PDA

View Full Version : Climate change nonsense



Fenris
Jul 22nd 2008, 12:23 PM
I realize that the facts involved are less interesting than an Al Gore soundbite. But if politicians want to enact programs that are going to wreck the economy, shouldn't people be aware of the facts?

From the Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html)



No smoking hot spot







David Evans | July 18, 2008

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions

caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.



The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.



But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:



1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.



Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.



If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.



When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.



Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.



2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.



3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.



4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.



The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.



Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.



So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.



In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.


If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?



The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.



What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.



The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.



Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

Rullion Green
Jul 22nd 2008, 01:25 PM
The only constant there is with the climate, is that it changes !

it's the only thing the scientist can agree on, me thinks it's a great oppertunity to tax people, who wouldn't want to save the planet ?

There may be some truth to global warming or cooling or whatever it is now but it's been blown out of all sensible and scientific proportions, and is now being used as a tool to tax.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 22nd 2008, 02:22 PM
There may be some truth to global warming or cooling or whatever it is now but it's been blown out of all sensible and scientific proportions, and is now being used as a tool to tax.

There is truth in it, but it's not man made, that is the fallacy here.

Shalom,
Tanja

Rullion Green
Jul 22nd 2008, 02:29 PM
There is truth in it, but it's not man made, that is the fallacy here.

Shalom,
Tanja

Man has polutted the enviroment that cant be denyied. But if you mean in the bigger picture then i agree.

Literalist-Luke
Jul 22nd 2008, 03:48 PM
I've known for quite some time that "global warming" is a farce. Give 'em thirty years and they'll be screaming about another ice age, just like they were thirty years ago.

Rullion Green
Jul 22nd 2008, 04:17 PM
I've known for quite some time that "global warming" is a farce. Give 'em thirty years and they'll be screaming about another ice age, just like they were thirty years ago.

:agree:

I live in Scotland and was egarly awaiting global warming, they have been teasing me for years now. I wont throw away my duffle coat just yet :D

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 22nd 2008, 04:23 PM
Man has polluted the environment that cant be denyied. But if you mean in the bigger picture then i agree.There's no denying man has messed with much and polluted much, However, i cannot see this having such a drastic impact on the environment as they claim it has. How come then Venus which is also globally warming has no such excuse as man polluting it?

:lol: Next thing you know they will be claiming our pollution stinks to high heaven and we're to blame for Venus going haywire too!!!! :lol:

Tanja

teddyv
Jul 22nd 2008, 04:24 PM
Looking around there is some rebuttal to the original posting here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php

I would assume RealClimate has something on this by now.

I used to be very much on the side that the warming was a natural occurrence but I find it pretty hard to dismiss the volumes of data and much good science that is working on this problem. There is an undeniable fact that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been increasing. I don't deny the political football that this issue has become and really muddies the waters.

Like others have indicated here, it is still debatable on the amount that is human induced or contributed. Having taken a few atmospheric studies classes in unversity I am somewhat aware of the difficulties in attempting to model a global climate scenario. That being said I will not dismiss the studies out of hand as some like to do.

I personally feel that reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is very much due both for environmental and political reasons. Ultimately technological advances can probably engineer us out of this quicker and less expensively than trying to scale back economies.

Fenris
Jul 22nd 2008, 04:31 PM
I used to be very much on the side that the warming was a natural occurrence but I find it pretty hard to dismiss the volumes of data and much good science that is working on this problem.


It's my understanding that temperature rises and drops on earth are paralleled by similar rises and drops on mars. This would mean that the temperature changes are caused by variations in the output of the sun.

teddyv
Jul 22nd 2008, 04:46 PM
It's my understanding that temperature rises and drops on earth are paralleled by similar rises and drops on mars. This would mean that the temperature changes are caused by variations in the output of the sun.

I'm sure that is correct, and it is true that as the sun goes, so do we. This still does not invalidate the observations and measurements of the CO2 in our atmosphere. We may still get rises and falls as the sun goes through its 11 year cycle (I think we are starting to head back toward a maximum), but it the earth's global average has increased then we still have a problem.

As I touched on n my previous post, feedbacks (especially the negative ones) are a big issue. Decreased albedo, increased ocean temparatures can rapidly add to the effects of warming. Are there enough positive feedbacks (i.e. increased cloud cover) to counteract the warming?

Rullion Green
Jul 22nd 2008, 04:51 PM
There's no denying man has messed with much and polluted much, However, i cannot see this having such a drastic impact on the environment as they claim it has. How come then Venus which is also globally warming has no such excuse as man polluting it?

:lol: Next thing you know they will be claiming our pollution stinks to high heaven and we're to blame for Venus going haywire too!!!! :lol:

Tanja

Yep i agree

seems like a sensible balanced view to me :)

Although it has been said by some scientist that the hole in the Ozone is the result of the cows farting too much :crazy:

markinro
Jul 22nd 2008, 04:55 PM
MMGW is not controversial. It is a very deliberate and calculated fib

teddyv
Jul 22nd 2008, 04:59 PM
There's no denying man has messed with much and polluted much, However, i cannot see this having such a drastic impact on the environment as they claim it has. How come then Venus which is also globally warming has no such excuse as man polluting it?

:lol: Next thing you know they will be claiming our pollution stinks to high heaven and we're to blame for Venus going haywire too!!!! :lol:

Tanja
Missed this earlier. Venus could be considered the result of a runaway greenhouse effect. I don't think much has changed since the earlier probes arrived. Venus' surface temperature is like 900°F, 90 atmospheres of pressure, and sulfuric acid clouds. It's pretty much been this way for a long time.

teddyv
Jul 22nd 2008, 05:04 PM
Although it has been said by some scientist that the hole in the Ozone is the result of the cows farting too much :crazy:

Not sure if this statement was meant to be flippant or not.

The cow farting/burping applies to global warming (due to methane - a greehouns gas), not ozone depletion - that is a separate issue that has been somewhat successfully addressed.

Literalist-Luke
Jul 22nd 2008, 07:39 PM
It's my understanding that temperature rises and drops on earth are paralleled by similar rises and drops on mars. This would mean that the temperature changes are caused by variations in the output of the sun.That is exactly what is going on, and in fact here is a website that discusses that very thing:

The Interplanetary Day After Tomorrow (http://www.enterprisemission.com/_articles/05-14-2004_Interplanetary_Part_1/Interplanetary_1.htm)

teddyv
Jul 22nd 2008, 07:47 PM
That is exactly what is going on, and in fact here is a website that discusses that very thing:

The Interplanetary Day After Tomorrow (http://www.enterprisemission.com/_articles/05-14-2004_Interplanetary_Part_1/Interplanetary_1.htm)

:eek: Richard Hoagland? Oh dear.

Literalist-Luke
Jul 23rd 2008, 02:07 AM
:eek: Richard Hoagland? Oh dear.What's wrong with Richard Hoagland? http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/twitch.gif I don't know anything about him.

teddyv
Jul 23rd 2008, 04:33 AM
What's wrong with Richard Hoagland? http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/twitch.gif I don't know anything about him.

Oh sorry. Richard Hoagland has got some rather fantastical ideas, unfortunately generally not grounded in much reality. I read about him years ago at the BadAstronomy site. I've poked around Hoagland's website Enterprise Mission and its lots of woo.

The BA site has some details of his credentials; http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/credentials.html

Some of the interesting things he goes on and on about are the Mars "face" and ancient city around it, Hyperion (moon of Saturn) is actually a spaceship, and hyperdimensions (whatever that means). Scroll through his main page (enterprisemission.com) and you might get a sense of what I mean.

Rullion Green
Jul 23rd 2008, 11:29 AM
Not sure if this statement was meant to be flippant or not.

The cow farting/burping applies to global warming (due to methane - a greehouns gas), not ozone depletion - that is a separate issue that has been somewhat successfully addressed.

Yeah it was flippent, i wouldn't waste my time looking into the ramifications of cow farts.

ProjectPeter
Jul 23rd 2008, 11:58 AM
Next time y'all talk to someone all about global warming etc... ask them what is earths perfect temperature? No scientist out there has an answer for that other than "we aren't sure." So even if there is global warming... maybe that is a good thing. Earth might just be reaching that perfect temp. If it is cooling.... that might be a good thing as it might just be getting back to its perfect temp. The whole thing is just goofy but hey.... tons of research money in it so the alarms will continue to be sounded. :rolleyes:

Literalist-Luke
Jul 23rd 2008, 03:22 PM
Oh sorry. Richard Hoagland has got some rather fantastical ideas, unfortunately generally not grounded in much reality. I read about him years ago at the BadAstronomy site. I've poked around Hoagland's website Enterprise Mission and its lots of woo.

The BA site has some details of his credentials; http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/credentials.html

Some of the interesting things he goes on and on about are the Mars "face" and ancient city around it, Hyperion (moon of Saturn) is actually a spaceship, and hyperdimensions (whatever that means). Scroll through his main page (enterprisemission.com) and you might get a sense of what I mean.Huh. OK, well my main point I was making by posting that website is simply that other planets besides earth are also experiencing "global warming", which automatically means it's coming from the sun, not us. But thanks for the heads up.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 23rd 2008, 03:26 PM
Even if it doesn't exist, does this mean we can go back to life as normal?

For those in a big city, look across the city at 8 in the morning or 7 a night. Then tell me if you think breathing in that stuff you see can possibly be good for you, or if we're being good stewards of the environment. ;)

Fenris
Jul 23rd 2008, 03:38 PM
There's a price to pay for living in an industrialized society. Unless you want to go back to the stone age, there's going to be some pollution. It was much worse about 25 years ago, if I recall correctly...

Revinius
Jul 23rd 2008, 04:17 PM
and here i was thinking the multi-front war was what was killing your economy...

Fenris
Jul 23rd 2008, 04:30 PM
and here i was thinking the multi-front war was what was killing your economy...Drop in the bucket.

fewarechosen
Jul 23rd 2008, 04:36 PM
i personally really dont give any special thought to global warming -- in my mind its par the course.

we as himans definatly have an impact on warmin the earth, phoenix arizona keeps track of its city heat compared to its desert heat, and the city stays about 10 degrees warmer than the surrounding area, all that black pavement and such keeping heat in. now you multiply that a thousand fold over every city and you know it has to have an effect.

EarlyCall
Jul 23rd 2008, 04:57 PM
i personally really dont give any special thought to global warming -- in my mind its par the course.

we as himans definatly have an impact on warmin the earth, phoenix arizona keeps track of its city heat compared to its desert heat, and the city stays about 10 degrees warmer than the surrounding area, all that black pavement and such keeping heat in. now you multiply that a thousand fold over every city and you know it has to have an effect.

By the same token, if we all cranked our furnaces up to the maximum setting this winter and opened all our windows, we could relaly heat this planet up.

teddyv
Jul 23rd 2008, 05:04 PM
Huh. OK, well my main point I was making by posting that website is simply that other planets besides earth are also experiencing "global warming", which automatically means it's coming from the sun, not us. But thanks for the heads up.
No problem. I don't disagree with your point, but just be sure you check your sources instead of looking for the first site that confirms your point or bias - using a site like that only works against you.:) I'm sure there are better sources available.

danield
Jul 23rd 2008, 05:32 PM
Well I know I will be the only person who feels that there is substance to the global warming debate. And I assure anyone that I am not a follower of Al Gore nor am I a worshiper of the earth. I said this up front because normally people attack anyone who thinks there is substance to the changes we are seeing globally. I am also not an environmentalist at all. I think we should drill for oil in Alaska and offshore in Florida so please do not label me in that group. Please bear with me while I explain my views.

We know that in an industrial age man can and often does effect the environment around us. Someone mentioned the ozone earlier, and our reversal in flora carbons usage did indeed stop the thinning of our ozone layer. We can look at china and see first hand the magnitude of pollution on citizens. The haze in several cities is so great that just by breathing their fresh air there you consume the equivalent of smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day. They have been working feverishly to cut down on the smog that will come under the scrutiny of the world during the Olympics. People are only allowed to drive to work every other day. All other times there are required to take public transportation. I am sure everyone witnessed the green sea agley they have been working to clear from the sea.

What I am trying to show everyone is how China and other countries are coming on line to the consumption of fossil fuels. For years only a small portion of the world had the wealth to own and operate vehicles in an industrialized age (not to mention the many smokestack factories). And I only think it is common scenes that there is repercussions that stem out of the usage of these fossil fuels.

Just in our country we are seeing great flooding and droughts in segments that have long been somewhat stable climates. It does not take a rocket scientist to see the changes we are all experiencing. Large tornados in the winter in areas that never really see them that time of year. Even though America did not see a huge hurricane hit it last year Mexico saw 3 Cat 5 come ashore, and that does not count the other hurricanes slamming into coasts around the globe. I know people are leery about things but when we see the North Pole shrink to the size it was last year, something has to be up.

But my reasoning about these changes are not just based on what I am witnessing across the globe. Christ told us that there will be famines in the last days. And what better way to have a large scale famine is to have an ever growing population in an industrialized age pumping out the smoke that will change the climate patterns in the bread baskets of the world. Again I am not following Gore but if the polar caps did melt and added several feet of water all around the world, would that added pressure to the earths crust in such a vast area create an above average earthquake season? I think it will, and above that I think people will shrug it all off to global warming as opposed to witnessing the last days.

Mark 13:8 8 Nation will go to war against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in many parts of the world, as well as famines. But this is only the first of the birth pains, with more to come.

I think Christ knew that the last days will come in an industrialized age and it is why he mentioned it to his followers back then. Today we are shrugging off all these changes explained away by science as an increase of our carbon emissions, and it detracts from the warnings Christ gave us ages ago. It is explained away to the point that when Christ does come it will still be as a thief in the night. People will become comfortable to the slow changes we are seeing in our weather.

I will also mention that there will be nothing that lowers our global carbon emissions output. We have to have a large consumption of fuel in order to feed the growing population on the earth. Even a Gas tax by Al Gore will not deter the effects of the amount of pollution we will generate everyday. Countries like China and India will only produce more goods and services and in turn more carbon will be produced. It is just all part of Gods perfect plan if you ask me.I am sorry to disagree with so many mainstream Christian media sources, but it all just perfectly fits together with scripture. I think most of the resistance from the far right is the fear of how much tax will be imposed to try and find a solution to the problem. And anytime there is a change of wealth there is strong resistance. I too do not want to pay any tax, but at the end of the day, I think a tax increase is going to be the least of everybody’s worries. I hope I have not offended anyone with my views.

God Bless

apothanein kerdos
Jul 23rd 2008, 05:53 PM
There's a price to pay for living in an industrialized society. Unless you want to go back to the stone age, there's going to be some pollution. It was much worse about 25 years ago, if I recall correctly...

...or we could continue to try to find alternative forms of energy. We could try to change how much we consume. We could try to be personally responsible.

fewarechosen
Jul 23rd 2008, 06:10 PM
Ah, another one who wants us to return to the stone age.

where do you see that in my post at all ? thats you putting words in my mouth

i even say i dont care, so please take my word for it i dont care.

somehow you turn that into me caring and saying whoaaa stop all this, im not at all

im just saying what we do has an affect on the environment.

are you saying we dont ?

Fenris
Jul 23rd 2008, 07:11 PM
...or we could continue to try to find alternative forms of energy. We could try to change how much we consume. We could try to be personally responsible.
Since the situation is better than it was 25 years ago, I think we are being responsible.

Fenris
Jul 23rd 2008, 07:13 PM
im just saying what we do has an affect on the environment.

are you saying we dont ?
Let's put it this way: If we're going to enact programs that are going to wreck our economy, I want proof that if we don't something dire will happen.

And no one has provided proof.

fewarechosen
Jul 23rd 2008, 07:24 PM
Let's put it this way: If we're going to enact programs that are going to wreck our economy, I want proof that if we don't something dire will happen.

And no one has provided proof.

i wasnt enacting any programs in my post. personally i could care less about mans programs, mans gonna get exactly what he deserves.

if you dont think its proof that cities stay warmer than non cities well then thats ok with me, if you dont think our atmosphere holds in heat thats ok, if you dont think the heat we generate is held in then thats ok too

i dont care about this planet the way many do , gods gonna melt the very elements that compose it, so what do i care if the we heat the climate or not.

also i dont care about the economy, i count on a time of great famine coming, i count on harsh times when people will be killing eachother for food, the economy is gonna do what mammon likes to do, it has nothing to do with me following the lord. do i want people to starve and to suffer - no , do i know people will starve and suffer -yes

and something dire is going to happen - the proof is scripture. my lord told me blood will flow to the a horse bridle and so it will - good economy or bad economy, global warming or no global warming those wont stop the blood from flowing

theleast
Jul 23rd 2008, 08:59 PM
Let's put it this way: If we're going to enact programs that are going to wreck our economy, I want proof that if we don't something dire will happen.

And no one has provided proof.

Something dire is going to happen whether we do or don't enact programs.

It is too late to stop anything now.

Let me ask you this....there are somewhere between 7 and 8 billion people on the earth today. 20 years ago it was more like 6 billion.

Using that math in 20 more years were going to have 10 billion, then 20 years after that maybe 13 billion and so on and so on.

How many people can the earth sustain do you think before it breaks down, or rather breaks us down? Are we going to enact breeding programs to prevent people from having children? Are we going to continue to expand medicine so that lifespans are even further expanded so that people live even longer further expanding the surplus population?

???????????????

quiet dove
Jul 23rd 2008, 09:17 PM
Are we going to continue to expand medicine so that lifespans are even further expanded so that people live even longer further expanding the surplus population?


If they continue to put additives in our food supply and stuff like that, it will still all probably balance out. Feed us unhealthy food in one hand and medicine in the other.

fewarechosen
Jul 23rd 2008, 09:19 PM
If they continue to put additives in our food supply and stuff like that, it will still all probably balance out. Feed us unhealthy food in one hand and medicine in the other.

that made me laugh in a sad way cause its so true

apothanein kerdos
Jul 23rd 2008, 09:34 PM
Since the situation is better than it was 25 years ago, I think we are being responsible.

But it's not as good as it should be.

Even if it crashes our economy (which, let's face it, is going to crash no matter what and will recover no matter what - that's how Capitalism works) it's worth it. This is God's creation we're talking about.

Fenris
Jul 23rd 2008, 09:40 PM
Something dire is going to happen whether we do or don't enact programs.

It is too late to stop anything now.

Let me ask you this....there are somewhere between 7 and 8 billion people on the earth today. 20 years ago it was more like 6 billion.

Using that math in 20 more years were going to have 10 billion, then 20 years after that maybe 13 billion and so on and so on.

How many people can the earth sustain do you think before it breaks down, or rather breaks us down? Are we going to enact breeding programs to prevent people from having children? Are we going to continue to expand medicine so that lifespans are even further expanded so that people live even longer further expanding the surplus population?

???????????????What does any of this have to do with the OP?

Fenris
Jul 23rd 2008, 09:41 PM
But it's not as good as it should be.

Even if it crashes our economy (which, let's face it, is going to crash no matter what and will recover no matter what - that's how Capitalism works) it's worth it.
Just because there exists a business cycle of boom and bust is no excuse to throw trillions of dollars away.

theleast
Jul 23rd 2008, 10:40 PM
What does any of this have to do with the OP?

Everything!

Humanity is effecting the environment whether people want to admit it or not. We can aruge exactly WHAT effect we are having till we are blue in the face, but that will never change the fact that we are destroying our environment.

Human beings behave more like a virus than a mammal. We move to an area until we consume every natural resource that is available, and then when we have thoroughly destroyed that area we...move on.

Go ahead and make laws to protect the environment, it matters little. Until you can make the human body or our livestock stop breathing oxygen and emitting carbon dioxide, or passing methane gas out of us or our livestock you can not stop the atmospheric change. Unless you can stop human being from creating btu's of body heat that are held in by our atmosphere the earth will continue to warm.

And all of theses effects continue to grow with the exponential expansion of the population of the earth.

Fenris
Jul 23rd 2008, 11:06 PM
Everything!
...
Human beings behave more like a virus than a mammal. We move to an area until we consume every natural resource that is available, and then when we have thoroughly destroyed that area we...move on.

Oh, so you saw the 'Matrix' movie. :rolleyes::lol:

God gave us the earth for our dominion. It's all there for us to use.

tgallison
Jul 24th 2008, 12:13 AM
...or we could continue to try to find alternative forms of energy. We could try to change how much we consume. We could try to be personally responsible.

Are you saying the God who spoke, and our world came into existence was not wise enough to allow for mans actions?

Those that are looking for alternative forms of energy, should be pleading for nuclear energy. But they are silent on efforts that would actually work, and help our economy. They seem to want us to turn off the lights and crawl into a hole. That is what will happen if they have their way.

theleast
Jul 24th 2008, 12:19 AM
Oh, so you saw the 'Matrix' movie. :rolleyes::lol:

God gave us the earth for our dominion. It's all there for us to use.

It's there for us to use...not destroy.

And yes I did see the Matrix movie, but that statement is still true.

Fenris
Jul 24th 2008, 01:17 AM
I don't see where anything is being destroyed.

I can't believe you're quoting a movie to prove your point.

teddyv
Jul 24th 2008, 03:03 AM
Let's put it this way: If we're going to enact programs that are going to wreck our economy, I want proof that if we don't something dire will happen.

And no one has provided proof.
What type of proof do you require? I don't think you are ever going to get the proof you want. It's more about managing risk. And what type of programs are going to wreck your economy?

The problem with global warming scenarios is that there is so much uncertainty and that uncertainty can go in both directions. I don't think we will see anything apocalyptic in scope but there is potential for severe hardship for many elsewhere in the world should the bad-case scenarios play out. The western world will probably be OK because we have the resources to deal with these issues.

You seem to suggest sitting on your hands until something happens - but forgive if that's not the case. I'd rather get out there and start shifting to non-fossil fuel options such as nuclear, hydro, augmented with wind and solar. Economically, investment in these technologies could have a huge positive benefit. (And while were at it, keep funding investigations into fusion power:)).

theleast
Jul 24th 2008, 04:39 AM
I don't see where anything is being destroyed.

I can't believe you're quoting a movie to prove your point.

You don't see where anything is being destroyed?

Really?

So you don't think cutting down millions of acres of forests, over fishing the worlds seas or oceans, pumping millions of pounds of carbon emmisions into the atmosphere, or over farming grasslands has any negative effects on the environment?

You don't see pollution as a problem at all?

Wow just.......wow.

Also I didn't quote the movie. :rofl:That is how human beings behave.

tgallison
Jul 24th 2008, 11:13 AM
[quote=theleast;1721592]You don't see where anything is being destroyed?

Nope!


Really?Really!


So you don't think cutting down millions of acres of forests,Renewable resource that God gave us to use. Or do you think we should live in caves? The other answer would be not to be fruitful, and reproduce. This seems to be the answer of most tree huggers. Humans don't belong on the earth. Most tree hugger don't believe in God, therefore they don't realize God provided for man, past, present, and future.


over fishing the worlds seas or oceans,We have been actively trying to get rid of mosquitoes since time began, never happen. The sea is so full of life we will never make a dent in it. There may be certain species that have diminished in numbers. Again God allows for it. Perhaps we should stop eating fish. You say eat more vegetables, good Idea. The only trouble is we will have to cut down more trees.


pumping millions of pounds of carbon emmisions into the atmosphere

God puts more pollution into the air in one day, then we do in years. Ever hear of Mt. St. Helens?


or over farming grasslands has any negative effects on the environment?Over farming, is that the same as overproducing? I see bigger and better crops on the same farmland year after year. This statement is invalid.


You don't see pollution as a problem at all? Yes I do. Pollution in the hearts and minds of men leads to death of the soul.


Wow just.......wow.That is what I say! Why would anyone want to worship Al Gore?

Rullion Green
Jul 24th 2008, 12:27 PM
I can't believe you're quoting a movie to prove your point.

Oh, you should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about."

Gene Wilder willy wonka :lol:

Fenris
Jul 24th 2008, 12:40 PM
What type of proof do you require?Proof that man's activities is causing global warming which would be dangerous to mankind.


And what type of programs are going to wreck your economy?Oh, I don't know. The price tag on hose 'green' programs runs into the trillions of dollars. Where is that money going to come from?


The problem with global warming scenarios is that there is so much uncertainty and that uncertainty can go in both directions. If there's so much uncertainty we should go running off making changes.

Fenris
Jul 24th 2008, 12:45 PM
You don't see where anything is being destroyed?

Really?Yep.


So you don't think cutting down millions of acres of forests,
In this country? When we cut down trees we replant them.


over fishing the worlds seas or oceans,
What does that have to do with the OP?


pumping millions of pounds of carbon emmisions into the atmosphere,Which is, apparently, a drop in the bucket compared to natural processes that create CO2. Think animal flatulence. Think volcanoes. They create more CO2 than the American industry.


or over farming grasslandsWhat does that mean?


has any negative effects on the environment? My grass is green, my water's clean, there's less smog than there was in the 1970s...


You don't see pollution as a problem at all? I see developing countries creating pollution as a problem. But no one intends to reign in their pollution, just ours. That would transfer our wealth and productivity to them. Why one earth would we do that?




Also I didn't quote the movie. :rofl:That is how human beings behave.
When you quote movie characters, I assume that's where you got the idea. Obviously you're more impressed with the Hollywood crew than I am.

theleast
Jul 24th 2008, 02:09 PM
[quote]

Nope!

Really!

Renewable resource that God gave us to use. Or do you think we should live in caves? The other answer would be not to be fruitful, and reproduce. This seems to be the answer of most tree huggers. Humans don't belong on the earth. Most tree hugger don't believe in God, therefore they don't realize God provided for man, past, present, and future.

We have been actively trying to get rid of mosquitoes since time began, never happen. The sea is so full of life we will never make a dent in it. There may be certain species that have diminished in numbers. Again God allows for it. Perhaps we should stop eating fish. You say eat more vegetables, good Idea. The only trouble is we will have to cut down more trees.



God puts more pollution into the air in one day, then we do in years. Ever hear of Mt. St. Helens?

Over farming, is that the same as overproducing? I see bigger and better crops on the same farmland year after year. This statement is invalid.

Yes I do. Pollution in the hearts and minds of men leads to death of the soul.

That is what I say! Why would anyone want to worship Al Gore?

Renewable resource. O.K. So when they cut down a rainforest that was hundreds of years in development and plant saplings you see that as replacing a forest?

We have already made a dent in the seas. 1/3 of ocean populations are already depleted in most areas, because of global warming the coral reefs are being bleached by the sun which is destroying a multitude of species there.

When did I say eat more vegatables.

Are you saying that God is polluting the earth? That is foolish.

Also when you overfarm the earth nutrients are depleted from the soil that can never be replaced no matter how much manure and nitrogen you dump on it. An ear of corn today grown on the same plot of land 2000 years ago has nowhere near the same nutritional value. Yes you can overfarm land.

And I can't stand Al Gore and his hypocricies. This is what I am telling you. There is NOTHING you can do to stop what is about to happen. So just pray to God that his will is fulfilled, and when famine hits pray that you are not one of the ones starving. And pray that your flight is not in winter. Cause that will be even worse.

theleast
Jul 24th 2008, 02:12 PM
Yep.


In this country? When we cut down trees we replant them.


What does that have to do with the OP?
Which is, apparently, a drop in the bucket compared to natural processes that create CO2. Think animal flatulence. Think volcanoes. They create more CO2 than the American industry.

What does that mean?

My grass is green, my water's clean, there's less smog than there was in the 1970s...

I see developing countries creating pollution as a problem. But no one intends to reign in their pollution, just ours. That would transfer our wealth and productivity to them. Why one earth would we do that?



When you quote movie characters, I assume that's where you got the idea. Obviously you're more impressed with the Hollywood crew than I am.

Face it Fenris, you just don't want your way of life disrupted so your willing to put the burden on your children and grandchildren. That is a sad, sad philosophy.

At least we agree on one thing. Don't bother to fix it, because it's all going to be smashed by God in the judgement that is coming soon.

Fenris
Jul 24th 2008, 02:22 PM
Face it Fenris, you just don't want your way of life disrupted so your willing to put the burden on your children and grandchildren. That is a sad, sad philosophy.So you're a mindreader now? :rolleyes:

I actually think my kids will live in a better world than I do now.

But only if they aren't taxed to death by foolish government programs like the ones being proposed to combat global warming err I mean 'climate change' :lol:



At least we agree on one thing. Don't bother to fix it, because it's all going to be smashed by God in the judgement that is coming soon.
If it's all going to be smashed by God why do you care what we do?

teddyv
Jul 24th 2008, 03:08 PM
Proof that man's activities is causing global warming which would be dangerous to mankind.

Dangerous to mankind? or you personally? - because you attitude throughout this thread seems to suggest the latter. Have a look through RealClimate.org (they actually present the science without much preachiness).


Oh, I don't know. The price tag on hose 'green' programs runs into the trillions of dollars. Where is that money going to come from?

Your pocket:lol:.


If there's so much uncertainty we should go running off making changes.

Since you selectively quote, that's why I said there is a risk management issue. I dont think I said just go run off making changes for the sake of change. Weaning ourselves off the current dependence of oil and coal can only be a good thing in the long term.

I probably need to reiterate that I don't accept the apocaplytic scenarios of global warming as preached by the more radical enviromentalists, but burying our heads in the sand or dismissing all the science of it as some conspiracy does not sit well with me.

theleast
Jul 24th 2008, 03:19 PM
So you're a mindreader now? :rolleyes:

I actually think my kids will live in a better world than I do now.

But only if they aren't taxed to death by foolish government programs like the ones being proposed to combat global warming err I mean 'climate change' :lol:


If it's all going to be smashed by God why do you care what we do?

I care what others do because I am to be my brothers keeper.

When I see people destroying the earth, and then saying prove it, how can I not say something?

I find it absolutly mind boggling that people could even propose that the environment is not being affected by our presence.

That is the worst kind of logic I have ever seen, and I've seen some terrible logic.

Fenris
Jul 24th 2008, 03:47 PM
Dangerous to mankind? or you personally? - because you attitude throughout this thread seems to suggest the latter. Have a look through RealClimate.org (they actually present the science without much preachiness).

You want to know what I've seen? I've seen two science articles released on the same day that argue contrarily that: The ocean is become more salty because of global warming and the ocean is becoming less salty because of global warming.

I've seen an article that says that some glaciers are shrinking because of global warming and some are growing because of global warming.

I know for a fact that a UK judge prohibited the screening of Al Gore's global warming movie because it contained no verifiable science.

Basically, no one's sure what's going on. It sounds to me like some people made up there mind about something and now they're finding facts to justify their belief. It's also suspicious that all the solutions to this 'problem' involve the same pet projects that the Left uses to solve any other problem: bigger government programs, international organizations that answer to no one, and redistribution of wealth (from wealthy to poor nations in this case).

That's why I suspect most of the 'greenies' are actually 'watermelons': Green on the outside and Red on the inside.

Fenris
Jul 24th 2008, 03:50 PM
I care what others do because I am to be my brothers keeper.That's nice. Do you get involved in other issues to protect your 'brother', or is it isolated to climate issues?


When I see people destroying the earth, and then saying prove it, how can I not say something?You still haven't verified that any part of the earth is actually being destroyed.


I find it absolutly mind boggling that people could even propose that the environment is not being affected by our presence.

Everything we do affects the environment in some way. Perhaps the problem is our mere existence.


That is the worst kind of logic I have ever seen, and I've seen some terrible logic.
That's good, nothing helps a debate like getting personal.:kiss:

theleast
Jul 24th 2008, 04:50 PM
That's nice. Do you get involved in other issues to protect your 'brother', or is it isolated to climate issues?

You still haven't verified that any part of the earth is actually being destroyed.


Everything we do affects the environment in some way. Perhaps the problem is our mere existence.

That's good, nothing helps a debate like getting personal.:kiss:

Did I get personal?

Hmm, seems like that's the pot calling the kettle...oh nevermind.

If you want to use the ostrich with it's head in a hole approach go for it.

I'm sure your heirs won't mind the mess you leave em.

Fenris
Jul 24th 2008, 04:54 PM
See, this is the problem with the 'sky is falling' crowd. They're so sure that global warming is happening that one isn't even allowed to raise doubts on the subject. One proponent even went so far as to suggest 'Nuremberg Trials' for anyone who questioned the phenomena since "the resulting holocaust would be their fault".

Whatever.

HisLeast
Jul 24th 2008, 04:59 PM
See, this is the problem with the 'sky is falling' crowd. They're so sure that global warming is happening that one isn't even allowed to raise doubts on the subject. One proponent even went so far as to suggest 'Nuremberg Trials' for anyone who questioned the phenomena since "the resulting holocaust would be their fault".

Whatever.

There are people like that on both sides. You know how many people call me a sucker for keeping an open mind about what the science states? The problem isn't "the sky is falling" crowd... its the people on both sides of the debate who, with very little investigation, have married their position and are more concerned with being right than understanding truth.

Theophilus
Jul 24th 2008, 05:08 PM
Play nice, folks...We're teetering on the brink of getting too personal.

Like so many topics, this can cause emotion to come to the fore, and I understand the passion on both sides. However, let's just take a mental 10 count, shake hands in the middle...and read twice before posting your post.

I haven't infracted anyone or shut down a thread since coming to Contro, but I haven't forgotten how to. ;)

Okay? :)

Fenris
Jul 24th 2008, 05:11 PM
Here's a rather lengthy article on how falsified data was used by the UN to establish the 'global warming' crusade: http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html

theleast
Jul 24th 2008, 05:11 PM
Play nice, folks...We're teetering on the brink of getting too personal.

Like so many topics, this can cause emotion to come to the fore, and I understand the passion on both sides. However, let's just take a mental 10 count, shake hands in the middle...and read twice before posting your post.

I haven't infracted anyone or shut down a thread since coming to Contro, but I haven't forgotten how to. ;)

Okay? :)

Fair enough.

All I'm saying is don't ignore the fact that the climate is changing. You can debate HOW all day long, but to deny it is just turning a blindeye to the problem.

And again, I can't stand Al Gore. ;)

theleast
Jul 24th 2008, 05:12 PM
Here's a rather lengthy article on how falsified data was used by the UN to establish the 'global warming' crusade: http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html

Could you cite reputable sources in the future please?

You can't believe everything you read on the web you know.

Fenris
Jul 24th 2008, 05:15 PM
the sources he cites:

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0742551172/hatrackriver)




Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0742549232/hatrackriver)

theleast
Jul 24th 2008, 05:16 PM
the sources he cites:

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0742551172/hatrackriver)




Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0742549232/hatrackriver)

Can't believe everything you see in print either.

Al Gore wrote a book....would you cite him as a reputable source?

Fenris
Jul 24th 2008, 05:27 PM
Can't believe everything you see in print either.

Al Gore wrote a book....would you cite him as a reputable source?
Obviously I can't believe anything except my own personal observations.

theleast
Jul 24th 2008, 05:34 PM
Obviously I can't believe anything except my own personal observations.

An intelligent and logical individual will take a look at ALL of the evidence that is presented on both sides of an argument, and from multiple sources from each side if possible, and find that the truth lies somewhere in-between.

But if I listen to your arguments we can continue to cut millions of acres of forests, strip mine the earth, pump carbon emissions into the air, and pollute the waters and earth, and there will be absolutly ZERO consequences for it, and that is just silly.

And to back that up with the logic of..."well developing countries do it, and we CAN'T fall behind"...is irresponsible. As a world superpower we are to be an example to the rest of the world on how to run a nation.

The only thing we have taught so far is that you build a country by stealing land from natives, use slaves to build it, and consume every natural resource from amongst the rest of the world while making a half cocked attempt to preserve your own, but still continually polluting with not real effective plan in place to preserve natural resources for the heirs of the earth.

:eek: Now that's logic!

Fenris
Jul 24th 2008, 05:42 PM
An intelligent and logical individual will take a look at ALL of the evidence that is presented on both sides of an argument, and from multiple sources from each side if possible, and find that the truth lies somewhere in-between.Something that isn't going on with global warming proponents, who as I said earlier want to convict people for doubting them.:rolleyes:


But if I listen to your arguments we can continue to cut millions of acres of forests,When forests are cut down in this country, they must be replanted. In fact, the areas where logging is not permitted are at a much greater risk of devastating forest fires because the trees are never thinned out.

So there you have it: NOT cutting down trees is harming the environment!:lol:


strip mine the earthI'm not aware of where this is going on, or what damage it is doing. Taking stuff out from under the ground damages the earth?


pump carbon emissions into the air,Every time I breathe I pump carbon into the air. Maybe all 6 billion of us should stop breathing!


and pollute the waters and earth, and there will be absolutly ZERO consequences for it, and that is just silly.Right, but saying something should have an effect is not the same as proving that it does.


And to back that up with the logic of..."well developing countries do it, and we CAN'T fall behind"...is irresponsible. As a world superpower we are to be an example to the rest of the world on how to run a nation.You're right. We have to live in poverty so someone in China or India can pollute more and get my money. That better?


The only thing we have taught so far is that you build a country by stealing land from natives, use slaves to build it, and consume every natural resource from amongst the rest of the world while making a half cocked attempt to preserve your own, but still continually polluting with not real effective plan in place to preserve natural resources for the heirs of the earth.So this is how you view America, hmm?

tgallison
Jul 24th 2008, 06:16 PM
[quote=tgallison;1721731]

Renewable resource. O.K. So when they cut down a rainforest that was hundreds of years in development and plant saplings you see that as replacing a forest?

We have already made a dent in the seas. 1/3 of ocean populations are already depleted in most areas, because of global warming the coral reefs are being bleached by the sun which is destroying a multitude of species there.

When did I say eat more vegatables.

Are you saying that God is polluting the earth? That is foolish.

Also when you overfarm the earth nutrients are depleted from the soil that can never be replaced no matter how much manure and nitrogen you dump on it. An ear of corn today grown on the same plot of land 2000 years ago has nowhere near the same nutritional value. Yes you can overfarm land.

And I can't stand Al Gore and his hypocricies. This is what I am telling you. There is NOTHING you can do to stop what is about to happen. So just pray to God that his will is fulfilled, and when famine hits pray that you are not one of the ones starving. And pray that your flight is not in winter. Cause that will be even worse.

theleast greetings

Suppose it was true what you are saying (and it is not), but just supposing.

What is the answer to the problem? People elimination, right? If we don't farm crops, we have to eat more fish right? Everything you have mentioned that you want to eliminate is needed for our existence.

The problem, at least in your eyes, has to be people. There are just too many people.

Would you suggest that we do as the Chinese an allow only one child per family?

Would you suggest we make abortions easier?

Should we do away with everybody over 55?

If what you are suggesting is true, then there is no answer, at least for one who loves God and his fellowman.

If you believe there is an answer please explain in detail.

Best regards, terrell

fewarechosen
Jul 24th 2008, 06:24 PM
[quote=theleast;1721900]

theleast greetings

Suppose it was true what you are saying (and it is not), but just supposing.

What is the answer to the problem? People elimination, right? If we don't farm crops, we have to eat more fish right? Everything you have mentioned that you want to eliminate is needed for our existence.

The problem, at least in your eyes, has to be people. There are just too many people.

Would you suggest that we do as the Chinese an allow only one child per family?

Would you suggest we make abortions easier?

Should we do away with everybody over 55?

If what you are suggesting is true, then there is no answer, at least for one who loves God and his fellowman.

If you believe there is an answer please explain in detail.

Best regards, terrell

im not speaking for theleast, but i agree with much of what he said

oh but there is an answer, live the best life we can.

we wont stop the blood from flowing to the horse bridle
we arent going to stop famine and plague

these little things you see now are just warning signs, little hints of what is to come, so dont think there is a solution - just pray you arent among those slaughtered

christ is coming with a solution and its the sword that proceeds from his mouth

you cannot serve god and mammon, and he will show the world just how serious he is about that statement

Theophilus
Jul 24th 2008, 06:26 PM
Last chance...This is turning a bit ugly. I've issued some personal warnings to folks, and now I'm going public. One more post getting personal on either side, and this gets locked...and I will declare a ban on GW posts until I think I can stand it again....

...probably sometime next year.

:P

Fenris
Jul 24th 2008, 06:29 PM
I will declare a ban on GW posts until I think I can stand it again....

...probably sometime next year.


By next year it will be too late. Our cities will be underwater. Err, unless Obama gets elected I guess.

theleast
Jul 25th 2008, 03:33 AM
[quote=theleast;1721900]

theleast greetings

Suppose it was true what you are saying (and it is not), but just supposing.

What is the answer to the problem? People elimination, right? If we don't farm crops, we have to eat more fish right? Everything you have mentioned that you want to eliminate is needed for our existence.

The problem, at least in your eyes, has to be people. There are just too many people.

Would you suggest that we do as the Chinese an allow only one child per family?

Would you suggest we make abortions easier?

Should we do away with everybody over 55?

If what you are suggesting is true, then there is no answer, at least for one who loves God and his fellowman.

If you believe there is an answer please explain in detail.

Best regards, terrell

I would suggest putting your faith in God. He told us he was going to burn it all and he will.

And yes I do see people as the problem.

Fenris
Jul 25th 2008, 12:38 PM
From NRO's blog:



The Grand Exaggerator [Patrick J. Michaels]

What is it with Al Gore? Why is he compelled to exaggerate climate change (excuse me, “the climate crisis”), and then to propose impossible policy responses? It’s like he’s inventing the Internet all over again!

OK, it’s pretty much standard rhetoric in Washington to say that if you don’t do as I say, there will be massive consequences. But to say, as Gore recently did: “The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk;” and: “The future of human civilization is at stake” — that’s a bit much, even for the most faded and jaded political junkie.

Here’s how Gore works. He’ll cite one scientific finding that shows what he wants, and then ignore other work that provides important context. Here’s a list of his climate exaggerations from his well-publicized July 17 rant, along with a few sobering facts.

Gore: “Scientists . . . have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire [North Polar] ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months.”

Fact: The Arctic Ocean was much warmer than it is now for several millennia after the end of the last ice age. We know this because there are trees buried in the tundra along what is now the arctic shore. Those trees can be dated using standard analytical techniques that have been around for decades. According to Glen MacDonald of UCLA, the trees show that July temperatures could have been 5-13°F warmer from 9,000 to about 3,000 years ago than they were in the mid-20th century. The arctic ice cap had to have disappeared in most summers, and yet the polar bear survived!

Gore: “Our weather sure is getting strange, isn’t it? There seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory. . . .”

Fact: The reason there “seems” to be more tornadoes is because of national coverage by Doppler radar, which can detect storms that were previously missed (not to mention that every backyard tornado winds up on YouTube nowadays). Naturally, the additions are weak ones that might, if lucky, tip over a cow. If there were a true increase in tornadoes, then we would see a definite upswing in severe ones, too. If anything, the historical record indicates a slight negative trend in the frequency of major tornadoes, based upon death statistics.

Gore: “ . . . longer droughts . . . ”

Hogwash. The U.S. drought history, given by the Palmer Drought Severity Index, is readily available and extends back to 1895. There’s not a shred of evidence for “longer droughts” in recent decades. The longest ones were in the 1930s and 1950s, decades before “global warming” became “the climate crisis.”

Gore: “ . . . bigger downpours and record floods . . . ”

It’s true, U.S. annual rainfall has increased about 10 percent (three inches) in the last 100 years. But it’s equally true that this is a net benefit. Temperatures haven’t warmed nearly enough to increase the annual surface evaporation by the same amount, so what has resulted is a wetter country during the growing season. Farmers love this, because most of the nation runs a moisture deficit during the hot summer growing season. Increasing rain cuts that deficit.

Gore: “The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis.”

This is likely James Hansen (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjQ2YTllODZiOTA0N2E2MTIzODQwNjUzMjQwYjI2MDI=&w=MA==) of NASA, Gore’s climate guru. He has written and given sworn testimony that six feet of sea-level rise, caused by the rapid shedding of Greenland’s ice, could happen by 2100. Why didn’t Gore defer instead to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an organization with at least a few hundred bona fide climate scientists? Its 2007 compendium estimates that the contribution of Greenland’s ice to sea level during this century will be around two inches. Gore also forgot the embarrassing truth that there has been no net change in the planetary surface temperature, as measured both by thermometers and satellites, for the last ten years.

It would be easy to go on, particularly about the preposterousness of Gore’s “solution,” which is to produce all of our electricity from solar, wind and geothermal sources within ten years. I’ll leave that for the energy economists to tear apart.

— Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute (http://article.nationalreview.com/www.cato.org)and an active member of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.