loss of their sea-ice habitat – this is the sole legal grounds for the proposed listing. Polar bears spend most of their lives on sea ice and recent data appear to indicate, according to the FWS, that sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is decreasing. The FWS even mentioned predictions of an ice-free Arctic Ocean “within the foreseeable future."

But such predictions and the potential consequences to polar bears are highly uncertain. No one knows exactly what’s happening with Arctic sea ice, much less what the future holds. The Greenland ice melt, for example, was actually larger in 1991 than in 2005 and the Greenland ice cap is thickening. Data from the Canadian Ice Service indicate there has been no precipitous drop-off in ice cap amount or thickness since 1970.

Let’s keep in mind that polar bears have survived much warmer times than we are now experiencing – like 1,000 years ago when the Vikings farmed Greenland during the Medieval Climate Optimum and 5,000-9,000 years ago during the period known as the Holocene Climate Optimum.

click to hide most of this section


My Thoughts


Obviously, I've presented you with just the tip of the iceberg, forgive the pun. Read Wikepedia and search the Web for yourself to get the real truth.

I'd like to obtain the funding to make a counter-movie to Al Gore's demagoguery, but we'll see about that.


I am Pro Environment

I am not against environmentalism, however. I am just against mass hysteria and treating people like infants. I am always for the truth, whether this shows global warming or not.

I think it's wise and a good thing to go green to a certain extent. I am not happy with the level of mercury in our oceans, nor pesticides in our fish farms. I want our air and water to be clean.

So, I support environmental protections. After all, mercury is a proven poison, with demonstrable bad effects; and pesticides are not good for health. Just remember that pesticides have their good effects too, enabling us to grow more and better quality food.


The Mass Hysteria of Global Warming

Global warming is another matter, however. On this issue, theorists have engendered a mass hysteria based on computer models that are complex and unproven.

The Truth about Global Warming

I don't think Al Gore's dire predictions will come true, regardless whether we adopt Kyoto or not. I also don't think that the U.S. will be the major polluter of the future. That honor will go to China, and the red-loving left will be in a pickle when they have to criticize a communist government instead of a capitalist one.

Al Gore, to his credit, did mention one factor in pollution that often gets overlooked by the left—population. POPULATION COUPLED WITH RISING STANDARDS OF LIVING ARE THE TWO MOST RELEVANT FACTORS IN POLLUTION the world over. The more people there are, and the higher their incomes rise, the more pollution there will be. It's simple math—the more cars there are in the world, and refrigerators, motors, electric grids, etc., the more pollution. This will occur regardless of any "going green." 100 hybrid cars will still burn more gasoline than one gas-guzzling Hummer. Even growing all that corn for ethanol will use more and more fossil fuel the more people there are on the planet. More people means more pollution, period.

The left will never tell you this, though, because it's not politically correct. The United States of America, whether it goes green or not, will continue to produce a huge amount of pollution if its population keeps rising. Yes, technology can help, and even going green—but population is a problem, and it needs to be at least considered. Can anyone say illegal immigration?


Recommendations


Fine, let's go green, at a reasonable pace. Let's not get hysterical, though. Let's be open to the truth. The Sky is not Falling. You are not a bad person if you buy a Hummer. You are not a saint if you own a hybrid.

You are a saint, though, in my mind, if you seek out the truth, and become a rational member of your democracy.

Al Gore is a demagogue, a typical Democrat. Don't be a typical liberal and buy his scam, hook, line and sinker.


For Your Research


Following are some of the sources I investigated. See them for yourselves and make up your own minds.

click to show/hide the rest of this section

Dr. Lindzen


Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Richard Siegmund Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology.

He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Science and Economic Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy. He previously held positions at the University of Chicago and Harvard University. Lindzen is identified as a contributor to Chapter 4 of the "IPCC Second Assessment", "Climate Change 1995".

He has been a strong critic of anthropogenic global warming theories and wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in April wherein he not only contested media assertions that the Bush administration has been putting pressure on scientists to oppose climate change principles but insisted that exactly the opposite is taking place: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse."

In the same piece, Lindzen also wrote: "In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions."

Lindzen wrote that:

"As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The summary began with a zinger -- that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this."

Of the Kyoto Accord, he claims there is no "controversy over the fact that the Kyoto Protocol, itself, will do almost nothing to stabilize CO2. Capping CO2 emissions per unit of electricity generated will have a negligible impact on CO2 levels"

The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."

I think the odds are about 50-50. I said that if anyone were willing to give warming much higher odds than that, I would be tempted to take the bet."


Some Scientists Opposing the Theory of Global Warming


This page lists scientists, not necessarily involved in climate research, who have expressed doubt regarding the scientific opinion on global warming. The consensus has been summarized by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as follows:

    The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2°C since the late 19th century, and 0.17°C per decade in the last 30 years.

    There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.

    If greenhouse gas emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate, with temperatures increasing by 1.4°C to 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100, causing sea level rise and increasing some types of extreme weather. On balance, the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative.


This page is intended to highlight those scientists who have, since the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report, published research or made public comments openly opposing at least one of the conclusions listed above.

Only scientists with a record of scholarship are included, and they must have been making specific statements, not merely participating in a poll or survey of opinion (for a general list including non-scientists, see global warming skeptics). This list is intended to be comprehensive, but is likely to be incomplete. Each scientist's opinions are stated without comment as to their validity or lack thereof.


The Earth is not warming


Since 2001, no climate scientists have expressed skepticism that warming, of the magnitude described by the IPCC, has occurred.

The Earth is warming but the cause is unknown


Scientists in this section accept the observations of rising temperatures, but conclude it is too early to ascribe any cause to these changes, man-made or natural.

Claude Allegre, French geophysicist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris):

Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University:

David Deming, University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."

Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5°C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future." "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind."


The Earth is warming but mostly due to natural processes


Scientists in this section accept the observations of rising temperature, but conclude that natural causes are likely more to blame than human activities.

Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air." In 2003 Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content."

Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown."

George V. Chilingar, professor of civil and petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California, and Leonid F. Khilyuk: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible." (Environmental Geology, vol. 50 no. 6, August 2006

William M. Gray, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential." (BBC News, 16 Nov 2000 "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." (Washington Post, May 28, 2006

Zbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw: "The atmospheric temperature variations do not follow the changes in the concentrations of CO2 ... climate change fluctuations comes ... from cosmic radiation (21st Century Science & Technology, Winter 2003-2004, p. 52-65.

Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned." (M. Leroux, Global Warming - Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.", Environment News, 2001 [20]

Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." (Christian Science Monitor, April 22, 2005) "The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it.", NCPA Study No. 279, Sep. 2005

Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed." (Harvard University Gazette, 24 April 2003)

Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge." (In J. Veizer, "Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle", Geoscience Canada, March, 2005.


Global warming is good for human society


This section contains scientists who accept that global warming will occur, but advocate the position that it will be of little impact or a net positive for human society.

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science at The University of Auckland, New Zealand: "The atmosphere may warm because of human activity, but if it does, the expected change is unlikely to be much more than 1 °C, and probably less, in the next 100 years. ... Warming, from whatever cause, is more likely to produce economic benefits than economic losses."

Sherwood Idso, President Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, formerly a research physicist at the USDA Water Conservation Laboratory and adjunct professor Arizona State University: "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming.", Enhanced or Impaired? Human Health in a CO2-Enriched Warmer World, co2science.org, Nov, 2003, p. 30.

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.” (CBC's Denial machine @ 19:23 - Google Video Link)


Warming will not continue


Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, Doctor of physics and mathematics, researcher at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: "The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth’s global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol." (Russian News & Information Agency, Aug. 25, 2006)

General skepticism


The scientists in this section have expressed general doubt about global warming or have criticized aspects of the evidence, such as climate models. However, they are not known to have stated disagreement with the consensus conclusions listed at the beginning of this article.

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute writes: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate "realistic" simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."


Sixty Scientists call on Canadian Prime Minister to Revisit Global Warming Myths



Scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming, from eco-logic Powerhouse.com, April 15, 2006, An open letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Visit Junkscience.com


Junkscience.com states:
Actual temperatures are difficult to measure.

Predictions of the future are based on computer models.


What caused the apparently massive temperature leap at the beginning of the 18th Century? It certainly wasn't industrialization, that hadn't happened yet. If such changes appear in the record during recent periods when people can not have caused them then they are by definition "natural" and, if such natural changes are evident in recent history, why are we so fixated on carbon dioxide as a "culprit" driving lesser warming now?

The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

click to hide most of this section


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,