• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Rob Arlen of Lakewood writes:

News item: “GOP panel agrees: Warnings of global warming overdone.” RMN 4/28/07.
Surprise, surprise – Republicans are skeptical of global warming claims. First, Rep. Lundberg speaks of more political science than hard science. If all he listens to are the republican talking points and the usual talking heads, then no wonder.
There is plenty of science not only in Gore’s works, but many, many other places. If he cannot see it, then he is simply not opening his eyes, ears, or mind.
Next, Rep. Harvey says this is attack on capitalism and America. I have known many environmentalists through the years, and none of them would remotely fit this description. I have also known many anti-environmentalists such as Mr. Harvey who repeatedly misrepresent other peoples positions by use of this and other self-serving deceptions– find an extreme and make it seem mainstream. It rarely seems to occur to such people that this is an economic opportunity. Green is the new red, white, and blue as columnist Tom Friedman has said. Too bad Mr. Harvey fails to see this.
Most sad is that a man of Dr. Gray’s stature and accomplishment has bought into some of the hot air of conservobabble, namely that modeling is a “religion.” Next we will hear that we cannot teach global warming in schools because it is a “religion” In the article, Dr. Gray fails to mention that his famous and successful hurricane forecasts use complex models as well.
Finally, a Mr. Lewis acknowledges the reality of anthropogenic global warming, but then tries to minimize the results – not having shown how or why he concludes this. How would we know whether his predictions are any more accurate that Al Gore’s?
Whatever your preconceived notions, the answers to your questions lie in good science, not in the ramblings of politicians. Please do your research and critical thinking - there is plenty of available and accessible science that is much more real, not to mention interesting, than the blather of republican political operatives.
Mr. Hartmann’s article ends with the observation that hardly anyone had read Gore’s book. Surprise, surprise.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

Science in Gore's works? Rob, Rob, Rob....none of that was Gore's work. Do some research, get back to me. Have your people call my people and we'll do lunch! Maybe we can speak about the truth in Star Wars, and how it will some day effect us all!

They've named the first storm of the season, Andrea. It's not a hurricane. No, it's not tropical storm. It's a SUB TROPICAL STORM.

It seems in the last 2 or 3 years they've decided to start naming sub tropical storms in an effort to up the total number of named storms for the season. In years prior to global warming panic, storms weren't named until reaching "tropical storm" status.

That way, each year these alarmists can claim our "total number of storms" has increased dramatically, thereby proving we have a catastrophic problem on our hands.

That way, each year these alarmists can claim our "total number of storms" has increased dramatically, thereby proving we have a catastrophic problem on our hands.

You could be right about this KW...but personally, I suspect it's a move on the part of certain television stations in an effort to boost ratings. Fear sells. You watch the coverage of some of these storms before they hit, and you're tempted to buy out your entire town's water supply and dig a cellar under your house, they dramatize them so much.

MTS - You're right about the media. Blowing things out of porportion is something they do well.

But the people in charge of deciding when to name the storm are the ones making this policy change. I'd like to know what reasoning they'll come up with to rationalize the change in such a long standing procedure.

There is Bush, and then there is the rest of the world.

First Bush: "President Bush dismissed on Tuesday a report put out by his administration warning that human activities are behind climate change that is having significant effects on the environment."

"The report released by the Environmental Protection Agency was a surprising endorsement of what many scientists and weather experts have long argued — that human activities such as oil refining, power plants and automobile emissions are important causes of global warming."

And then the rest of the world:

More than 120 nations, including the United States and China, approved the latest IPCC report which presupposes that global warming is a big problem and that humans contribute significantly to it. The report examines ways to combat global warming.

"The good news, contained in the most recent report, is that global warming can be reduced and stabilized with existing technology. That’s something that large multinational corporations, such as British Petroleum, Toyota, and Goldman Sachs, realized several years ago and are already committing themselves to — with their eyes on profits for themselves, of course."

"Montana and Wyoming on Tuesday joined 29 other states in a large-scale program to track pollutants linked to global warming."

"Corporate America, which once regarded cries of "global warming" about as favorably as The Communist Manifesto, increasingly is embracing the need for reducing human contributions to the planet's rising temperatures. Forty companies — including Boeing, IBM, John Hancock and Whirlpool — have publicly endorsed the notion that climate change is real by joining a business council organized by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change."

"Electric power companies are the single largest industrial emitter of carbon dioxide, the chief chemical culprit in "global warming." But Duke Energy on the East Coast, California's PG&E on the West Coast, and other utilities see mandatory federal emission caps as preferable to the current patchwork of state regulations they confront."

"The Pew Center's Business Environmental Leadership Council (BELC) was created at the Center’s inception under the belief that business engagement is critical for developing efficient, effective solutions to the climate problem. We
also believe that companies taking early action
on climate strategies and policy will gain sustained competitive advantage over their peers. The
BELC is now the largest U.S.-based association of corporations focused on addressing the challenges
of climate change, with 43 members representing
$2.8 trillion in market capitalization and over 3.8
million employees."

"Companies part of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change's Business Environmental Leadership Council:

ABB
Air Products
Alcan
Alcoa
American Electric Power
Baxter International
Boeing
BP
Calif. Portland Cement
CH2M HILL
Cummins
Deutsche Telekom
DTE Energy
Duke Energy
DuPont
Entergy
Exelon
GE
Georgia-Pacific
Hewlett-Packard
Holcim (USA)
IBM
Intel
Interface
John Hancock Financial Services
Lockheed Martin
Novartis
Ontario Power Generation
PG&E
Rio Tinto
Rohm and Haas
Royal Dutch/Shell
SC Johnson
Sunoco
Toyota
TransAlta
United Technologies
Weyerhaeuser
Whirlpool
Wisconsin Energy"

Truth
Are you housebound?

If I had a choice between jumping aboard the global warming express vs. being labeled and slandered by the media and entertainers who lie thru their teeth, I'd jump on the bandwagon too.

But Truth, your illustration doesn't lend one iota of credence to the predictions of the sky falling, now does it?

You are right, KW. My post is not about the sky falling. Excellent perception on your part. Did the fact that I didn't use the words "sky" or "falling" help you to reach that conclusion?

Rob - Why is it that if a scientist does not support your position you think there is something wrong with that person? Just maybe they know more about the subject than you do and they do not agree because of thier knowledge.

In Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” he uses a lot of “ifs.” If temperatures rise to X degrees then the polar ice caps will melt. If the polar ice caps melt, sea levels will rise by 23 feet. If this happens, and if that occurs…

A lot of those “ifs” are based upon the famous computer modeling that so many are hanging their hat on. It’s easy to get a computer to put out data that fits a preconceived theory. Dr. Roy Spencer, Weather Satellite Team Leader at NASA said that grant money is difficult to get by those who have spoken against the theory of man-made global warming. So, the result is few are willing to take a public stand against it because it would result in major cut backs in their research funding. Thus, many scientists just go along with the crowd to keep from being labeled a heretic by their peers and to continue receiving the grant money. Otherwise, they die on the vine and loose their livelihood.

In an interview with Grist Magazine about global warming Gore said: "I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."

Al Gore says that the relationship between Co2 and climate temperature is very complicated, but that there is a relationship. He’s right. But what he doesn’t say is that the relationship is just the opposite of what he wants people to believe. In actuality, rises in temperatures lead Co2 levels. In other words, Co2 increases lag behind the increases in temperature. By the time Co2 levels reach their peak, temperatures have been falling for about 800 years. There have now been several ice core surveys and every one of them shows the same thing, that temperature rises and falls and then several hundred years later Co2 follows. One could say that not only does increased Co2 not cause increased temperatures, but that increased temperatures appear to cause increased Co2 levels.

Humans are not the main sourced of carbon dioxide. Humans produce numbers in the single digits of the percentage of Co2 production across the globe. Volcanoes produce more Co2 per year than all of the planes, trains, automobiles and factories and all other human-producing carbon dioxide put together. More Co2 comes from animals and bacteria, which produce about 150 gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year compared to a mere 6.5 gigatons per year produced by humans. An even larger source of Co2 is dying vegetation, such as from leaves that have fallen off trees in the autumn. But the largest producers of Co2 by far are the oceans. The ocean is the major reservoir into which Co2 goes when it comes out of the atmosphere, and from which it is readmitted into the atmosphere. If you heat the surface of the ocean it tends to emit carbon dioxide. And conversely, cooler oceans can absorb more carbon dioxide.

Professor John Christy, lead author, IPCC: “I’ve often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue that humans are causing a cataclysmic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that that is not true.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) insists that a warmer climate will bring about major problems from insect-borne disease. Within one of their statements is the following: “Mosquito species that transmit malaria do not usually survive where the mean winter temperature drops below 16-18 degrees Celsius.” Clearly the IPCC did not consult with experts in the field of malaria nor did the IPCC research any literature written by such experts because the facts obliterate their statement. People living in temperate regions and Arctic areas know that mosquitoes are abundant there. The notion that mosquitoes would migrate into those areas of the globe is playing on the ignorance of the fact that they are already there, and that the most devastating cases of malaria occurred in the Soviet Union in the 1920’s. There was somewhere around 13 million cases per year and around 600,000 deaths. It reached up into the Arctic regions. Arch Angel had 30,000 cases and about 10,000 deaths. So, it’s not just a tropical disease. But those in the global warming crowd have invented the idea that malaria will move northward.

The IPCC actually began writing their report based upon political factors before they even started getting any summaries from the contributing scientists. When a scientist submitted statements that did not fit the image that the IPCC wanted to convey, the scientists were urged to change their statements.

Professor Frederick Seitz, former IPCC contributor and former president of the National Academy of Sciences revealed a great deal of deception in their official reporting of the findings of many scientists on the panel. IPCC officials had censored the comments of specialists in the fields of climate. In a letter to the Wall Street Journal Seitz wrote, “But this report is not what it appears to be – it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page.” At least 15 key sections of the science chapter had been deleted. These included statements like “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.” “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.” Professor Seitz concluded, “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.” Professor Seitz went on to say, “When I resigned from the IPCC I thought that was the end of it. But when I saw the final draft my name was still there. So, I asked for it to be removed. Well, they told me that I had contributed so it would remain there. So, I said, ‘No, I hadn’t contributed because they haven’t listened to anything I’ve said.’ So, in the end it was quite a battle, but finally I threatened legal action against them and they removed my name. And I think this happens a great deal. Those people who are specialists but don’t agree to the pandemic have resigned, and there have been a number of them that I know of, uh, they are simply put on the author list and become part of this 2,500 of the world’s top scientists.”

Truth, spell it with me...

A-N-A-L-O-G-Y

Get it?

Accepted, KW. But you really didn't need to apologize; I'm used to your incorrect posts.

Pat, one question, when looking at ice cores, what tells us the earths temp went or went down? How does warmer temp ice differ from colder temp ice?

Another if: If the frozen methane in the oceans melts, then what?

Ice can melt when particulate matter, such as soot, falls on it and when there is geothermal activity near it. Was all that factored in?

Thank You Pat,It's nice to see that I'm not the only one that does research.

POST A COMMENT

• 'Kid Nation' reality show a new low
• Rivers a shameful hire
• Too little news
• ‘Diesel’ fumes
• Unlocalized story a disservice to readers
• Riled up by Christian music
• Darling of the left
• Solutions too costly