# Climate of Fear



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

From Townhall.com

Remember The Twilight Zone? Back in 1961, Rod Serling wrote an episode that was set in New York City amid rampant global warming. Somehow the Earth's orbit had shifted, and the planet was moving inexorably toward the sun. "This is the eve of the end," Serling intoned in his introduction. "Because even at midnight it's high noon, the hottest day in history, and you're about to spend it -- in the Twilight Zone."

The story revolves around a few desperate New Yorkers struggling to survive the murderous heat. As the temperature climbs, social order crumbles. An intruder, crazed with thirst, breaks into an apartment to steal water. An elderly woman collapses and dies. Thermometers shatter, their mercury boiling over. Finally Norma, the main character, screams and passes out. Then comes the "Twilight Zone" twist: Norma wakes up to find that it's snowing outside. She'd been having a nightmare. The Earth isn't hurtling toward the sun, after all; it's spinning *away* from the sun. The world isn't going to end in searing heat, but in a dark and deathly deep-freeze. Fade to credits.

Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the U.N.'s climate body, addresses the media during a news conference at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in the United Nations offices in Gigiri, in Kenya's capital Nairobi, November 17, 2006. De Boer said on Friday that U.N. climate talks in Nairobi have delayed a decision on whether to include carbon capture and storage under a Kyoto carbon trading framework called the Clean Development Mechanism. REUTERS/Antony Njuguna (KENYA)

Well, that's climate change for you. Maybe Mother Earth is warming up, or maybe she's cooling down, but either way it's always bad news.

Here, for example, is former vice president Al Gore in 2006, on the threat posed by global warming: "Our ability to live is what is at stake." It doesn't get much more dire than that.

Yet here is climatologist Reid Bryson, in Fortune magazine's award-winning analysis of global *cooling* in 1974: "There is very important climatic change going on right now, and it's not merely something of academic interest. . . . It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth -- like a billion people starving." It doesn't get much more dire than that, either.

Bryson's article is quoted in "Fire and Ice," a richly documented report by the Business & Media Institute, an arm of the Media Research Center. Climate-change alarmism, the report shows, is at least a century old. A few examples:

"Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again," asserted a New York Times headline in February 1895. Worrisome if true, but just seven years later, the Los Angeles Times reported that the great glaciers were undergoing "their final annihilation" due to rising temperatures worldwide. By 1923, though, it was the ice that was doing the annihilating: "Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada," the Chicago Tribune declared on Page 1.

So it was curtains for the Canadians? Er, not quite. In 1953, The New York Times reported that "nearly all the great ice sheets are in retreat." Yet no sooner did our neighbors to the north breathe a sigh of relief than it turned out they weren't off the hook after all: "The rapid advance of some glaciers," wrote Lowell Ponte in The Cooling, his 1976 bestseller, "has threatened human settlements in Alaska, Iceland, Canada, China, and the Soviet Union." And now? "Arctic Ice Is Melting at Record Level, Scientists Say," the Times reported in 2002.

Over the years, the alarmists have veered from an obsession with lethal global cooling around the turn of the 20th century to lethal global warming a generation later, back to cooling in the 1970s and now to warming once again. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that all these competing narratives of doom can't be true. Or to wonder whether any of them are.

Perhaps that is why most Americans discount the climate-change fear-mongering that is so fashionable among journalists and politicians. Last spring, as Time magazine was hyperventilating about global warming ("The debate is over. Global warming is upon us -- with a vengeance. From floods to fires, droughts to storms, the climate is crashing"), a Gallup poll was finding that only 36 percent of the public say they worry "a great deal" about it.

Still, there is always a market for apocalyptic forebodings. Paul Ehrlich grew rich writing jeremiads with such titles as The Population Explosion and The Population Bomb, which predicted the imminent deaths of hundreds of millions of human beings from starvation and epidemic disease. The Limits to Growth, the Club of Rome's 1972 bestseller, warned that humankind was going to experience "a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline" as the world's resources -- everything from gold to petroleum -- ran dry. Jonathan Schell and Carl Sagan forecast a devastating "nuclear winter" unless atomic arsenals were frozen, or better still, abolished. Those doomsday prophesies never came to pass. Neither have the climate-change catastrophes that have been bruited about for a century.

"The whole aim of practical politics," wrote H.L. Mencken, "is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Mencken was writing in 1920, but some things never change.

Jeff Jacoby is an Op-Ed writer for the Boston Globe, a radio political commentator, and a contributing columnist for Townhall.com.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Good Post, However I am starting to belive in Global Warming, 55 degrees on Christmas Day in Eastern Massachusetts. Oh well we will see?


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Focus on the science and forget about the politics. If you look at the data and listen to the experts (and not the armchair climatologists at the local bar) you will undoubtedly arrive at the opinion that global warming IS real. The scary thing is the fact that so many people refuse to believe it.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

You cant really believe the tests can you?

These same scientists that are designing models that show a few degrees of rise over decades only gave a 5% chance of a lower than normal hurricane season for 2006. They were prediciting a number of hurricanes to rival the strength and damage of Katrina. They want us to put faith into a model that extends over 20-30 and even 50 yrs to show global warming, but were 100% wrong on what the weather would be like in a single year.

DO I think we should be pumping pollutants into our atmosphere as we please? No... But seriously, all this talk of global warming, Ice caps melting, the weather changing so drastically the human race has no hope for survival? I dont think so.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Has the climate on earth been in constant change for eons?

Is it true that one massive volcanic eruption puts more pollutant in the atmosphere than all of mankind has in mankinds entire existance??

Are we basing conclusions on little more then the lifespan of a single well aged Human and trying to predict the end of the earth on those conclusions?

I can't keep those kinds of questions from roaming around in the back of my head.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> These same scientists that are designing models


And there is the problem in a nut shell. The entire global warming alarms are based on computer models that are fed data as some scientist interrupts it. There aren't enough historical data records available to prove or disprove a climate change other than a common cycle that constantly goes up and down. First we are going to freeze, then we are going to burn, then we are going to drown. Focus.............. on what?


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Focus on what? How about this:

How about the FACT that global surface temperatures have been dramatically increasing since the Industrial Revolution of the early 1900s (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/). These data are compelling, regardless of their source. I have seen similar charts tracking air temperatures, but the most compelling data are from soil probes the negate data noise from factors such as cloud cover and sun intensity.

How about the FACT that we have data tracking increased CO2 concentrations that correspond with increased temperatures (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm).

The trends in both temperature and CO2 concentration increases since 1900 are not based on models, they are based on empirical measurements.

Now lets talk about models. True, no models are completely accurate. Scientists have modelled to estimate temperature and atmospheric gas concentrations for the past several thousant years. Yes, there are peaks and valleys, but the data clearly shows that the current rateincrease is extremely high, meaning that we are getting warmer faster than we ever have.

Let's also talk about other contributors of greenhouse gases. There are lots of natural sources of CO2 and methane that are huge compared to human contributions. However, those sources have always been there, and we can't do much about them. The point is that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases tracks nicely with human emissions since the onset of the Industrial Revolution (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html).

For eons, there has been a CO2 cycle that has kept atmospheric concentations at an acceptable level, normally right around 300 ppm. The danger is that human CO2 emissions will push us past the tipping point of 400 ppm. Many scientists have concluded that the 400-ppm concentration is the "point of no return", meaning that we can't build carbon sinks fat enough to reverse polar ice cap melting.

We can't do anything about volcanic eruptions. We can do something about greenhouse emissions from human sources. Even though the sources of CO2 emissions under our control pale compared to natural sources, our contributions have upset the carbon cycle, driving us toward the 400 ppm level.

Who are you going to believe? Politicians? Armchair climatologists? Your bartender? Maybe the nay-sayers are correct in that this is simply a natural cycle. But what if they aren't? Sorry, I'll fall on the side of climatologist experts who tell me to be concerned.

There, Gohon... Focus on that.


----------



## Triple B (Mar 9, 2004)

global warming is a bunch of B.S., just something for the media and some extremists to get their panties in a bunch about. if you look at the facts the earths climate is ever changing and it has been that way since its creation, I may be a little ignorant, but its gonna take a little more than some nut job telling me the average temp inreased this year by 1 degree or the polar ice caps are melting at such a rate to believe such a tall tale. this kinda crap is totally blown out of the water by the media and a few numbnut politicians. weren't the computers supposed to shut down the world on new years day 2000!?!?! hmmm, CNN must have all the facts on life.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Hmmm ... since 1900 huh ... As I said , little more than the life span of an aged human.

And where are the records of C02 for the previous tens of thousands of years??

Just a thought from where I sit.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

This is going to sound like a smart-*** question, but it's not meant to be. I really want something explained to me. I think I know the answer, but I want to hear it from an expert.

We all know that ice expands when it changes from it's liquid form. And we also know that ice displaces exactly the same amount of water as it's mass when it's floating, so IF the ice caps melt, the water level in the ocean will go DOWN, since all ice attached to the earth, but under water, will have less volume when thawed.

Unless the ice we are to be worried about is attached to the earths surface AND/OR currently ABOVE sea level..........CORRECT?

Are the polar ice caps ABOVE sea level by a substantial amount? And even if so, aren't they "floating" in the ocean already?

What am I missing?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Having had personal communications with a climatologic who can look back 200,000 years by utilizing soil ions I have mixed feelings. She says we are in the middle of a 500 year drought. She didn't interpret that data, but I thought to myself drought = heat. 
We are warming, but I don't think anyone knows how much we are contributing, but we are contributing. Many years have taught me to be cautious. For example Mazola corn oil came out about the time my father had his first heart attack. Back in those days you would have thought heart attacks were all going to end because of Mazola. Now we know that hydrogenated vegetable oils are worse for us than butter.
What do I think:
Error on the safe side. Cut emissions so we contribute less, find alternate energy sources, produce more efficient energy mechanisms. Mitigate for CO2 emissions. For you guys that like waterfowl this means wetland restoration. Wetlands store many tons of carbon per acre. Because we are contributing these steps can't hurt anything, and may be helpful. If they don't help environmentally they will at least make us more dependent of mid-east oil, and increase wetland acres. A win win situation in my book. Further, I have always said I am more willing to pay farmers for conservation programs than support prices. One enhances our natural resources while the other destroys it.
It's hard to separate politics from science, especially today when it would appear that few politicians have the integrity to be believable. Many of my fellow conservatives are skeptical. They are not skeptical of the science, they are skeptical because people like Al Gore, John Kerry and people we have no respect for are spouting it. I look at it as even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. The nation needs to know about scientific findings, but it needs to be brought to the people by scientists to be believable not politicians. Unfortunately the average person isn't serious enough to listen to a scientist, and the news loves to politicize everything. 
It's unfortunate that money which could be used to further science must be used to protect us from crazed terrorists. Research in these areas could be very important. I guess I feel like killing as many terrorists as possible as quickly as possible so this nation can lead the world in science. We should be funding research from Washington no matter if it is controlled by conservatives or liberals, because the safety and health of people and our natural resources should not be politicized. 
I know, I know, sorting truth from lies in the political arena is sort of like trying to sort fly dung from pepper. 
If you have kept track of my attitude you may have noticed I would like to take conservatives and liberals and beat their heads together in the hopes I could produce a hybrid politician that was pro second amendment with an environmental concern. One that respected traditional values, but also prepared for the future. Not many are worth spit today. They gather in packs (democrat and republican) for advantage of retaining personal power.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

BigDaddy, all you have done is to repeat the data gathered for the last 100 years. How do you explain the warm temperatures recorded as droughts prior to the 16th century and them bag......... the abrupt climate change that brought on the little ice age from the 16th to the 19th century. And you say "For eons, there has been a CO2 cycle that has kept atmospheric concentrations at an acceptable level, normally right around 300 PPM". It wasn't until 1804 that a crude method was developed to measure C02 by Theodore de Saussure. Hardly "eons" by any measurement and certainly not accurate enough for scientific data. Again, no true data to base the claim on. It wasn't until the 1880's that any credible method of measurement of C02 was developed. I'm not arguing there is or there is not global warming, but I'm not about to jump on the band wagon of a bunch of scientist that have been proven wrong time after time and who's very livelihoods depend on those politicians and their grants that you say we shouldn't listen to. I suspect I can find you just as many climatologist experts that disagree with the global warming theory as those that insist it exist but I suspect you would label them as naysayers regardless of credentials..


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Gohon and others:

The FACT that we are seeing unprecedented concentrations of present-day atmospheric CO2 concentrations compared to the past is supported not only by tracking CO2 concentrations since 1900 or so. Scientists have also been measuring CO2 concentrations in air pockets trapped in ice sheets.

For example, scientists have recently released the results of a study of trapped air pockets in deep ice sheets near Vostok Station in Antarctica [http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm). These results have been published in both Nature and Science magazines. These findings not only go back 150 years or so, but over 420,000 years.

The scientists involved in the study concluded that the atomospheric CO2 concentrations that we see now are unprecedented compared to those measured over the past 420,000 years. Furthermore, the rate of CO2 concentration increase over the past 150 years or so is unprecedented, meaning that CO2 conentrations have increased faster than they have over the past 420,000 years. These conclusions are not based on computer models, but on historic records of aged air samples.

Scientists have similarly measured CO2 concentrations in air pockets trapped in ice sheets in Greenland. The results are similar.

Therefore, regardless of whether empirical methods for measuring CO2 concentrations have only been available for 200 years, these methods are now being used for extremely old samples.



> I suspect I can find you just as many climatologist experts that disagree with the global warming theory as those that insist it exist but I suspect you would label them as naysayers regardless of credentials..


Again, you are wrong. You see, I am a scientist. I base my conclusions and opinions based on the best available science and the best available data. This is the beauty of science. It is apolitical and not subject to liberal or conservative bias. I have seen the data and I am convinced.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Since you're a scientist Bigdaddy, will you please address my question above?

Your last post brings another question to mind.

How did the old air get enclosed in the ice? Snow or melting ice? My question there being am I wrong to assume their was/is a finite amount of moisture on the earth and in the atmosphere? The same finite quantity that was present 420,000 years ago? That moisture is only "redistributed" by weather patterns, is it not?

Please pardon me as I am NOT a scientist, but my memories of school studies involve the use of a terrarium to illustrate the earth's atmosphere. When we put 1 gallon of water into the system we could not find a way to get 2 gallons of "rain".

So my main question is how will melting ice cause the oceans to rise? It also raises a biblical question. If the earth flooded a few thousand years ago, where is all that water now?

Thank you in advance for helping me to understand.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

the argument for rising sea levels is from run off of ice currently over land not the floating stuff. Places like greenland iceland ect.

I think argument that its human made greenhouse gases baloney also, there is no doubt we are in a warming trend, there is big doubts and a lot of disconnect among scientists as to why.

Not long ago, about 20 years, the same doomsday folks were claiming we were having global cooling.

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

UH were these "scientists" 

heres another interesting article about it

http://www.lewrockwell.com/walker/walker17.html

and some russian "scientists" claiming its cooling we have to worry about

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/08/25/ ... ling.shtml

Another theory is that the sun is simply hotter and that it goes thru cycles or activity, and since all the heat on this earth comes from the sun that makes sense to me.

The worlds socialists ran to the environmental groups after communism failed. Unfotunately they have distorted stuff in their anti capitalist effort.

Notice China and other developing countries aren't on board cutting greenhouse gases, but they sure hope we are stupid enough to try.

I would love to see alternative energy sources developed but not because of global warming fears

I listened to a discussion about the affects of slight global cooling, mass stavation ect . as the ice caps grow larger and creep southward.

No one knows but AL Gore and after all he invented the intenet :lol:

NOW READ THIS ITS VERY INTERESTING AND PROOF MANY REAL SCIENTISTS DON'T AGREE WITH OUR RESIDENT LIB's "scientist" CLAIMS

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFoss ... _ages.html


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Csquared:

CO2 and other gasses get trapped in ice sheets just as you see air pockets in an ice cube or in the ice when you are ice fishing. Some of this is likely due to pure mechanical luck, meaning that an air pocket gets trapped when the adjacent water particles freeze. However, we must remember that all gases have a solubility equilibrium in water and other liquids. This equilibrium and solubility curve varies depending on the gas.

You are right in that the melting of a floating chunk of ice in water should not cause the level of that water to rise. However, what will cause ocean levels to raise are the losses of the polar ice sheets and glaciers that are currently overlaying land. This is a huge.

Regardless of whether anybody believes that the rising water levels will cause widespread destruction, there are concerns with the effects of global warming on other parts of our climate. These are discussed below.

Bob wrote:



> Not long ago, about 20 years, the same doomsday folks were claiming we were having global cooling.


I am not sure who was talking about global cooling 20 years ago. I can tell you what I was doing 20 years ago.... I was in college getting a degree in the environmental sciences. At that time, the reputable climatologists were predicting several short-term effects of even small increases in global temperatures: 1) losses of glaciers and land-based ice sheets, 2) less predictable and more extreme weather patterns, meaning that we would see high temperatures and drought in some areas, with extreme flooding and cool temperatures in other areas, and 3) more intense hurricanes and tropical storms.

Now let's see how much of this came to be...

Look at the losses of glaciers in many parts of the world. For instance, Glacier National Park had 83 perennial glaciers in 1968... now they are down to 37.

Look at the extreme weather patterns that we have experienced even in the last 10 years. What is a "normal" summer or winter in the northern Great Plains now? Weather seems to be more extreme and less predictable. Some years we have drought in the midwest with flooding in the northwest and northeast. Other years it is reversed. What does seem to be happening is that while we may reach averages for temperature or precipitation over a given period, we seem to receive the heat units and moisture with more extreme events. Our averages tend to be normal or within long-term norms, but our range and variability is more exteme.

Look at the tropical storms and hurricanes that we have had in many parts of the world. These storms pull energy from the underlying water, and even a small increase in that water temperature can increase storm intensity.

Again, it comes down to choices. Maybe global warming is a hoax, and all the money we will spend on switching to alternative energy will be wasted. However, it is more likely that global warming is not a hoax. If we are wrong in former approach, we are out some cash. If we are wrong in the latter approach, we are out much more.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

switching to another form of energy is a great idea. Just not for this reason which is probably not real, if it helps fine but we need to be realisic about why we do stuff.

Are you saying the scientists in the last link I provided are not reputable?

How much comes true in a short time is not important if the cycle is along term thing is my point.

Seems to me, and to those scientists, the evidence points to long term cycle and something we have no power over.

Look at the bright side more pheasants in North Dakota. :beer:

One more observation the same people that claim this is such a huge problem are the ones that fight nuclear power plants which would eliminate or greatly reduce the green house gases we produce.

The global warming thing is an agenda not science.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

> Again, it comes down to choices. Maybe global warming is a hoax, and all the money we will spend on switching to alternative energy will be wasted. However, it is more likely that global warming is not a hoax. If we are wrong in former approach, we are out some cash. If we are wrong in the latter approach, we are out much more.


What Bigdaddy is suggesting is a form of risk management. Even if the probability of something occurring is very very low. If that particular something is really really devastating would you not try to manage that risk?

Many of you purchase insurance based on probabilities calculated by an actuary. You can check out insurance rates from different companies and buy their premiums based on the actuary they hire to perform the analysis. Each actuary uses a somewhat different model to predict the likelihood of an event. Now switch actuary with scientist.

Let's say the event they calculate the probability on is your death in a car accident. This event (your death) is based on the likelihood of you dieing in a car accident if you have an airbag. Many of you would buy the airbag based on the probability because you value your life.

Now imagine that you as an individual could live 100,000 years and there is a probability that global warming would cause you much misery and very likely death. Would you insure against it by trying to curb it? I think you probably would.

Most of you refuse to think that global warming is a probability because you aren't thinking about the consequences on a timeframe that is longer than your life span.

The problem with environmental issues is that the people who contribute to the problem don't live long enough to experience the pain of what they cause. Think of the pain that you will cause your offspring and then you may actually get a sense of the magnitude of the issue.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

It risk management only if the risk is manageable, and in this case the scientists( that don't benefit from politically derived research dollars )claim its not a manageble risk ie we have no control over it.

I was reading an article about how retired scientist especially as agroup believe its not something we caused or can change but just a normal cycle.

They have no funding desires so they can be honest.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Take a look at the graph above. See where we are today. Just about the same as around the year 600 AD. Notice the rapid decline for about 200 years then a sharp climb above average temperature, another decline and then the big jump up to the medieval period. Again a rapid decent, another rapid climb just like the present and then into the little ice age period and back up to a little below where we are today. We still haven't reached the average temperature of the last 3000 years if this chart is accurate and we're still below the temperatures when Jesus walked the earth. I think the article Bob quotes is correct in that this is a normal uncontrollable cycle. What some scientist that push the global warming agenda won't tell you is even they admit that man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels cannot account for more than a .6 C increase of global temperatures and some scientist believe it far below that, maybe as little as .2 C. The rest of the increase is a natural occurrence. As others have said we should do all we can to better the earth we live on,but not at the expense of needlessly punishing ourselves for a theory that is not only unproved but not even supported by the very community that is supposedly professionals on the subject.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Bob and Gohon:

Both of you contend that global warming is unproven and the scientific community is split or unsupportive of the notion. Now that I have had a little time to read the links provided by Bob, I'd like to add another reply.

Bob is basing his position on this internet page prepared by a gentlement named Monte Hieb: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Interestingly enough, when I did a few Google searches for evidence against global warming, that URL kept popping up over and over, and it is widely used by anti-environmentalists who allege that global warming is a hoax.

At the same time, there are comparable sites refuting the Hieb page such as this one: http://info-pollution.com/chill.htm.

This spurred me to do a little searching to determine the accuracy of statements claiming that the scientific community is split on the issue.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is convinced: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

The National Academy of Sciences is convinced: http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html

The American Meteorological Society is convinced: http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/global.html

The American Geophysical Union is convinced: http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change.shtml

The American Association for the Advancement of Science is convinced: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0801chronicle.shtml.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is convinced: http://www.ipcc.ch/

Now, you need to understand that these groups represent a HUGE number of scientists. In fact, THESE people are the reputable experts that we should listen to.

Now, I ask you... do you not trust the members of the National Academy of Sciences and the other associations listed here?

Some would lead us to believe that global warming is a myth. The TRUTH is that the only myth here is a claim that there is a lack of consensus in the scientific community.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Bob wrote:



> NOW READ THIS ITS VERY INTERESTING AND PROOF MANY REAL SCIENTISTS DON'T AGREE WITH OUR RESIDENT LIB's "scientist" CLAIMS
> 
> http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFoss ... _ages.html


Oh, one last thing... I did a little homework on Mr. Monte Hieb, the individual who created the site listed above. I found out an interesting thing. Monte Hieb in an engineer for the West Virginia Office of Mining, Health, Safety, and Training. He's not a climatologist, not even really a scientist. Not even really an expert on global climate change.

Some would challenge that scientists would skew their data or conclusions because they accept government grants, suggesting that those scientists have an underlying agenda. Monte Hieb works for an agency in West Virginia that promotes the coal mining industry. Anbody see any underlying agenda there?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Both sides of every politicised argument have an agenda.

The well respected scientists Monte Hieb has quoted are not involved with the coal industry in any way so that criticism is meaningless.

Comment on their position not his, who cares if he has an agenda if its the truth.

I still don't understand why the people so convinced that global warming is human caused are so opposed to nucler power which is atechnology we already have and could use as a stepping stone away from fossil fuels.

Well actaully I do understand its because they are leftists that want to damage the USA and feel we are all so evil. The socialist movement has fled to the evironmentalist movement and in doing so ditorted facts and undermined evironmentalists credibility.

Its become very hard to distinguish fact from fiction.

France has taken our nuclear technology and tweaked it to make it safer and now I believe the get 95% of their electrical power that way, if we did that here this issue would be a non -issue.

Yet here wacko leftist environmental groups oppose this and ofcourse our politicians will never do anything that requires guts.

*I would also like to hear your scientific reason why these cycles occured in the past before we used fossil fuels or do you dispute that?? *

*Big Daddy please explain why does data gathered by scientists over several thousand years carry less weight with you than the relative snapshot in time of 100 years that the pro man caused global warming crowd uses???*

The groups you mentioned are filled with leftists and funded by foolish poiticians that want to appear to be doing something about this bogus issue, its not science its a political agenda.

Like everything follow the money trail, I will do a study and find people that claim the world is flat if the feds pour enough money into it.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Big Daddys got one genious on his side, after all he did invent the internet :lol: :lol:

Gore Slams Global Warming Critics

In twin appearances last night former Vice President Al Gore dismissed critics of his global warming theory as a small minority not credible in their opposition.

In an unprecedented, uninterrupted eight-minute monologue on Keith Olbermann's "Countdown," Gore characterized those scientists who dispute the reality of global warming as part of a lunatic fringe. :eyeroll:

Later, on Charlie Rose's show, Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says 'wait a minute - this hasn't been proven,' is there still a debate?" *Gore replied, "The debate's over. *The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona."

*This flies in the face of such challengers as professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia who said: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention." *

Famed climatologist and internationally renowned hurricane expert Dr. William Gray of the atmospheric-science department at Colorado State University went even further,* calling the scientific "consensus" on global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." For speaking the truth he has seen most of his government research funding dry up, according to the Washington Post.*

Neither Gray nor Dr. Carter believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.

Nor does famed Oxford professor David Bellamy who sniffs that Gore's theory is "Poppycock!"

Writing in Britain's Daily Mail last July 9, Dr. Bellamy charged that "the world's politicians and policy makers ... have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credo of the environmental movement. Humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up.

*"They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock. Unfortunately, for the time being, it is their view that prevails.*

"As a result of their ignorance, the world's economy may be about to divert billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and rubles *into solving a problem that actually doesn't exist.* The waste of economic resources is incalculable and tragic."

Wrote Dr. Bellamy "It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be [$1.3 trillion]. Little wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be.

*"If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist - money that could be used in umpteen better ways: Fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.*

"The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact."

In agreement with Dr. Bellamy were a host of other respected climatologists including the 19,000 who have signed a declaration that rejects Gore's accusation that the rise of greenhouse gasses is caused by mankind's use of fossil fuels. As has been pointed out, previous ice ages have been preceded by a rise on CO2 levels long before there were humans or fossil fuels or backyard barbecues.

Commenting on the scientists who support Gore's thesis, Dr. Carter one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change, says, "'Climate experts' is the operative term here. Why? Because of what Gore's 'majority of scientists' think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to U.S. science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of who know, but feel unable to state publicly, that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April, 60 of the world's leading experts in the field asked Canada's Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request, wrote Tom Harris in the Canada Free Press.

According to Harris, a mechanical engineer, former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball notes that even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

Adds Ball, among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball.

"Since modelers concede computer outputs are not predictions but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

Canada's new conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been urged by more than 60 leading international climate change experts to review the global warming policies he inherited from his predecessor.

In an open letter that includes five British scientists among the 60 leading international climate change experts who signed the letter, the experts praise Harper's commitment to review the controversial Kyoto Protocol on reducing emissions harmful to the environment. "Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science," they wrote in the Canadian Financial Post last week.

They emphasized that the study of global climate change is, in Harper's own words, an "emerging science" and added: "If, back in the mid 1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." Despite claims to the contrary, there is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, they wrote. 

"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. 

"Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"

The letter is the latest effort by climate change skeptics to counter Gore's demonstrably false claims that there is a consensus that human activity is causing alleged global warming.

Listening to Al Gore makes one wonder if he is the one who believes that "the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona."


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Bob:

You wrote:



> I would also like to hear your scientific reason why these cycles occured in the past before we used fossil fuels or do you dispute that??
> 
> Big Daddy please explain why does data gathered by scientists over several thousand years carry less weight with you than the relative snapshot in time of 100 years that the pro man caused global warming crowd uses???


I am not disputing that there have not been cyles of warming and cooling throughout the earth's history. The data clearly shows that this is the case. My concern is with the RATE of change over the past 150 to 200 years.

Again, look at the data gathered in the Vostok ice core study. This study is the most comprehensive study ever conducted to estimate temperature and CO2 concentrations over a long period of time, in fact over 420,000 years. The scientists involved in the study had previously made a close correlation between Antarctic temperatures and global CO2 concentrations. In their EXPERT opinions, the authors of the study concluded that the rate of CO2 and temperature increases over the past 150 years was unprecedented compared to the previous 420,000.

An interesting thing happened over the past 150 years.... the Industrial Revolution. Maybe you are more comfortable thinking that the co-occurence of these dramatic spikes in temperature and CO2 with the Industrial Revolution are pure coincidence, but I am not.

Furthermore, I don't have to. You see, many of those scientific organizations that I referenced have not only adopted policy positions that the earth is getting warmer, they have taken the next step to conclude the increased temperature is due in part to human activities. Here is an excepert of an executive summary from the American Geophysical Union for example:



> Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.


You are an advocate of developing nuclear energy. This may surprise you, but I am too.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

BigDaddy, I think you misunderstand my position. I don't think global warming is a myth. It is a very real thing. My point is I don't buy the concept that it is a result of man. My personal opinion is man's contribution is so minute it isn't even a measurable factor. I whole heartily agree that anything we can do to make our air cleaner is better for us all but on the other hand I see something like the Kyoto Earth Summit as a total sham. Russia, China, India, Mexico and all third world countries were given a pass and only the United States was asked to cut green house gas emissions. Don't you think there is something smelly in Denmark when we are told to cut our production, lower our economic growth while everyone else is free to expand theirs? To me at least, this just supports my belief that global warming is not controllable by man and we are jumping off the cliff before we know how deep the water is.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Big Daddy, we can both find reputable people on both sides of this equation so lets try another path.

I want to ask you a serious question, what do you think we as a country needs to do about global warming and on what timetable?


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Bobm said:


> I want to ask you a serious question, what do you think we as a country needs to do about global warming and on what timetable?


And I'll add to that question ...

What should we do about places like Russia, China ... India Etc

I'll also add and as my question suggests ... "I'm standing in line right behind Gohon ... as for my opinion on the subject."


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

What do I think that we need to do? Good question

First, I think that we need to get serious as a nation to find alternatives to the use of fossil fuels as an energy source. If I was in a position of power, I would issue a challenge to the scientific community to find those scientific breakthoughs that we need to break the fossil fuel addiction. We have heard the rumors of efficient solar cells and alternative engines that have been bought by big industry. I don't know how much of this is true and how much is not, but it's about time that we find out.

Since our nation performs best when we are put to the challenge, I would issue a reward for the top 5 inventions or breakthroughs that will help us break the fossil fuel addiction. Pick a date for reviewing the results, probably in 5 to 10 years. Then pick a number, maybe $10 or $20 million per award, and appoint a panel of recognized experts to establish criteria and evaluate the results. Then sit back and let greed run its course.

Second, I recognize that public funding of science has always been vital to advancing science in the public's good. Therefore, partnered with a bounty-based approach described above, I would dramatically increase public funding for scientised focused on finding alternative energies. I would use the National Science Foundation as a funding mechanism.

Third, I would put pressure on the energy industry to also get serious. Private industry also performs best when it is faced with a real challenge, so I would establish a system whereby we would penalize power plants and auto manufacturers if they continue with current emission levels. This could probably be done with carbon credits or some other means where we would provide a significant penalty for current emissions, and an incentive to lower those emissions. You would also need to give these industries a deadline, maybe 5 years, after which the emission credit system would kick in. This would hopefully result in the energy industry developing technology to lower their emissions of greenhouse gases, as well as auto manufacturers from developing more fuel efficient automobiles. They would do so because it would make good economic sense.

I think that whatever approach we take, we need to give the scientific community, energy energy, and public as a whole some sort of measureable goal and timeline. The goal and timeline needs to be aggressive to really challenge people, but it also has to be attainable. For example, we could challenge the stakeholders that we would lower our human-based greenhouse emissions by 50% by 2020.

This brings us to China, Russia, and other developing countries. To be honest, I don't know what we should do. At the least, we could offer those countries scientific and technical support. At the same time, we could issue similar timelines as we have issued for our industry members. For example, if we have issued our auto manufacturers a deadline and technology bar for performance, (say minimal mph or emissions), those same standards should apply to foreign cars as well. If they want to sell their goods into the U.S., they will need to meet the same standards as we have established for our manufacturers.

To be honest, however, I don't think that we can take any sort of holier-than-thou approach with foreign countires regarding greenhouse gas emissions until we get our own ship in order. One we "walk it like we talk it" and meet the overriding goal and timeline discussed above, then we can go to our international partners and encourage them to take a similar approach.

That's what I would do. I would focus on scientific and technological breakthroughs. I would increase funding to foster scientific research, and I would significantly reward success. I would use economic penalties to spur private industry to reduce their emissions, and I would issue an agressive but attainable challenge to keep the nation focused on the mission at hand. All of these approaches would focused on near future, maybe the next 10 years, to keep people on task.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bigdaddy, considering that wetlands store tens of thousands of tons per acre don't you think it is time to stop all drainage permits? We think we are green here in North Dakota, but with all the drainage we perhaps contribute as much C02 to the atmosphere as the automobiles of large cities. Plow them up, and you loose all that stored carbon. I am sure a few drained wetlands contribute far more than our power plants.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

BD
I agree with much of that although I think greenhouse gases are not the issue that will get it accomplished, too much disagreement about if it even exists other than the natural cycle.

Getting off dependence of foriegn oil for national security reasons would be more likely to get support and the same result could be had, maybe a combination of the two reasons to broaden support.

I would like to see NASA mission change to the development of solar technology and space exploration curtailed until they have a economically feasible level of development that could be handed over to the private sector.

I am very sceptical of congress not turning any of it into some type of 
swindle and don't want to see our industry at a disadvantage with foriegn competition.

Its a tough issue when given serious thought.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Plainsman would you explain to me how wetlands store carbon and how its released

thanks


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Remember the old word COHN that the organic chemistry professor made everyone learn. It is an acronym representing carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen. These elements are the cornerstones of life. In grade school many teachers set up biospheres with plants and mice. The idea is that the animals use oxygen that plants give off, and the plants use the C02 that the animals give off. C02 is the building block for plants. The amount of C02 that is stored in wetlands depends on the below ground biomass of plant material (roots). There is a lot of biomass with Typha (cattail) species, and less with Scolochloa (white-top). When these plants die and decompose in the wetland they leave C02 buried in the soil. 
When a wetland is plowed the earth is opened, turned over, and C02 is allowed to escape. Restoring wetlands is a win win situation. Not only will they provide habitat for waterfowl, but the reduce greenhouse gas. 
If global warming is a problem or not there are steps we can take that are beneficial in other ways and not a waste of taxpayer money.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Plainsman is right. Carbon is found in a variety of forms. Many years ago, there was carbon captured in reduced forms in such things as dinosaur protein, plant biomass, and similar things. Over time, those materials were converted into oil, coal, and other fossil fuels. There is also a huge amount of carbon currently incorporated into plant biomass.

When fossil fuels and biomass are combusted, that carbon is oxidized to form carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. Both of these molecules are greenhouse gases.

There is a line of thought that we should recapture these carbon outputs back into biomass. This is the basis of the carbon sequestration industry that has surfaced in recent years where landowners are offered cash to grow plant biomass on their property.

Draining, tilling, and burning wetlands does release CO2, just as does burning forests or other plants. Wetlands are an important thing for society, not only in their ability to capture carbon, but also in their ability to mitigate flooding, degrade pollutants, and serve as wildlife habitat.

While we are on the subject of wetlands, I must say that I am amazed at the level of burning that occurs in ND. I understand that landowners want to reduce snow capture in ditches and reduce blackbird roosting sites in cattail sloughs, but all this burning generates a heck of a lot of carbon dioxide.

For the landowners out there, do you need any sort of permit to burn on your own property? Does anybody regulate burning, like the ND Department of Health?


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Good questions BigDaddy. I have often wondered that myself. In other industries if wetlands are impacted they have to be mitigated and a 404 permit, from Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, has to be approved by the CORPS of Engineers. With the burning of wetlands I feel this is an impact on the wetlands that falls under the CORPS of Engineer's regulation. Has anyone ever looked into this?


----------

