Billions will starve

Climate change deniers beware, as a result of your beliefs billions will starve! How do we know this? Because the UN says so.

Billions of people will suffer water shortages and the number of hungry will grow by hundreds of millions by 2080 as global temperatures rise, scientists warn in a new report.  ~breitbart.com
Billions.

The report estimates that between 1.1 billion and 3.2 billion people will be suffering from water scarcity problems by 2080 and between 200 million and 600 million more people will be going hungry.

The assessment is contained in a draft of a major international report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be released later this year, Australia's The Age newspaper said.  ~breitbart.com

Worse than the holocaust? You decide.

The good news though is that the hardest hit will be the poor. Seems rather counter-motivational though doesn't it? This report should stress that the rich polluting nations targeted by this report will suffer and starve. Saying that the world's poor nations will get hit hardest is like telling limosuine liberals that their tax increases will affect the middle class far more than themselves. They'd just laugh and demand even higher taxes.

The human and economic costs of climate change are likely to be highest in poor countries, with water shortages crippling many African nations and increased coastal flooding hitting low-lying countries such as Bangladesh and many Pacific islands, the report says.  ~breitbart.com
As long as I can still drive my SUV. And fly in my private jet.

To think that we may only have as little as 10 years to fix this.

If you're thinking that this sounds familiar you may be right. Predictions of doom are not new.
In 1968, Ehrlich said food shortages in India would kill 200 million people by 1980. In fact, by 1980, India was exporting surplus grain to Russia. ~thescotsman
Time will tell.

5 technorati tags:

Posted by Eric Simonson at January 31, 2007 12:06 AM
Comments
Comment #205955

One more tag: uber quote poster.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 31, 2007 8:46 AM
Comment #205958

Eric,

Erlich’s comments were those of one individual. The IPCC is the summary of the work of thousands of scientific researchers around the world.

Does that make a difference to you, or not?

Posted by: Steve K at January 31, 2007 9:06 AM
Comment #205962

Ehrlich said food shortages ‘population bomb’….

So science was already doing something about it: Bourlag and Dwarf wheat. Problem solved. Of course if people denied that there were going to be food shortages, and if Presidents Johnson and Nixon had manipulated science data like this president, there might not have been a solution.

Now let’s solve the climate change problem. Oh wait, there is no problem because Eric says so. I feel better.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 31, 2007 9:50 AM
Comment #205964

Just to point out a glaringly obvious fact, not that it will really be worth it—the article you cite does not say that billions will starve. It says that billions will experience water shortages and millions will be hungry. The report is not predicting billions of people dying of starvation, which is what the title of the article asserts. Yet another straw man by Eric.

Posted by: Brian Poole at January 31, 2007 10:12 AM
Comment #205967

Billion being 1000 time a million is a myth.

Mathematicians are pushing their own agenda to get bigger budget to fund their little pet research projects about numbers nobody knows about except themselves. That’s why they released scariest new numerical theories as much as they can.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 31, 2007 10:53 AM
Comment #205971

Eric, thank your doomsayers, they warn of consequences of inaction. The human race has the ability to alter consequences. Are you willing to pitch in to slow and diminish the climate change consequences?

I thought not!~ The doomsayers, myself being one, warned of what is happening in Iraq today. You and yours didn’t listen. It cost your party control in the Congress, the most ridiculed and untrusted Republican president since Nixon, and yet, you want to badmouth doomsayers?

Republicans prove you can’t teach old ideology and mindsets new tricks.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 31, 2007 11:10 AM
Comment #205972

Hmmm, I already thought there were lots of folks starving and without clean water…maybe it’s just me. Climate change combined with population growth and the resultant increases in polution…sounds reasonable to me. I tend to believe the weather man when he predicts rain when it’s already raining, but then you don’t have to be a weather man to know which way the wind blows…just don’t piss all over yourselves fighting clouds of fortune.

Posted by: gergle at January 31, 2007 11:14 AM
Comment #205978

gergle:

“I tend to believe the weather man when he predicts rain when it’s already raining, but then you don’t have to be a weather man to know which way the wind blows…just don’t piss all over yourselves fighting clouds of fortune.”

Classic. Sound reasoning. I agree.

Eric:

“The good news though is that the hardest hit will be the poor. Seems rather counter-motivational though doesn’t it? This report should stress that the rich polluting nations targeted by this report will suffer and starve. Saying that the world’s poor nations will get hit hardest is like telling limosuine liberals that their tax increases will affect the middle class far more than themselves. They’d just laugh and demand even higher taxes.”

Your reasoning seems a little backwards and distorted, not to mention your understanding of history. Hasn’t it always been liberals who have been the pragmatists when it comes to the poor? If you meant this in jest or as a joke, and I didn’t get it, I appologize.

“In 1968, Ehrlich said food shortages in India would kill 200 million people by 1980. In fact, by 1980, India was exporting surplus grain to Russia.”

India was able to export grain to Russia because they….wait for it……actually took action before the shortages got to epic proportions. An accepted prediction of a problem lead to a solution. Hmm, imagine that. Page forward. Many on this blog, including Jack, have been predicting water being the high end commodity of the future. He and others have sited hundreds of articles, most undisputed, that point out the various causes and needed action to stem the tide. Have you read and agree with any of them?

Friend, you need to pull your head out of the mud before it turns to sand.


Posted by: Chi Chi at January 31, 2007 12:21 PM
Comment #205980

Now I know I didn’t pay the closest attention in science class but I do remember the teacher saying that the climate changes in cycles. It’ll get colder, then warmer, then colder again. How do these so called UN scientist know that the climate aint just going through a warming cycle? And if the climate was getting colder would they be blaming that on the wealther nations too?
But then if the United Nations says so it has to be gospel truth.

Philippe
Billion being 1000 time a million is a myth.

Did you flunk math Philippe?


Posted by: Ron Brown at January 31, 2007 12:31 PM
Comment #205983

Gergle-

“…you don’t have to be a weather man to know which way the wind blows”

I just read that that particular Bob Dylan lyric is the most quoted song lyric in American jurisprudence. It has been cited almost 200 times in judicial opinions. Number two on the list is a Beatles lyric. Can’t remember which. But I find it hilarious that the day after reading that fact, you cited it.

I guess it is just a great and useful lyric.

re: topic at hand - Is it just me or is this thread just peculiar in that it is written at the same time that renown scientists are testifying in Washington that this white house has actively sought to keep good science out of the policy-creation process? My favorite so far has been the NASA scientist who talked about how the white house blatantly disseminated information that they knew had been proven wrong simply because it was the only way to support their bass-ackwards and two-faced environmental policies.

Just once I’d like to see the white house “experts” (ie. Dick Cheney, Dick Cheney, and more Dick Cheney) have to debate their stances directly with real experts. It’d probably be brutal and novel enough to warrant pay-per-view status. I know I’d pay.

Posted by: kevin23 at January 31, 2007 1:11 PM
Comment #205986

How do these so called UN scientist know that the climate aint just going through a warming cycle?

Ron Brown,

First, they are not UN scientists. They are scientists from governments around the world (including the Bush administration), as well as academic scientists and even scientists employed by private industry.

Second, the UN isn’t doing any actual research. The research is being done independently all over the world by the groups I described above.

Third, the IPCC is meeting to collect the many peer reviewed studies being done around the world, and reach a consensus statement on what the many different research studies say.

Fourth, you can read the US research yourself at http://www.nationalacademies.org/ or any number of other places, include the IPCC website http://www.ipcc.ch/which, oddly, Eric failed to provide a URL for, despite putting in quite a few others.

Or, you can call it all propaganda without reading it, as some people still do.

Posted by: Steve K at January 31, 2007 1:36 PM
Comment #205987

If global warming is a myth, but we reduce our dependence on carbon based fuels anyway, who loses?

It seems to me that the worst possible outcome of taking action now is reducing a “win/win” to only a “win”. Just horrible. How could we live with ourselves :-/

Posted by: KansasDem at January 31, 2007 1:40 PM
Comment #205993

KansasDem,

If global warming is a myth, but we reduce our dependence on carbon based fuels anyway, who loses?

The politicians. As I mentioned in another thread a few days ago, the global warming discussion is meant to take attention away from the environment.

Neither party in this country has any intention of doing anything substantial to protect the environment. If they take steps to reduce pollution, it will hurt them politically. So instead of discussing the problem, they argue about whether a symptom of the problem is actually happening.

As you pointed out, it really doesn’t matter if global warming is happening or not. But the parties have created a partisan debate to cover up their bi-partisan intention of doing nothing.

Global warming is not the issue. Protecting the environment is the issue, but many of us haven’t noticed the deception yet.

Posted by: TheTraveler at January 31, 2007 2:24 PM
Comment #205998

Ron Brown-
When people looked into climate science looking to find neat little patterns, what they found was a gap between theory and reality so great it reshaped science and spawned a new perspective on chaotic, complex and emergent systems.

Scientists describe our climate as metastable, which is what created the famous changes known as the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age. Thing to understand, though, was that the changes that prompted these differences were likely not that big. What happened, though, is comparable to pushing a rock on top of a hill off it’s perch- having overcome the resistance, other forces take over and make the effect runaway with itself until other forces limit them.

We’re outstripping most natural sources of atmospheric CO2, adding billions of tons of a gas that won’t be coming out of the atmosphere for the next 100,000 years.

Fact of the matter is, we’re not doing all this alone. We’re joining two centuries worth of intense carbon polluters in all this. While most of them are now gone, the CO2 they produced remains. With our massive energy and transportation needs, we’re contributing more than they could with their scarcer machines and lower populations. The evidence is showing that global warming isn’t something to come, but something that has been at work for quite some time now, albeit with less effect than it is now.

Trouble is, some people want to live in that clockwork universe of the 1800s, where everything simply ran in simple relationships of cause and effect. The world doesn’t work that way, and the challenge has been modelling how it really does work. As science becomes better able to do that, thanks to massively increased computing power, the results are converging rather than diverging from global warming’s predictions.

Global Warming doesn’t mean that natural cycles no longer operate. It means more that they will operate differently, that where temperatures might have fallen, they might find themselves dampened in their descent, held steady, or even pushed up against their influence.

Global Warming doesn’t mean winter’s going to be given a holiday. It might mean shorter winters, wetter and warmer ones, but it won’t mean that the arctic and other places won’t remain cold.

What could happen is the collapse of ice shelfs, as averages in certain places in the far north reach above the freezing mark for significant parts of the year. If Ice accumulates slower than it goes, well you’ve got a ice shelf collapse on your hands. One of the signs indicating that this is due to CO2 trapping more heat is the disproportionate rise in temperature in the subarctic and arctic regions; the atmosphere as a whole is holding in more heat from sunlight.

Don’t expect nice neat things from climate. This is an entangled world.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 31, 2007 3:24 PM
Comment #206000

TheTraveler,

One great loss would be news like this:

http://casperstartribune.net/articles/2007/01/31/news/regional/73accd7aaa6b800c87257273007184f2.txt

“Northern Utah’s valleys have been smothered by an “inversion,” a blanket of warm air that keeps cold air close to the ground and traps everything: car exhaust, factory emissions, even hard-to-see particles from furnaces or a cozy fireplace.”

“Together they form a cloudy shroud that has been described as soup, gunk, smog — and a few other titles that can’t be printed.”

It would be a shame to read a headline like:

“After Decades Of Conservation And Investment In Renewable Energy We Have Only Cleaner Air And Water To Show For The Trouble”

Posted by: KansasDem at January 31, 2007 3:38 PM
Comment #206004

And where, Eric, is your argument against the U.N. report? Once again, you simply point out a consensus view and laugh without a shred of counter evidence.

If you want to be taken seriously, write seriously.

Posted by: Trent at January 31, 2007 3:52 PM
Comment #206011

Well gee damn, lets all just junk our cars, quit keeping warm in the winter, tear down our houses, and move into caves. Even then some so called scientist will scream that we’re destroying the environment. And some fringe loons that don’t know how to think for themselves will fall for it.
I know that we’re polluting the air, water, and soil. And I’m for cleaning it up. But as far as destroying it I haven’t read or heard one thing that proves it. Just a bunch of fear mongering by those that want to control everyone’s lives.
I’ve talked to a scientist from the nearby college. He’s not on the lefts list of creditable scientist because he doesn’t buy into it’s ideology and agenda. He told me that while pollution is a problem, that there is no proof that it’s destroying the ozone. He says that while the ozone is thin in some places that the sun creates enough to repair the damage faster that CO2 destroys it. He also says that the thin spots move around and are soon repaired.
I don’t personally know how right or wrong he is but I’ll bet I’ll get told by at least 4 or 5 folks here that aint scientist that he’s full of crap.
I’m for cleaning up our environment. That’s one reason I’d like to see alternative fuels developed. I’d also like to see more advanced ways of treating waste water, disposing of garbage, nuclear waste, and other by products of the industrial age.
But until a study comes along that’s not following the lefts agenda that says we’re destroying the world I’m going to remain very skeptical.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 31, 2007 5:06 PM
Comment #206014

Ron Brown, I think you are mistaken. It is true that CO2 has little effect on O3(ozone) levels, the problem with the hole in the O3 layer was due to pollution from CFC’s (Chlorofluorocarbons) that catalyze a chemical reaction that breaks O3 into O2. The problem with CO2 is that it is a greenhouse gas. Infrared radiation that the sun sends to Earth is absorbed by the Earth and re-emitted to the atmosphere. In the atmosphere greenhouse gases such as H2O vapor, CO2 and CH4 (methane) absorb some of the re-emitted radiation and radiate it back to earth: this traps the heat like a blanket. It’s what keeps us alive, without the greenhouse effect earth on average would be 30-40 degrees C cooler. The problem is that all the CO2 we have dumped into the atmosphere is causing to much heat to become trapped than our planet was set up to. This causes average temperatures to rise, which in turn can cause an entire plethora of problems.

Posted by: Warren P at January 31, 2007 5:28 PM
Comment #206015

“If global warming is a myth, but we reduce our dependence on carbon based fuels anyway, who loses?” We all do. The amount we lose depends on the cost to meet the standards. Are you willing to pay 2 or 3 times what you pay now for the things you need and want?

I seriously don’t know if global warming is a myth or is real and I don’t have enough of a scientific knowledge to understand most of the debate. In situations like this I have to either rely on the experts or use common sense. Since both sides of the debate have experts that sound just as convincing as the other to me, I’ll rely on common sense which has done me pretty well for over half a century.

As I was growing up I was told by the scientific community that coffee was bad for you. I was told that PCBs caused deformed bird eggs. I was told that butter was bad, salt was good, etc,etc. How many of these and other predictions been debunked?

I’ve seen a lot of doom and gloom predictions and most have an AGENDA. Common sense tells me to wait for proof. I see a lot of speculation, but no proof.

I don’t know how much it will cost to clean the air enough to satisfy humanity, but it’s kind of like an old drag racing quote. “Speed costs….How fast do you want to go?”

Posted by: tomd at January 31, 2007 5:29 PM
Comment #206019

I attended a discussion/debate last night here in Portland, pro and con about global warming (gw) and its causes. both sides agreed that global warming was occurring but disagreed on the amount of the warming that was being caused by co2 emissions and natural cycles. the gw opponent made a couple of points worth mentioning,
-that there were papers published by respected scientists that cast doubt about the amount of gw caused by humans,
-that solar causes of gw have been largely overlooked and
-that proponents of gw have selectively used data to bolster their argument.

It made me realize that the issue of the amount of human caused gw is the only real argument left about climate change and it is only one item on a list of why we should be reducing our energy usage. a more complete list of why we should reduce our use of energy would be:
global warming
health issues, reducing pollution
energy security
national security

That’s four ways to win. How could we possibly lose?

Ps. Most of the problems facing the world today are a subset of one big problem: there’s too many people.

Posted by: charles Ross at January 31, 2007 5:39 PM
Comment #206021

Ron Brown-
Nobody’s suggesting we simply junk our cars, quit keeping warm, tear down our houses or move into caves.

What we’re suggesting is upgrading and replacing all that. Do you like having to pay for a bunch of gas all that often? Would you complain if you didn’t have to pay so much? Would you like cheaper light bills? Would you like to keep warmer on less energy? Efficiency is the aim. Why fight efficiency? Do you like wasting effort?

As for the scientist? You have not told us what his background is. If he’s telling you its the CO2 that’s damaging the ozone, he might not really know what he’s talking about, since it’s CFCs that are of concerned. You should clarify whether what you wrote him saying in that regard is a typo or not.

Another concern is that he may be talking outside of his field. The kind of scientist he is is important, because people specialize and deal with the research in one subject, while remaining largely ignorant of another. You shouldn’t expect an Astronomer to be aware of the research in microbiology, or a microbiologist to know what the latest theory on gamma ray bursters is.

The real problem here is that you’re concentrating on political agendas. That’s inclining you to look at what the scientists are doing in a partisan light, and that’s making it difficult for you to accept views that don’t fit what you find to be common sense.

Take it from me, there are many theories that work that have nothing to do with common sense.

tomd-
Coffee can be bad for you, PCBs can cause problems for all kinds of creatures, butter is full of saturated fats, which are no picnic for the heart, salt can be good in limited amounts, etc.

So much of the debunks are bad science themselves, from my experience. It often pays to take things in context, rather than count on just the individual facts provide by the media.

One example is when we hear of a gene for being fat or alcohol. Because of the way genetics work, it’s rarely so simple as being born destined to being fat or drunk. It can be a predisposition to such, one that the environment and one’s behavior acts on. It’s also worth noting that genes work together, that we develop from them in an emergent fashion, that is, not simply peaced together. It’s like molding concrete- you have to have the mix, the rebar, and the forms altogether for it to work. The result emerges from all the causes, not just one.

If you look at our history, you’ll find our ability to deal with pollution and other problems is similarly arranged. New technology can help us do this. But if we just stick around satisfied with the status quo, nothings going to happen. The Republicans are pampering the laggards at everybody else’s expense.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 31, 2007 6:02 PM
Comment #206022

Charles Ross-

First, I completely agree with your last statement. It is the nature of humans to think ourselves as big as the world. With every added person comes a smaller cage for us. There is certainly an equilibrium between benefiting ourselves from grand and global societies that trade and communicate and the competing interest of nurturing and maintaining an environment that is going to still be friendly and beneficial to us in the distant future.

There are some that claim we should get while the getting is good. They say that some global catastrophe is always possible, so why worry about it. Or they say God made them a mandate to exploit the world (funny how they didn’t get a mandate to be gay or abort an undeveloped fetus though). But these people are very pessimistic or dismissive of reality.

In my humble opinion, the pendulum has started to swing in the wrong direction for us.

Your “points worth mentioning” about global warming, however, are not fair. They are severely biased. To truly be valid as a counter argument, all three would rely on the logic that just because a specific exception to a general rule can be found, every other application of that general rule must also be wrong.

The reality is that the overwhelming majority (a disturbingly unbalanced amount) of the evidence shows that we are bringing about directly, or accelerating the rate of our own extinction from this planet. So unless you are one of those people who don’t care, you should agree that we should act in our best interests and take drastic action, right?

As for your “complete list” of considerations, they are ALL completely dependent upon our ability to survive, aren’t they?

My thoughts.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 31, 2007 6:05 PM
Comment #206025

I guess the point i was making is that many of those, who contend that current global warming is largely a natural phenomenon with a small human factor, and therefore no policy is needed regarding the warming, should fit all of that into the larger reasons/benefits of why we should reduce energy use.

and that, my friend, is one hell of sentence that barely holds together!!

Posted by: charles Ross at January 31, 2007 6:16 PM
Comment #206027

““If global warming is a myth, but we reduce our dependence on carbon based fuels anyway, who loses?” We all do. The amount we lose depends on the cost to meet the standards. Are you willing to pay 2 or 3 times what you pay now for the things you need and want?”

tomd,

Who said you’d have to? Carbon based fuels, especially petroleum, are very damn expensive when you factor in the military costs of defending our access to foreign oil. It not only costs us $$$$$$$$$$ but also blood!

You also miss a large part of my point on this: even if global warming is a myth we still win by limiting our dependence on foreign oil. The Traveler added the fact that our air and water would be cleaner and safer if we reduced our reliance on carbon based fuels.

I said best case scenario was “win/win”. I was wrong. The best case scenario is “win/win/win”.

Win #1: We slow or eliminate global warming.
Win #2: We eliminate our need for foreign oil (and stop bankrolling our enemies).
Win #3: We end up with a cleaner environment resulting in less illness such as childhood asthma, possibly some cancers, etc.

Is it worth buying the new enegy efficient light bulbs? They’re much more expensive but they cost you less each month and last much longer. I use them in every room where I use artificial light for more than a few minutes at a time. I think it’s probably a “break even” thing financially but it MAY help the environment.

Did I save money over the long run by upgrading my furnace? Given my age and health probably not but the kids might get a buck or two more out of this shack when I die. The heat bill went down nearly 40% so I’m definitely pumping less crap into the atmosphere and it’s much more comfortable in here.

Most of my energy saving efforts are cost neutral. The expense is offset by the savings. Such is the case of this solar laundromat:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14119553/

If that large of a laundromat can produce all of it’s hot water by solar energy then solar is a real alternative. So is wind turbine energy in some areas. With proper management and a responsible method of “waste” disposal there should be no objection to clean, safe nuclear energy.

Hells bells, we can do this, and then the whole damn middle east can either kiss us where the sun don’t shine or we’ll just say, “too bad, so sad”.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 31, 2007 6:36 PM
Comment #206029

Interesting discussion by many well-meaning folks. Every evening I listen to the local weather prognosticator. Sometimes he/she is accurate for the next few days and sometimes he/she misses the next days weather by a mile. These folks are using all the latest in weather detecting sensors and meteorolgical science. They use the National Weather Service. And, with all this, are seldom more than 50% accurate. Everyone has an agenda…even scientists. I certainly am an enviromentalist and my B.S. is in Natural Resource Management. With political will from both parties we can do much to clean up the environment with new technology…and we don’t need to give away our countries treasure to do it or join the ill-fated Koyota Agreement. Looking at the signatories to that agreement you will find many are already falling behind and will face huge economic penalties. I can not support any grandiose scheme that redistributes wealth from the U.S. to someone else. When both political parties in the country come together for the common good we will see results.

Posted by: Jim at January 31, 2007 6:51 PM
Comment #206030

Stephen
I’m all for improving the fuel efficiency of our vechiles, cleaner burning fuels, more efficient heating systems for our homes. And paying less for it. That’s why I’m for research in these areas.
But your so called scientist don’t support any of these. If all that happened tomorrow they’d still claim we’re destroying the environment.
The scientist I talked to is a meteorologist. He studies the relationship of weather patterns and pollution. Reckon he just might have a clue as to what’s going on with our environment? Or does he have to be a chemist or an environmentalist to know?
He did say CFCs. The CO2 was a typo on my part.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 31, 2007 7:00 PM
Comment #206032

Charles Ross-

There is no doubt that all relevant evidence should be given its due credit in the policy debate. Nothing is conclusive, and so that in and of itself should be reason to deliberate before involving government. And there are many other perfectly legitimate reasons to pull back the governmental reigns.

I would just argue that we’re well past the point of careful deliberation, and fast approaching the point of willing and reckless disregard for future human life. At this point, denying the human ties to global warming is at least equivalent to gambling in Vegas with the human race as your sole betting chip. We argue on the odds of the bet. Either way, the odds are against us.

The only real issue I see at this point is whether or not we are past the point of all hope. I really hope not, but I just don’t see countries like India, China, or Brazil taking effective action any time soon. Even if we do.

And let me just say that I am a big fan of the comma. I myself am predisposed to it. I respect anyone who has enough faith in my reading comprehension to put all their ideas in one sentence. I have no doubt that I’ll extend you the same courtesy sooner or later…if I haven’t already. =)

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 31, 2007 7:16 PM
Comment #206044

Once again the oligarchs have cranked up their propaganda machine with the sole purpose of casting doubt on climate change. As usual they target the gullible. I hope that some day these people will realize they have been fooled once to many times and wise up. That will be the end of right wing talk radio for one thing. I am probably too optimistic. There are still some that think the moon landing was staged in a studio.

Posted by: BillS at January 31, 2007 8:22 PM
Comment #206046

Ron Brown-
Who do you think is coming up with these thing, working on these things? The scientists, the engineers.

We are having destructive effects on our environment. Unfortunately, you’ve bought into a lot of the political and think-tank rhetoric about scientists. Folks aren’t merely doomsaying. They’re offering solutions if peoplea are willing to take them up. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who think they have something to lose from things changing, and they’ll say what it takes to get people to stick with their ventures.

You got to be careful when dealing with folks disputing scientific consensuses, because the door swings both ways. You can’t oppose an imperfect theory with just vague speculation, and say science is on your side. The argument on your side has to be better. Often the arguments on the GOP’s side are little better than pseudo-science, meant more to make people doubt the science at hand than illuminate the subject with a better explanation.

As for Ozone, it is being replaced faster than it’s being taken away. That’s only natural, since we still have an ozone layer. However, CFCs did mess with that equilibrium, pushing it towards depletion where the air currents brought it together with ozone in sufficient concentration. The Depletion isn’t a thinning in terms of concentration, but instead more of a thinning in depth. What the scientists measure when they say that Ozone is being depleted is the height of the column above a certain spot. The importance of the height is in the thickness of the shielding, if you will. The point is to have as much ozone getting in the way as you can, so you’re not the one absorbing the radiation instead.

As for the scientist? It all depends on which part of the atmosphere he concentrates his expertise on, and what his training is in. It also depends on what he was really telling you. Finally, there’s the trick that one scientist does not a scientific consensus make. As for whether people have agendas? It’s too easy to imagine agenda where they’re not, so I don’t tend to pay attention to such things unless they make themselves clear. I would say that a good scientists agenda is get to the truth, not to impose it. However, the approach used by many on the right is thin on facts and genuine detective work.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 31, 2007 8:52 PM
Comment #206049

I guess the best way I can approach this idea of separating policy from science is a personal story. I had testicular cancer @ twenty years ago and in the course of treatment someone tried to convince me that this and all cancers, could be cured through an all organic, low-fat, unprocessed food diet. When I brought this issue up to the doc. he, of course, said that the idea was ridiculous that diet could not possibly reverse ongoing testicular cancer BUT that such a diet would be, overall, very beneficial to my health!!!.
So . . . . I am less concerned with the science that backs the notion human activity fuels global warming and more concerned with policy that effects lower per capita use of energy.
For the record, I believe that human activity is the prime cause of global warming.

Posted by: charles Ross at January 31, 2007 9:31 PM
Comment #206058

tomd
I seriously dont know if global warming is a myth or reality. Common sense tells me to wait for proof.

Just out of curiousity, wont it be a little late then?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 31, 2007 10:22 PM
Comment #206060

Ah, David,

I’d be more understanding of your premise that Iraq lost Republicans congress if Democrats had actually run on Iraq as a national issue. But in reality Democrats won back congress because they ran conservative democrat candidates in conservative districts. The margin is still near enough to 50/50.

Are you willing to pitch in to slow and diminish the climate change consequences?

I don’t own any private jets, David. Nor do I own an SUV. And I’m not just saying I don’t own an SUV.

Posted by: eric simonson at January 31, 2007 10:29 PM
Comment #206061

Ron, What exactly is the lefts ideology and agenda that one has to buy into if they believe the scientist makeing the claims regarding the global warming issue?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 31, 2007 10:32 PM
Comment #206064

charles ross,

So … . I am less concerned with the science that backs the notion human activity fuels global warming and more concerned with policy that effects lower per capita use of energy.
For the record, I believe that human activity is the prime cause of global warming.

Sure, using less energy is a positive good. I’m all for it. But you’re missing some salient points here.

  • Human activity cannot be the sole factor in global warming. Because we know that climate change is variable with or without industrial civilization.
  • The global warming cause itself reeks of such obvious political propaganda that one cannot (and should not) accept every pronouncement of doom without a great deal of scepticism.
  • If the climate can change without humans being to blame then how has this first and most obvious theory been disproved in favor of humans being to blame?
  • Why do those most interested in curtailing the capitalist economic system seem most keen on making everyone believe that the environment demands a curtailment of the capitalist economic system? Coincidence?
Posted by: eric simonson at January 31, 2007 10:51 PM
Comment #206069

Trent:
“If you want to be taken seriously, write seriously.”

Propagandists aren’t interested in taking anything seriously, including writing.

eric:
“in reality Democrats won back congress because they ran conservative democrat candidates in conservative districts.”

In reality, Democrats are now a lot more conservative in many ways than are Republicans. The people know this, and it is why your party can only continue to fall into decline. Denying science is only one of the myriad ways the GOP has been losing the trust of average Americans.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 31, 2007 11:36 PM
Comment #206084

Eric-

That last post was really irresponsible and misleading.

“Human activity cannot be the sole factor in global warming. Because we know that climate change is variable with or without industrial civilization.”

The climate does vary. We cannot say which way it goes until it does. All sound research models take this into account. There is still an undeniable correlation between the rate of warming and industrial activity.

“The global warming cause itself reeks of such obvious political propaganda that one cannot (and should not) accept every pronouncement of doom without a great deal of scepticism.”

Most respected republicans do not deny global warming. You are exagerating, and you missed the boat. The real debate is over whether to trust and help businesses do it themselves through tax incentives, etc., or whether to require them to do it via legislation and regulation. The science is clear.

“If the climate can change without humans being to blame then how has this first and most obvious theory been disproved in favor of humans being to blame?”

Disproved? By showing a known part of the equation? Your logic is non-existent.

“Why do those most interested in curtailing the capitalist economic system seem most keen on making everyone believe that the environment demands a curtailment of the capitalist economic system? Coincidence?”

Do you have proof of this connection? I understand that liberals tend to want to put more of the burden on the businesses, but curtailing capitalism? That’s more than a bit extreme, don’t you think? Protecting the future from accelerated rising shorelines and increased frequency of extreme weather would be worthy of some governmental action. The data is there. It is overwhelming. There is no conspiracy.

I’m all about the minimalist government debate, but to deny this concern is legitimate or worthy at all is just crazy. Negligent at best.

Posted by: Kevin23 at February 1, 2007 1:27 AM
Comment #206085

Eric,

You really need to check out this site:

http://www.us-cap.org/index.asp

These are capitalist giants who favor environmental controls.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 1, 2007 1:48 AM
Comment #206094

This IPCC report was edited word by word by 500 government bureaucrats from all over the world before it was released. That’s 500 statists with a vested interest in gloom-and-doom. 500 statists with a vested interest in curtailing liberty.
The IPCC, being a UN agency, is itself a gathering of statists.
Global warming isn’t the first doomsday scenario and it won’t be the last.

Posted by: traveller at February 1, 2007 6:53 AM
Comment #206099

At this point I don’t accept global warming caused by humans to be a problem. I’m not willing to pay the price to clean the air to a level that the extremest want.

If you want my support, show me an UNBIASED report from someone knowledgeable WITHOUT an AGENDA.

Posted by: tomd at February 1, 2007 9:32 AM
Comment #206101

tomd,

Does the nearly unanimous, professional, peer reviewed research of the scientific community in the united states meet your definition of unbiased?

If not, I’d like to know just whom you consider “unbiased.”

Posted by: Steve K at February 1, 2007 10:38 AM
Comment #206102

tom,

I had a job interview where I was asked (paraphrased) “What would you do if, no matter what you did or showed, you had a client that refused to acknowledge or listen to the facts of a case and was going to go elsewhere?” Multiple choice answers were provided.
I picked (paraphrased) “Move on, as there are other customers to serve.” Some customers are lost causes.

Kevin stated the real issue quite succinctly:

The real debate is over whether to trust and help businesses do it themselves through tax incentives, etc., or whether to require them to do it via legislation and regulation. The science is clear.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 1, 2007 10:39 AM
Comment #206108

Ron Brown,

But until a study comes along that’s not following the lefts agenda that says we’re destroying the world I’m going to remain very skeptical.

Do you ever consider that, maybe, the so-called left agenda is just the one following the scientists studies results and warnings, not the reverse.

Do you ever answer why a huge worldwide scientists community will be following american left so-called agenda and this one?

Again, scientists discoveries and warnings came long *before* whatever politic agenda. As always.

tomd,

I’ve seen a lot of doom and gloom predictions and most have an AGENDA. Common sense tells me to wait for proof. I see a lot of speculation, but no proof.

Too bad Bush didn’t follow your advise in Iraq WMDs case.
How ironic some people’s common sense is to NOT wait for proof before acting to ravage a nation but *IS* to wait for proof before acting to slow or stop earth enviroment ravage!?

Double standard smoking gun.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at February 1, 2007 11:02 AM
Comment #206113

… will be following american left so-called agenda and ONLY their?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at February 1, 2007 11:26 AM
Comment #206114
Did you flunk math Philippe?

Of course.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at February 1, 2007 11:27 AM
Comment #206132

eric, tomh, the discussion i attended on global warming was extremely confusing, lots of charts and graphs, unexplained acronyms, and terms, the meaning of which i had not clue (the “north atlantic oscillator)? I went in convinced that global warming was human caused and came out not knowing what the hell i believed. I would say that both sides agreed that global warming was happening and that the human caused release of CO2 was a component of that warming. So global warming is occurring and human activity is part of the cause. This was not in dispute. What is disputed is how much of a role does human activity play. That’s the science part of the argument. Neither scientist would talk about policy.
As regards to policy, the “what should we do”, It may be useful to think of global warming to be a subset of a different problem. what i am suggesting is that it may not matter what percentage component human activity is because there are plenty of other reasons to curtail our use of energy.
If, tomh, you are worried about the cost of energy, you are going to be a very sad person during the next ten years, because it is very likely energy costs will be much, much higher over that span (20 $ Oil to 60 $ Oil in last five years, 60 $ oil to what? in the next five years).
We can tax that oil now (and use the proceeds to pay the true cost of oil, such as wars in the middle east), or we can wait, and transfer that same money and more, to foreign entities, many of whom are unfriendly to us.
there was an article recently about the internal needs of Iran (who I believe is the 3rd or 4th largest exporter of oil to the west). It estimated that by 2012, because of domestic needs (55 million people) their exports will be cut in half and that by 2015 they will have no oil available for export!!
Think about what all that means

Posted by: charles Ross at February 1, 2007 1:11 PM
Comment #206137

Philippe
I have no idea why except that like the liberal agenda they want to see the US destroyed.
The scientist I was talking about earlier is a friend of mine (yeah I have friends that are smart). He showed me something one time in his lab that made me very skeptical of scientist. Even him.
He made up a conclusion that he wanted to prove. Then he twisted the facts to fit that conclusion. He told me that’s what a lot of scientist are doing these days.
Now I don’t know how many of these scientist are doing that to prove global warming but just knowing that it most likely is happening makes me skeptical of their findings.
I do believe that CFCs are causing problems. And I believe that to much CO2 can cause problems. But I have a hard time believing that we’re going to destroy the world because of them.
I also know that for our own health and the health of future generations we need to clean up the environment. This is one reason I’m for cleaner alternative fuels, cleaner ways to produce electricity, heat our homes, finding ways to more efficiently treat waste water, deal with nuclear waste, as well as the tons of garbage produced every day.
Like my scientist friend said one time. Global warming can’t be 100% proved. But there is goop in our air and water, lets get rid of it. We’ll all be better off.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 1, 2007 1:53 PM
Comment #206139

He made up a conclusion that he wanted to prove. Then he twisted the facts to fit that conclusion. He told me that’s what a lot of scientist are doing these days.

Or, in the case of global warming, all of them are in on this conspiracy.

Posted by: bobo at February 1, 2007 2:00 PM
Comment #206157
He made up a conclusion that he wanted to prove. Then he twisted the facts to fit that conclusion. He told me that’s what a lot of scientist are doing these days. Now I don’t know how many of these scientist are doing thatybod to prove global warming but just knowing that it most likely is happening makes me skeptical of their findings.

Peer review didn’t happened in our friend demo, right? His demo is nothing scientific until his peers reviews his conclusion, reproduced his experience and failed to produce counter-examples.

All things that climate scientists does, following Science dogma.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at February 1, 2007 3:10 PM
Comment #206190

bobo
Or, in the case of global warming, all of them are in on this conspiracy.

Could be. There seems to be a lot of junk science out there that folks fall for hook line and sinker.


Philippe
He didn’t want his made up conclusion reviewed by anyone because he knew it was false. He did it to show me that it can be done. Basically what he did was twist the facts to prove that H2O isn’t water and C2O is.
He once submitted a paper challenging global warming and could even get anyone to even look at it. Everyone considered it junk just because it didn’t agree with mainstream thinking. If these guys were interested in getting to the truth of things don’t you think they would at least look at it? The decide to agree or disagree?
Don’t you think the first scientist that wrote on global warming was out of the mainstream way of thinking at the time?

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 1, 2007 4:48 PM
Comment #206192

Eric-
1)If you fail to set your parking brake on a hill, and your car rolls downhill, you could conceivably argue that your failure to set the brake was not the sole factor (gravity did most of the work), yet you would still be responsible for the people who that car ran over, the property destroyed, and the general disturbance of the peace.

The Global Climate has many natural forces within it pushing things towards being warmer, and towards being cooler. However, though carbon emissions are by no means the sole cause of global warming, the data and models suggest that it is a crucial force moving the climate towards warming.

2)The political propaganda has nothing to do with how or whether you accept scientific findings. As for whether global warming findings reflect obvious political propaganda, that’s a rather subjective matter in and of itself.

3)In the 90s, they found a chemical signature unique to human carbon emissions in the data. Additionally, we outrank a hell of a lot of other sources for carbon in the atmosphere(even volcanoes), and the rise in CO2 levels paralleling the industrialization of the world.

4)The economy exists to serve the public good. For the most part, letting the market and people’s free will decide things is acceptable, but that’s not always the case. Capitalism is a system that works, but it’s a system that works only under the rule of law. People can’t kill, can’t steal. We wouldn’t accept one person poisoning a water supply, why should it become okay when a collective of people does it?

We would not accept an army marching over our lands, destroying crops and property. Why should we accept an industry doing the same by not curtailing emissions, by not preventing the more radical changes that global warming could inflict on us if emissions aren’t curtailed?

What coincidence I find hard to believe is that all these scientific positions you and other conservatives support just happen to be the ones that let people continue to pollute and emit carbon as they already do. For some reason, all science in your opinion supports your status quo. How convenient.

You’re holding up a strawman and defeating it, but we’re more substantial and varied than that. In terms of scientific politics, don’t you think somebody would have come up with a better theory if that were the case?

You guys talk about exceptions all the time, but don’t do a damn thing to provide a solid alternate theory of equal or greater explanatory power. Everything seems tailored by some odd fortune towards supporting an industry position.

Our scientific results do not support global warming with the complete certainty that your claims support its absence. But that’s natural, since all scientific conclusions are tentative, and many scientific phenomena naturally difficult to pin down. It always puzzles me that your side can have its cake and eat it to, claiming that uncertainties poke holes in scientifice theories, while stating your opinions with dogmatic certainty. We can admit that science is uncertain, with consensus being that some kind of warming is in store for the future. We can admit that natural forces and cycles are a part of all this, and that we cannot predict with accuracy or precision the actual extent of the warming. We can admit what qualifies the theory, makes it uncertain. You folks? You start complaining the minute people doubt you that they have an agenda, or are being manipulated by folks that have it. You insist, with every argument you make pointing to that conclusion, that global warming either doesn’t exist, or that it’s not us causing it. You won’t even really admit the possibility.

Trouble is, it’s the same field. You cannot be so certain of the absence of global warming, because what makes the full extent of global warming an uncertainty conversely makes the full extent of its absence unknowable as well. The fact is, we can cause events that have a warming effect without being the sole cause. It’s like casting a metal statue. The mold by itself doesn’t make the casting. The metal by itself doesn’t make it. The furnace that heats the metal doesn’t do this by itself. It is only together that the statue is molded, with material, energy, and form brought together.

CO2 by itself doesn’t warm the atmosphere. That requires radiation, that requires distribution mechanisms, etc, etc. However, like the metal in the statue, the result is impossible without it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 1, 2007 4:55 PM
Comment #206201

There seems to be a lot of junk science out there that folks fall for hook line and sinker…Posted by: Ron Brown at February 1, 2007 04:48 PM

That was one of the best things I’ve heard here. Now if only some people could understand that that comment applies to Schiavo, ID, and Bush edited dogmadoodoo…

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 1, 2007 6:48 PM
Comment #206204

Stephen,

Excellent posts, as usual. The whole CFC-Ozone thing is a good example of liars figuring rather than figures lying. The way the ozone layer works is as follows:
(1) O2 + uv -> 2 O*
(2) O* + O2 -> O3
(3) O3 + O* -> 2 O2 + ir
(4) 2 O3 -> 3 O2 + ir

for those of you who can’t read chemical reactions, (1) says that oxygen absorbs ultraviolet light and splits to form 2 oxygen free redicals. (2) says that if an oxygen free radical runs into an oxygen molecule, it forms ozone. (3) and (4) are two ways that ozone can reform into oxygen, both produce infrared radiation.

The rates of the reactions depend on the relative concentrations of the reactants. If there is little or nor ozne and there is ultraviolet light, ozone will form. If there is a lot of ozone, it will degrade into oxygen. Where there is a lot of ultraviolet light (the equator) there will be a thick blanket of ozone. Where there is little or no ultraviolet light (the poles) there will be little or no ozone.

CFCs are a catalyst for the decomposition of ozone into oxygen. This is mostly a laboratory effect, however. As the CFCs “destroy” the ozone, the rate of ozone production increases and a new equalibirium (very slightly lower) ozone level will be achieved. A fairly high concentration (1 to 10 ppm) of CFCs are needed to reduce this significantly and that concentration level of CFCs are simply not found in the upper atnosphere.

The lab studies I’ve seen rarely include illuminating the chamber with ultraviolet light, so the CFCs rapidly decompose the ozone to extinction. Then the alarmists get ahold of the study and say that CFCs threaten the ozone layer!

The “destruction” of the ozone layer over the poles is simply a normal cycle caused by the tilt of the earth, fluctuations in the level of ultraviolet light, etc. There are studies going on now at the doctoral level to determine why the ozone layer is measurably smaller at the south pole rather than the north. It is safe to say, nobody really knows why at this time.

Posted by: Martian at February 1, 2007 6:59 PM
Comment #206207

Oops. I forgot to mention that if you look at the reaction equations, it is NOT the ozone that’s protecting us…it’s the O2!

While it is true (for those of you who are running to the internet to look it up) that ozone is more efficient at absorbing uv light, [O3 + uv -> O2 + O*], the bulk of the work is done by the O2, simply because there is so much more of it.

Posted by: Martian at February 1, 2007 7:04 PM
Comment #206210

Martian,

What is the explanation for the Russians finding that the size and duration of the ozone hole increased tremendously over their study period? My understanding was that there was a direct causation established to CFC’s.

And, “studies at the doctoral” level? What kind of phraseology is that?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 1, 2007 7:39 PM
Comment #206213

Martian-
If we were at 1 to 10 ppm we’d already be in trouble. As it is, We’re at about .4 ppm.

The trick with CFCs is that they are very stable in the lower atmosphere, so they stick around a long time.

The reason we’re seeing more of an effect now is that ice crystals in the stratospheric clouds act as surfaces for these reactions to take place.

Since this stuff accumulates, it’s only wise, whatever the level, to keep this kind of chemical release to a minimum. As with Carbon Dioxide, such trace changes in the atmosphere have profound effects, and their concentration accumulates a lot easier than it goes away.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 1, 2007 8:06 PM
Comment #206222

Ron Brown-
I hear the term “junk science” and I’m just waiting for somebody to give me an industry line.

That’s what they called research that showed that cigarettes were addictive and caused cancer. Now we know that not only did the companies know it was addictive, they even took steps to increase the likelihood of dependence. They knew what they were selling people.

People know what they’re selling you, as well.

Some people want you to believe that liberals want to destroy this country. Jeez, if somebody told you that you wanted to destroy your country, just how easy would it be to convince somebody that far gone in their opinion of you that you have no such intent? If you don’t deny it, you’re tacitly agreeing, and if you do, they just tell you you’re lying so you can advance your agenda. Same thing with calling something junk science. There’s a strong tendency among those people to accuse others of having a political agenda.

The argument sort of works like this: If you’re presenting your science according to a political agenda, then of course, you’re not doing real science, and you’re subject to the rules of political debate, rather than the more strict standards of science, which would require that the person disputing the theory put up or shut up on their end as to what’s really happening.

The claim of junk science, of political agendas is a means for those actually peddling the stuff to step in, drag down those doing real science, make science a matter of rhetorical rather than scientific debate, allowing their often shoddy work to overwhelm the good kind by sheer popular appeal. There’s just one problem with this, and it goes back to what your friend did.

Even if you juggle the names around, CO2 and H20 are difference substances, and anybody with the right training can distinguish them. No matter what you call it, CO2 is a gas at sea level atmospheric pressure and room temperature. Freeze it, at it’s much lower freezing point, and it becomes a solid. Heat that solid and it sublimates, directly heading to the gaseous state rather than melting into a liquid.

The physical properties would show him up. Reality puts the brakes on faulty claims. The whole point of the scientific method is to do just that.

Some people are suggesting that peer pressure and political pressure are responsible for the consensus that says that the world is warming and human-originated carbon dioxide emissions are a cause of that. Well, once they start saying that, of course, they make out any affirmation to be politically motivated. The one thing they could do to get in the way of things, that is, to work out a better theory, they don’t do. They just simply maintain that the old sensibility about climate are right.

However, the evidence from the very cycles many contrarians pose as an explanation is that climate can be influenced by relatively small factors. It’s like my rock example a few comments back: once you’ve done a little pushing, gravity and the stone’s mass do the rest of the job. The atmosphere is so complex, that one really doesn’t need much brute force to do things. the engines of heat exchange and distribution in our climate do the rest.

For example, once you start melting the reflective ice, the dark land absorbs more heat, which melts more ice, which- well, you get the idea- scientists call that positive feedback the effect feeds back into the cause in a way that increases the force of the cause. A fire burns, gives off heat, which ignites more fuel, which gives off more heat and so on and so forth.

Of course, it can go the other way. The famous example is the collapse of the Thermohaline conveyor in the North Atlantic. End that flow of warm water to Europe, and you could see an the effects of cold up there assert themselves on that continent. (some folks neglect to mention that the last time they think this happened, the source of this cold water was the Laurentide Ice sheet dominating Canada at the time!)

All that said, it’s difficult to impossible to roll back the effects of what we do if global warming is indeed as bad as the scientists are saying. The worst that can happen if we lower carbon emissions is that we 1) learn to be more energy efficient, getting more bang for our buck, 2)ween ourselves off of an energy source that has caused us a great deal of grief, both literally and figuratively. If it’s right, though, we have our chance now to avoid some really bad consequences that could swallow all that we gain from our little experiment in climate control.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 1, 2007 9:07 PM
Comment #206285

Ron Brown,

He didn’t want his made up conclusion reviewed by anyone because he knew it was false. He did it to show me that it can be done.

But he stops right before the scientific due process should had started: peers review.

My point is that climate scientists that are twisting facts to play fine with their *agenda* the same scientific process will debunked them.
AFAIK, the only ones that were debunked wasn’t supporting global warming *agenda*, quite the contrary.

He once submitted a paper challenging global warming and could even get anyone to even look at it.

If litteraly, it’s bad and un-scientific attitude, indeed. He should submit it again and again, backing its conclusion with more and more data materials. If he really got a point, one day his peers in the field will finally review it scientifically.

Everyone considered it junk just because it didn’t agree with mainstream thinking. If these guys were interested in getting to the truth of things don’t you think they would at least look at it? The decide to agree or disagree? Don’t you think the first scientist that wrote on global warming was out of the mainstream way of thinking at the time?

All good points, I agree.
We should remember in past when all scientists were thinking Earth was flat, indeed.
It very important that the climate experts community explore all theories, even the one contrary to the mainstream one.
Being doubtfull is important. We could always knows better.

Doesn’t make automagically a majority (80%) of worldwide climate experts all members of some “lefty” conspiracy, thought.
They just happened to be a majority of them agreeing in the human-made contribution to world climate and in global warming theory.
Until they could be proven wrong. Or right.

Let’s prepare to face the worst latter, meanwhile…
If we find out they were wrong in the ends, we’ll have lost less than in the opposite scenario (they were right, we did nothing).

Sure, you could bet on the cheaper scenario: they were wrong, we did nothing.

I wont. I refuse to bet on my kids future.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at February 2, 2007 9:06 AM
Comment #206308

The American Enterprise Institute is offering $10,000 apiece to do articles that emphasize the shortcomings of the latest IPCC report.

I think it’s equally significant that these people both offered scientists and economists this, and that they felt they had to.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 2, 2007 11:06 AM
Comment #206316

The AEI is among the worst examples of intellectual whoring the world has to offer.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 2, 2007 11:37 AM
Comment #206395

Dave-
Kevin Drum advises that they should hold out for at least 50,000.

;-)

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 2, 2007 5:49 PM
Comment #206415

Philippe
He didn’t need to go further. He’d proven his point to me. And if he did don’t ya think he would’ve lost a lot of credibility with the scientific community? Most consider him a fringe loony now because he doesn’t always agree with everything they come up with.
BTW, In case your thinking my friend is some right wing nut or something, your wrong. He’s a libertarian. Which in my book makes him liberal.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 2, 2007 7:59 PM
Comment #206420

Libertarians are to Liberals as
Adolph Hitler is to Bill Clinton

Remember that for the next SAT test.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 2, 2007 9:52 PM
Comment #206496

Dave1-
Ah! One in the same huh.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 3, 2007 4:26 PM
Comment #206679

Good come back, left myself open for that one!
Perhaps I should have compared Barry Goldwater and Willie…

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 5, 2007 9:26 AM
Comment #206933

Tell me again. Why would you believe a report from the UN?

Posted by: Bob at February 7, 2007 10:52 AM
Comment #207038

Ah, the UN! The same agency that stopped genicode in Rwanda, monitored North Korea so they could not develope a nuclear weapon and now knows all about global warming.

they are about as efficent as government housing, honest as the welfare system and food stamps, as fulling as public education, and now they are experts on the environment.

I can rest nights knowing they are watching out for us.

Now if they would pay their parking tickets we could retire the national debt.

what a bunch of losers. they cannot feed their on countries but know what is best for us.


Posted by: im at February 7, 2007 5:57 PM
Post a comment