Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

The One and Only Global Warming Thread

Old 05-03-06, 03:39 PM
  #51  
Political Exile
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,104
The biggest cause of manmade global warming is irrational opposition to the construction of new nuclear power plants.

The U.S. hasn't ordered a new nuclear power plant since the 1970s.

They're still building new coal power plants all over the U.S. Welcome to the 19th century!
grundle is offline  
Old 05-03-06, 03:43 PM
  #52  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 268
I totally agree.
Holy Jackson is offline  
Old 05-03-06, 05:17 PM
  #53  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,984
Originally Posted by Holy Jackson
And here's an article from the NOAA.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...se2may2006.htm
If I had a nickel for every time the alarmists said ""we've made corrections and now we've got the real, indisputable case made" (remember the infamous "hockey stick"?) I'd be rich. They still haven't explained why temperatures rose from about 1900-1940 when there was little CO2 being added by humans and fell from about 1940-1970 when we were pumping out much more.

It seems much more likely to me that our CO2 contributions have little effect and a sizeable minority of climatologists and other scientists in relevant fields agree with me (such as the ones in New Zealand). The ones that are not dependent on or are too principled to accept the government gravy train of grants that only go to those who cry wolf.

My last statement may not be entirely fair but it is in response to the alarmists who accuse the skeptics of being nothing more than shills for industry and who sometimes get grants from them. Never mind that the skeptics' grants are dwarfed by the amount flowing to the alarmists who would be cut off if they weren't alarming.

Edit: I found out the above NOAA article is not new but was first reported last August. Here is a response:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps...onse060503.htm

Response to 'Global warming differences resolved with corrections in readings'

JunkScience.com
May 3, 2006

Oh boy... "Global warming differences resolved with corrections in readings" - "WASHINGTON --A nagging difference in temperature readings that had raised questions about global warming has been resolved, a panel of scientists reported Tuesday. "This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected," researchers said in the first of 21 assessment reports planned by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program." (AP)

It'd be nice to think this is simply a case of misreporting but somehow we suspect not. This is going to take a little untangling so readers should grab that coffee now and make themselves comfy -- we'll wait. ...

Ready? Alright then -- the opening para above begins with the "resolution of nagging differences", is this new? Definitely not - flashback August 2005:

Mears and Wentz have presented The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature [Abstract] [PDF] [Supporting Online Material] - this is not the work which resulted in adjustment of the UAH MSU LT dataset. (More information in California group's answer to climate puzzler improves the accuracy of global climate data from the team at UAH and a visual comparison of the 'old' and newly adjusted datasets is available by clicking the thumbnail at right. Arguing the toss over a few hundredths of a degree may seem like nitpicking but it is a worthwhile tweak.) This paper attempts to fit MSU measures to climate models and is basically about interpretation - it doesn't solve anything but will likely liven up the discussion over satellite data interpretation.

"Some Convergence of Global Warming Estimates" - "In one of a trio of new global warming papers in Science, Mears & Wentz (2005) address what they consider to be a large source of uncertainty in our (University of Alabama in Huntsville, "UAH") satellite estimate for global lower tropospheric ("LT") temperature trends since 1979. The satellite measurements come from the Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) and Advanced Microwave Sounding Units (AMSUs) flying on NOAA's polar orbiting weather satellites. The UAH estimate of the globally averaged trend since 1979 to the present has been +0.09 deg. C/decade, considerably below the surface thermometer estimate that has been hovering around +0.20 deg. C/decade for the same period of record. This discrepancy between the UAH satellite LT trends and the surface thermometer trends has caused some consternation, since what we understand of atmospheric physics suggests that sustained warming at the surface should be amplified with height in the troposphere, not reduced." (Roy Spencer, TCS)

Tweaks in data are nothing new, in fact, Roy Spencer is currently working on adjustments for satellite drift or was as at the 6th of April:

Roy is working on a diurnal adjustment for the AMSU instruments as they have now drifted over an hour from their initial crossing time. NOAA-15 has backed up from 7:30 to 5:48 and NOAA-16 has drifted forward from 1:54 to 3:10. Be on the lookout for a new version that will have these additional adjustments.

There is also a divergence between NOAA-15 and NOAA-16 that has developed in the last 12 months. We don't know if N15 is spuriously warming or N16 is spuriously cooling. As soon as this is resolved, we hope to include this correction in the next version as well.

Whether there has or has not been an adjustment or possible minor trend error located in radiosonde records due to the manner in which instrument packs are/were shielded from sun exposure is of no particular comfort to the Global Warming industry either. The significant warming in the record is a step shift concurrent with the 1976 PDO phase shift. Could accumulating greenhouse gases cause a sudden atmospheric warming in one year but not the preceding or following years? We are not aware of any sudden widespread change in radiosonde instrumentation that could cause such a step in an otherwise largely trendless record.

The next question to ask then is "Is there any supporting evidence such a temperature shift actually occurred?" At right we have the Alaskan surface record classically highlighting the effect of the PDO phase shift. There is no plausible means by which accumulating greenhouse gas could effectively act as a major surface warming agent in one year but not in the preceding or subsequent years.

So, while tweaks and adjustments are certainly made to the various records the "resolution of discrepancies" between near-surface and atmospheric datasets is probably more a case of wishful thinking by Big Warming than it is of scientific fact. In fairness, it is only an order of magnitude and we are talking the difference between hundredths of a degree per decade as opposed to tenths of a degree per decade, with the sum total of all presumed warming being within the margin of error in our ability to estimate the planet's mean temperature.

Some people have difficulty with what they view as our disregard of "massive warming" so we'd better point out that it is not us but the very same National Climatic Data Center, whose director is the alleged source of some of the quotes in the above article, that hosts and provides the interface to the very datasets that show global warming trends of an insignificant 0.5 °C or less per century. Time series: Temperature January-December, 1880 - 2005 GHCN-ERSST Data Set: Global Trend: 0.04 °C/decade. Some regional and some likely Urban Heat Island-contaminated series certainly show significant warming and some show significant cooling but the global trends are truly trivial.

Does data from satellite-mounted MSUs suggest some atmospheric warming? Yes it does, although not as much as near-surface data and not with any apparent direct relationship to atmospheric greenhouse gas measurements.

While the assertion that there has been an observed stratospheric cooling is technically correct, it has not true to say it is consistent with the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis. Under enhanced greenhouse, as the optical depth of the lower troposphere increases with additional greenhouse gases there should be a warming of the troposphere and associated cooling of the stratosphere. Indeed there has been an overall stratospheric cooling -- in stepwise fashion following major explosive volcanic events -- but the trend since 1993 has been a slight warming and is thus of the wrong sign to support the hypothesis.

Finally, the assertion is made: "The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone." Um... no. What they mean is their climate models so inadequately model the atmosphere and the planet's climate that the models can't explain the warming without the additional fudge parameters of anthropogenic factors -- that's a horse of an entirely different colour, operating under the assumption that the world is wrong and the models are right and that imaginary factors need be applied to balance the books.

As we said originally, we hope this is really lousy reporting -- otherwise climate science is in even worse shape than we thought.
(See article for supporting graphs.)


And here are several responses by a global warming skeptic (who was actually part of this report but resigned because his input was ignored) which I believe cast grave doubts about the conclusions and the objectivity of “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences":

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.ed...g-differences/

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.ed...eport-appears/

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.ed...csp-committee/

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.ed...ort-published/

And his 88 page "public statement":

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:...pdf/NR-143.pdf

Final edited comment on this: I knew it was all familiar. I've read all this stuff before and the May 2 version of the report was just a retread, slightly modified. This thing has had grave problems going back more than 1/2 a year.

Last edited by movielib; 05-04-06 at 04:36 PM.
movielib is online now  
Old 05-03-06, 05:21 PM
  #54  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,984
Originally Posted by Holy Jackson
I totally agree.
I would agree if I thought our CO2 emissions made any more than a trivial bit of difference. But I do believe nuclear power should be greatly increased because it is cheaper and safer than any other practical method of mass power generation. The little bit it would help in reducing the effect of our CO2 emissions would be just a little (very little) icing on the cake.
movielib is online now  
Old 05-03-06, 07:36 PM
  #55  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 268
I think less sulphur dioxide emissions from less coal burning is good too. We know that kills trees. Unless that's in dispute now too.
Holy Jackson is offline  
Old 05-16-06, 10:59 AM
  #56  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,984
Here is, I think, an intelligent overview of the state of the global warming issue at present (from the point of view of a skeptic):

http://www.aei.org/publications/filt...pub_detail.asp

Acclimatizing

How to Think Sensibly, or Ridiculously, about Global Warming
By Steven F. Hayward
Posted: Monday, May 15, 2006

The crusade to fight global warming with tough reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions has entered its war-room phase. Already we are seeing the fruits of a multi-million dollar PR campaign: lavish cover stories in Time magazine (“Be Worried, Be Very Worried”), Vanity Fair, and Wired; multiple global-warming scare specials on PBS, HBO, and the network news; and, finally, the imminent release of Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Soon the Ad Council will begin airing TV spots pulling on the usual heartstrings: We have to stop global warming for the children! One of these ads--featuring a montage of kids counting down “tick, tick, tick”--is reminiscent of the infamous 1964 anti-Goldwater ad.

Unfortunately, the green warriors substitute propaganda for persuasion, insist that there is no debate about the science of climate change, and demonize any scientist who dares dissent from their views. They advocate putting the U.S. and the world on an energy starvation diet, to the exclusion of a wider and more moderate range of precautions that might be taken against global warming.

Underlying this effort is a sense of panic over two things: the collapse of the Kyoto Protocol, and frequent polls showing that Americans aren’t buying into global-warming alarmism. The latest Gallup poll on environmental issues found that only 36 percent of Americans say they “worry a great deal about global warming”--a number that has hardly budged in years. Global warming, Gallup’s environmental-opinion analyst Riley Dunlap wrote, puts people to sleep. Even among those who tell pollsters that the environment is their main public-policy concern (who are usually less than 5 percent of all Americans), global warming ranks lower than air and water quality, toxic waste, and land conservation.

There is no conspiracy behind the global-warming-awareness campaign; in fact, the environment lobby is quite open about what it’s up to. The Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies recently published a plan to elevate climate change to the top tier of the political agenda. This report, Americans and Climate Change, grew out of a summit meeting of environmental leaders held last year in--naturally--Aspen. It lists 39 recommendations for raising the percentage of the public that is alarmed by global warming from the anemic mid-30s to over 50 percent. Tactics include everything from manipulating public-school curricula to reaching out to NASCAR’s fan base to seizing events like Hurricane Katrina as “teachable moments.”

The Yale report also does us the favor of making its authors’ desire to politicize climate change explicit. One faction of environmentalists openly argues that “the only way to proceed is to exercise raw political power, wake up the public about the urgent nature of the issue, create a major public demand for action comparable to that which stimulated major environmental legislation in the 1970s, pursue outright victory at the polls.” In other words, we need to boot out those evil Republicans.

Game Over, They Say

This campaign intimidates the public and would-be dissenters with its unrelenting line that the science of global warming is settled, full stop. (Time swallowed it whole: “The debate is over. Global warming is upon us--with a vengeance. From floods to fires, droughts to storms, the climate is crashing.”) The “consensus” that human activities are playing a role in the earth’s so-far mild warming trend is misrepresented as agreement that we are headed toward catastrophic results that can be prevented only by immediate and drastic action.

In fact, many scientists don’t believe the catastrophe scenarios. But those who dissent from the politicization of climate science face withering ad hominem attacks. For example, the National Environmental Trust and Vanity Fair attacked Frederick Seitz, the 94-year-old former president of the National Academy of Sciences, for supposedly taking money from R. J. Reynolds while he was president of Rockefeller University to deny the health effects of smoking. In fact, the money went into a medical-research project unrelated to tobacco that led to a Nobel Prize in medicine. The climate-action caucus clearly feels no shame about employing smear tactics. One might even go so far as to accuse it of scientific McCarthyism.

But try as it might, this caucus cannot change two facts that have been evident since climate change first came to the fore in the late 1980s. First, even though the leading scientific journals are thoroughly imbued with environmental correctness and reject out of hand many articles that don’t conform to the party line, a study that confounds the conventional wisdom is published almost every week. Sometimes these studies even find their way into Science and Nature. Most recently, the April 20 issue of Nature carried a study that casts serious doubt on the high-temperature forecasts of computer climate models. And last fall, Science published a study finding that the Greenland ice sheet, whose perimeter melting is presented as a sign of imminent sea-level rise (never mind that the Vikings observed similar melting 1,000 years ago), is gaining ice mass in the interior. (The oddest aspect of the Greenland story is that average temperatures in southern Greenland appear to have fallen during the 20th century; ice-mass changes probably have more to do with regular variation in Atlantic ocean currents--a natural phenomenon known as Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.) The media tend to ignore such research while giving disproportionate coverage to the latest news about melting glaciers or expiring frogs.

Climate alarm is likely to get a fresh infusion of “authoritative” science next year when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issues its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Early indications are that AR4 will remove its upper-bound estimate of potential warming at the end of this century (currently 5.8 degrees Celsius), assuring a fresh round of media headlines that the situation is worse than we thought. Yet the computer climate models remain plagued with weaknesses and biases--from the doubtful emissions forecasts that go into the front end, to assumptions about the linearity of the relationship between greenhouse gases and temperature that affect the results. As MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen argues, the computer models overestimate the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases and don’t adequately account for “negative forcings” (the technical term for natural processes that mitigate potential temperature increases). It is likely, in Lindzen’s judgment, that we have already reached the threshold of diminishing “positive forcings” (that is, increases in temperature) from additional greenhouse-gas emissions.

Most of the computer models predict temperature increases of two to three degrees Celsius by the year 2100, which, while not an “end of civilization as we know it” catastrophe, could cause significant problems for the planet. Even discounting for the biases in the models, these predictions still raise questions about what precautions are appropriate to take against a low-probability event with potentially serious consequences. This leads to the second difficulty for the climate-change crusade: There are alternatives to its insistence that the only appropriate policy response is steep and immediate emissions reductions (on the order of 60 percent). Kyoto’s 8 percent reduction target is modest by comparison, but no nation is honestly meeting it. (Britain met its 2000 target as an unintended consequence of Margaret Thatcher’s decision 20 years ago to smash the coal miners’ union and move the nation to natural gas. But even with this wind in its sails, Britain is seeing its greenhouse-gas emissions start to rise again.) The energy technologies to achieve a 60 percent reduction in emissions while meeting the world’s energy needs simply do not exist.

Environmentalists were against fossil fuels long before climate change rose to prominence, and this monomania is evident in their continued opposition to nuclear power, the only technology that can generate large amounts of energy without emitting greenhouse gases. (In a recent C-SPAN appearance with me, the legislative director of the League of Conservation Voters said that nuclear power had no role to play in mitigating climate change.) Instead, environmentalists advocate a supposedly market-friendly “cap and trade” program. Such a program would impose downwardly ratcheting emissions caps; but instead of creating thousands of detailed Clean Air Act–style regulations, it would grant “emissions permits” to companies, which would be able to trade these permits among each other. If one company’s emissions were lower than the allowed amount, it could trade or sell its “leftover” allotment to a second company, which could add that amount to its own emissions allotment. The idea of such trading is to let the market guide emissions reductions to the companies able to undertake them most efficiently.

“Cap and trade” is thought to have been a great success in reducing sulfur-dioxide emissions at low cost. But there is a world of difference between sulfur dioxide and greenhouse gases. For a variety of reasons, curbs on sulfur dioxide did not impose any constraint on net energy production, whereas a greenhouse-gas-emissions cap ultimately would constrain energy production.

A Commonsense and Workable Plan

A sensible climate policy would emphasize building resilience into our capacity to adapt to climate changes--whether cooling or warming; whether wholly natural, wholly man-made, or somewhere in between. A resilience policy, instead of focusing solely on emissions controls, would have four parts.

First, the transition to a post-carbon world decades from now will come about more quickly and efficiently by keeping energy markets open and unregulated than by subsidizing particular energy technologies or artificially making energy more expensive for producers and consumers. Efforts to subsidize energy paths will inevitably fall prey to interest-group lobbying (as witness the domestic ethanol lobby’s success in winning tariffs on foreign ethanol), and will likely delay the development of promising technologies.

Second, we should implement practical carbon-sequestration measures: the capturing and storing of carbon in any number of places, whether underground, deep in the ocean, or in biomass (think more trees). There is much sequestration research under way, but many environmentalists oppose it because it would let us off the hook for our original sin of energy consumption.

Third, we should consider strategies of adaptation to a changing climate. A rise in the sea level need not be the end of the world, as the Dutch have taught us. Developing countries with vulnerable coastlines will be better able to adapt if their economic growth is not constrained by severe energy limits. And here at home, the federal government ought to stop subsidizing flood insurance and coastal development anyway; potential climate change is another reason to eschew such policies.

Finally, we should consider climate modification. If humanity is powerful enough to disrupt the climate negatively, we might also be able to change it for the better. On a theoretical level, doing so is relatively simple: We need to reduce the earth’s absorption of solar radiation. A few scientists have suggested we could accomplish this by using orbiting mirrors to rebalance the amounts of solar radiation different parts of the earth receive. Right now this idea sounds as fanciful as Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative seemed in 1983, but look what that led to. New York University physicist Martin Hoffert points out that the interval between the Wright brothers’ first flight at Kitty Hawk and Neil Armstrong’s first step on the moon was a mere 66 years. It is entirely reasonable to expect vast changes in our technical capacity before the century is out.

In the end, a relentless campaign to extend political control over the world’s energy use is likely to fail, in part because, even if severe climate change is in our future, most people intuitively recognize that rhetoric about “the end of civilization as we know it” is inconsistent with human experience. Our distant ancestors survived an ice age with little more than animal skins, crude tools, and open fire pits. For all the talk of science and progress, the global-warming alarmists betray an astonishing lack of confidence in human creativity and resiliency. It’s almost as if the scientific community had abandoned the idea of evolution.

Steven F. Hayward is the F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow at AEI.
movielib is online now  
Old 05-19-06, 01:46 PM
  #57  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lyon Estates
Posts: 10,795
thought this was funny:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=b1wogkDmLlQ&search=ferrell
dick_grayson is offline  
Old 05-19-06, 01:56 PM
  #58  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
This is what that environmental expert Larry David had to say about Global Warming and the new movie by his pal Al Gore at Sundance:
"You know, Al is a funny guy, but he's also a very serious guy who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan."

Make your plans and wills.
bhk is offline  
Old 05-19-06, 04:23 PM
  #59  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,984
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is fighting back in the TV arena with two ads defending CO2. AFAIK, they are paying for the ads as opposed to the ones at the start of this thread which air for free as PSAs. Also they are getting virtually no media coverage as opposed to what the alarmist spots got when they were first announced.

But I have to say these CEI ads pretty much suck. The first one points out that CO2 is necessary for life and has helped bring us a much better life through energy from fossil fuels. However, people also know that things that are good in one way can be bad in another. The ad proves nothing to counter the alarmists' message that CO2 can do bad things (although not nearly as bad as the alarmists claim) and, I fear, will be merely an object of derision.

The second ad is a little better. It points out conflicting studies concerning growing or shrinking ice in Greenland and the Antarctic and that one side got much publicity and the other was ignored. Then it slips back into CO2 worship.

The skeptics have powerful arguments but they were hardly touched in these spots. Perhaps there is little of substance can be said in 60 second spots but I really think they can do better than this. All that has happened is that now both sides have churned out silly ads.

The ads:

http://streams.cei.org/
movielib is online now  
Old 05-20-06, 04:49 PM
  #60  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060520/...pan_ozone_hole

Report: Ozone Hole May Disappear by 2050

TOKYO - The ozone hole over the Antarctic is likely to begin contracting in the future and may disappear by 2050 because of a reduction in the release of chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-depleting gases, according to a team of Japanese scientists.

ADVERTISEMENT

The findings are based on a series of numerical simulations carried out by Eiji Akiyoshi of the National Institute for Environmental Studies, near Tokyo, using projected emissions of chlorofluorocarbons and other gases blamed for the ozone hole.

According to a report posted Friday on the institute's Web site, the hole is at its largest now but is likely to gradually start contracting around 2020 and disappear by around 2050.

The team's findings are in line with research by other scientists.

Some, however, have suggested the hole won't heal until much later because old refrigerators and air-conditioning systems — many in the United States and Canada — are still releasing ozone-killing chemicals. Both countries curbed those chemicals in newer products.

Satellites and ground stations have been monitoring the ozone hole over the South Pole since its discovery in the 1980s.

Chlorofluorocarbon levels in the earth's atmosphere have been declining since the mid-1990s due to international efforts to reduce emissions.
Any chance of Al Gore's pie hole shutting by then?
bhk is offline  
Old 05-20-06, 05:22 PM
  #61  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,046
Originally Posted by bhk
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060520/...pan_ozone_hole


Any chance of Al Gore's pie hole shutting by then?
He'd be 102, so, yeah, probably.
OldDude is offline  
Old 05-22-06, 10:09 PM
  #62  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
The real cause of global warming has been found:

baiting picture removed

Last edited by VinVega; 05-23-06 at 07:28 AM.
bhk is offline  
Old 05-23-06, 09:09 AM
  #63  
Political Exile
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,104
http://www.opinionjournal.com/column.../?id=110008416

Don't Be Very Worried

The truth about "global warming" is much less dire than Al Gore wants you to think.

BY PETE DU PONT

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Since 1970, the year of the first Earth Day, America's population has increased by 42%, the country's inflation-adjusted gross domestic product has grown 195%, the number of cars and trucks in the United States has more than doubled, and the total number of miles driven has increased by 178%.

But during these 35 years of growing population, employment, and industrial production, the Environmental Protection Agency reports, the environment has substantially improved. Emissions of the six principal air pollutants have decreased by 53%. Carbon monoxide emissions have dropped from 197 million tons per year to 89 million; nitrogen oxides from 27 million tons to 19 million, and sulfur dioxide from 31 million to 15 million. Particulates are down 80%, and lead emissions have declined by more than 98%.

When it comes to visible environmental improvements, America is also making substantial progress:

• The number of days the city of Los Angeles exceeded the one-hour ozone standard has declined from just under 200 a year in the late 1970s to 27 in 2004.

• The Pacific Research Institute's Index of Leading Environmental Indicators shows that "U.S. forests expanded by 9.5 million acres between 1990 and 2000."

• While wetlands were declining at the rate of 500,000 acres a year at midcentury, they "have shown a net gain of about 26,000 acres per year in the past five years," according to the institute.

• Also according to the institute, "bald eagles, down to fewer than 500 nesting pairs in 1965, are now estimated to number more than 7,500 nesting pairs."

Environmentally speaking, America has had a very good third of a century; the economy has grown and pollutants and their impacts upon society are substantially down.

But now comes the carbon dioxide alarm. CO2 is not a pollutant--indeed it is vital for plant growth--but the annual amount released into the atmosphere has increased 40% since 1970. This increase is blamed by global warming alarmists for a great many evil things. The Web site for Al Gore's new film, "An Inconvenient Truth," claims that because of CO2's impact on our atmosphere, sea levels may rise by 20 feet, the Arctic and Antarctic ice will likely melt, heat waves will be "more frequent and more intense," and "deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years--to 300,000 people a year."

If it all sounds familiar, think back to the 1970s. After the first Earth Day the New York Times predicted "intolerable deterioration and possible extinction" for the human race as the result of pollution. Harvard biologist George Wald predicted that unless we took immediate action "civilization will end within 15 to 30 years," and environmental doomsayer Paul Ehrlich predicted that four billion people--including 65 million American--would perish from famine in the 1980s.

So what is the reality about global warming and its impact on the world? A new study released this week by the National Center for Policy Analysis, "Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts" (www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285) looks at a wide variety of climate matters, from global warming and hurricanes to rain and drought, sea levels, arctic temperatures and solar radiation. It concludes that "the science does not support claims of drastic increases in global temperatures over the 21rst century, nor does it support claims of human influence on weather events and other secondary effects of climate change."

There are substantial differences in climate models--some 30 of them looked at by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--but the Climate Science study concludes that "computer models consistently project a rise in temperatures over the past century that is more than twice as high as the measured increase." The National Center for Atmospheric Research's prediction of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit warming is more accurate. In short, the world is not warming as much as environmentalists think it is.

What warming there is turns out to be caused by solar radiation rather than human pollution. The Climate Change study concluded "half the observed 20th century warming occurred before 1940 and cannot be attributed to human causes," and changes in solar radiation can "account for 71 percent of the variation in global surface air temperature from 1880 to 1993."

As for hurricanes, 2005 saw several severe ones--Katrina and Rita both had winds of 150 knots--hitting New Orleans, the Gulf Coast and Florida. But there is little evidence linking them to global warming. A team of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists concluded that the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995 "is not related to greenhouse warming" but instead to natural tropical climate cycles.

Regarding Arctic temperature changes, the Study found the coastal stations in Greenland had actually experienced a cooling trend: The "average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, have decreased at the rate of 4 degrees F per decade since measurements began in 1987." Add in Russian and Alaskan temperature data and "Arctic air temperatures were warmest in the 1930s and near the coolest for the period of recorded observations (since at least 1920) in the late 1980s."

As for sea ice, it is not melting excessively. Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans concluded that "global warming appears to play a minor role in changes to Arctic sea ice." The U.N.'s IPCC Third Assessment Report concluded that the rate of sea level rise has not accelerated during the last century, which is supported by U.S. coastal sea level experience. In California sea levels have risen between zero and seven millimeters a year and between 2.1 and 2.8 millimeters a year in North and South Carolina.

Finally come the polar bears--a species thought by global warming proponents to be seriously at risk from the increasing temperature. According to the World Wildlife Fund, among the distinct polar bear populations, two are growing--and in areas where temperatures have risen; ten are stable; and two are decreasing. But those two are in areas such as Baffin Bay where air temperatures have actually fallen.

The Climate Science study concludes that projections of global warming over the next century "have decreased significantly since early modeling efforts," and that global air temperatures should increase by 2.5 degrees and the United States by about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the next hundred years. The environmental pessimists tell us, as in Time magazine's recent global warming issue, to "Be Worried. Be Very Worried," but the truth is that our environmental progress has been substantially improving, and we should be very pleased.

Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.
grundle is offline  
Old 05-23-06, 09:17 AM
  #64  
Political Exile
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,104
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/...73B2826B2C3%7D

DECEMBER 7, 1997

GLOBAL WARMING ALERT: GORE BURNS 439,500 LBS OF FUEL TO ATTEND SUMMIT

"The most vulnerable part of the Earth's environment is the very thin layer
of air clinging near to the surface of the planet, that we are now so
carelessly filling with gaseous wastes that we are actually altering the
relationship between the Earth and the Sun - by trapping more solar
radiation under this growing blanket of pollution that envelops the entire
world," Vice President Gore told the U.N. Global Warming conference of 159
nations this morning in Koyto, Japan.

In what was one the most dramatic speeches in recent memory, Gore announced to world leaders: "Whether we recognize it or not, we are now engaged in an epic battle to right the balance of our Earth, and the tide of this battle will turn on when the majority of people in the world become sufficiently aroused by shared sense of urgent danger to join an all-out effort."

Applause filed the halls of the Kyoto International Conference Center. "We
must achieve a safe overall concentration level for greenhouse gases in the
Earth's atmosphere."

carbondioxidemethanenitrousoxidehydrofluorocarbonsperfluorocarbonssulfurhexa
chloride.

The message is serious. So serious in fact, the DRUDGE REPORT has
calculated that Vice President Al Gore is burning more than 439,500 pounds
of fuel, or 65,600 gallons, at a cost of more than $131,000 on his 16,000
mile daytrip, just to deliver the warning.

Now that's commitment.

Air Force II's Global Warming Express features an itinerary that takes the
vice president from Washington to Florida to Washington to Alaska to Japan
and back -- all in just 72-hours.

Saturday, December 6, 1997

9:45 a.m. Air Force II departs Andrews AFB enroute Fort Myers, Fla.

12:05 p.m. Air Force II arrives Southwest Florida Regional Airport. Gate 69-A.

2 p.m. Vice President Gore addresses the 50th Anniversary/Rededication,
Everglades Municipal Airport, Everglades National Park.

6:40 p.m. Air Force II departs Florida en route AFB.

8:35 p.m. Air Force II arrives at Andrews Air Force Base.

9:45 p.m. -- Air Force II departs Andrews Air Force Base en route Elmendorf
Air Force Base

Sunday, Dec. 7

1:15 a.m. -- Air Force II arrives Elmendorf Air Force Base, Anchorage, Alaska

2:45 a.m. -- Air Force II departs Elmendorf Air Force Base en route Osaka, Japan

Monday, Dec. 8

5 a.m. -- Air Force II arrives Osaka International Airport, Osaka Japan


11:15 p.m. -- Air Force II departs Osaka, Japan en route Elmendorf Air Force
Base

12:35 p.m. -- Air Force II arrives Elmendorf Air Force Base, Anchorage, Alaska

2:05 p.m. -- Air Force II departs Elmendorf Air Force Base en route Andrews
Air Force Base

Tuesday, Dec. 9

12:45 a.m. -- Air Force II arrives Andrews Air Force Base

"The extra heat which cannot escape is beginning to change the global
patterns of climate to which we are accustomed. Our fundamental challenge
now is to find out whether and how we can change the behaviors that are
causing the problem."

Gore's plane, a Boeing 707 gas guzzler burns on average 4.1 gallons a mile.
The complete Washington to Florida to Washington to Alaska to Japan and
return to Washington trip calculated from commercial air mileage tables is
just over 16,000 miles total. Gas gallons needed for AIR FORCE II to go
16,000 miles: 65,600. Applying the average price of $2.01 per gallon of
Jet A to the 16,000 mile r/t -- the fuel cost alone passes $131,000.00.
There are 6.7 pounds per gallon of jet fuel. Total pounds of fuel burned on
Gore's Global Warming Express -- 439,500.

Unprecedented Leadership.

Filed by Matt Drudge
grundle is offline  
Old 05-23-06, 09:38 AM
  #65  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
baiting picture removed
WTF? A pic showing hot air coming out of Al Gore's mouth is baiting? Who specifically is it baiting?

Last edited by bhk; 05-23-06 at 09:46 AM.
bhk is offline  
Old 05-23-06, 09:56 AM
  #66  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,249
Originally Posted by bhk
WTF? A pic showing hot air coming out of Al Gore's mouth is baiting? Who specifically is it baiting?
It was deemed to not add anything productive to a thread that is actually a pretty verbose and well thought out discussion.

If you want to discuss it further, send me an email.
VinVega is offline  
Old 05-23-06, 10:18 AM
  #67  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Was Matt Drudge suggesting that the Vice President should take a boat to Japan? A rowboat?

Drudge also "reported" that Gore took 5 cars 500 yards to the screening of his film at Cannes. The "report" was unsubstantiated with no source and was removed from the site. Gore claims he walked to the showing.

Last edited by CRM114; 05-23-06 at 10:20 AM.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 05-23-06, 10:45 AM
  #68  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,984
By drastically overstating his case, perhaps Gore's film will stimulate interest and conversation and backfire on him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/2006052...t_truth123_xml

Mon May 22, 2:26 PM ET

To: National Desk, Environment Reporter

Contact: Bill Riggs for TCS Daily, 202-772-2189 or [email protected]

WASHINGTON, May 22 /U.S. Newswire/ -- "An Inconvenient Truth," the Al Gore documentary on climate change, enters theaters this week and is sure to fan the debate over the causes of global warming. Expert climatologists who are members of the TCS Daily Science Roundtable recently screened the film and conclude that many of the points made by Gore are based on exaggerated facts and scientific results that lack consensus or have been refuted.

Dr. Robert Balling, professor in the climatology program at Arizona State University, and Joseph D'Aleo, former chairman of the American Meteorology Society's committee on weather analysis and forecasting, have screened the film and found that many of the facts contradicting Gore's message hit the cutting room floor.

"Through alarmist rhetoric and dire predictions, the film attempts to portray man as the culprit behind global climate change," said Balling. "But in typical Gore fashion, many of his facts are drawn from hand-picked science that overstates what is happening in climate change."

According to Balling, the most notable omission in the film comes from misrepresenting the position of Gore's self-described mentor and inspiration, Roger Revelle. Gore praises Revelle for his discovery that CO2 levels were rising and contributing to higher temperatures, yet there was no mention of Revelle's article published in the early 1990s concluding that the science is "too uncertain to justify drastic action." (S.F. Singer, C. Starr, and R. Revelle, "What to Do About Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap. Cosmos 1 (1993) 28 to 33.)

The movie discusses glacial retreats of Kilimanjaro -- implying that human induced global warming is to blame. But Gore fails to mention that the snows of Kilimanjaro have been retreating for more than 100 years, largely due to atmospheric moisture, not global warming.

Many of Gore's conclusions are based on the "Hockey Stick" -- a reconstructed temperature record that has been summarily discredited in the scientific community. Nevertheless, Gore maintains that we are on the verge of a tipping point with only 10 years to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid spiraling towards catastrophic heat waves, tornadoes and hurricanes.

"Looking at 10,000 years of climate history, there is nothing unusual about the warming of the 20th century," said Balling.

Gore blames most of the extreme and unusual weather and other changes solely on carbon dioxide and states that this fact is 'settled' (indisputable).

"Though man is playing some role in the world climate through urbanization," D'Aleo admits, "the truth is that you can explain most of the climate changes and extreme weather, and even changes in the glaciers and icecaps, with natural cycles in the oceans and on the sun."

D'Aleo cautions that, "Focusing on greenhouse gases alone, we may be blindsided by a sudden climate shift due to the natural cyclical changes in one or more of the factors. The recent decadal shift that doubled hurricane frequency is a prime example."
movielib is online now  
Old 05-23-06, 10:49 AM
  #69  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,046
So, "An Inconvenient Truth," = inconvenient lies?
OldDude is offline  
Old 05-23-06, 03:04 PM
  #70  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
(Filed: 18/07/2004)

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."


Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.

Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 deg Celsius over the past 20 years and are widely believed to be responsible for new extremes in weather patterns. After pressure from environmentalists, politicians agreed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, promising to limit greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012. Britain ratified the protocol in 2002 and said it would cut emissions by 12.5 per cent from 1990 levels.

Globally, 1997, 1998 and 2002 were the hottest years since worldwide weather records were first collated in 1860.

Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades but have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures.

To determine the Sun's role in global warming, Dr Solanki's research team measured magnetic zones on the Sun's surface known as sunspots, which are believed to intensify the Sun's energy output.

The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years.

Dr Solanki does not know what is causing the Sun to burn brighter now or how long this cycle would last.

He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself.

Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki's research. "While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant," he said.

"It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor."

Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming.

He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.

Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors.

"The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.

"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."
That's it, we need a new source of solar energy.
bhk is offline  
Old 05-23-06, 03:15 PM
  #71  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,984
I bolded the paragraph below not because it is the most important thing in the article but because it illustrates how wrong Gore is.

http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_3853097

Gore pushes film to Bush
By Terence Hunt, Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Is President Bush likely to see Al Gore's documentary about global warming?

"Doubt it," Bush said coolly Monday.

But Bush should watch it, Gore shot back. In fact, the former Democratic vice president offered to come to the White House any time, any day to show Bush either his documentary or a slide show on global warming that he's shown more than 1,000 times around the world.

"The entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming and he has today again expressed personal doubt that that is true," Gore said in an Associated Press interview from France where he attended the Cannes Film Festival.

Bush and Gore have had bitter disagreements about the environment and other issues. Bush defeated Gore in a disputed presidential election that was finally settled by the Supreme Court in 2000.

Gore's documentary chronicles his efforts to bring greater attention to the dangers of climate change.

"New technologies will change how we live and how we drive our cars, which all will have the beneficial effect of improving the environment," Bush said. "And in my judgment we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and at the same time protect the environment."

Gore said the causes of global warming should not be ignored.

"Why should we set aside the global scientific consensus,"

Gore said, his voice rising with emotion. "Is it because Exxon Mobil wants us to set it aside? Why should we set aside the conclusion of scientists in the United States, including the National Academy of Sciences, and around the world including the 11 most important national academies of science on the globe and substitute for their view the view of Exxon Mobil. Why?"

"I'm a grandfather and he's a father and this should not be a political issue," Gore said. "And he should ask the National Academy of Sciences … whether or not human beings are contributing to global warming."

The White House said Bush already has acknowledged the impact of human behavior on global warming.

"The president noted in 2001 the increase in temperatures over the past 100 years and that the increase in greenhouse gases was due to certain extent to human activity," said White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino.

"Since then he has committed tens of billions of dollars to the science and technology programs that he initiated and we are well on our way to meeting the president's goal of reducing greenhouse intensity by 18 percent by 2012," she said.

Gore's movie debuted at last winter's Sundance Film Festival and opens in U.S. theaters today.
Yes, it's true that there is a consensus that humans contribute to global warming. Left out is the fact that the skeptics think the warming will be little and that the human contribution is very small. I think Gore wants people to blur the distinction ("there is a human contribution" and "how much is it?"). Or else he doesn't get it himself. But I think he clearly wants people to believe there is virtually no scientific dissent from his position and that is patently not true.

Also, it is not true that Bush claims there is no human contribution. He accepts the scientific skeptics' view on the matter and has clearly said so.

I have heard Gore say "(there is no dissent) other than those who work for Exxon" or some such nonsense like that. Yes, some skeptics have gotten modest funding for research and studies from industry but the alarmists are now getting $1.7 billion a year from the U.S. government and who knows how much more from the governments of other countries and environmental groups, funding that would disappear if the alarmists were to say "nothing much going on here." While I'm not accusing any scientists on either side of dishonesty, it is clear that if one were in it for the money, alarmism is where the money is. Yet Gore implies the skeptics are dishonest tools in the thrall of Exxon money. It's disgusting and disgraceful.

As much as I think Bush has been one of the worst American presidents ever, I doubt Gore would have been any better. They are both horrible; different but horrible.
movielib is online now  
Old 05-23-06, 08:28 PM
  #72  
Political Exile
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,104
Originally Posted by CRM114
Was Matt Drudge suggesting that the Vice President should take a boat to Japan? A rowboat?

He was suggesting that the conference made golobal warming worse, not better, and that Gore is a hypocrite.
grundle is offline  
Old 05-23-06, 08:30 PM
  #73  
Political Exile
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,104
Originally Posted by movielib
By drastically overstating his case, perhaps Gore's film will stimulate interest and conversation and backfire on him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/2006052...t_truth123_xml


Just like with Paul Ehrlich, the more wrong he is, the more they will love him.
grundle is offline  
Old 05-23-06, 09:01 PM
  #74  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Originally Posted by grundle
He was suggesting that the conference made golobal warming worse, not better, and that Gore is a hypocrite.
Uh, yeah. I guess in a short sighted and simple-minded kind of way....

CRM114 is offline  
Old 05-24-06, 10:24 AM
  #75  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Uh, yeah. I guess in a short sighted and simple-minded kind of way....
The inventor of the internet could have given his talk via web teleconferenceing.
bhk is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.