The Greater Threat

Global warming is a bigger threat than terrorism? Yes, it is… if you are an ‘Environment Minister’, then global warming or whatever the latest environmental threat dejure is, will be the greatest threat to civilization since the mongol horde.

Of course, if you were the Minister of Handouts and Welfare payments then poverty would be the greatest threat to mankind. The key here is to understand how bureaucracy works. Your existance must be validated; and validated well!

"Al Qaeda... a petty nuisance siphoning off needed funds for the budgets I need to really do my job."

Official: Global warming bigger threat than terrorism

"Current preoccupation is with terrorism, but in the long term climate change will outweigh terrorism as an issue for the international community," he said.

"Terrorism will come and go, it has in the past...and it's very important. But climate change is going to make some very fundamental changes to human existence on the planet."

Anderson said Canada would need to cut its emissions of greenhouse gases by 60 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. Canada has ratified the Kyoto protocol on climate change, which calls for a 6 percent cut from 1990 levels by 2012.

So I took the liberty of making a campaign poster:

The greater threat to this skyline, is global warming.

Posted by Eric Simonson at March 19, 2006 1:01 AM
Comment #134489

Even without Climate Change, weather will certainly kill far more people than terrorism in the next century. Drought, hurricanes, heat waves, cold snaps, we’re all aware of how much suffering these events cause.

Here’s some interesting trivia. It involves the deaths of 5.5 million people.

An exceptionally powerful El Nino caused a drought in India in 1876-77. The English Viceroy, Lord Lytton, believed in Malthus, social Darwinism, and Adam Smith’s free markets.

Adam Smith wrote about an earlier Indian drought:

“Famine has never arisen from any other cause but the violence of government attempting, by improper means, to remedy the inconvenience of dearth.”

Snort. Yeah, Eric, sometimes government ministers can be sooooo self-centered.

As the drought in India progressed, one British official, Richard Temple, made it illegal in the state of Madras to give relief donations that might interfere with the price of grain on the markets. (summarized from “The Winds of Change” by Eugene Linden, pp 195-98).

To make a long piece of trivia short, 5.5 million Indians died in the drought, a toll exacerbated by British policies. Millions more died in China, Brazil, Indonesia, and elsewhere. Even more people died in the next major drought @ 1898- best guess is 50 million.

I’m scraping the surface of this topic, but I think the point’s taken.

One last bit of trivia:

1995: hottest year on record
1997: 2nd hottest year on record
1998: replaces 1995 as hottest on record
1999: 5th warmest on record (2nd warmest in US)
2000: becomes 5th warmest on record
2001: replaces 1997 as 2nd hottest
2002: replaces 2001 as 2nd hottest
2003: 3rd hottest (2001 now slips to 4th hottest)
2004: 4th hottest
2005: either hottest or 2nd hottest

January 2006: warmest January in US on record, by far.

Posted by: phx8 at March 19, 2006 2:35 AM
Comment #134501

If the worst case predictions occur, in ten years
time that city and other near the ocean. Will Not
Exist. A predicted 24 foot rise in ocean levels
will destroy them. Loosing Washington might not
be so bad, but the rest have some redeeming value.

Posted by: OldJames at March 19, 2006 6:31 AM
Comment #134504

global warming is a farce,and the people who believe it are stupid.

Posted by: slwell at March 19, 2006 7:49 AM
Comment #134508

Dear Eric,

As someone getting a Masters degree at NYU I often stress about terrorist attacks both past and present. I also worry about global warming. In fact I wrote a paper on this subject during my undergraduate sudies in 1991. Yes… well read, independent thinkers, saw global warming decades ago but were written off as “liberal.” Sadly that attitude persisted by conservatives till more recent times.

Whereas I disagree with your one-sided view of this topic, I’m most happy to see a posting on a conservative blogging site admitting to the reality of Global Warming, albeit a little late.

Ron S.

Posted by: Ron S. at March 19, 2006 9:54 AM
Comment #134509


wow, what an intelligent argument. Got any links from a credible source?

Posted by: Kimberly at March 19, 2006 9:59 AM
Comment #134519

Are all scientists liberal nitwits or what? To follow your stupid hypothesis further we must give up are individual freedoms to conform with a world ordered attempt to (save the planet) from global warming. This will in effect reduce the US to a third world country that is dependent upon our conformance to the treaty to recieve quddos from the UN. The cost in dollars to us will make the war in Iraq look like peanuts. All for an unproven theroy of junk scientists. Everyone knows the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles and has for billions of years. What gives you morons the gall to think we can change it to our way of thinking. So its heating up; deal with it or as the saying goes if you cant take the heat get out of the kitchen.

Posted by: jc at March 19, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #134521


Here’s your link:

Hot Air Hysteria

Posted by: Jim T at March 19, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #134523

Jim T. do you have a credible source

I think slwell is just practicing his imitation of President Bush.

Posted by: Duane at March 19, 2006 10:50 AM
Comment #134528

How you view this depends on the timeframe and your perspective. For shortsighted people who can’t see past the next ten years, then terrorism is, arguably, a greater threat. The number of people who will die due to weather over the next few years can be estimated based on trends and is probably less than the potential number of people who could be killed by a large scall chemical, biological, or nuclear terrorist attack.

The long term (25 years, 100 years?) it is another story altogether. At this point there are no reputable scientists (or very few anyway) who will disagree with the statement that our climate is warming. The models that predict the result of just a few degrees increase in the Earth’s surface temperature show restults that are catastrophic on a scale that is unprecedented in human history and surpass anything that al Queda could even contemplate.

But this is taking a world view. The death and devestation that could result from the worst case scenario would be spread around the world and would likely affect other countries worse than us. Terror, however, only affects the United States. At least that seems to be our point of view. We began our war on terror only after WE were attacked and our government is telling us that we are safer now since there’ve been no attacks on US soil (despite a worldwide increase in terror attacks).

So, as long as we don’t look too far into the future and don’t put any value on the lives of non-Americans, we can safely laugh at those who call global warming a threat.

Jim T: Did you actually read the article you linked to? All it says is that, according to one scientist, CO2 levels have not increased as much as other scientists claim. But even this report still indicates that CO2 levels are 10% higher than the previous average (a detail that Fox leaves out but the math is simple). This, however, is besides the point - disputing a single piece of evidence is not the same as proving that something is “a farce.”


What is the full quote that you seem to have pared down with elipses?

“Al Qaeda… a petty nuisance siphoning off needed funds for the budgets I need to really do my job.”

Who said it and in what context?

Posted by: Rob at March 19, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #134531


I don’t know…gee, I thought a “scientist who has spent 40 years studying glaciers in order to reconstruct the history of human impact on the global atmosphere” would be fairly credible. I mean, if you study global warming…or the lack thereof…for 40 years, that would give you a little credibility.

Posted by: Jim T at March 19, 2006 11:16 AM
Comment #134532

Amen, Eric. The world has a lot more to worry about than a couple scientists trying to get funding.

And on the temperature, don’t forget there is no actual end date for the little ice age. We could be getting over that. But phx8 what is your data from? The U.S. average? This thread is on global warming, which is supposed to be a much more gradual process than your “evidence” suggests. Yes, weather kills people. But it is arrogant to think we might be able to control it.

Posted by: CommonSense at March 19, 2006 11:17 AM
Comment #134535

Dont call people “shortsighted” when you don’t think there are scientists who disagree with the current interpretation of the THEORY of global warming. Clearly, you have not researched the subject so do not post as thoguh you have. (comment directed at Rob but applies to many)

Posted by: CommonSense at March 19, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #134541

Dont call people “shortsighted” when you don’t think there are scientists who disagree with the current interpretation of the THEORY of global warming. Clearly, you have not researched the subject so do not post as thoguh you have. (comment directed at Rob but applies to many)


Do those scientists work for EXXON?

Take a look at Venus. It is a green house system gone mad, and it really is hell. I find it illogical for us to assume that pumping MASSIVE amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere has no effect. that to me is the definition of shortsighted. we can no long safely eat fish out of streams because of dangerously high mercury levels, we can drink the water out of streams and fresh water bodies because of the same contamination, the air in some areas is so polluted its like smoking three packs of cigarettes a day how dare we say nothing is happening?

ocean temps have risen a half a degree in ten years. that is warming. i don’t need a scientist to tell me that.

Posted by: tree hugger at March 19, 2006 11:41 AM
Comment #134542


No, no, no. Don’t you correct me when you didn’t read my post carefully enough. I didn’t say that there are no scientists who “disagree with the current interpretation of the THEORY of global warming.” Those are YOUR words. I said that there are few scientists who disagree with the statement that our climate is warming. And I have researched it and my statement is true. If your point is that many scientists (although still a minority I belive - we could go back and forth on that point for days) believe that the current warming trend is part of the natural cycle of the Earth then we agree - that is also a fact. The point here is that there is a choice to be made. Do we simply belive the scientists who say what we want to hear - that global warming is a natural thing and out of our control so we should ignore it - or do we consider both sides and expolore policies that we can enact which would make a difference if, in fact, the majority of scientits are in fact correct.

Posted by: rob at March 19, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #134546

We don’t have to worry about global warming because we are running out of oil. No oil, no greenhouse gasses. Cars are the biggest producers of greenhouse gasses. They don’t produce much greenhouse gas if they don’t work anymore.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 19, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #134547


The quote is actually the voice of sarcasm. It’s hard to get the sneer in there when it’s just print, er, web.

Posted by: esimonson at March 19, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #134552

We don’t have to worry about global warming because we are running out of oil. No oil, no greenhouse gasses. Cars are the biggest producers of greenhouse gasses. They don’t produce much greenhouse gas if they don’t work anymore.


that will certainly depend on what they are replacing the fuel with.

Posted by: tree hugger at March 19, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #134553


I thought that might be it - and actually, your sneer kind of came through - maybe we need and emoticon for sarcasm ;)

And while we’re working on inventing that, I have a question for all you savvy web users (I like to think I’m one, but I’m flummoxed by this).

In doing a little research on this topic I came across a page on the EPA website that says “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” Since this is contrary to the position of the current administration, I was very confused. Then I noticed the URL in the address bar was: which looks like a fake. But here’s the thing: I got to that page by clicking on a link that is clearly on the epa’s website

So my question is: did somebody hack into the epa’s website and change a link, am I mistaken about the position of the administration, or is there that much of a gulf between the President and the EPA?

Posted by: Rob at March 19, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #134555


Yes, you are partially correct. Natural causes have been the leading cause of death throughout history. Considering the fact that the human race is generally mortal, as it says, “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment…”

I just don’t consider falling off a chair and breaking my neck on the same hysteria level as global warming. Nor is it logical to ascribe human agency to the forces of mother nature.

Anthropogenic global warming is simply false.

The fundamental assumptions of the position that global warming is induced by human activity are:

1) That global temperatures would stay the same if only the industrial revolution had not happened, and,

2) In order to reverse the inevitable catastrophe caused by the Industrial Revolution we must reverse course and no longer rely on any of the benefits produced by the Industrial Revolution.

So in essense, item #2 is reliant on the validity of item #1, and since we already know that drastic climate change happened long before the industrial revolution item #1 is demonstrably false.

Posted by: esimonson at March 19, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #134560


Your number two above is a straw man. Ted Kacsinzki and his ilk aside (please don’t tell him how I butchered the spelling of his name, I’d rather stay off his Christmas card list), nobody is calling for a complete repudiation of all the benefits of the industrial revolution.

Your first point isn’t much better. The question is not would temperatures have stayed the same, it is whether or not human activity is exacerbating climate change and can we do anyting about it.

Posted by: Rob at March 19, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #134574


The numbers come from “The Winds of Change” bu Eugene Linden. They have been widely reported as they occur. His numbers come from the NOAA. Although NOAA has its own site, here is a nice encapsulation of their data:

Jim T,
Interesting article on “Hot Air.” Eric seems to think government officials hype Climate Change because they have a self-centered perspective, and building their own bureaucratic kingdoms requires a raison de etre.

But let’s look at the “Hot Air” article, and investigate. For example, who is this Competitive Enterprise Institute? Who pays them their bills?

Well, Exxon paid them $400,000 in 2003, $90,000 in 2004, and $90,000 in 2005.

And who is this author, Steve Milloy?

“Though Milloy refuses to disclose organizational details such as who pays his bills, there are a few things we know about Milloy’s outfit: Though there is no contact information other than an email on the web site, is registered to Milloy Inc, at the same address as the EOP Group, the lobbying firm in Washington, DC. where Milloy was registered as a lobbyist.”

And if anyone wants to spend even more time on Mr Milloy:

It’s really remarkable how deeply entrenched Exxon has become in efforts to prevent recognition of Climate Change. I’m sure Mr Milloy thanks you, Exxon.

As for questioning C02 measurements from core drillings, that’s great, question away. But remember other drillings of sea floor sediments also will need to be addressed. And, even if we were to accept everything one sceptical scientist said, and if we threw out all historical measurements of C02 more than a few thousand years old, we’re still in the same place.

C02 is a greenhouse gas. The amounts of C02 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically within the past 50 years. Temperatures have already measurably increased. If no more is added, C02 will continue rising to over 500ppm, which to the best of anyone’s knowledge, is cause for tremendous concern.

Posted by: phx8 at March 19, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #134575

I think the point Eric is trying to make here is that as the richest, most powerful country on Earth, it is ridiculous for the United States citizens to give credibility to problems that cannot be solved by our military - other, weaker and poorer countries should worry about these things. I think that sums up his point.

Posted by: Matisse Enzer at March 19, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #134577

“… Global temperatures would stay the same if only the industrial revolution had not happened.”

Not necessarily. No one questions that natural fluctuations occur. Questions do arise when humanity introduces large amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. We have done that. What, if anything, will happen?

“… We must reverse course and no longer rely on any of the benefits produced by the Industrial Revolution.”

Personally, I think the ability to innovate is America’s strongest suit. I think we should not only be willing to change, but that we should take the lead. Replacing current technologies that produce C02 is a great challenge, and potentially very, very profitable. Meeting the challenge could greatly enhance our national security.

Corporations such as Exxon oppose making changes. Last year Exxon made $36 billion in profit, and set the all-time record for the most profitable quarter, with $10 billion in profit.

Exxon is welcome to pursue its agenda. However, the interests of Exxon are not the same as the interests of America. Ignorning long term issues in order to ensure Exxon’s short term profitability is not in our interest.

I would urge anyone reading Global Warming naysayers to look into the source of funding, to see who’s paying the bills. Exxon will almost invariably be involved.

Posted by: phx8 at March 19, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #134585


Your last two posts were nothing more than rehashes of what I already wrote. By “nothing more” I mean aside from the greater level of detail and the citations to back up your (I mean my) points. :)

Seriously, if you’ve got the time and ability to be doing “research,” how about responding to my question about the epa website.

Posted by: Rob at March 19, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #134586

“We don’t have to worry about global warming because we are running out of oil. No oil, no greenhouse gasses. Cars are the biggest producers of greenhouse gasses. They don’t produce much greenhouse gas if they don’t work anymore.”

Here’s a site on this:

It looks like maybe you’re right. We don’t need to worry about global warming because soon we’ll be out of oil and go back to pre-industrial society (or something like it). As usual, humanity’s stupidity, greed, and shortsightedness will be the undoing of our civilization.

Posted by: john at March 19, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #134591

Even without Climate Change, weather will certainly kill far more people than terrorism in the next century.—-$$$—- The sky is falling the sky is falling we are all going to die and its all because of George Bush.If we just impeach him now no one will die and the earth will be safe and green again forever.also no more Iraqi people will have to die we can bring our soldier’s home and we can all be gay again.If only Al Gore was our pres none these troubles would of ever happend. Hillary Cliton is the only person on earth now who can save us all from certain doom.

Posted by: angry white man at March 19, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #134598

Oh, this is so great! If anyone disagrees with the human caused global warming orthodoxy, he (or she) must be a paid shill for the evil, wicked, corporate polluters. No matter what the environmentalists wish, there is contrary evidence to their positions. There are plenty of reputable scientists who question all of the panic mongering of the environmental left.

Posted by: Mike at March 19, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #134604

There are reputable people who question Climate Change. However, writing books or maitaining web sites does not subject material to rigorous critical scrutiny prior to publication. The process of peer review in scientific journals provides this type of scrutiny. Peer review is not a matter of opinion or politics. On the matter of humnan induced Climate Change:

“The consensus was quantified in a Science study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes (Dec. 2004) in which she surveyed 928 scientific journal articles that matched the search [global climate change] at the ISI Web of Science. Of these, according to Oreskes, 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.”

Again, there is nothing wrong with questioning or even taking no stand. This is a matter of science, involving fields which rapidly change as new knowledge accumulates.

However, the strategy of Exxon is to prevent action by turning Climate Change into a political issue. Scientists are not backing Exxon’s position. Instead, right wing politicians, lobbyists, ‘think tanks,’ and other non-scientific groups funded by Exxon are delaying action with spurious objections, in order to preserve the profitable status quo.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

“Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
This conclusion is endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and its parent organization, the American Institute of Physics, the national science academies of the G8 nations, Brazil, China, and India. and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.”

Posted by: phx8 at March 19, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #134609


Posted by: BRIAN at March 19, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #134618


“non-scientific groups” is quite vague, and unfair. Scientists are doing the science, republicans don’t have Al Gore to do it for them. And remember, as i said in my post on the other thread, mainstream science has been dead wrong, with horrible consequences.

Posted by: CommonSense at March 19, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #134620


Let’s contrast what a matter of consensus means as oppossed to a matter of science.

The consensus about the earth was that it was flat. The consensus about the sun was that it revolved around the earth. The consensus now is that temperatures are rising ‘because of human activity’.

Even though this consensus is still based entirely on conjecture and computer models, and cannot in any case be proven to be fact, it is why we are told that we must ‘do something now!’ Meaning radical changes must be enacted to counter a threat that cannot even be proven to exist.

Climatology is not what I would consider a fully mature science. What we do not understand far outweighs what we do understand. Computer models predicting global warming disaster are a little short on proof and long on the doomsaying.

Posted by: esimonson at March 19, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #134629

Concensus is a commonly shared opinion; it’s not the same as scientific fact. However, the two are not mutually exclusive, nor is concensus necessarily wrong.

For example, I could say the coming summer’s hurricanes will be the worst ever because of Climate Change. Now, if ocean and air temperatures are warming, and we know hurricanes are associated with warmth, then there might be a consensual agreement about this.

Someday, it might even be proven scientifically.

But for now it is only an opinion, a reasonable prediction. Hurricane formation is poorly understood. We can observe that last year, tropical storms were the worst ever, and because they were in different regions, Global Warming might account for it.

That’s probably true, but it is what you would call consensus.

Just because we don’t know exactly how hurricanes form doesn’t mean hurricanes don’t happen.

Climate Change, aka Global Warming, is NOT based only upon computer models and conjecture. It is based upon evidence from the past. Yes, models are still being improved. You’re correct. However, as the models improve, the outlook for Climate Change grows worse, not better- maybe Stephen Colbert would call it ‘doomier.’ You’re also correct about the climatology, it’s still developing, and the knowledge and evidence gained in the past decade has been remarkable. Once again, the new knowledge and evidence indicate the situation is worse than we thought, not better.

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003…

Human Impacts on Climate

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth’s climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth’s history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth’s history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.”

Posted by: phx8 at March 19, 2006 6:52 PM
Comment #134633

Like I said, it’s usually pointless to discuss global warming with someone on the extreme right, just as you can’t change a fundamentalist’s mind about evolution. Few things make a hardcore neo-con froth at the mouth as much as mentioning the term “climate change,” “global warming” or suggesting that we are capable of damaging the environment. They’ll just keep making excuses or come up with more crap about science having an agenda.

Posted by: john at March 19, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #134638


For those of you that have noted discrepancies between the EPA and Bush administration, please note that 60 minutes tonight will be doing a story on this topic. From the story lead (I haven’t seen it yet) the Bush administration is editing information on Global Warming approved by the EPA head in an effort to “re-write history” (per 60 minutes).

Ron S.

Posted by: Ron S. at March 19, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #134639

I’d be interested in seeing other’s opinions on the 60 minutes piece airing tonight.

Posted by: Ron S. at March 19, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #134647

“Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900.”

Im pretty sure almost every scientist in the world would completely disagree with that statement. Most (if not all) scientists believe nature is the cause of most of the increase. One of the disagreements is whether or not humans are adding a substantial amount. Unless your personal plan is to cork Kilauea (worlds most active volcano) then theres an important rephrase needed there.

(by the way im neither a fundamentalist nor extreme right wing)

Posted by: CommonSense at March 19, 2006 8:26 PM
Comment #134648

I know the environment is important to some people. I personally think ABORTION, is the #1 KILLER in the past 30 years, and it doesn’t even make headline news!

Posted by: cheryl at March 19, 2006 8:38 PM
Comment #134652

“I’m pretty sure almost every scientist in the world would completely disagree with that statement.”

I quoted the American Institute of Physics, endorsing a statement by the American Geophysical Union. It is an association of scientists.

I quoted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in an earlier comment.

James Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “Hansen said the scientific community generally agrees that temperatures on Earth are rising because of the greenhouse effect — increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other materials into the atmosphere that trap heat. Most of that increase comes from burning fossil fuels.”

I’ve cited the huge preponderance of peer reviewed scientific journals which view human induced Climate Change as occurring.

The only scientist I’ve seen cited in this or the previous thread of any credibility was the Jaworski fellow, who questioned the reliability of antarctic core drilling data.

Posted by: phx8 at March 19, 2006 8:43 PM
Comment #134654,2933,188176,00.htm

check this out, it might answer some questions.

Posted by: cls at March 19, 2006 8:51 PM
Comment #134658

James Hansen

the one whos estimate for global warming was 300% off in 1988 was it? (its sick i know these people off the top of my head)

theres a lot of controversy over him i wouldn’t go to him even from my side of the argument.

And I read the article you gave a link to. It makes me happy. Near the bottom it says something quite different. A world of difference, really. I’ll quote it for you:

“The global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change”

“Contributing” does not equal “causing”, it is a typical vague word found in many such manifestos. All i ask is u acknowledge the questionable wording of that document as a whole. It is worded to make the reader belive human-caused CO2 emissions are the sole cause of the CO2 rise, it doesnt even mention earth until the last paragraph.

Posted by: CommonSense at March 19, 2006 9:06 PM
Comment #134668

Wait… Eric, are you saying global warming is not a problem? Or am I mistaking your ridiculing tone and satirical poster?

Posted by: Zeek at March 19, 2006 9:34 PM
Comment #134672

Global warming caused by man requires attention. Global warming caused by natural cycles requires we have to deal with it. Terrorism requires our devout attention as well.

Why do we have to pick sides? Let’s tackle what we can!

Posted by: Ken C. at March 19, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #134678

I’d suggest that everyone here should read the book “State of Fear” by Micheal Crichton. I would also ask people to please not bash the book until they’ve read it (please). You don’t have to read it just for the story, though it isn’t bad- very remniscent of “The Da Vinci Code.” Read it for the sources. Crichton is very meticulous about his research.

Posted by: Foxbat at March 19, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #134680

global warming is a farce,and the people who believe it are stupid.

Posted by: slwell at March 19, 2006 07:49 AM

And this from one who probably believes in intelligent design.

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at March 19, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #134682,2933,188176,00.htm

check this out, it might answer some questions.

Posted by: cls at March 19, 2006 08:51 PM

Fox News, the “media Jonestown” of the Bush cult!

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at March 19, 2006 10:41 PM
Comment #134683

foxbat gives a good read. It is fiction, but based on fact and has footnotes. all the footnotes are scientific data backing up one of the characters’ point of views. great facts in that book, though the plot lacks. clearly, chrichton just wanted his point of view heard, and it is stong and meaningful.

There has been additional information since the publication of that book (i think its 2003) but there has not been any groundbreaking information.

Posted by: CommonSense at March 19, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #134688

Manifesto? These links aren’t manifestos. They are not political documents. A manifesto is defined as “A public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions, especially of a political nature.” Contribute v sole cause? The link is available for everyone to read & draw conclusions.

Hansen was on “60 Minutes” tonight. Good segment, talking about White House Council on Environmental Quality chief of staff Phillip Cooney, and how he censored Hansen’s statements on Climate Change. Cooney left 6 months ago to go to work as a lobbyist, for… guess which company…


CommonSense, I’m surprised you refer to the 300% underestimate attributed to Hansen.


“Even more troubling is some misleading commentary regarding… James Hansen’s testimony to Congress in 1988. “Dr. Hansen overestimated [global warming] by 300 percent,” says our hero Kenner. .. In a paper published soon after that testimony, Hansen and colleagues presented three model simulations, each following a different scenario for the growth in CO2 and other trace gases and forcings. Scenario A had exponentially increasing CO2, scenario B had a more modest business-as-usual assumption, and scenario C had no further increase in CO2 after the year 2000. Both B and C assumed a large volcanic eruption in 1995.

Rightly, the authors did not assume they knew what path CO2 emissions would take, and presented a spectrum of possibilities. The scenario that turned out to be closest to the real path of forcings growth was scenario B, with the difference that Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, not 1995. The temperature change for the ’90s predicted under this scenario was very close to the actual 0.11 degree-Celsius change observed.

… The model did a reasonable job. In fact, in his congressional testimony Hansen only showed results from scenario B, and stated clearly that it was the most probable scenario.

The claim of a “300 percent” error comes from noted climate skeptic Patrick Michaels, who in testimony before Congress in 1998 deleted scenarios B and C from the chart he used in order to give the impression that the models were unreliable. Thus a significant success for climate modeling was presented as a complete failure…”

Commonsense, the next time you hear that 300% number, you might want to remember this: Hansen was right, and the critic, Patrick Michaels, was wrong; furthermore, Michaels willfully misrepresented the information in an effort to discredit Hansen. But why?

Lol. Who do you think contributed significant amounts of money to institutes where Patrick Michaels worked- The Cato Institute, The George C Marshall Institute, and Science Roundtable?

“The Cato Institute received $55,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.

The George C. Marshall Institute received $185,000 from ExxonMobil for “Climate Change Public Information and Policy Research” in 2002-2003.

The Tech Central Station Science Foundation received $95,000 from ExxonMobil for “Climate Change Support” in 2003.”

But wait! There’s more. This fine example of a human being, Patrick Michaels, directly receives more than mentioned above:

Michaels publishes the “World Climate Review,” a newsletter on global warming funded by the Western Fuels Association. Dr. Michaels has acknowledged that 20% of his funding comes from fossil fuel sources: ( Known funding includes $49,000 from German Coal Mining Association, $15,000 from Edison Electric Institute and $40,000 from Cyprus Minerals Company, an early supporter of People for the West, a “wise use” group. He recieved $63,000 for research on global climate change from Western Fuels Association, above and beyond the undisclosed amount he is paid for the World Climate Report/Review.”

Posted by: phx8 at March 19, 2006 11:04 PM
Comment #134701

The following article addresses the misinformation provided by Crichton:

Please note that Crichton’s presentation is a book, not a peer reviewed scientific journal.

At least now I know where the odd references to eugenics originated.

Posted by: phx8 at March 20, 2006 12:37 AM
Comment #134705

yeah, global warming, its a bitch, and its gonna suck. mother earth will fix herself, she always does, and we will exist no more.

there is an even more imminent threat though, one that could lead us into the darkest ages ever, that threat is the fact that we’re about to run out of oil which will most likely lead us into the greatest most irreversible depression and collapse ever seen. the US will crumble considering we have an entire well…country that runs on the basis of cheap oil, the world will crumble because we crumble, and most likely we’ll just launch all our missiles and global warming will be a thing of the past, as will civilization, but hey as long as there are tax incentives for small businesses that buy SUV’s, i love you GOP.

Posted by: Lucas at March 20, 2006 1:12 AM
Comment #134714


Yes, weather kills people. But it is arrogant to think we might be able to control it.

It’s not about control.

It’s about starting to do *something* to slow down the rate at which human activities make climate change worser. And faster worse. Recognizing this would be a good first step.

Anyway, the greatest threat to humankind is not global warming, it’s the pack of total morons we’ve became collectivelly. Maybe it’s time Earth drop this little experience once called human, after all. We really deserve it. No doubt.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 20, 2006 4:39 AM
Comment #134715


I know the environment is important to some people. I personally think ABORTION, is the #1 KILLER in the past 30 years, and it doesn’t even make headline news!

Even worser, if you think about it, sex abstinence is the #1 KILLER of all time *ever*.
And it doesn’t even make headline news!

Go figure!

- Philippe

PS: please, someone should wake me up, I’m locked in a very bad bad nightmare… Please?!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 20, 2006 4:49 AM
Comment #134716


check this out, it might answer some questions.

Let’s see:

Page Cannot Be Found

You’ve requested a page that cannot be found. The page you are looking for may have moved or it may no longer be available. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Indeed, this link answer some questions.
I just failed to see them. Both of them.
Cls, play again. Please.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 20, 2006 4:56 AM
Comment #134720

Phx8, thanks for the good article. But how did you get “misinformation” from “occasionally mistaken”? The gist of what I got from Mr. Crichton’s argument was not that global climate change is not happening but that we just don’t know enough about it to say what is really going to happen.

Speaking of Canada, here’s a little something I stumbled across…

Keep in mind I’m just passing this on. Let me know if the link doesn’t work.

Posted by: Foxbat at March 20, 2006 8:06 AM
Comment #134729

I just wanted to address a few things:

Ken says:

“Why do we have to pick sides? Let’s tackle what we can!”

Thanks, Ken. While many of you are thirsty to spill the blood of your respective counterparts, it is good to know that some people out there understand that solutions to major problems require consensus.

Terrorism and Global Warming are both problems worthy of our utmost attention, consideration, and action. It really is too bad that most people who actually have a clue about these things would prefer to use their knowledge and resources to launch assaults on the credibility and ideas others.

Just because I don’t agree with Bush (or Bushies) does not mean that I shouldn’t consider the relevance of his points or policies (or at least TRY to consider them from an unbiased perspective.) Same thing goes for the fact that if I’m of the opinion that human-caused climate change is an imminent global threat, it doesn’t mean I can ignore the fact that the evidence of this is still, as of yet, inconclusive.

Terrorism AND climate change are tremendous problems which impact each and every one of us, regardless of what evidence we choose to accept or reject, or what political philosophy we believe in. Thus, we will all be required to come to some kind of consensus on these type of issues if we ever hope to actually SOLVE any of the problems (which I sometimes doubt). Otherwise, we are alread through, so carry on with all of the grandstanding for what it’s worth.

We should not limit our considerations to only those sources which are aligned with us. We should seek the merits in opposing viewpoints and hone our own using them.

One more thing-

Isn’t it a bit off-the-mark to attack Global Warming strictly on the fact that it’s a theory? It seems that “THEORY” is one of the most popular buzz words of many who would prefer to see this topic (and people who give it even the slightest shred of credit) simply disappear. Anyways, for those of you who think that theories are all just “guesses” or attampts for scientists to get funding, look into some of these:

Einstein’s THEORY of relativity-
Bernoulli’s Equation-
Darwin’s THEORY of evolution-

…just to name a few.

Can we please try a little more to focus on issues (not opinions) which are quite evident and at-hand? Or is the future just another “last word” contest?

Posted by: Beijing Rob at March 20, 2006 9:26 AM
Comment #134734
then global warming or whatever the latest environmental threat dejure is, will be the greatest threat to civilization since the mongol horde.

The Mongol Horde was that big of a threat to civilization. Was I supposed to take the rest of the article seriously?

Posted by: Lextalioni at March 20, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #134736

Denial is an ugly thing. It does matter whether the source of an authors funding has a conflict of interest in terms of fossil fuel usage. That’s just common sense. I see all sorts of tricks in these scientific issues, with people publishing material in journals outside of the disciplines they are meant to critique, selective reading of results, and neglect to acknowledge the caveats and qualifications the proponents of the theories Republicans so dislike make in their research, among other things.

What’s important is that many political opponents of this theory neglect the important elements of the discipline that separate the facts from the wishful thinking. The theories they critique go through this process, while they often sidestep this so as not to sacrifice good rhetoric to the gods of scientific reliability. Why does this matter? Because when they’re wrong, their compelling rhetoric will have put us in a worse position than we might otherwise have chosen.

It’s better to enlist the government’s involvement now, rather than later. Now we can be more relaxed about regulation, and help the transition to cleaner technologies with surplus resources on our side. We wait on this, and we may end up having to do the same under more difficult circumstances.

Even if the predictions of scientists are wrong, and these people are right, then it will still be to our benefit to get ahead of our fossil fuel problem and become the country of origin for the new, cleaner technologies. If we get ahead of the game there, we can both serve our security and our economy in positive ways. And if the scientist are right, we’ll be able to slow down and mitigate the catastrophic changes in climate that would harm both.

Supporting smart action against global warming is a win-win situation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 20, 2006 10:52 AM
Comment #134738

The Earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles for millions of years. The polar ice caps have melted and refrozen several times during these periods. Large chunks of coastland have been covered and uncovered by the seas during these periods. Human beings (modern man) has been around for about 100,000 years. So what caused all that warming and cooling? Flatulance from sabre toothed tigers? Belching mammoths? All you tree huggers out there cheer up. The earth has a way of ridding itself of parasites, like a dog shaking off fleas. Homo sapien sapiens will one day go extinct, but it won’t be global warming that does it. It will be some as yet unknown virus, complements of Mother Earth and (just for expatUSA) her Intelligent Designer.

Posted by: Bill M. at March 20, 2006 11:16 AM
Comment #134745
Even worser, if you think about it, sex abstinence is the #1 KILLER of all time *ever*. And it doesn’t even make headline news!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 20, 2006 04:49 AM

Isn’t masterbation the #1 KILLER of all time *ever*?!? My guess is people have jacked off alot more than they said “no thanks, let’s wait until we’re married” And, after all: “Every sperm is sacred, Every sperm is Great. For every Sperm that’s wasted, G-d gets quite Irate”! (Thanks to John, Eric, and the rest for that great lyric)


We’re all tired of the evangelical boogey man. After all, even your master of the rapture, BushieII himself says “You know, I just don’t spend that much time on (bin Laden)”


I’m almost impressed that someone managed to get an IDiocy reference in this thread. But, I guess thatnks to BushieII, we can count on an endless stream of situational science issues here. You know, both sides of an issue expecting respect, not just the one supported by the facts.

Posted by: Dave at March 20, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #134746

Hey Eric,

Isn’t it kind of ironic that most of the people in New York think the war agaist terror is kind of a sham and don’t agree with you?

I lived in New York during 9/11 very close to the WTC and if I could take back for this country all the mispent money on the war in Iraq and spend it on Global warming I would in a second and I would feel great about it. Just to be clear, I would rather burn the money than do what Bush has done with it (make everything worse and less secure), but Global warming would have at least been money well-spent.

Posted by: Max at March 20, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #134747


Isn’t masterbation the #1 KILLER of all time *ever*?!?

Only if you think that sperm and, well, orgasms are enough to gave birth to a new human life.

BTW, I’m plain stupid: Life is the real #1 killer of all time ever. And forever.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 20, 2006 12:41 PM
Comment #134753

Bill M.-
Oh, you got us now. No, wait, you don’t. Your argument is a cariacture of the real one: that humans can and are producing unnatural climate change. It’s not that we are the exclusive cause of this. We don’t even have to be. All we have to do is to contribute enough warming greenhouse gases to make trouble for ourselves.

Higher CO2 levels mean more heat is trapped, but the secondary effects of this are what make it complicated. If it raises the amount of Water Vapor in the atmosphere, that will supercharge the rise in heat. That, however, might raise the cloudiness of the planet, reflecting light out of the atmosphere.

Everything depends on this complex interaction. CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. The Earth IS warming. (the trend shown here is not merely a consequence of urbanization near the sensors, as critics using the heat island effect claim. Readings have been rising on the open sea, too). Glaciers ARE retreating.

The question is, how much of this change results from the CO2 levels. It should be considered that ice cores indicate that today’s are the highest levels in hundreds of thousands of years. Natural cycles could partly be responsible, but the trick is, warming due to greater CO2 levels could tip that warming over a certain threshold, past which the atmosphere might show metastable characteristics.

It’s like an engine: Ordinarily, the state of the engine is rest, during which the battery remains the car’s source of energy. But let enough energy through, and the engine starts generating its own power with the alternator, which feeds off the engine’s power to create the electricity that fires the spark plugs- and in turn powers the alternator, and so forth. The system perpetuates itself, once the battery has kicked it into motion.

The question with CO2 levels and the warming trend is whether those levels could kickstart a runaway change, where one effect (rise in heat trapped by CO2) can cause another (rise in water vapor) which could add fuel for another factor in play. Soon, with such a system, a new equilibrium would be reached, one just as entrenched and difficult to change as the old one. That’s the concern. We may be approaching the point, or perhaps already past it, where our actions can do little to stop things.

Looking at this issue in an oversimplified manner is asking for trouble.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 20, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #134754

Philippe Houdoin,

Hmmm. Interesting position.

Anyway, the greatest threat to humankind is not global warming, it’s the pack of total morons we’ve became collectively. Maybe it’s time Earth drop this little experience once called human, after all. We really deserve it. No doubt.

I detect some resentment of humanity for not conforming to the liberal worldview.

My sense is that those who are most in favor of ‘radical solutions’ to this problem see global warming as sign of the disease called humanity. It is not a concern for humanity, it is a disdain for it.

“We really deserve it.”

Posted by: esimonson at March 20, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #134757

Eric Simonson,

I detect some resentment of humanity for not conforming to the liberal worldview.

I doubt both earth and its climate care at all about “liberal worldview”.

My sense is that those who are most in favor of ‘radical solutions’ to this problem see global warming as sign of the disease called humanity. It is not a concern for humanity, it is a disdain for it.

Yep, I don’t deny, that’s the feeling indeed.
I’m not that proud to be human these days.
Do you? Why?
I’ve been always very suspicious of people being proud being human. First because I think its pointless, second because most of the time its just blind arrogance, which could be dangerous.

But, hey, I’m french, being whinning and rantling about everything is my lifestyle :-p

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 20, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #134762

phx8 please contact me @

Posted by: webbie at March 20, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #134763


Yes, James Hansen, is a pillar in the left’s global warming religion. Too bad he was off by 200% in the 90’s. But like any good followers, when your preacher makes a mistake about the end of the world, you forgive him and wait for the next date of doom.

Posted by: JimmyRay at March 20, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #134767

Global warming is a hoax. That’s not to say that the earth isn’t warming from what we have come to regard as normal temps. It’s just that man isn’t causing it.
The earth’s climate doesn’t stay the same for very long at a stretch. (speaking on a geologic time scale, of course) What we regard as normal is actually unusually mild. The old saying that change is the only constant applies here. It may sound trite but it’s true.
The baseline for the global warming theory is Venus with its runaway greenhouse. Comparing it to Earth is like trying to understand apples by studying wingnuts. Venus is millions of miles closer to the sun than the earth, has a CO2 atmosphere far more dense than the earth’s, and has no life.
The earth has a carbon cycle which cycles carbon between earth, air and sea. Some claim that man is the source of almost all CO2 in the atmosphere. This is untrue. Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 entering the atmosphere each year, 6 billion tons is from man made sources. Even with the increase of atmospheric CO2 that has been measured, it’s still far less than 1% of the atmosphere. Hardly a “thick, heat trapping blanket”. The only measurable effect is an increased growth rate of plants.
The sun changes in intensity in regular cycles and probably in anomalous events as well. The sunspot cycle just beginning is predicted to be the most intense ever measured.
The earth is at the tail end of an ice age. Anyone care to guess what that might mean? Most global warming chicken littles seem to have forgotten that ice floating in water doesn’t raise the water level when it melts.
Hurricanes and thunderstorms transfer heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere where it is radiated into space.
We’re only just beginning to get a hint of understanding of the relationships between air, land, sea, weather and the sun.
“Global warming” has crossed from science to dogma. All dissenting viewpoints in the scientific community are quickly shouted down and lose their funding. This religion is being used to justify all sorts of statist, totalitarian schemes by misanthropists and would-be tyrants.
There are many good reasons to try to develop the cleanest, most efficient technology possible. Global warming isn’t one of them.

Posted by: steve at March 20, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #134769

Your post is unintentionally funny, and I’m embarrassed for you. Earlier in this thread, I addressed this inaccurate charge made by Michaels against Hansen. You obviously didn’t read the earlier posts in this thread, or bother to look at links. You didn’t even quote the inaccurate information accurately.

“But like any good followers, when your preacher makes a mistake about the end of the world, you forgive him and wait for the next date of doom.”

Wow. Your words, not mine. How ironic.

But as long as we’re having so much fun, thanks to Dr Patrick Michaels, here’s a little nuggest, (boldprints mine):

“In recent years, a small number of vocal climate “contrarians” have energetically worked to distort, deny, and suppress the growing scientific consensus over the risks of climate change. These contrarians use public forums and opinion pieces as their principal avenue of communication, rather than peer-reviewed scientific journals. And recently, they have become more aggressive at trying to silence anyone who challenges their “theories” about climate change.

In one such action, climate contrarian Dr. Patrick J. Michaels threatened legal action against Dr. Peter Gleick in response to comments made by Gleick to a newspaper.

In November 2003, a reporter from the The Star Press (Muncie, IN) asked Peter Gleick for his opinion of Pat Michaels, who had been described in a local flier as one of the nation’s leading experts on climate change. The Star Press then published an article quoting Dr. Gleick, which said that Michaels “is one of a very small minority of nay-sayers who continue to dispute the facts and science about climate change in the face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing evidence.” Gleick continued: “I consider that Michaels is to the science of climate change like the Flat Earth Society is to the science of planetary shape.” (full text)

In response, a lawyer associated with the Competitive Enterprise Institute and engaged by Michaels demanded “an immediate and public correction.”

Competitive Enterprise Institute. Say, that sounds familiar. They received over $1.6 million from a large corporation. Guess which one? It’s typically associated with ‘Big Oil.’ And no, it’s not BP, they backed out of the Global Climate Coalition before any of the others. Here’s a hint: this large company was the last one left in the Global Climate Coalition, and today, almost alone in the corporate world, this company continues to fund preventing recognition of Climate Change.


Posted by: phx8 at March 20, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #134777

Thanks phx8,

When I got my jaw back into place after reading the two subsequent posts I had planned a rebuttal. Yours is better.
I used the terms IDiocy and Situational Science above and it’s more and more clear they are alive and well in the right wing. I guess it just shows who actually paid attention in class (not the IDiots, I’m sure).

BTW: Isn’t EXXON now spealt CONDI?

Posted by: Dave at March 20, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #134791


the globe is something that you can’t possibly understand you give all these “facts” about what the hottest year is. I really have a problem with this b/c what is that based on? I didn’t read on and someone probably asked this, but I’d like the information. I also have a problem with this b/c is it based on just US climate? If so, you forgot to mention that 35 states had the COLDEST summer on record in 2004. If there is massive global warming, how is this possible? It’d be easily explained by cycles. Just like we are between ice ages now, there was somewhere else in the world that had (probably) the hottest summer on record. The left and the evironmental wackos out there are so concerned with the amount of “greenhouse” gases we are putting into the environment. We are not NEAR the levels we were at just 10 years ago. We aren’t in the grey skies of the industrial revolution in england and the US. The skies like you see in the Mary Poppins movie. If you honestly think that global warming is more of a threat than terrorism…just ask the people in Israel.

I also challenge you to do one thing. People claim that the polar ice caps are melting and that they are going to flood us out. My challenge is…fill a glass with ice, then top it off with water. Even if the ice sticks up out of the glass…fill it to the brim with water. After the ice melts, check to see if you have ANY water spilled over (I suggest you get a bowl or a paper towel around the base to ease your mind..but you won’t need it). What 95% of people don’t know is that water is one of the VERY few if not—as I was taught in chemistry—the only substance on earth that EXPANDS when it freezes. There will be NO water outside the glass when the ice melts…if you do the test honestly. Therefore, what I’m trying to tell you is, IF the polar ice caps melt. The oceans will rise negligably. Probably, the levels will actually FALL.

One last thing, “global warming” like I stated above is a cyclical thing. We are in a “warming period” just like you learned about in history class about the time of the Vikings around 1000 AD. Thus the reason why they were able to sail to Greenland (which if you know anything is 98% covered by tundra—so it wouldn’t be GREEN), and then on to what is now Newfoundland. Either way, use your brain to form your ideas and not your emotions.

Posted by: Robert at March 20, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #134794

You answered your own question. In the north, greenland is covered by an ice sheet, as well as a lot of other land. In the south, antarctica is a continent covered with ice. It is that melting ice that matters, and, believe it or not, climate scientists actually know about the basic properties of ice! They even take it into their calculations. Thanks for the attempt at help, though.

Posted by: Brian Poole at March 20, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #134802

If you’re interested in the Norse experience in Greenland, I’d highly recommend “Collapse” by Jared Diamond. It’s not about Global Warming. It’s about how societies adapt, or fail to adapt, when faced with changing environments.

The information on temperatures is for the whole world, not just the US. It’s compiled by the NOAA. And although the overall trend is for warming, it’s more appropriate to refer to this as Climate Change, rather than Global Warming. Change isn’t uniform. Some places may experience cooler temperatures, others warmer ones.

Actually, I was aware melting ice does not raise the level in a glass. But I’m not sure you’re aware snow and ice reflect sunlight, while open ocean absorbs heat. If ice caps melt, it would contribute to warming, because instead of white surfaces reflecting sunlight, we’d have dark water surfaces absorbing it.

Melting ice caps would not raise sea levels. However, melting ice which is on land would raise them. Equatorial glaciers, the immense spans of ice in Greenland & Antarctica, melting these would increase sea levels.

Weather is cyclical, yes. Introducing large quantities of greenhouse gases runs a risk of initiating or exacerbating cycles. Furthermore, although the US produces 1/4 of the greenhouse gases, it’s a worldwide problem. Closing down Mary Poppin’s “dark satanic mills” won’t change the price of tea in China.
(Oh, Bert)

Posted by: phx8 at March 20, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #134829

Regardless of environmental cycles, I fail to see how high greenhouse gas emissions are a positive thing.

And if we can agree that they are not, why not put a little extra effort into reducing them?

I’m not saying we need to go wild’n’crazy about it, but actually caring would be a good place to start.

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #134830

Biran Poole,

Obviously they don’t b/c if they are the ones saying that the ice caps will flood the earth then they don’t know the physical properties of ice. I, however, only ever hear politicians and idiots like JFK Jr talking about that. Also, Greenland was named that b/c when the Vikings found it…it WAS green…hmm, how did that happen? Global warming?


Melting ice which is on land would not affect the oceans b/c just as you have said, IT’S ON LAND. It may raise the water table (of which I know a LOT about living over the “underground ocean” in Nebraska). As for the reflecting idea…wasn’t it just recently that they were talking about the “reflecting mirrors” in Arizona causing problems with INCREASING the temperature b/c it reflects off the mirrors then reflects off the atmosphere or something? As for equatorial ice caps, isn’t that an oxymoron? If you’re referring to the snow caps on mountains…you might want to check your facts b/c there was a Colorado State study done that the “ice” caps on the rockies are reaching farther down the mountains and becoming more expansive…seems to me that if it’s getting “warmer” on the surface it’s getting colder in the upper atmosphere. Last thing, where do you get your numbers that the US makes 1/4 of the “greenhouse gases”. From what I’ve read, more than 1/2 of the SO2 gas that was released last year (may have been 2004) was produced by “natural causes” ie volcanic eruptions (eg Mt. St. Helens et al.) Maybe we should worry about plugging the volcanoes and using butt-plugs for cow farts.

Posted by: Robert at March 20, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #134834

Zeek, what I don’t get is…why do we believe in “greenhouse gases”. If you’re talking about CO2, that’s what we have trees and plants for. What you people don’t seem to understand is, the earth has survived with us on it for over 300 million, 3 million, or 6000 (depending on your beliefs)years and has been able to put up with us. Isn’t it a true massive amount of vanity that 6 billion little specks on the face of the earth can affect it’s environment. Man we must REALLY think something of ourselves. It’s so silly (to put it NICELY). Do I think that we are here to plunder and destroy, no. Do I think recycling aluminum and steel is good, yes. Do I think that I should hold my farts till I explode b/c it contains H2S, no! Just get over yourselves…I already have.

Posted by: Robert at March 20, 2006 6:49 PM
Comment #134838


Excellent point! It’s funny how the envirohacks have cleverly changed the name of their fear mongering pet project from “global warming” to “climate change”. That way, they can blame warming AND COOLING on the evil capitalist pig, neocons.

Posted by: Duano at March 20, 2006 7:08 PM
Comment #134847

Steve, Robert-
The surface of Venus is about 900 degrees, which shouldn’t be the case, given its proximity to the sun. It’s hotter than even Mercury is, though mercury is the closest planet to the sun. Venus shows that atmospheric forcing of temperatures is entirely possible.

As for the Carbon Cycle, the Earth has been able to deal with a certain amount, but Those levels have been increasing throughout the Twentieth Century:

That year-to-year increase of about 3 parts per million is considerably higher than the average annual increase of 1.8 parts per million over the past decade, and markedly more accelerated than the 1-part-per-million annual increase recorded a half-century ago, when observations were first made here.

Even if our activities are adding only a small additional amount per year, that will still matter. After all, we are dealing atmospheric physics, where even normal levels of CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere can raise the temperature by 30 Degrees celsius. As it is, we are obviously adding more CO2 to the atmosphere than the system is able to turn back into other forms of carbon.

As for the Ice? We’re talking about the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets here, which rest on solid rock, are miles thick and hundreds of miles wide. Water is not the only place for Ice to build up. being that they are not in the water, water displacement hardly counts for anything in their additions to the sea level. It’s no different than shoving ice cubes off a table into a cooler full of water and ice. It will add to the levels.

As for the weather? The big misconception about global warming is that it means everything’s going to become tropical. Not really. Average temperatures are going to go up, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be seasonal changes. It may mean lengthier summers and shorter,warmer winters, but you have to recall that this is a matter of two or three degrees, and that part of the result of global warming may be changes in certain circulation patterns. Most infamously, the thermohaline conveyor whose collapse could turn the warming into an ice age.

As for contribution? Ask the Chinese and the Indians how environmentally conscious they are.

As for the terrorist threat? One result of Global Warming might just be the further dessication of already dry areas. Consider how much worse matters get for an Israel already in disputes with its neighbors over water.

As for Greenland, it actually is pretty green. The southern-most part. As for warming trends, the Medieval warming period was toasty in comparison to the dark ages, but it pales next to our spike in temperatures.

As for Groundwater, let me get something clear to you: underground water, unless we’re speaking about Karst topography (limestone with lots of holes in it), is water filtering through permeable rocks and soil. If we’re talking about Glaciers, two things are true: most of the water is staying damn put, with the meltwater (where such exists) going through any convenient permeable channels.

With Ice caps, they may be growing in places where temperatures remained sufficiently low, and precipitation has increased, but elsewhere, like in Montana and the Himalayas, they have shrunk. Glacier National Park may soon become Chilled Cold Puddle park if things continue this way over the next decade.

The impression that strikes me about your approach is that you’re grabbing at straws, using isolated cases to trying and disprove an effect that the scientists themselves are saying will have complicated effects.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 20, 2006 7:44 PM
Comment #134850

If warmer temperatures melt the Greenland Ice Sheet, and the fresh water flows into the ocean, it could interfere with the thermohaline circulation which drives the Gulf Stream. Northern Europe depends upon the Gulf Stream for its moderate climate. If this happens, Global Warming could actually put northern Europe into a deep freeze. This is why it would be more accurate to refer to Global Warming as Climate Change.

Melting ice in Greenland & the Antarctic flows into the oceans. The ice sheets on the Antarctic & Greenland land masses are thousands of feet deep; there’s much too much water to be absorbed by a water table.

Equatorial glaciers are numerous, and very important. Many large cities depend upon glacial runoff for their water supply, for drinking water & irrigation. Glaciers are melting rapidly, which is potentially disastrous for cities like Cuzco, cities along the Ganges, and for many many others.

I can see Mt Saint Helens from my house. Volcanoes do contribute S02 to the atmosphere. However, S02 washes out quickly, in just a year or two. C02 & Methane are of more concern.

Posted by: phx8 at March 20, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #134856

Trees and plants will only take in so much CO2, and they will only take care of the increases already there if plant growth itself increases. Dessication of already dry areas on the margins may be a result of the warming, which will decrease vegetation.

Like I’ve already said, a)You’re grabbing at straws, and b)it doesn’t pay to underestimate the complexity of what’s at work here.

We can have an effect on the environment. We can turn streams toxic and acidic by irresponsible mining processes. We can strip large areas bare of their trees (Europe’s forests use to be quite extensive compared to their current reach. We wasted the soils of Iceland, disrupted the turf in greenland, let our glacial topsoils in in the midwest blow away. Around my area, the removal of trees means the water table drops and the creeks flood more quickly, since runoff doesn’t have so much plant growth to be impeded by.

Part of what got us in trouble with New Orleans was subsidence. How’d that happen? Try taking too much water from the wells, and redirecting the Mississippi so it’s sediments no longer settle in the delta, but run off the continental shelf into deep waters. We’ve created thousands of lakes where once only rivers and creeks existed.

In the Middle East, we see Mesopotamia, full of civilizations that fell as their fields went saline because of the open irrigation practiced. In Australia, we see the poor soils of that region pushed to failure. In the mediterranean, we see native seaweed crowded out by a toxic former fishtank resident.

God, if you knew what I knew about the environment, you’d be the last person to claim that we have nothing to do with the way the world runs.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 20, 2006 8:02 PM
Comment #134884

Robert, colorful as your analogy was, it completely distorts my message.

I’m not saying we need to stop driving cars or having factories much less stop farting…

I am saying that why not actually CARE about the environment?

You may be right. Maybe we can’t affect at the environment and all the pollution we create won’t have any negative effects on the world we live in. Then again, in certain very high pollution areas of the world (e.g. urban areas of Russia), there is a stunningly high birth-rate of mentally retarded children and shorter life-expectancy.

The point is not that we need to start becoming green freaks, but that people need to actually care rather than let it become a problem first. It doesn’t even matter if you don’t act on that, but indifference to the environment is what is killing it more than anything.

By the by, I realize how insignificant humans are in the scheme of things. I don’t get why this means we should act with reckless abandon. We may not be able to destroy the world but I’m sure we could make life miserable for everyone if we tried.

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 9:32 PM
Comment #134909

Ignoring our interdependence with the natural world does not stop it from being so. Those who argue that we should not have to limit behaviors that negatively impact the environment (or even go so far as to deny such repeatedly verified negative impacts)have some kind of investment in a narcissistic identity that is addicted to such behaviors. They cannot tolerate the possibility of facing the emptiness these behaviors seek to fill, or imagine a fulfilling existence without the constant fix such behaviors provide. Accusing those who call for such limits as being everything from communist, to anti-industry, to “eco-frauds”, and painting them as having sinister motives (such as keeping their cush bureaucratic job)is completely understandable, given the crippling terror of their own emptiness that motivates this kind of paranoia. Of course their are varying motivations of those who make and fight for environmental stands. Their are shades of gray in every grouping of human activity. But the overall thrust on global warming is clear. To object or ridicule it as a whole is so unlikely after an honest, unbiased inquiry, that to hold on to the rare objection as the gospel truth betrays an obvious secondary agenda.

Posted by: Shattered Mirror at March 20, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #134917

Just to make things clear…

Earth’s atmosphere:

Constant components
(proportions remain the same over time and location)
Nitrogen (N2) 78.08%
Oxygen (O2) 20.95%
Argon (Ar) 0.93%
Neon, Helium, Krypton 0.0001%
Variable components
(amounts vary over time and location)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 0.0003%
Water vapor (H20) 0-4%
Methane (CH4) trace
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) trace
Ozone (O3) trace
Nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2) trace

To be honest, I didn’t know we had that much Argon around.

Venus’ atmosphere:
CO2: 96.5%
N2: 3.5%
SO2: 0.015%
Ar: 0.007%
H2O: 0.002%
CO: 0.0017%
He: 0.0012%
Ne: 0.0007%

Look at the data. These two atmospheres don’t even look comparable. So please stop comparing them (I know, it only happened like twice, but it bothered me). Plus, if Venus is such a great example of global warming and the greenhouse effect, then it also is a good example of how it happens without human/sentient intervention. Unless you’re suggesting that the little green men aren’t actually from Mars…

Posted by: Foxbat at March 20, 2006 10:56 PM
Comment #134934

Haha, someone compared Earth to Venus? Ah… that’s classic. I need to start a quote book or something for occaisions like this.

But it kind of goes without saying that it’s dumb to compare Earth to other planets as we are perhaps unique in a universe of millions of planets.

Posted by: Zeek at March 20, 2006 11:33 PM
Comment #134938


Posted by: FA STEPHENS at March 20, 2006 11:45 PM
Comment #134942

Everyone seems to agree on the fact that climate change and global warming most definately occurring. Whether its is human-caused or nature-caused, isn’t this an important enough issue to deeply consider?

We are going to see some drastic changes in the future, all of us. Hence, I don’t see what the difference is if Global warming is caused by humans or not. Calling it a “liberal hoax” won’t make it, nor the changes we will have to make, go away. Only the facts are important in this case.

—-> One more thing. Who is FA STEPHENS and can we please ban his postings? They are at once ridiculous, poorly written (to say the least), and consistantly offensive. I would like to believe there is no room for that kind of crap here. Thanks.

Posted by: Beijing Rob at March 20, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #134950

beijing rob i agree about that fa stephens. to me it seems like someone is trying to be funny. also have you seen the other one called angry white man. i cant seem to believe they are real?

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 21, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #134953

My 17 year old daughter saw a post by Angry White Man the other day. She calls him ‘Creepy Dude,’ and keeps asking me if he’s posted anything. I try to ignore it. ‘Critique the message, not the messenger’ is a pretty good rule for a forum like this, and I enjoy the give and take, even if there are a few scary comments.

Beijing Rob, I believe you can e-mail the Watchblog Manager. Might be a good idea.

Posted by: phx8 at March 21, 2006 12:35 AM
Comment #134963

Atmospheric physics remains the same regardless of the composition of the atmosphere. Before we got a good idea of what Venus was like, atmospherically speaking, there was a question as to wheter Atmospheric forcing due to CO2 levels was even possible. Venus resolved that argument rather quickly.

As it turns out, Carbon Dioxide and Methane are responsible for about 30 Degrees Celsius of our air temperature. Even in their small amounts, their impact is great, and what’s more, its nonlinear. Other effects get into the game as the consequences of warming prevail.

Carbon Dioxide is not the only factor though. There are natural cycles of weather and heat circulation. There are also volcanic and geological events (like the creation of the Isthmus of Panama, that can change the climate. Certainly, if we didn’t have Antarctica in place to support all that ice, it wouldn’t be as cold as it is.

The thing about Carbon Dioxide, though, is that we have been adding it to the atmosphere at rates beyond what can be accounted for by other sources, also beyond what nature will naturally reprocess. Climate Change can occur independent of human activity, but that’s not mutually exclusive of it happening because of human activity.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 21, 2006 8:18 AM
Comment #134994

Hey Eric, your poster’s pretty accurate. If we don’t deal with global warming now, ALL of Manhattan will be destroyed and under water.

BTW, is a good place to get facts.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 21, 2006 11:14 AM
Comment #135013


Don’t worry, there aren’t any Neanderthals left. Or are there?

Posted by: Dave at March 21, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #135076

phx8 have you heard of a little town in graham wa?

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 21, 2006 5:31 PM
Comment #135077

No, Rodney, but it looks like a nice area. I’m south of Portland, but near the top of a 1000 foot mountain, so I can see Mt St Helens.

Posted by: phx8 at March 21, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #135093

phx8 a man and lady live up in graham wa last name greatsinger, they raise purebred dogs called greatsinger great danes and greatsinger saint bernards there supposed to be shoestring realition . my grandfather was a greatsinger very rare name!

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 21, 2006 6:54 PM
Comment #135183

Your article is complete solid emotional drivel with no evidence and only the barest of rhetoric. The poster is truely manipulative and irrational intelectual dishonesty.

I’ve come to the conclusion that blogging is a waist of time. This is not dialogue. It’s some kind silly type-written shouting match.


Posted by: RGF at March 21, 2006 11:31 PM
Comment #135209

Maybe I’m much older than the people here but I remember in the 1970’s that the problem was an approaching ice age due to greenhouse gases. Time or Newsweek featured the story. Which is it? Hot or cold? Can’t poor old Mother Earth go through her cycles without someone screaming about the sky falling?

Posted by: JR at March 22, 2006 1:45 AM
Comment #135213

Well, JR, I’m old enough to remember too. I attended college in Chicago 1977-79 through three record setting winters, so I’m not likely to forget. Yes, people wondered about the freakishly cold winters. But I distinctly remember the surprise, even then, because even then everyone intuitively knew human activities adding C02 to the atmosphere should be causing warming, not cooling. As it turns out, those 3 years were not exception, not the norm.

Are there natural cycles? Of course. You know that. So do I. That isn’t the question. The question is, what happens when humanity pours large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Will the Gaian hypothesis save us? Will Mother Earth naturally maintain balance, or will will humanity initiate a complex chain reaction?

The idea that terrorism will cause more harm than human induced climate change is ludicrous. There’s no doubt we’re facing trouble. How much trouble are we facing?

Posted by: phx8 at March 22, 2006 2:10 AM
Comment #135214

RGF and your attack the messenger mentality is quite the way of dealing with your objection to a article or post? your emotional dribble sounds like pure conjecture at best! not even worthy of the space it took up, quite honestly there is not one bit of intelligence in your post. it is a purely made up sarcastic nonsense and at best cheap fodder for the animals to eat and later regurgitate. been on a guilt trip lately?. …… JAY..

Posted by: JAY at March 22, 2006 2:18 AM
Comment #135217

phx8 help! the national academy of sciences reports that the next solar cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger, yet the american geophysical union reported the next solar maximum could be the smallest in 100 years. does that equate to. no 1 if the academy is right it is going to be very hot. or no 2 if the union is right it is going to be cold. any input?

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 22, 2006 3:08 AM
Comment #135242

RODNEY, that’s pretty poor sarcasm. The National Center for Atmospheric Research data which shows stronger solar cycles is based on a new computer model. It’ll be interesting to see how close their prediction is, but it’s irrelevant in a discussion of global warming founded on decades of empirical observations.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 22, 2006 9:58 AM
Comment #135267

ap. no it was not sarcasim. i just was looking for some information. i dont understsand why all the petty name calling. i present a question and someone has to make a cheap interpretation. unbelievable. is that how you would speak to a student

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 22, 2006 12:41 PM
Comment #135501

ap according to robert britt; incresed output from the sun might be to blame for 10 to 30 percent of global warming that has been measured in the past 20 + years. and a newer study by britt is noting a solar cycle needs to be included in climate models and it could account for some of the warming,so you should not totally dismiss it as irrelevant to global warming.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 23, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #135706


RGF and your attack the messenger mentality is quite the way of dealing with your objection to a article or post? your emotional dribble sounds like pure conjecture at best! not even worthy of the space it took up, quite honestly there is not one bit of intelligence in your post. it is a purely made up sarcastic nonsense and at best cheap fodder for the animals to eat and later regurgitate. been on a guilt trip lately?. …… JAY..

Actually, his objection is valid. The poster obviously brought up the topic of global warming just to mock it and the people who believe it’s relevant. Like many on the right, global warming denial has become a sacred mantra no matter what the evidence. He’s going to believe it’s a liberal hoax no matter what the facts are.
(Although at times I wonder whether conservatives might actually think there’s something to it, but refuse to say so because it would mean admitting they’re wrong, something neocons can’t do)

The post is also devoid of any logic. It doesn’t address the issue or deal with facts. His “logic” just says that because certain people are especially concerned with global warming (climate scientists, or as he calls them “environment ministers”), it follows that the issue is therefore irrelevant and won’t matter to the rest of us. So RGF is right, the post is intellectually empty and mocks an issue rather than address it. In other words, it’s a load of crap.

Posted by: mark at March 24, 2006 5:30 PM
Comment #135862

mark, i agree with your post. RGF hopefully will come back to watchblog. where everyones posts should be heard and counted.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 25, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #135887

Yeah, the whole thread (including the “poster” image about climate change) is just a pile of BS. Typical neo-conservative rant, devoid of any intelligent thinking or logic. It’s true, but I’m willing to listen if anyone can prove me wrong. The way neocons discuss issues is by attacking others, however since they’re usually wrong especially on issues like science, their attacks just get more and more empty and meaningless.

“…if you were the Minister of Handouts and Welfare payments then poverty would be the greatest threat to mankind.”
“if you are an ‘Environment Minister’, then global warming or whatever the latest environmental threat dejure is, will be the greatest threat to civilization since the mongol horde.”
The logic somehow eludes me. At the same time they push for their religion to become “science”, they want real science to be lowered to a religion. That’s where all the crap about the “church of Darwin” comes from.

Posted by: mark at March 25, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #135918

just a note dejure is spelled de jour. a blog is no excuse for bad grammar and spelling.

Posted by: spelling at March 26, 2006 5:42 AM
Comment #206695

Your report is a total hoax. Global Warming is an untrue theroy. In the global warming theroy the clouds are not to accounted for in model. The person who invented the global warming theroy was off on his tempurature prediction by 300%. Before you make another article like this you might want to check out this website:

Posted by: mary at February 5, 2007 11:18 AM
Comment #206696

YA GO MARY!!!!!!

the fish fly ast night

Posted by: maryly at February 5, 2007 11:19 AM
Post a comment