Global Warming Update
May 19th, 2008 at 05:38am Mark Noonan
From Newsbusters:
The names of over 31,000 American scientists that reject the theory of anthropogenic global warming are to be revealed on Monday.
Although this will occur at the National Press Club in Washington, DC., it seems a metaphysical certitude media will completely ignore the event.
According to the report, this is actually a re-do of a petition done in 1999 in which 19,000 odd people signed - but critics alleged some duplicate names and claimed that some of the signatories weren’t scientists…this list is apparantly designed to be critic-proof on that level…31,072 signatories, all with degrees, 9,021 of which are PhDs.
The main point here is that claims of settled science are bogus - a complete fabrication from start to finish on the part of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) enthusiasts, and the fact that they would bald-faced lie about this basic element of their claims throws into question the honesty and motivation of all of those who advocate the alarmist global warming position. Unfortunately, as I noted earlier, we’ve lost the debate, at least temporarily - via a propaganda campaign which would have made Stalin proud, the AGW people have swept the opposition from the table and convinced a majority of the population that AGW is not only real, but a dire threat to all life on earth. We can’t break through this propaganda - at the moment.
In the next few years as evidence of catastrophe fails to materialise (and wasn’t Gore saying three or four years ago that we only had ten years left to get a handle on this?), the reference back to this petition and all the other evidence that AGW wasn’t all it was cracked up to be will become a flood as people start to realise they’ve been - once again - connned by the environmentalist movement. At that point, we’ll be able to strike back against this, and actually insert a bit of real science into the debate.
Entry Filed under: Environment
27 Comments
1. Sidetrack | May 19th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Deleted - off topic.
2. SEW | May 19th, 2008 at 11:52 am
“. Cons who support anti environmental policy are fools every last one of them.”
Like banning DDT, an entirely safe product, so that millions can die? Like banning intelligent forestry to allow forest fires to occur and burn out of control and then requiring them to burn because that is natures way killing all wildlife in the path?
Fool.
3. OhioOrrin | May 19th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
oh great Mark, now what?
the ice age originally predicted in the ’70’s?
4. Mark Noonan | May 19th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Ohio,
They are on a real push to get their regulations and laws in place before the whole thing is proved the hoax that it is…we should never, ever forget that leading environmentalists 20 years ago stated they would lie about environmental dangers in order to scare people into going along with environmentalism which is less about the environment, and more about a totalitarian social vision…
5. William Teach | May 19th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Notice how none of the Climahysterics can ever actually respond with, you know, facts, when something like this post is put up? Always some sort of smear or off topic inanity.
6. Just Another Taxpayer | May 19th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
And a list of exactly who these people work for? What number work for directly, or have their work funded by organizations that benefit from high fossil fuel prices?
I don’t want a lsit of names with degrees. I want to know whose paying them. After, Bush did an end around the 10th amendment by pressuring the head of the EPA to change his opinion of global warning so that Ca’s tougher than federal emmisions standards for power plants and vehicles could be overturned, the powers that be aren’t to be trusted.
Look forward to seeing the list.
7. Neologizer | May 19th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
seven of the Earth’s eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, and 10 of the warmest years have occurred since 1997……….
Weighing in on the highest profile debate about global warming, the nation’s premier science policy body on Thursday voiced a “high level of confidence” that Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years………………The report was requested last November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., to survey what science says about climate change over the last 2,000 years.
Bush believes, John McCain does to …. even Pat Buchanan acknowledges the obvious why can’t you??????
8. William Teach | May 19th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Bwahahahaha! Gotta love the old “I bet these people work for Big Oil, Or Big Coal, or Big Something” argument. Anything to avoid responding.
Now, Neo gives it a shot, forgetting to factor in two variables: the decade of the 1930’s, when it was actually hotter, and that the Earth was in the midst of the Little Ice Age 400 years ago.
Why can’t we acknowledge what? That Man is the primary or sole cause this time of something that has been happening naturally for billions of years? It isn’t about believing that the Earth goes through warmer and cooler periods, of which we are in warmer one at the time being. Of course, all the actual data, versus silly and non-functional climate models, show that there has been no change since 1998. Woops! A Fact!
BTW, Neo, believing is not the same as knowing. Believing is about feelings. Knowing revolves around facts.
9. bongoman | May 19th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
What you taking about?
NASA:
10. Willem van Oranje | May 19th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Hahaha. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine again! I love it.
Or so the story goes, indeed. And not only that. the ‘OISM’ fraudulently formatted that petition as coming from the National Academy of Sciences, using a bogus article as if it was published in the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
It wasn’t of course.
And not only that. Anybody could add his or her name on that list via the Internet or via a postcard. I bet you can find Jeremiah on that list as a Professor in Theology and Mark with a Ph.D in Evolutionary Biology.
11. ViralNexus | May 20th, 2008 at 12:01 am
I admit I completely and utterly despise the AGW enthusiasts. There has to be another way to bring environmental concerns to the fore front of the concerns of the average person. Unfortunately people are completely selfish beings and will absolutely refuse to change their habbits unless they are directly affected. Even then people only change momentarily before resuming their ways. I just wish people would realize without the hoopla that lifestyle changes and the invention of new technologies that protect us and the environment could greatly benefit us all. Instead a stupid debate such as this leads those who refuse to accept it to indignation and ignorance. There is no reason for us to continue driving gasoline powered vehicles when we can at this very moment drive electric vehicles that perform as well or better and can be charged by relatively inexpensive photovoltaic panels on the roofs of our houses. It is absolutely ridiculous that we are even having this debate.
12. Kahn | May 20th, 2008 at 12:14 am
I don’t believe in Global Warming. Our oil usage has remained static for years as we increased efficiency in the United States along with our population and economy. We can conserve more yes… BUT, I think we need to:
1. Increase nuclear power (opposed by Democrats)
2. Build more hydro-electric plants (opposed by Democrats)
3. Build more windmills (Not exactly opposed by Democrats as policy, but severely restricted do to legislation bushed through by Ted Kennedy and supported by Kerry because of Cape Cod)
Build more solar projects - though the jury is still out which solar technology makes sense economically.
Burning coal and corn aren’t the answer. Though coal IS cheap and would help in the short term - I don’t like acid rain all that much.
So Democrats -IF you actually believe in Global Warming - what do you want to do. Stop trying to convince us about Global Warming…. tell us your plan and see if we agree for our own reasons.
Thats a new way of doing things.
13. Kahn | May 20th, 2008 at 12:22 am
pushed through - ha!
ViralN - yes. But today we are building like six new coal burning electricity plants in Virginia. They are much cleaner than previous plants and coal is cheap and American. But wind, nuclear, and hydro are REALLY clean. We need to recycle our uranium like the French. In fact, we should just start building the standardized French plants here.
Democrats have vehemently opposed new nuclear plants.
I can’t imagine being able to build a new hydro-electric plant anywhere without hearing stories of the wonderful endangered green spotted stump slug that will be threatened. And every poster here should join in condemning Kennedy and yes the Republicans that went along with him for severely restricting wind power. How ludicrous is that?
14. Kahn | May 20th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Sure WVO - back out to your dog crap covered Dutch sidewalks - OK? The USA’s plants are already the most efficient in the world We need to shift from oil and coal and even from natural gas. But to what?
Solar? Well sure. But it barely pays for itself.
Nuclear? Not here - see liberals
Wind? Not here - see liberals, and well just see NIMBY politicians in both parties
Hydro? Not here - see liberals
So stop trying to convince us of this crap If you believed it yourselves you’d be talking solutions. Your leaders OBVIOUSLY don’t believe it. If they did, they’d be pushing solutions instead of living in 40′000 square foot homes, driving fleets of SUV’s, and flying in private jets.
Really - put up or shut up. What is your plan to move to alternate and clean energy sources?
15. Pirate's Cove&hellip | May 20th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Global Warming Today: No Hurricanes, No Green Products
To kick it off, what about those hurricanes caused by global warming? (via Moonbattery)
Global warming isn’t to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted…
16. Danish Artist | May 20th, 2008 at 9:22 am
WASHINGTON — Global warming isn’t to blame for the recent jump in the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject.
Not only that, warmer temperatures will actually reduce the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic and those making landfall, research meteorologist Tom Knutson reported in a study released Sunday.
In the past, Knutson has raised concerns about the effects of climate change on storms. His new paper has the potential to heat up a simmering debate among meteorologists about current and future effects of global warming in the Atlantic.
Ever since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, hurricanes have often been seen as a symbol of global warming’s wrath. Many climate change experts have tied the rise of hurricanes in recent years to global warming and hotter waters that fuel them.
Another group of experts, those who study hurricanes and who are more often skeptical about global warming, say there is no link. They attribute the recent increase to a natural multi-decade cycle.
Global Warming May Reduce Atlantic Hurricanes What makes this study different is Knutson, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s fluid dynamics lab in Princeton, N.J.
He has warned about the harmful effects of climate change and has even complained in the past about being censored by the Bush administration on past studies on the dangers of global warming.
He said his new study, based on a computer model, argues “against the notion that we’ve already seen a really dramatic increase in Atlantic hurricane activity resulting from greenhouse warming.”
The study, published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience, predicts that by the end of the century the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic will fall by 18 percent.
The number of hurricanes making landfall in the United States and its neighbors — anywhere west of Puerto Rico — will drop by 30 percent because of wind factors.
The biggest storms — those with winds of more than 110 mph — would only decrease in frequency by 8 percent. Tropical storms, those with winds between 39 and 73 mph, would decrease by 27 percent.
It’s not all good news from Knutson’s study, however. His computer model also forecasts that hurricanes and tropical storms will be wetter and fiercer.
Rainfall within 30 miles of a hurricane should jump by 37 percent and wind strength should increase by about 2 percent, Knutson’s study says.
And Knutson said this study significantly underestimates the increase in wind strength. Some other scientists criticized his computer model.
MIT hurricane meteorologist Kerry Emanuel, while praising Knutson as a scientist, called his conclusion “demonstrably wrong” based on a computer model that doesn’t look properly at storms.
Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist, said Knutson’s computer model is poor at assessing tropical weather and “fail to replicate storms with any kind of fidelity.”
Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said it is not just the number of hurricanes “that matter, it is also the intensity, duration and size, and this study falls short on these issues.”
Knutson acknowledges weaknesses in his computer model and said it primarily gives a coarse overview, not an accurate picture on individual storms and storm strength. He said the latest model doesn’t produce storms surpassing 112 mph.
But NOAA hurricane meteorologist Chris Landsea, who wasn’t part of this study, praised Knutson’s work as “very consistent with what’s being said all along.”
“I think global warming is a big concern, but when it comes to hurricanes the evidence for changes is pretty darn tiny,” Landsea said.
Hurricane season starts June 1 in the Atlantic and a Colorado State University forecast predicts about a 50 percent more active than normal storm season this year.
NOAA puts out its own seasonal forecast on May 22.
In a normal year about 10 named storms form. Six become hurricanes and two become major hurricanes. On average, about five hurricanes hit the United States every three years.
———————————————————
Another defective model???
Say it isn’t so!!!
These models are proving defective and huge assumptions in these model more frequent. The “climate change” model is just another one.
Climate change, what a scam!
17. OhioOrrin | May 20th, 2008 at 10:13 am
the iceages started then stopped.
ergo, the earth warms n cools.
regardless of man.
good stewardship of God’s creation is all of our responsibility.
profit-driven environmental hucksterism is not.
18. SEW | May 20th, 2008 at 10:31 am
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/05/07/environmentalists_wild_predictions?page=full&comments=true
19. SEW | May 20th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Save the polar bears.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2008/05/16/polar_bear_pushback
20. Neologizer | May 20th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Hi Pirates Mark and other GW ignorants
The studies never said GW would increase hurricane number they said it would increase hurricane intensity. Those ignorant GW deniers are using your ignorance to justify their ignorant position.
Facts are facts and here they are…..
No overall trend in hurricane frequency has been detected so far. But using a new measure of a hurricane power, Kerry Emanuel shows that the destructive potential of tropical cyclones has nearly doubled over the past 30 years, and is highly correlated with tropical sea-surface temperature
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/edsumm/e050804-11.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5742/1807
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/katrina/#climate
21. congressive | May 20th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Simple math: if global warming is a hoax, John McCain is a hoax-ter.
22. Percy Beezer | May 20th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
or http://www.hko.gov.hk/wxinfo/news/2008/pre0213e.htm
Must be sturgeons driving hybrids
23. Willem van Oranje | May 21st, 2008 at 3:30 am
You’re not interested in solutions. You’re just spoiled for a fight. You think it’s a fun game you can play out of your basement.
but for your information: the size of a home is completely irrelevant to it’s carbon footprint. Even a garden shed can have a higher carbon footprint than a 40′000 square foot home. But I don’t expect you to understand that. It’s complex.
The type of a car, even in a fleet, is irrelevant to it’s carbon footprint. But that’s also a very complex matter that I don’t expect you would understand.
And the carbon footprint by flying private jets can be mitigated by carbon offsets. Again, an extremely complex matter.
For those really interested in solutions: the ipcc has a lot of material available. http://www.ipcc.ch/
24. Willem van Oranje | May 21st, 2008 at 3:30 am
oh and Kahn?
Grow up.
25. Willem van Oranje | May 21st, 2008 at 3:44 am
So we’ve made two more converts it seems. Pirate and Danish A, do agree - with Knutson - that GW is caused by CO2. Right? Because it would be foolish to reject the premise of his study just because you like the result.
His study deals with one effect of GW: the number of hurricanes. And we already knew that the number of hurricanes with relation to GW was still up for debate. Scientists have already told us that. He is one more voice in that debate and others will probably find reason to dispute his findings. We’ll see what happens.
There is more agreement that the intensity of hurricanes would increase. Knutson is one of them.
It also blows a hole in the deniers claim that the entire scientific community does not allow ‘dissidents’ in it’s debates.
26. Danish Artist | May 21st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
WVO,
nice try in bullshitting what we have said.
“It also blows a hole in the deniers claim that the entire scientific community does not allow ‘dissidents’ in it’s debates.”
Uh, no it does not. At GW conferences, those scientists are not part of the forum. Many are not even allowed in. There have been no public debates on GW and its possible causes.
Go spread you bs elsewhere.
27. Neologizer | May 21st, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Good comeback Danish ……
NOT!!!!!!
There’s that little problem called facts….you know those things scientist need before they their hypothesis is taken seriously. Problem is the facts are consistent with GW and climate change.
If any dissenters have any then they will be taken seriously. Pundits, Bloggers and fools don’t require facts but science does.