Global Warming: Fact, Fiction and Political Endgame

Carl Spitzer cwsiv_2nd at HOTPOP.COM
Sat Nov 3 09:50:05 MDT 2007


 



Mark Alexander
>>From Patriot Post Vol. 07 No. 08; Published 17 September 2007 | Print
Print Email Email PDF PDF

Gore preaching from the pulpit of eco-theology
(EDITOR'S NOTE: This comprehensive summary of global climate change
issues and trends is updated regularly with new information. If you have
suggestions for additions to or clarifications of this essay, send a
message to GlobalClimate[at]PatriotPost.US) 

Global Alarmist Albert Gore -- Consummate Hypocrite

"Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the
greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to
the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants." --Alexander
Hamilton

Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Albert Arnold Gore, was the toast of
Hollywood at the self-congratulatory soiree known as the 2007 Academy
Awards.

Gore, whose failure to carry his "home" state of Tennessee cost him the
2000 presidential election, has recast himself as the populist potentate
of eco-theology and the titular head of the green movement's
developmentally arrested legions -- the gullible warming Gorons -- who
adhere to every word of Gore's bible, Earth in the Balance.

Being the darling of Leftcoast glitterati, predictably, Gore received
two Oscars for his junk-science production called "An Inconvenient
Truth," a pseudo-documentary follow-up from the eco-disaster fiction,
"The Day After Tomorrow." Gore's "Truth," however, is about 10 percent
substance and 90 percent fragrance.

"The Academy Awards have gone green," said Gore, after collecting his
Oscars -- maybe a thin coat of green over a thick base of red when it
comes to this "useful idiot".

Ever the consummate hypocrite, Gore claimed that he and wife, Tipper,
"live a carbon-neutral lifestyle." 

Well, perhaps if you don't count all the fuel burned by his private jet
travels and limo deliveries. One of Gore's exclusive mansions, according
to a recent utility report, uses 20 times the electrical energy consumed
by the average household, but who is counting. 

(Sidebar: At least Gore's son, Albert III, is true to his word. When he
was stopped by police (his third high-speed, drug toting arrest) just
before the elder Gore's Live Earth concerts began, he may have been
traveling 100mph but he was doing it in his fuel-efficient Toyota Prius
hybrid. Unfortunately, Al III was fueled up on marijuana, and had in his
possession various prescription drugs -- Valium, Xanax, Vicodin,
Adderall and Soma -- all without prescriptions. Fruit does not fall far
from the tree.) 

The awards for Gore's climate diatribe coincided, not coincidentally,
with the much-ballyhooed release of a media summary of a report on
global warming by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
which stated, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged
temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas
concentrations." (That's "very likely".) 

These two events are a launch pad for the coming cavalcade of dire
ecological predictions by Gore and his ilk. Their goal will be to
saturate the all-too-sympathetic media outlets with apocalyptic
hysterics about a man-made global disaster. 

All of Gore's "Live Earth" road-show talking points played up an
alarming assertion: "Never before has all of civilization been
threatened. We have everything we need to save it, with the possible
exception of political will. But political will is a renewable
resource."

If all goes according to plan, we'll likely see another Gore
presidential run.

To be sure, there is "no controlling legal authority" for this, the
biggest political and economic power grab in history. The Left's desire
to hamstring the U.S. economy and force worldwide Kyoto Treaty
compliance will, according to one United Nations estimate, cost the
world economy $553 trillion this century.

Al Gore may be a comical dupe when it comes to climatology (in college,
he collected a C+ and a D in his two natural-sciences courses), but the
global-warming debate and the consequences of that debate are serious.
To participate meaningfully, one must distinguish between fact and
fiction -- in addition to understanding the underlying political
agendas.

In the inimitable words of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY),
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." To
that end, Al Gore's "facts" are deserving of rigorous scrutiny.

Separating Fact from Fiction

First, let's be clear that the current debate about "global warming" is
important, but is not synonymous with the debate about the environmental
consequences of the "greenhouse effect". The latter issue concerns the
consequential relationship between man-made CO2 in the atmosphere and
global temperatures.

For the record, most reputable scientists agree that we are in a period
of gradual global warming (about 0.7 degrees Celsius in the last
century), and that the greenhouse effect prevents our climate from
becoming a deep freeze. Most also agree that the level of CO2, including
manmade CO2, in the atmosphere has increased in the last century, and
that global warming is due, in some part, to the greenhouse effect.

However, there is no scientifically established correlation between
global-warming trends and acceleration of the greenhouse effect due to
human production of CO2 -- only broad speculation. 

Although Gore and his media shills insist that the primary cause of
global warming is the burning of hydrocarbons here in the United States,
that government regulation of man-made CO2 will curb this global
warming, that our failure to limit CO2 output will have dire
consequences, and that the costs of enacting these limitations far
outweigh the potential consequences, there is no evidence supporting any
of these assertions.

CO2 -- The Global Carbon Cycle

Carbon dioxide is a chemical compound with one carbon and two oxygen
atoms. It is a major component of the carbon cycle -- the exchange of
carbon between the biosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere. CO2
is one of the greenhouse gases associated with the "greenhouse effect.".
The Earth absorbs about 70 percent of the Sun's radiant energy and
reflects 30 percent. As greenhouse gasses increase, less of the radiant
energy is reflected, with a corresponding increase in global
temperatures.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide comes from many natural sources including
volcanic outgassing, reactions between the atmosphere and oceans, the
combustion of organic matter, and the respiration processes of living
aerobic organisms including microorganisms. Man-made sources of carbon
dioxide derive primarily from the burning of fossil fuels.

All greenhouse gases comprise only three percent of the Earth's
atmosphere by volume. Of that three percent, water vapor is estimated to
cause up to 70 percent of the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide up to 20
percent, and methane, nitrous oxide and ozone cause the balance, but
these causal estimates are very difficult to accurately document.

All plants depend on CO2, consume it from the atmosphere and convert it
to oxygen during photosynthesis, then respirate it back into the
atmosphere. Thus the invention of so-called "Carbon Credits" which can
be sold by green-space developers and farmers as offsets to CO2
producing industries. 

In 2007, the Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration was estimated to be
0.038 percent by volume (383 ppmv -- 100ppmv higher than a century ago).
It is estimated that anthropogenic (manmade) CO2 accounts for less than
2.8 percent  (.001 percent by volume) of atmospheric CO2, though given
the difficulty in assessing the amount of CO2 produced and consumed
naturally in the carbon cycle, the percentage identified as manmade CO2
is only an estimate and may be a much smaller percentage. 

Fact is, it is impossible to say with any degree of accuracy how much
CO2 is produced or consumed in the natural carbon cycle and any estimate
of the manmade percentage is highly questionable. Thus, asserting that a
(Kyoto Treaty mandated) 5 percent reduction in the 2.8 percent
(estimate) of manmade CO2 in the 3 percent of greenhouse gasses in the
atmosphere will have any measurable effect on global climate, is dubious
at best. 

Case in point: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii has maintained the world's longest
continuous worldwide record of atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels --
those cited by global-warming alarmists. In 2002 and 2003, NOAA recorded
increases in atmospheric CO2 of 2.43 and 2.30 ppm respectively -- a 55
percent increase over the annual average increase of 1.5 ppm for
previous years. In 2004, however, this increase fell back to 1.5 ppm per
year.

So, should one conclude that in 03 and 04, human production of CO2
increased 50 percent? Could there be greater forces in the carbon cycle
involved? We would suggest the latter. 

Notably, according to the Energy Information Administration, U.S. CO2
emissions dropped 1.3 percent in 2006 while the U.S. economy grew 3.3
percent. This is the first drop in U.S. emissions in a period of
economic growth since 1990.

Gore's "Scientific Consensus"

Albert Gore claims, "I've been trying to deliver this message for 30
years. The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never
been stronger. Unless we act boldly, our world will undergo a string of
terrible catastrophes. Of course, there will always be questions around
the edges of the science..." 

Yeah, fringe inquiries like "Is the Earth really the center of the
universe?" and "Is the Earth really flat?"

Despite Gore's claims, there is a growing body of peer-reviewed studies
challenging conventional global warming assumptions. 

A 2007 analysis of peer-reviewed scientific literature reveals that more
than 500 scientists have published studies contesting one or more of
Gore's apocalyptic prognosis. In fact, more than 300 of those scientists
reported evidence that normal 1,500-year climate cycles since the last
Ice Age have produced more than a dozen global warming trends similar to
the current trend, and that current warming trends are strongly linked
to variances in the Sun's irradiance. These variances occur because the
Earth's orbit around the Sun varies from a round to elliptical shape
cyclically. 

Dennis Avery, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, concludes, "This
data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a
scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global
temperature increases since 1850."

Benjamin Peiser, who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, an Internet
newsletter on climate change, notes, "Hardly a week goes by without a
new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate
change theory." 

While more skeptics are going on record, the media has ignored
dissenting views, with some notable exceptions like the UK's public
broadcasting Channel 4 network, which produced a remarkable documentary
titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle,". 

The producers of The Great Global Warming Swindle have made many science
documentaries before, and note that what they found most shocking when
researching and making this documentary, was the weakness of the case
for man-made global warming, and the quantity and quality of the
evidence contradicting it.

Of course, it has not been broadcast by any of the U.S. networks. 

The documentary features distinguished scientists from MIT and other
major universities around the world. Notably, some of the scientists
interviewed are among those whose names were included in the UN's
much-touted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but whose
contrarian views were not published.

Notable Dissenters

Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist notes, "When politicians
and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled,
they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works."

In fact, there remains substantial doubt that the production of CO2 by
human enterprise has any real impact on global temperature, and if it
does, that such impact is, necessarily, negative. Human activity may
contribute a maximum estimate of three percent of CO2 to the natural
carbon cycle (the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged
between the biosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere of the
Earth), but there is broad dispute about the total production of CO2
from natural sources, which is to say the human contribution may be a
much smaller percentage. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from
about 315 parts per million five decades ago, to about 380 ppm today,
which is to say, there are major factors influencing the amount of CO2
levels in the atmosphere besides our burning of hydrocarbons.

Case in point: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii has maintained the world's longest
continuous worldwide record of atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels --
those cited by global-warming alarmists. In 2002 and 2003, NOAA recorded
increases in atmospheric CO2 of 2.43 and 2.30 ppm respectively -- a 55
percent increase over the annual average of 1.5 ppm for previous years.
In 2004, however, this increase fell back to 1.5 ppm per year.

Did human industrial output somehow increase 55 percent during those two
years, and then decline by that amount in 2004? Of course not. For the
record, NOAA concluded that the fluctuation was caused by the natural
processes that contribute and remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Al Gore would be hard-pressed to explain NOAA's findings within the
context of his apocalyptic thesis, and he would be hard-pressed to
convince any serious scientists that his Orwellian solutions could
correct such fluctuations. This is because his thesis is based largely
on convenient half-truths.

For instance, Gore insists that the increased incidence of hurricanes,
tornadoes, drought and other weather phenomena is the direct result of
global warming.

Renowned meteorologist Dr. William Gray takes exception: "The degree to
which you believe global warming is causing major hurricanes," he says,
"is inversely proportional to your knowledge about these storms."

In a recent issue of Discover Magazine, Gray, described by Discover's
editors as one of "the world's most famous hurricane experts," wrote,
"This human-induced global-warming thing ... is grossly exaggerated. ...
I'm not disputing there has been global warming. There was a lot of
global warming in the 1930s and '40s, and then there was global cooling
in the middle '40s to the early '70s. Nearly all of my colleagues who
have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical ... about this
global-warming thing. But no one asks us."

Gore preaches about the two percent of Antarctica that is warming
without noting that temperature readings over the rest of Antarctica
indicate the continent has cooled over the previous 35 years, or that
the UN's climate panel estimates net snow mass increases in Antarctica
this century. Gore notes the increasing temperatures and shrinking ice
caps in the Northern Hemisphere but does not note the decreasing
temperatures and increased sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere.

Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT,
characterized Gore's assertions as "shrill alarmism." Lindzen writes, "A
general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore
the fact that the Earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always
changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as
something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear
is much worse."

Perhaps worse still is Gore's intellectual cowardice. During his visit
to Europe in January, Gore agreed to an interview with Denmark's largest
national newspaper, Jyllands-Posten. Then, when he learned that Bjorn
Lomborg, one of the world's leading critics of eco-theological dogma,
was also going to be interviewed, Gore abruptly canceled.

Lomborg, a statistician, has delved deep into the data to expose the
environmental movement's selective and oft-misleading use of evidence.
His book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was hailed by Washington Post
Book World as "a magnificent achievement" and "the most significant work
on the environment since the appearance of its polar opposite, Rachel
Carson's Silent Spring, in 1962." 

Dr. Lomborg writes, "Climate change is a real and serious problem," but
adds, "The cacophony of screaming, does not help." 

Perhaps a thoughtful debate is what scares Al Gore most of all.

Regarding "Inconvenient Truth," Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus
professor of geology at Western Washington University, said, in a speech
to hundreds of scientists at the annual meeting of the Geological
Society of America "There are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we
are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data."

Environmental scientist Fred Singer, adjunct scholar with the National
Center for Policy Analysis and professor emeritus of Environmental
Science at the University of Virginia, writes, "It is sheer fantasy to
suggest that a huge number of scientists with expertise in global
climate change endorse an alarming interpretation of the recent climate
data. The Earth continually warms and cools. The cycle is undeniable,
ancient, often abrupt and global. It is also unstoppable. Isotopes in
the ice and sediment cores, ancient tree rings and stalagmites tell us
it is linked to small changes in the irradiance of the Sun."

Singer adds, "Any warming from the growth of greenhouse gases is likely
to be minor, difficult to detect above the natural fluctuations of the
climate, and therefore inconsequential."

Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist, laments, "Nowhere does Mr. Gore
tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall
within the natural range of environmental change on our planet, nor does
he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed
discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change."

Indeed, from A.D. 900 to 1300, the Earth's temperatures were
substantially warmer than today. When the Vikings settled in Greenland,
it was mostly green, not covered with ice as it is today. 

Regarding the current warming trend, Reid Bryson, founding chairman of
the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, sternly
notes, "Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s,
before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little
Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air."

Scientists from related fields are also checking in. 

Paul Reiter, director of the infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur
Institute in Paris, says Gore assertion that global warming is a factor
in the spread of disease, is nonsense. "For 12 years, my colleagues and
I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims. We have done the
studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the
facts."

As for Gore's alarmist agenda, Robert Giegengack, chairman of the
University of Pennsylvania's Department of Earth and Environmental
Science, does not consider global warming to be among the top 10
environmental problems. "In terms of [global warming's] capacity to
cause the human species harm, I don't think it makes it into the top 10"
says Giegengack. "Gore's claims that temperature increases solely
because more CO2 in the atmosphere traps the Sun's heat. That's just
wrong. It's a natural interplay. As temperature rises, CO2 rises, and
vice versa. It's hard for us to say CO2 drives temperature. It's easier
to say temperature drives CO2."

Former Harvard physicist Lubos Motl say's that Gore's tactics are
tantamount to "playing the children's game to scare each other."

Dr. Roy Spencer, former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's
Marshall Space Flight Center, has some additional "Questions for Al
Gore" based on what he calls "Gore's Inconvenient Truth." We are still
awaiting Gore's reply...

Climate Modeling

The computer models cited by Gore and company are outcome-based,
depending on how a programmer varies some of the five million input
parameters or the multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the
program. 

Scott Armstrong is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's
Wharton School and one of the world's foremost experts on long-range
forecasting. He is author of "Long-Range Forecasting," the most
frequently cited book on forecasting methodology. 

Armstrong and Kesten Green of Australia's Monash University examined the
IPCC's report, and, at the 27th Annual International Symposium on
Forecasting, they concluded, "Claims that the Earth will get warmer have
no more credence than saying that it will get colder."

Armstrong bet Gore $10,000 that he could provide a better climate
forecast than that of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, which Gore cites regularly. "The methodology was so poor that I
thought a bet based on complete ignorance of the climate could do
better," said Armstrong. "We call it 'the naive model'." 

Gore's office replied, "Please understand that Mr. Gore is not taking on
any new projects at this time." 

Correcting the Record

Most of the evidence concerning U.S. temperature trends is collected by
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, which gathers information from
about 1,200 weather-observation stations across the nation. These
stations are small wooden sheds with thermometers, which are read at
intervals, mostly by volunteers. Many are located in sprawling urban and
industrial centers, known as "heat islands," and are subject to higher
readings than stations in rural areas where temperatures are subject
mostly to "land use effects." 

Most of the recent global-warming alarmists use 1998 as the benchmark
for the hottest year on record, but it turns out that their reporting is
flawed, the result of a math blunder. 

In fact, 1934 was the hottest year on record, and four of the ten
hottest years in the U.S. were recorded in the 1930s. The second hottest
year on record was 1998, but the third hottest was 1921, not 2006.
Notably, six of the ten hottest years occurred prior to 90 percent of
the economic growth associated with increased greenhouse gas emissions.

H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy
Analysis, reports, "Much of the current global-warming fear has been
driven by [NASA scientist James] Hansen's pronouncements, and he
routinely claims to have been censored by the Bush administration for
his views on warming. Now that NASA, without fanfare, has cleaned up his
mess, Hansen has been silent -- I guess we can chalk this up to
self-censorship."

Influences on Global Climate

Beyond the natural carbon cycle and greenhouse warming, there are some
other serious causal explanations for global warming.

Among the leading suspects are, of all things, the Sun and its fellow
stars. A venerable scientific journal, Proceedings of the Royal Society,
published recent research done at the Danish National Space Center
indicating that the impact of cosmic rays on the climate could be much
greater than scientists estimated. The researchers put forth evidence
that cosmic rays have a lot to do with cloud formation in the
atmosphere, which in turn has a lot to do with shielding us from the
Sun's warmth. Combining this discovery with evidence that our local star
is experiencing historically high levels of solar activity, the
researchers suggest that our Sun is batting away cosmic rays from
elsewhere in the galaxy and thus reducing our planet's cloud cover.
Imagine that: The Sun is affecting our planet's temperature.

Nigel Calder provides another angle on this thesis: "After becoming much
more active during the 20th century, the Sun now stands at a high but
roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible
global cooling, should the Sun revert to the lazier mood it was in
during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago. Climate history and related
archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis."

Research concerning cosmic radiation as a factor in global warming
builds on earlier comprehensive research done a decade ago by the Oregon
Institute of Science and Medicine's Arthur Robinson, whose research
soundly refutes Gore's thesis that global warming is human-induced,
noting the relationship between the solar magnetic cycle and global
temperatures over the last 250 years.

In 1997, Dr. Frederick Seitz past president of the National Academy of
Sciences, invited colleagues to sign a petition based on Robinson's
work, which received more than 20,000 signers, most of whom hold
advanced degrees in relevant fields of study. That petition stated, in
part: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of
carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will,
in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's
atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is
substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon
dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and
animal environments of the Earth."

Some other global-warming factors being given serious scientific
consideration include changing ocean currents and jet-stream patterns,
fluctuations in the Earth's mantle affecting ocean temperatures, and the
fact that warming temperatures may cause increased CO2 -- not the other
way around. Of course, the primary long-cycle variance in the Earth's
temperature is the direct result of its orbit around the Sun, with
varies from a round to elliptical shape. When the Earth is in the
elliptical orbit, meaning further away from the Sun for much of the
year, Ice Ages occur. 

In the winter of 2007, NASA satellites indicated that water temperatures
in the Gulf of Alaska were dropping, suggesting that cooling Pacific
waters may be a precursor to the reversal of a 30-year warming trend.
The cooling resulted in the coldest season of Arctic air the lower 48
have seen in more than three decades.

Australian scientists have discovered a giant underwater current that is
one of the last missing links of a system that connects the world's
oceans and helps govern global climate. New research shows that a
current sweeping past Australia's southern island of Tasmania toward the
South Atlantic is a previously undetected part of the world climate
system's engine room. 

This, of course, raises an all-important question: How can the climate
debate be "settled" if we still don't know what we don't know?

The Warming Solar System

As it turns out, there are some other planets in our solar system which
are experiencing global warming -- and these planets don't have SUVs. 

Mars is getting hotter. NASA scientist Lori Fenton reports that the Red
Planet has warmed by around one-half degree Celsius in the last three
decades, which likely contributes to the retreat of Mars's southern
polar ice cap.

According to Habibullo Abdussamatov, director of space research at St.
Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, "The long-term
increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars. Man-made
greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on
Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar
irradiance."

On Neptune, MIT researchers say that planet's largest moon, Triton, has
heated up significantly since 1989, when the Voyager space probe sent
back readings from the planet. Astronomer James Elliot and colleagues
from MIT, Lowell Observatory and Williams College report, "At least
since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming.
Percentage-wise, it's a very large increase."

Imke de Pater and Philip Marcus of the University of California,
Berkeley, report that Jupiter is growing a new red spot. "The storm is
growing in altitude," de Pater says, which indicates a temperature
increase in that region. The researchers think that, near term, the
temperature on Jupiter may increase six degrees Celsius in large areas.

University of Hawaii astronomer David Tholen and his colleagues report
that even though Pluto was closer to the Sun in 1989, they are not
surprised by a warming that began this year. "It takes time for
materials to warm up and cool off, which is why the hottest part of the
day on Earth is usually around 2 or 3 p.m. rather than local noon,"
Tholen said. "This warming trend on Pluto could easily last for another
13 years." They predict Pluto's temperature will rise two degrees
Celsius before its next cooling trend.

Media Climate Prognosticators

Environmental scientist Fred Singer, adjunct scholar with the National
Center for Policy Analysis and professor emeritus of Environmental
Science at the University of Virginia, writes, "Mainstream journalists
have long since committed themselves to the environmental cause. It
appeals to their sense of superiority, and it gives them an unending
source of scary news for front pages and TV sound bites."

Typical of such arrogance was an August 07 cover from the weekly tabloid
Newsweek a stupefyingly nescient cover story featuring a spectacular
photo of the Sun, with the large caption "Global Warming Is A Hoax.*"
And what of that asterisk? In small print, the cover smugly notes, "Or
so claim well-funded naysayers who still reject the overwhelming
evidence of climate change."

The Patriot Post is certainly not a "well-funded naysayer" who rejects
evidence of climate change -- nor are the growing ranks of other
organizations that refuse to comport with Albert Gore's eco-theological
orthodoxy. Fact is most of the dissenters would agree that the climate
is changing -- and has been from the beginning of time. 

The real "hoax" is the false dichotomy created with Newsweek's cover and
others like it. The division is not over "climate change" but why the
climate is changing. The lie being perpetuated by the Leftmedia and Al
Gore's cadre of bed-wetting pantywaists is the assumption that climate
change, and the greenhouse effect, are one and the same.

Notably, the first entry on Newsweek's "Global Warming Timeline," which
accompanies the cover story, is dated 1896, when a Swedish chemist
speculated that carbon-dioxide emissions might be related to climate
change. The next entry is not until 1979, when a National Academy of
Sciences report warns of global warming. The gap between these entries
is notable because, for most of the interim period, scientists were
issuing apocalyptic predictions of global cooling and the coming Ice
Age, as in the 28 April 1975 article in Newsweek titled "The Cooling
World."

Then along came the great Pacific climate shift (1976-77) and that was
the end of "global cooling."

Of Newsweek's condescension, Robert Samuelson notes, "As we debate it,
journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a
morality tale -- as Newsweek did -- in which anyone who questions its
gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an
industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free
society."

Of course, concerns about global warming did not begin in 1979. 

On 23 June 1890, The New York Times noted climate change: "The older
inhabitants tell us that winters are not cold now as they were when they
were young. We have all observed a marked diminution of the average
cold, even in the last decade." 

A 02 November 1922 edition of The Washington Post heralds this headline:
"Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt." The article
notes "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of Earth
and stones, and at many points well-known glaciers have entirely
disappeared."

9 August 1923 Chicago Tribune notes the contrary: "Scientists say Arctic
ice will wipe out Canada. Large parts of Europe and Asia will be wiped
out, and Switzerland will become entirely obliterated." 

But the 27 March 1933 edition of The New York Times claims, "America is
in the longest warm spell since 1860." 

Time magazine for 2 January 1939 reports, "Those who claim that winters
were harder when they were boys and girls were quite right." The Climate
Inquisitors

If you are a scientist, politician or journalist, and refuse to comport
with Albert Gore's eco-theological orthodoxy, you'd best put on some
body armor. 

Speaking to Al Gore's minions during "Live Earth: The Concerts for a
Climate in Crisis," Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said of political leaders
who suggest global warming is not predominantly manmade, "This is
treason, and we need to start treating them as traitors." Junior added,
"Get rid of all those rotten politicians we have in Washington, D.C." We
presume his bloated uncle is excluded?

The Oregon State University's George Taylor is that state's official
climatologist, but Gov. Ted Kulongoski wants to strip Taylor of that
title because his skepticism about CO2 as a primary factor in global
warming contradicts Oregon's goals to reduce CO2.

Elsewhere, the Weather Channel's Dr. Heidi Cullen is demanding
decertification of weather reporters who dare question global-warming
orthodoxy. 

Academicians who express their skepticism about global-warming causes
are at high risk of losing research grants. Conversely, those who
advocate for CO2 causation are in line for some big-money handouts.
Thus, when academicians say "green," they aren't necessarily referring
to the environment.

"Journalist" David Roberts is setting his sights on the "denial
industry," proclaiming, "When we've finally gotten serious about global
warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full
worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war-crimes
trials for these bastards [read: "skeptics"] -- some sort of climate
Nuremberg."

Nonetheless, some of the most ardent global alarmists are starting to
change their tune. In 2005, Chris Mooney wrote "The Republican War on
Science," a thorough indictment of the GOP's attempt to discredit
scientific work on climate change. When he started research for his
latest book, "Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle over
Global Warming," he assumed it would be more of the same. Then, after
meeting with leading climatologists, he concluded, "There's a wide range
of respectable positions here. In the end, I had to write a completely
different book."

The Political Endgame

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people
by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent
and sudden usurpations." --James Madison

Red socialism has now replaced the Green variety.

The Left's primary objective is to establish a Global Warming
constituency.

Sen. John Kerry, whose carbon footprint dwarfs that of Albert Gore,
published his paper waste, "This Moment on Earth: Today's New
Environmentalists and Their Vision for the Future." Kerry says, "As a
society, we are sliding dangerously backwards in almost every sector of
environmental concern. Even caring about the environment has been
marginalized in recent years by a calculated assault from special
interests. Teresa and I are writing this book because we share a sense
of urgency about the need to reinvigorate grassroots action, which takes
these concerns into the ballot box. This book shows what a lot of
individuals are doing in common sense, practical and yet visionary ways,
in the hope that their example can once again galvanize Americans into
action."

"Reinvigorate grassroots action?" "Take these concerns to the ballot
box?" "Galvanize Americans into action?" That's all code for rallying a
special interest constituency. 

Gore remarked, "John Kerry and Teresa Heinz have written a book [with]
the clear hope that if we can embrace their resourcefulness,
determination and essential patriotism, we will prevail." 

Ah, yes, embrace Kerry's patriotism.

Of course the Left's climate agenda dovetails with Green targets --
limiting oil and coal exploration, and because the world meat industry
produces 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions in the form of bovine
methane, PETA will be happy to curtail meat production. Planned
Parenthood's population control agenda will certainly be assisted by the
Kyoto Protocols as millions starve to death around the world. 

Don't forget the tax-and-spenders: The four largest tax increases in the
last four decades are the Revenue Expenditures Control Act, 1968, ($35
billion); the crude oil windfall profit tax, ($23 billion); the Budget
Act of 1990, ($29 billion); and then Bill Clinton's first-term tax
increase of $32.3 billion. Kyoto would create a $300 billion tax
windfall for Demos. 

Of the global governance agenda, Frenchy Jacques Chirac says that "Kyoto
represents the first component of an authentic global governance." 

Of the global economic agenda, Margot Wahlstrom, minister of environment
for the European Union, proclaims, "Kyoto is about the economy, about
leveling the playing field for big business worldwide."

Clearly, some U.S. politicians understand the implications of Gore's
folly. Don't expect that to stop Democrats from milking every last drop
of political capital from this debate. Talk of carbon credits and other
nonsense is really all about campaign coffers -- holding out the threat
of regulation as a means of financing campaigns and perpetuating office
tenures.

University of Colorado climate scientist Roger Pielke fantasizes about a
Gore victory in '08 based on swing states with lower-than-average CO2
output: "[I]n 2004 the per-state carbon-dioxide emissions in states that
voted for George Bush were about twice as large on a per-capita basis
than those in states that voted for John Kerry. If climate change is a
major issue in 2008 then there is a decided advantage in [important
swing] states to the Democrats. Colorado and Nevada are below the
national average for carbon-dioxide emissions, and Ohio and Iowa stand
to benefit immensely from an ethanol bidding war."

However, Gore's political and economic agenda runs deeper than
environmental concerns. In his recent book, The Politically Incorrect
Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, Christopher Horner, Senior
Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, aptly describes Gore and
his ilk as "green on the outside, red to the core," noting that they are
motivated by an anti-capitalist agenda.

The Kyoto Protocol

During the second term of the Clinton/Gore administration, the U.S.
faced international pressure to become a signatory to the Kyoto Treaty.
The Senate, however, passed a resolution rejecting approval of that
treaty in an eye-popping show of bipartisanship. The vote was 95-0, and
56 of those senators are still in Congress.

That 1997 Byrd-Hagel Senate resolution objected to the lack of any
"specific scheduled commitments" in regard to the CO2 output of 129
"developing" countries, most notably, China and India, the second and
fourth most powerful economies in the world.

China, home to 1.3 billion people, will have the largest economy on
Earth in little more than a decade. Currently, the country accounts for
33 percent of the world's steel production and 50 percent of all
concrete. China burns 2,500 tons of coal and 210,000 gallons of crude
oil per minute. Every ten days, China fires up a new coal generator, and
plans for 2,200 additional plants by 2030. China consumed in excess of
2.7 trillion kilowatt-hours (kWh) in 2006 -- almost twice the
consumption rate of 2002. At current growth rates of consumption, China
alone will devour all the Earth's resources in three decades and
generate a whole lot of CO2 in the process.

Yet European industrial nations and developing nations on other
continents would like to see the U.S. economy restrained by the Kyoto
Treaty.

Regarding economic consequences, according to astronomer Ian Wilson's
recent peer-reviewed study, "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and
Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System" (authored by Brookhaven National
lab scientist Stephen Schwartz), concludes "that the global economy will
spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of (about) 1.0 K by
2100 A.D. Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values
for temperature increase associated with a double of CO2 were far too
high, i.e. 2-4.5 Kelvin [and] are more likely to be in the range 1.1 +/-
0.5 K increase."

Climactic Conclusions

Regarding the prevailing winds of contemporary science, my colleague
Thomas Sowell reminds us, "Back in the 1970s, the hysteria was about
global cooling and the prospect of a new Ice Age." I published a
collection of those dire predictions in an essay entitled, "The Day
After Tomorrow."

Al Gore's current hysterics should be received with much more skepticism
than the last round of climate soothsayers. His efforts to politicize
meteorological science (what little we actually understand about our
climate), is ludicrous. A lethal dose of his eco-elixir is precisely the
wrong prescription, as it is full of the Left's archetypal defeatist,
retreatist statism but void of regard for real-world economic
consequences.

Gore and his ilk only provide a narrow global climate snapshot. For
example, the western Arctic may be warmer, likely because of cyclical
changes in the Pacific Ocean. But the Eastern Arctic is getting
significantly colder. Perhaps the tiny Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is
warmer, but the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. The ice
sheets over both on Greenland and in Antarctica are getting thicker. 

Gore's flawed analysis notwithstanding, however, sea level has risen, by
best estimates, between four and eight inches in the last 150 years. But
annual rate of rise has remained relatively stable since the "big thaw"
ended some 6,000 years ago. However, if current temperature trends
continue, an increased rate of rise could pose significant challenges to
nations around the world as millions of people now live only a few feet
higher than current tides.

Increasing global temperatures will also have other consequences -- some
positive, some negative.

Although Gore, et al., would insist otherwise, we mere mortals are no
match for the age-old forces that heat and cool our planet. Yet, in the
face of enormous odds, we Americans have a history of perseverance and
success. We can improvise, adapt and overcome -- just as we have for
hundreds of years in response to catastrophe. Unbridled innovation and
ingenuity have served us well throughout our history, and these tools
will take us, and the rest of the world, far into the future -- unless
shackled by a subterfuge like the Kyoto Protocol.

Professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Law, notes, "Too often
environmental-policy discussions assume that the only way to advance
environmental values is to create a government program or adopt new
regulations. The potential for private initiative to conserve
environmental treasures is overlooked. Yet where private action is
viable, it is often superior to government efforts."

Left unabated, private initiatives, free enterprise and technology are
far better suited to overcome environmental issues than bureaucrats.

Publisher's Note: Please sign the U.S. petition to "Stop Albert Gore and
Reject the UN's Global Warming Treaty." Gore is re-energizing the
movement advocating Kyoto compliance -- the biggest UN power-grab in our
nation's history. I urge you to sign this petition now. It takes just 20
seconds to sign online. Link to -- http://PatriotPetitions.US/StopGore

Commentary

"Global warming has become a big-ticket item in the eyes of its
supporters. At stake are research funds, jobs and the ability to control
lives all over the globe." --Walter E. Williams

"As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel
obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the
market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in
communism.... The environmentalists ask for immediate political action
because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic
growth and ignore both the technological progress that future
generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher
the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment....
The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences
and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius
changes in average global temperature" -- Czech President Vaclav Klaus

"A couple of days before the Oscars, the Reverend Al Gore gave a
sell-out performance at the University of Toronto. 'From my perspective,
it is a form of religion,' said Bruce Crofts of the East Toronto Climate
Action Group, who compared the former vice president to Jesus Christ,
both men being (as the Globe And Mail put it) 'great leaders who stepped
forward when called upon by circumstance.' Unlike Christ, the
Eco-Messiah cannot yet walk on water, but then, neither can the polar
bears. However, only Al can survey the melting ice caps and turn water
into whine." --Mark Steyn

"Hollywood stars demand the Bush Administration agree to the Kyoto
standards (which even the experts say won't do any good) and then take
off in their two-block-long limousines enroute to the general aviation
terminal of LAX where they hop onto their private jet to fly, avoiding
the teeming masses in the regular terminals, to the 175 foot yacht on
which they are going to spend the weekend burning about a gallon of fuel
per foot while tossing cigarette butts into the water every 15 minutes."
--Rich Galen

"As a journalist who has written on this subject since the late 1980s,
read the scientific literature, and interviewed climatologists from
Schneider to Singer, I am struck by how uncertain -- how politicized --
the science is. The only consistency in the science, in fact, has been
the 'contrarian opinion' which asserts simply: 'We don't know'." --Henry
Payne

"The truth is, read any legitimate scientific study on climate --
including the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
-- that suggests human influence is the dominant cause for global
warming, and you will discover dozens of qualifiers like 'could,'
'possibly,' 'potentially,' and 'may.' For all the certainty and
consensus that global warming fear-mongers assert, those sound a lot
like weasel words. --Paul Chesser

"The world meat industry produces 18 percent of the world's
greenhouse-gas emissions, more than transportation produces. A gallon of
Ben & Jerry's ice cream requires electricity guzzling refrigeration, and
four gallons of milk produced by cows that simultaneously produce eight
gallons of manure and flatulence with eight gallons of methane. The cows
do this while consuming lots of grain and hay, which are cultivated by
using tractor fuel, chemical fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides,
and transported by fuel-consuming trains and trucks." --George Will

"While the public has been led to believe that 'all' the leading
scientists buy the global warming hysteria and the political agenda that
goes with it, in fact the official reports from the United Nations or
the National Academy of Sciences are written by bureaucrats -- and then
garnished with the names of leading scientists who were 'consulted,' but
whose contrary conclusions have been ignored. ... Global warming
'deniers' are likened to Holocaust deniers. The difference is that we
have the hardest and most painful evidence that there was a Holocaust.
But, for the global warming scenario that is causing such hysteria, we
have only a movie made by a politician and mathematical models whose
results change drastically when you change a few of the arbitrarily
selected variables. No one denies that temperatures are about a degree
warmer than they were a century ago. What [skeptical] climate
scientists...deny is that you can mindlessly extrapolate that [the
change is man made]. 'Global warming' is just the latest in a long line
of hysterical crusades to which we seem to be increasingly susceptible."
--Thomas Sowell

"Hoax is defined as, 'The art of deception.' The greatest hoax ever
perpetrated on the American people is that manmade gases are causing
climate change." --Senator James Inhofe

"A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science
reveals that Mr. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of
pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent
schoolchildren worldwide." Lord Monckton (Viscount Monckton of
Brenchley) a policy adviser to former UK Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher, who has challenged Gore to an open scientific debate on
climate change.

"'If you want to save the planet, I want you to start jumping up and
down. Come on, m-----f-----s!' Madonna railed from the stage at London's
Live Earth concert Saturday. 'If you want to save the planet, let me see
you jump!' You just can't beat that. What else could capture the canned
juvenilia of a 48-year-old centimillionaire -- who owns nine homes and
has a 'carbon footprint' nearly 100 times larger than the norm --
hectoring a bunch of well-off aging hipsters to show their Earth-love by
jumping up and down like children?" --Jonah Goldberg

"There are at least two characteristics all fundamentalists share. One
is the exclusion and sometimes suppression of any and all information
that challenges or contradicts the belief one wishes to impose on all.
The other is the use of the state in pursuit of their objectives... One
can get a sense of who is telling the truth about global warming by the
company the concept keeps. Most of the disciples of global warming are
liberal Democrats who never have enough of our money and believe there
are never enough regulations concerning the way we lead our lives. That
ought to be enough to give everyone pause, along with emerging evidence
that the global warming jihadists may be more full of hot air than the
climate they claim is about to burn us up." --Cal Thomas

Short List of Recommended Resources

Senator James Inhofe's Website provides a "Skeptic's Guide To Debunking
Global Warming" in PDF format, and other resources regarding climate and
the environment. 

Also read Sen. Inhofe's floor speech on Global warming

"The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and
Environmentalism)" --Christopher Horner

"The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World"
--Bjorn Lomborg

"Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming" --Patrick J.
Michaels

"Meltdown" --Patrick J. Michaels

"Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" --Dennis T. Avery, S.
Fred Singer

"Global Warming in a Politically Correct Climate: How Truth Became
Controversial" --Mihkel M. Mathiesen

"The Chilling Stars: The New Theory of Climate Change" --Henrik
Svensmark

Journal of Geophysical Research Vol.109 109, D14108,
doi:10.1029/2003JD004414, 2005 - an assessment of three alternatives to
linear trends for characterizing global atmospheric temperature changes

"Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and
satellite measurements" � John R. Chirsty, William B.Norris, Roy W.
Spencer, Justin J. Hnilo Journal of Geophysical Research, VOL. 112,
D06102 

"What do we really know about the Sun-climate connection" by E.
Friis-Christensen and H. Svensmark, Adv. Space Res. Vol. 20, No4/5, pp.
913-921, 1997. 

"Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the
Carbon Cycle" by Jan Veizer, Geoscience Canada, Volume 32, Vol. 1, pp.
13, March 2005 

"Variable Solar Irradiance as a Plausible Agent for Multidecadal
Variations in the Arctic-wide Surface Air Temperature Record of the Past
130 Years" by Willie W.-H. Soon. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32,
L16712, doi:10.1029/2005GL023429, 2005 

"Scientists Predict Solar Downturn, Global Cooling" New Scientist
magazine, 16 Sep 2006 

"Variations in Radiocarbon Concerntration and Sunspot Activity" Journal
of Geophysical Research 66 (1962): 273-76

"Geophysical, Archaeological, and Historical Evidence Support a
Solar-Output Model for Climate Change" Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences USA 97 (2000): 12433-438 

"Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change during the Maunder Minimum"
Science 294 (2001): 2149-152 

"Low Cloud Properties Influenced by Cosmic Rays" Physical Review Letters
85 (2000): 5004-7 

"Solar Blow to Low Cloud Could be Warming Planet" Nature 6 December
2000 

"Fewer Clouds Indicate Climate Change" 1 February 2002,
www.scienceagogo.com 

"Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate" Danish Meteorological
Institute, Physical Review Letters 81 (1998): 5027-30 

"The Effects of Change in Solar Ultra-Violet Emission on Climate" Paper
presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science
annual meeting, Philadelphia, February 1998_Drew Shindell at al., "Solar
Cycle Variability, Ozone, and Climate," Science 284 (9 April 1999):
305-8 

"Celestial Driver of Phanerozoic Climate?" Geological Society of America
13 (2003): 4-10 

Print Print Email Email PDF PDF
Don't even think about ending your week without arming yourself with The
Patriot Post's comprehensive, conservative digest of the week's most
important news, policy and opinion. Requested by more Americans than any
other e-journal, The Patriot Post is a concise, highly acclaimed (see
endorsements) digest of anecdotal rebuttal to contemporary political,
social and media Leftists -- now delivered FREE by E-MAIL directly to
your inbox Friday morning. Compiled each week by a national editorial
panel, The Patriot Post's highly condensed format is an informative and
entertaining survey and analysis a wide spectrum of reliable information
from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations. Don't leave
home without it!

Subscribe to The Patriot Post -- It's right and it's free! 

The Patriot is a publication of Publius Press, Inc. Copyright ©
1981-2007 Publius Press, Inc. The Patriot is protected speech pursuant
to the "unalienable rights" of all men, and in accordance with the First
(and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of
America.





http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=520
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20071103/56ff661d/attachment.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list