Global Warming Update
April 15th, 2008 at 02:37am Mark Noonan
So, some are now saying that higher CO2 levels don’t cause warming:
When Global Warmingest-in-Chief Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, the media’s prideful gushing was so obvious it was almost sick-making.
Now, six months later, a fellow Nobel Peace Prize recipient is part of a group asking the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures.”
Newsbusters has the entire letter sent to the IPCC, and I recommend going over to the site to read the whole thing. The most stunning thing in the letter, in my view, is this part:
We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Ice-core data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise. (emphasis added)
I’d like to say that it is surprising that contrarian data wasn’t included - but the whole global warming issue has been shot through with people refusing to include data which indicates that, just perhaps, CO2 isn’t the culprit or, if it is, that anthropogenic CO2 doesn’t account for the temperature increase. It is dead certain that this letter won’t make it far in the MSM - but it does indicate that we shall soon see the end of the global warming issue - as time goes on and the world doesn’t die due to American SUV’s (Chinese SUV’s are harmless, according to Kyoto, as are Indian), it will become ever harder even for Al Gore to sustain the “just so” story which is global warming.
The problem with environmentalism, as a whole, is not that it wants to clean up the environment - everyone wants that. The problem is that the movement has been largely absorbed by the political left, and that means it was forced to take on a leftwing politico-economic mindset. The result is that helping the environment has taken a back seat towards harming free market capitalism in general, and the United States in particular. Socialists just can’t seem to help themselves - pollution isn’t the enemy, America and free markets are…so, screw a bunch of actually cleaning up, say, a dirty river…there’s more leftwing interest in blaming the United States for killing the whole planet, with the resultant need to curb the United States and its pesky democratic institutions and annoying free market.
HAT TIP: Sister Toldjah
Entry Filed under: Environment
34 Comments
1. congressive | April 15th, 2008 at 3:40 am
Bwah-ha-ha-ha! I have to wipe the coffee off my monitor… a genuine “spit-take!”
Listing a fine gentleman who shares his Nobel prize with tens of thousands of other soldiers (The UN Peacekeeping Forces were awarded collectively, meaning as many as a half million soldiers can claim to have won that single award) as an equal to Gore who split his with 1 other good hearted soul… that’s RICH!
Besides, I thought the Nobel prize was purely for commies and terrorists now.
I wonder if the four authors of this piece have to split the ten grand, or if each one gets his own pie?
2. kjstrouble | April 15th, 2008 at 9:04 am
All that rhetoric, and not one word about the substance of the piece. I guess the libs don’t have any real talking points on this one yet, so just attack the messenger. (Or could that be the talking point, since science is not working for them).
3. Rana Quijotesca | April 15th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Weren’t you arguing a few days ago that we weren’t even in a warming trend? I would take this more seriously if you didn’t change your story so much…
Frankly, it’s a matter of who’s science you support. You seem to support the science that supports the status quo, and I support the science that beckons us to make important changes, changes that we should make regardless of whether or not the Earth is actually warming. Carbon emissions lead to respiratory problems; sulfur dioxide emissions lead to acid rain that damages infrastructure and reduces crop yields.
Frankly, if you care about the health of US citizens (particularly city dwellers) and the fertility of our farms, then you should probably support the changes that global warming believers advocate. If you are more interested being an apologist for industry and sticking to the status quo, no matter the consequences, then you can sit there and banter at your computer.
4. SEW | April 15th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Rana sees the handwriting on the wall. First it was AGW, then it was spun to “climate change”, now it is spun to health related problems.
FatAl is toast and was seen as a fraud all along. “Settled Science”, man o man. 100% unwilling to debate the science. Making a fortune selling “carbon offsets”. Most importantly a complete cult of lefties eagerly available to buy his snakeoil and now purchase Obama’s snakeoil.
5. SteaM | April 15th, 2008 at 9:39 am
SEW,
Fat Al?
So, tell me, did you come up with that all by yourself or did your conservative media feed it to you?
And, tell me, SEW, are you in tip-top shape yourself? Looked in the mirror lately at that gut you have?
Because we all know that a person’s weight being more than ideal means they are no longer credible.
That and I think its offensive and childish to call him fat. But hey, maybe I’m too nice.
6. Some Assembly Required | April 15th, 2008 at 9:51 am
“…I support the science that beckons us to make important changes, changes that we should make regardless of whether or not the Earth is actually warming.”
Exactly. Whether Global Warming / Cooling / Climate change / whatever you want to call it, exists is secondary to changes which should be made in industry. What the Global warming has done is force industry to look into sustainability and efficiency. No longer is it acceptable to make faulty parts to ensure customers keep coming back year after year. Even GE has been forced to create a longer lasting energy efficient incandescent light bulb since florescent ones have become increasingly popular. General Motors and Ford are losing out to Toyota for another similar reason. Toyota’s are extremely durable with less recalls then GM and Ford. Outside of North America, you cannot give a ford or gm vehicle away. (An exaggeration to make my point.)
But them damn dirty liberals I say. I want my car back that guzzles gas and breaks down every year or so. And my light bulb that needs to be replaced every six months. Who wants one that can last for 5 years.
So bicker about global warming all you want. The issue itself is forcing industry to adapt and become more sustainable. Waste not, want not.
7. js | April 15th, 2008 at 9:53 am
climate change has existed since the very beginning of time…if you can actually call it time…the only thing we can really be sure of is that it has not stayed the same…the rest is nothing but a semi educated guess from the kids in the sandbox
8. SEW | April 15th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Typical lefty. Attack the messenger.
Anything about the message, other than parrot talk?
I find Fat Al offensive, his use of private jets offensive, his personal EXCESS use of gas and electricity offensive, his profiting from “carbon offsets” offensive, and his use of cultists [useful idiots] offensive, and his terming a CO2 graph with temperature “Settled Science”.
And fat is descriptive, as are tall or short. And some describe Barry as having a charming ’smile’ as descriptive, is smile offensive?
9. js | April 15th, 2008 at 9:55 am
the difference between wisdom and knowledge is that you can have knowledge and still be a fool, but when you have wisdom, you have to admit that your knowledge is superficial at the most
10. SEW | April 15th, 2008 at 10:10 am
“General Motors and Ford are losing out to Toyota for another similar reason. Toyota’s are extremely durable with less recalls then GM and Ford”
Have you ever heard of union labor?
11. OhioOrrin | April 15th, 2008 at 10:30 am
wanna do something positive to reduce CO2 regardless of the coming heat wave/ ice age, global herd cow farts, or who’s makin $ shilling this stuff?
grow ur grass longer.
I recently read that if everyone grew their grass to 6″, it would SIGNIFICANTLY increase CO2 absorbtion plus obviously reduce emissions from mowers & gas consumption.
bet the suburbanites would require an intervention.
12. Some Assembly Required | April 15th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Union Labor creates recalls?!??!
Union labor is the least of your worries when your competition produces a better longer lasting product much faster and at a cheaper price. Toyota has always taken care of there employees to the point where they reject unions. Unions have been trying for almost 20 years to get into Toyota, but the majority of workers refuse them because the company actually looks out for there employees providing good wages, benefits, and job security. Go Figure.
I am speaking to Toyota’s North American based Manufacturing plants above.
13. Tractatus | April 15th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Typical lefty. Attack the messenger.
[one sentence cut, then…]
I find Fat Al offensive, his use of private jets offensive, his personal EXCESS use of gas and electricity offensive, his profiting from “carbon offsets” offensive, and his use of cultists [useful idiots] offensive, and his terming a CO2 graph with temperature “Settled Science”.
SEW: Typical lefty
14. SteaM | April 15th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
SEW,
We all use craploads of carbon. Personally I have been lucky to have been able to own an efficient new home and I work hard in other areas to greatly reduce my carbon footprint. But I still use lots of carbon. Because the market has not responded to my needs in that regard. Not yet.
It’s like SAR mentioned above. There is a market for fuel efficient cars that are long-lasting and our auto makers in the USA are not responding to that. Instead they market to the SUV crowd who is somehow still about to afford $150 to fill up. And so in refusing to market to people like me these American auto makers lose in the global market.
Oh and Al Gore’s overweight. Great. I get it. He uses a carbon but do you think if he was given a choice to not use it… he still would? I know that if i were given the choice of using an alternative, and i could afford to use it I would.
15. GOP4ME | April 15th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
While the leftists derisively call Bush Hitler, they get their panties in a twist over calling Al Gore Fat?
Please, you guys are a complete joke.
16. SteaM | April 15th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
In defense of the auto makers it does sound like they are running into problems making the fuel efficient cars affordable. And since regular folks cannot afford a $50,000 car….
17. SteaM | April 15th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I’m only panty-twisted about the “fat” comment because its neither here nor there in terms of whether we are causing climate change or not.
The Bush Hitler comment, while maybe a bit harsh or completely unfair, depending on who you ask, can be backed up by facts based on what has happened since he has been our leader and what has happened in his war in Iraq. It may or may not be an exageration.. again, depending on who you ask, but there are some comparisons there.
18. Some Assembly Required | April 15th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
SteaM, you raise a good point here. But cars such as the Aveo, Focus and Prius are very affordable and easy on gas. The problem being of course that everyone wants a Mercedes and a fuel efficient one at that. I’m even guilty of this, where I’m saving for a BMW while I’m typing this. If gas reaches $200+ a gallon, the cost of vehicles will not matter considering most people will not be able to afford to drive and feed themselves. The technology to get us off of oil for good is out there, we just need to find and develop it. I mean we went to the Moon and plan on going to MARS. But we can’t find an alternative to the combustion engine? R & D is the future.
It’s kind of ironic when dealing with hybrids. When comparing to your average car hybrids are more efficient (when driven properly). However if you compare them from a manufacturing stand point it is quite the opposite.
I think electric cars are the way to go and there have been many improvements in there range since the late 90’s. The real problem with them would be the extra energy demand placed on the grid and of course how to tax electricity transfers at pumps when you can just go home and plug your car in.
19. SEW | April 15th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
“. It may or may not be an exageration.. again, depending on who you ask, but there are some comparisons there.”
Got it now, but don’t call Al, FatAl. No facts there?
So now we have spun AGW first into ‘climate change’, to health risks, and now to fuel efficient cars.
Spin, spin spin. FatAl uses his useful idiots very, very well. A comparison of CO2 to temperature was clearly not science from day 1, except to the cultists who also seem to be wavering in enthusiasm. Now it is the health issues and fuel efficiency issue.
20. SteaM | April 15th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
I read an article recently where they were saying that part of the reason that cars cost so much is that so much of the money goes to paying for the automakers employees retirements/benefits etc.
21. SteaM | April 15th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
SEW,
Shut up fat ass. You’re probably the fat one here. I bet you are fatter than even Al Gore!
Wait, am I back in 3rd grade?
22. Some Assembly Required | April 15th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Hey SEW, Cars give off CO2… the less fuel they burn per mile the less CO2 they’ll give off per mile. It’s not spin, the debate is just evolving. Opps I mean progressing. This Global Warming debate is the same every time regardless of article. The right holds there preconceptions and the left has theres. What was stated above was not confirming or denying it but moving on to what has resulted into industry because of it. I personally believe this debate is actually worth having. At least it avoids running in circles for a little while.
Also, I note with interest you have said nothing more about union labor. Seeing as how you brought this into the debate.
Please re-read Post #8, from you I might add. Then apply to Post #19 Thank you for playing.
23. Some Assembly Required | April 15th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
I’ve heard that as well. The average factory worker making upwards of $60,000 a year. Whose work is comparable to average Tradesmen. I’ve also read articles regarding machines doing the work of factory workers in twice the time. I wonder if the people hired to operate and maintain these machines are being paid the equivalent or more than what the original factory workers were? In any event American car companies have a serious battle ahead of them if they want to stay competitive with Toyota.
24. SEW | April 15th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Toyota is head and shoulders above American cars. However it was years ago that GM, Ford and Chrysler were pushing poor quality on consumers. The quality has improved dramatically, but won’t catch Toyota. But what actually killed American auto makers is unions, and of course unions support Democrats and send their money there accordingly.
25. Some Assembly Required | April 15th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
SEW, agreed. I have no sympathy for the auto makers union. In fact how they are going about trying to weasel into Toyota is proof of the damage which they are / can cause. That said, Customers are how you make your business. If you lose customer confidence unions are the least of your worries. This is what has happened with American car companies. The new extended warranties are slowly starting to get that back but I agree with you they won’t catch Toyota, anytime soon anyway.
I think the future of American Car companies will depend on R & D. If they can produce an moderately cheap form of transportation requiring very little or no gas with there new found quality they’d make an unprecedented turn around. Wishful thinking maybe, but thinking non the less.
26. SteaM | April 15th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
SEW,
What about worker’s rights and fair wages? I’m not going to completely defend Unions (and I vote democrat) but some of the things they protect are important to preserve.
Otherwise we’d have 12 year olds making out cars for 10 cents an hour. Ok, that’s a bit of an exageration to make a point.
27. SEW | April 15th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I believe unions have self destructed another industry. But the union bosses are doing great as are Democrat bank accounts. The point of no return was passed long ago, unless Iran nukes Toyota, Nissan and Hyundai when they nuke Israel.
28. SteaM | April 15th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
SEW,
But you are avoiding my question. Don’t you think that workers rights and fair wages are important? Health care? Retirement?
Are these not important? I could understand if you are just saying that they are important but that Unions have gone too far.
29. Some Assembly Required | April 15th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Now you’ve just gone off the deep end. I’m with you about the auto workers union but to disband them all together is crazy talk. Unions ensure fair safe work environments, without unions the responsibility would fall to the government to further monitor companies for unsafe work practices and ensure they are paying above minimum wage. Without them government would surely have to expand. Can you imagine the average Joe being treated the same as an illegal immigrant at work… It would happen without unions. Also, if a company does not want to be unionized it forces them to make sure there employees feel know need to form one. Just like Toyota. Long story short, if the company treats there workers well they need not fear unions.
30. SteaM | April 15th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
ding ding ding
Here we are.
At a crossroads. Do we feed our hunger for convenience and luxury at the cost of wages and benefits? Or do we disband all unions, remove the minimum wage, and open the doors for child labor and/or slave labor. Watch the quality of life tumble in this country.
I’m saying that maybe we are finally felling the pinch. Our consumerism might be biting us in the rear just a little bit.
31. Doug | April 15th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
A bunch of backward talk going on here, ” if the company treats there workers well they need not fear unions.”
Seems to me that it is the employees that should be treating their employers well, else the employee should have the ability to hire someone who will.
There is nothing ‘fair’ about forcing an owner of a business to pay too much for salary and benefits because of collusion on the part of employees. It might be legal for the workers to partake in collusion in this day in age - but common and be real, it’s not fair.
Unions today have an unfair, nearly monopolistic power over employers and liberal politicians want to give them even more ‘protections’ to utilize their unfair (but more and more legal) practices. The resulting outcome is more companies locating overseas where they are treated fairly and more btching by the Dems that all the good jobs are leaving the country.
32. Some Assembly Required | April 15th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Doug, I agree it’s not fair. BUT, it’s also not ‘fair’ for employers to pay too little for salary and benefits just to make profits for it’s share holders. It’s a double edged sword. “if the company treats there workers well they need not fear unions.” What I meant by this is if a company were to offer an industry competitive salary with a good benefits package and job security the work force would feel no need to unionize. Why pay dues for something the company is offering you anyway? Unions are far to large I agree with this. But then so are some corporations. Both are crucial and very effective when they are limited not unlike government. Take GE and everything that they own. There competition, let alone local businesses would not call that fair.
I think this is exactly where Toyota has managed to pull off a comprise between unions and treating employees fairly. It is part of the reason why they are so successful.
This is one thing I have a hard time understandimg about neo-cons. Your all for advancement of corporations and limiting government, but what you seem to ignore is eventually corporations become more powerful then governments. Look at the Corn Lobby now how there pushing for biofuels, which is no where near as clean as what they like everyone to believe.
33. congressive | April 15th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
OH NO! NOW BUSH SAYS THERE’S GLOBAL WARMING!
Didn’t you guys use to listen to King George? Now you don’ listen to even McCain…
I admire your independence! It’s not easy being anti-EVERYBODY!
BTW, my anti-spam words for this post are “warmer escalate”. Hilarious!
34. felix the cat | April 16th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/16/after-careful-consideration-bush-concludes-global-warming-might-not-be-completely-fake/