- Audit raises questions for Episcopal Church
- Where will they stop?
- What they expect
- A DIFFERING VIEW/Why oppose reforms in ‘lower ed’?
- War with Iran
- Bush has failed our children
- Sovereignty of our nation at stake
- Vote no on all Denver bond issues
- “Ghettorize” shouldn’t have been a factor
- Bottled-water woes
Mike Rosen & global warming
This letter has not been edited.
You're so right about Rosen. But, how can 3500 preeminent scientists' peer reviewed work possibly compare to Rosen's hubris?Additional evidence in the Gazette this weekend pegs the increase in CO2 35% greater than previously thought. How can it possibly hurt us to develop new 21st century technologies? We can either develop & sell the technology to China and others, or stick our heads back in the sand and buy the technologies from them - now there's an economic disaster.
Posted by Coco on October 29, 2007 02:22 PMIs Global warming a fact?
Yes.
Is man caused global warming a fact?
Maybe?
Is Al Gore 100% accurate?
Doubtful.
Should something be done?
Absolutely.
Do we know all the facts or have all the answers?
Not a chance.
Coco,
Only 3500? Piffle. According to http://www.oism.org/pproject/ 19,000 scientists say human caused global warming is a crock.
Posted by Dave on October 29, 2007 02:51 PMRosen is correct about the theory global warming due to fossil fuels. Yes the temperature of the earth is rising in some areas and cooling in others as it's has since it's beginnings.
It's the science of politics and economics more than facts of science are driving the fossil fuel theory. Men are incapable of changing the natural course of this temporary warming trend until it runs it's course.
We can do our part not to be wasteful, but drastically altering our lifesyles on a theory and the credibility of Al Gore and other world elitist is a joke.
Posted by on October 29, 2007 02:59 PMGore is a whore and anyone who believes him sniffs farts
Posted by on October 29, 2007 03:04 PMPollution is a good thing. You can trust Rosen and Rush. They wouldn't lie to you just to make money.
Posted by Clueless Republican Stooge on October 29, 2007 03:28 PMPollution is a good thing. You can trust Rosen and Rush. They wouldn't lie to you just to make money.
Posted by Clueless Republican Stooge on October 29, 2007 03:28 PMFormer advisor to Margaret Thatcher, Christopher Monckton asked algore to debate his global warming lies but algore ran the other way and had to fly off in his private jet to catch his suv to his same home in the hills of who cares.
yep everyone is out to make money on algores global warming lies and dont forget his carbon credit company.
why does algore hide and never debate his idea? if he is so sure aobut what he bs's about why will he not have a personal debate? I bet it is because he has no clue and would look stupid in trying to answer even one question.
One thing is correct about what Sen. Gore references on occasion (and that may be the only thing Sen Gore is correct on). The debate is over.
The media bought into the sensationalism of the Earth's natural cycle of warming since the Mini Ice Age ended in the 1800's, as being "human induced" or anthropogenic. I use the word sensationalism, because it is the most appropriate use of the word. And, if the media is reporting it, and all those scientists at the IPCC are reporting it, it MUST BE TRUE, right? But if we take a closer look at what DOESN'T get reported, that is where we truly find the evidence.
1. The IPCC does NO collection of data, does not perform ANY scientific experiment. But as it says on the about page: "The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters." So, what does the IPCC do? "The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."
That bears repeating... "risk of human-induced climate change..." That is the ENTIRE purpose of the IPCC. To provide POLICY information, with the ASSUMPTION that AGW has already occurred or is occurring... HUGE leap of faith...
2. The ONLY thing that has shown anthropogenic forcing are computer models designed to demonstrate the forcing effect of atmospheric CO2, with regard to actual physical data. Not only do those models ignore physical data, the predictions of these models have not demonstrated any physical evidence!
3. The media does not present any other information, or actual theories on why the temperature of the Earth is warming, including an increase in solar "sun spots", cloud formation, atmospheric H2O, and dust particles (or soot - that Hansen et all reported was the leading OBSERVABLE cause for Arctic Ice Retreat in his 2006 'Science' article from, of all places, SE ASIA).
Those that wish to just bury their head's in the sand, and believe hook line and sinker in what the main-stream media reports, are free to do so, and may remain ignorant to the "real world," historical data, observable physical and replicated data, and to understanding the dynamics of the climate.
Earl, what do you propose us humans do?
Giving a Nobel PEACE prize to Al Gore exposes how political the prize has become.
"Mr. Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize should inspire us all to do our part for a better future." But Gore will say do as I say not as I do? What is Gore's solution?
Clueless Republican Stooge; One thing I have found while trying to educate myself on Global Warming is that there is a lot of money to be made due to THEORIES!
I need to make a correction. It is not the "mini Ice Age" but the "Little Ice Age" and in point 2, it should read "...computer models designed to demonstrate the forcing effect of atmospheric CO2, withOUT regard to actual physical data" and not the "...computer models designed to demonstrate the forcing effect of atmospheric CO2, with regard to actual physical data" as written. I apologize for my lack of attention to detail.
Posted by Dan2 on October 29, 2007 04:27 PMDave - your Oregon Institute seems to be wholly agenda driven, with dubious science at best:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
"The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war." Etc etc.
See also:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/
Can't you do better than citing these flakes?
Posted by Liam on October 29, 2007 04:47 PMMention of human-caused global warming gets the dittoheads foaming at the mouth more than just about anything else.
I wonder, in their pretend-reality bubble, what they suppose the so-called "Liberal" agenda is for protecting the Earth's environment?
What does Rush and Exxon tell them to think is so wrong with not wanting to live up to our necks in our own filth?
The dittoheads choose to ignore people who live in the arctic who are seeing changes never seen in human memory, and they choose to ignore people who live in cities choking in smog, but they give their unquestioning loyalty to an obese, cynical drug addict with a microphone.
No wonder they support Bush - they're imbeciles.
Posted by Stavros on October 29, 2007 06:00 PMAdd earl to the village idiot list.
Posted by Keith on October 29, 2007 06:19 PMAdd earl to the village idiot list.
Posted by Keith on October 29, 2007 06:25 PMDan2: "That bears repeating... "risk of human-induced climate change..." That is the ENTIRE purpose of the IPCC. To provide POLICY information, with the ASSUMPTION that AGW has already occurred or is occurring... HUGE leap of faith..."
Dan2 apparently does not understand the word "risk". All of the scientists involved in the global warming debate, whichever side they come down on, are assessing the risk of human induced climate-change.
It is this kind of sophomoric "reasoning" that does nothing but muddy the waters.
Or using Dan2's tactics, IT IS THIS KIND OF "REASONING" THAT DOES NOTHING BUT MUDDY THE WATERS.
If the doctor assesses the risk of a patient having a heart attack, Dan2's fallacious "reasoning" would be that the doctor is assuming that the patient has had a heart attack.
If an investor assesses the risk that a stock he is considering will lose value, Dan2's fallacious "reasoning" would be that the stock has already lost value.
As I said, Dan2 simply does not understand the word "risk".
That bears repeating:
Dan2 simply does not understand the word "risk".
Posted by Truth on October 29, 2007 06:50 PMTruth understands felching.
Posted by on October 29, 2007 07:51 PMLiam,
What either you or realclimate feel about OISM isn't the issue.
It's the 19,000 scientists, who disagree with the human caused GW theory, who signed the petition.
Posted by Dave on October 29, 2007 10:28 PMThe root causes to global warming may be debatable, but Mike Rosen is hardly the hack to impart accurate information. There are much better sources, on both sides of the debate, to acquire valid data. Rosen's column works best when it lines my bird cage.
Posted by Dan on October 29, 2007 11:02 PMDave - I suspect that your reference would be more accurate if t read: "19,000" and "scientists." These guys are clearly working backwards (and sideways, and upside down) from a foregone conclusion. Do they list these so-called "scientists" anywhere? Find a credible source please.
Posted by Liam on October 30, 2007 02:11 AMRosen is a joke. He is a complete moron. He has no business even having an opinion about global warming. The man is a right wing psycho. Probably picks up young Republicans at the Men's room.
Posted by on October 30, 2007 07:43 AM"Despite overwhelming evidence concerning global warming and its impact on our world’s future..."
Where is this "overwhelming" evidence being hidden? Evidence on climate change? Yes, its been going on for 4.6 billion years, that's not news and there's some pretty good data on the subject. Man's role as it is currently being packaged by global warming liberals and hysterical alarmists? Absolutely nothing--zero, zilch, nada. And "impact?" You have to be kidding! How can you possibly have any evidence and data regarding the result of something that has yet to happen?
In just one lead sentence, the writer not only destroys his own credibility but firmly establishes himself as a hysterical "sky is falling," zealot, fanatic and alarmist. He belongs to the cult of doom.
Scaring people is big business in liberal circles. The same moonbat crowd gave us "The coming Ice Age" only 35 years ago. I'm still waiting.
Posted by Hank on October 30, 2007 08:19 AM"Scaring people is big business in liberal circles. "
Don't forget to take off your shoes TODAY'S SECURITY LEVEL IS ORANGE-ELEVATED
9/11 9/11 WMDs Saddam Hussien IRAN IRAN IRAN!
West Nile!
Posted by on October 30, 2007 08:53 AMLiam, "Do they list these so-called 'scientists' anywhere?"
On the left side of http://www.oism.org/pproject/ you'll find links to the signers' names.
Posted by Dave on October 30, 2007 08:59 AMThe conspiracy widens:
"On October 29, 2007, leaders of more than 15 governments met in Lisbon, Portugal to launch the establishment of the International Carbon Action Partnership (ICAP). ICAP is made up of countries and regions that have implemented or are actively pursuing the implementation of carbon markets through mandatory cap and trade systems. The partnership provides a forum to share experiences and knowledge. Sharing and evaluating best practices will help ICAP members determine the extent to which their respective programs can be supported by, and or benefit from, the ICAP process."
You've got to hand it to that Al Gore guy, he is some kind of salesman. What's more, he has done it all while living in a big house.
You have to compare his salesmanship with that other guy who lives in an even bigger house.
Posted by on October 30, 2007 09:16 AM
Look at the bright side. As the ice melts, we can do more drilling for oil and gas and use the energy to power our air conditioners. The people whose houses get flooded can just go to work on the drilling rig platforms up in the arctic.
" Global warming opens Arctic seabed to the search for oil and gas
By Patricia Brett
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
PARIS: As the ice retreats, nations try to advance their undersea borders and resource claims
The Arctic is rich in natural resources, including hydrocarbons, and rapid thawing due to global warming could make exploiting those mineral resources feasible relatively soon.
Large, discovered oil and natural gas reserves totaling 233 billion barrels of oil or its equivalent can be found in the Arctic Basin, according to a recent study by two British consulting firms, Wood McKenzie and Fugro Robertson, "with potential additional resources estimated at 166 billion barrels of oil equivalent."
Posted by on October 30, 2007 09:22 AMThanks for your insight Keith (Queef)
Posted by on October 30, 2007 09:23 AMThe conspiracy widens:
"More than 600 mayors have pledged to fight global warming by signing the U.S. Conference of Mayor’s (USCM) Climate Protection agreement."
What about this guy Gore? He seems to have almost everybody eating out of his hand. Talk about a uniter. Compare him with that other who said he would be a uniter. And he was. He pretty well united everyone against him.
Posted by Truth on October 30, 2007 09:31 AMIs this the same Albert Gore who claims credit for tax legislation enacted before he was elected to office? Who buys global warming indulgences from ... himself? Who invented the internet?
Eh, if the granddaddy of terrorists, Yasser Arafat, can get a Peace Prize, credibility must not be on the Nobel criteria.
Posted by prima facie on October 30, 2007 10:03 AMprima facie, you are probably unaware of it, but there are one or two people besides Al Gore who think as he does. Another thing you might, or rather should be, aware of is that the validity of global warming does not depend on whether Gore should have received the Nobel Prize. I realize that it is a little difficult to keep up with things when your head is in the sand.
Posted by Truth on October 30, 2007 12:07 PMDave, the OISM petition was junk.
The wording was misleading and likely to cause bias due to the inclusion of the phrase “catastrophic heating” as a key element of the claim, and the conclusion OISM drew is therefore unjustified and did not demonstrate that the bulk of the signatories were agreeing that global warming was not occurring as OISM claims it shows.
They also mimicked the style and presentation of the “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences”, and thus many people were likely to sign without reading the petition itself. Which led to a disclaimer by NAS
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998
I suggest you cite something more reputable and something out of a peer-reviewed scientific journal or science body.
The real issue with Mr. Rosen and the like-minded has nothing to do with global warming per se. What really bothers them is that if they admitted that it was true, they would also have to admit to their contribution to it and responsibility to undertake corrective measures. That responsibility they don't wan't to assume. If find it interesting that exactly 50 years ago, when the Russians put up the first orbiting satellite (Sputnik), some individual put our a "big red book", full of pictures, that it was not true. We always have those chronic denyers among us who simply cannot face reality.
Posted by Robert I. Laitres on October 31, 2007 08:06 AMDave:
Only 3500? Piffle. According to http://www.oism.org/pproject/ 19,000 scientists say human caused global warming is a crock.
That's the same list that had cast members from M*A*S*H and the Spice Girls listed.
Scientific American did some research on the list:
http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21
Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition¿one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers--a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.Posted by CL on October 31, 2007 10:38 AM
This prize is so 'worthless' that George Bush coveted it ( and lost) and of course horrible people like Albert Sweitzer, MLK, mother Theresa and even Henry Kissinger have won it.
Posted by on November 1, 2007 02:58 PM