Sunday, January 29, 2006

Who's Afraid of Global Warming?

Yesterday's Washington Post had an article (which I didn't actually read but I heard about) about global warming that was apparently quite frightening. Some scientists believe that global warming is happening much faster than they thought. They warn that if something isn't done within the next 10 years it may be too late. If the ice in Greenland or the West Antarctic melts it could raise sea levels by 20 feet, flooding Greenwich Village in New York and the southern third of Florida.

First of all, I must say that I don't believe global warming exists no matter how much evidence scientists come up with to support it. I think it's just a lot of fear-mongering from ice berg-hugging scientists who are trying to distract us from the War on Terror. Let's face it, it's not really going to matter what happens to the Earth if you're dead from a terrorist attack. I agree with President Bush that we shouldn't go rushing to conclusions about global warming and signing treaties like the Kyoto Protocol that will cost a lot of money. Once again Bush has shown the courage to go it alone and defy virtually all of the world's leaders and scientists. I also think the Bush Administration is right to muzzle trouble-making Chicken Littles like NASA's James Hansen who are just confusing people with their dire warnings of rapidly approaching cataclysms.

But then I thought, what if these scientists are right? Well, what's so bad about global warming? I'm not really that concerned with losing hotbeds of liberalism like Greenwich Village and Miami. And while James Hansen thinks it's a bad thing that 2005 was the warmest year since they began keeping records, I have been enjoying the mild Winter so far, haven't you? The Greenhouse Effect doesn't sound so scary to me. I've always loved greenhouses. And so what if some scientists predict that in the future New York will have the climate of Miami. I say, bring it on!

So just in case global warming is real, I plan to do whatever I can to make it happen faster. I plan to drive my SUV as much as possible, use aerosol spray cans, light my fireplace as much as possible (which is a twofer--cutting down trees that absorb carbon dioxide and burning firewood that releases carbon dioxide into the air) and buy a coal-burning stove. I may even plant a rice paddy, which releases methane gas into the atmosphere. I think we all can do something to help.

, , , , , , , , , , , Carnival of the Green #19


Anonymous said...

all the global warming experts should be sent to russia.

Anonymous said...

I wholeheartedly agree! An improvement in climate from cold to moderate, or even warm winters, would be highly desirable. And much like the issue of poverty, what happens elsewhere in the world should not really be a concern. That is, of course, with the exception of dirt-poor third-world style areas of the US, but such weather anomales are highly unlikely to occur only miles apart.

Anonymous said...

I have found your posts quite insightful. You have quite a grasp on what real conservatives are thinking.

These liberals don't know it when they have it so good.

Global warming will also help with peak oil - people complaining about their high gas prices won't have to deal with it as much if the weather is warmer.


Anonymous said...

I've always found it funny how frantic most liberals get when talking about how global warming will destroy the world as we know it in 20 years, and yet, these same people never complain when we have 30 or 40 degree days in January or February. They also bitterly complain when the weather is -10 below in January and February.

(I live in Minnesota, by the way).

Anonymous said...

Point 1: This isn't a political issue, at least not a liberal/conservative political issue. Liberalism/conservatism is an unhelpful dialectic when it comes to global warming, but insofar as it does apply, the conservation of prevailing climactic conditions should fit easily into a conservative ideology. After all, it's what makes current levels of civilization, commerce, etc. possible.

Point 2: What's not to believe? That the world is getting warmer? This much is an established fact. Even if you are suspicious of the breadcrumb trails leading back to our own doors, the premise is undeniable.

Point 3: Force of belief is admirable, but there must be some allowance for variance in your thinking for you to capably deal with the realities of a semi-chaotic system.

Conclusion: There are true liberal bugaboos out there for you to direct your ire against, but global warming is not one of them.

Anonymous said...

you and your fucking ilk are so willfully stupid that to comment implies that I would be dealing with an intelligent life form-as usual you asslickers cannot spell-Jonathan Swift my ass-he'd kick yours for blasphemy

Dan Kauffman said...

The November 1997 issue of the newsletter Energy Advocate (See ENERGY ISSUES, posting March 26, 1997) comments on the "consensus" of 2,500 scientists claimed by the current Washington administration as endorsing the UN 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which pushes the party line on global warming. It turns out that the signers of the IPCC document were mostly not scientists but political representatives from various nations. Those who did possess academic credentials were overwhelmingly "social scientists," unable to evaluate the technical merits of what they were signing, or to object when the executive summary was purged (after the document had been signed!) of all politically incorrect skepticism.

In contrast, Dr. Arthur Robinson's Access to Energy (see BB ARCHIVES - ENERGY ISSUES, posting October 29, 1997), March, 1998, reports that in a survey of professional climate scientists conducted by the German Meteorologisches Institut Universitat Hamburg and Forschungszentium, 67 percent of Canadian scientists rejected the notion that any warming due to human activity is occurring, while in Germany the figure was 87 percent, and in the US, 97 percent. The source that Dr. Robinson quotes is ecoŸ logic, November/December, 1997, p.21, available from 1229 Broadway, #313, Bangor, ME 04401. Some difference!

Nobody hears about this, of course. And how many have heard about the "Heidelberg Appeal," cautioning against hasty political decisions based on flaky science, which was initiated as far back as April, 1992 and signed at that time by 218 prominent scientists, including 27 Nobel Prize winners? The numbers of signers have since grown to over four thousand scientists worldwide, and seventy NP winners. In addition, more recently, a document known as the "Leipzig Declaration" has been presented, dealing specifically with concern over misrepresentations of the global warming scare, signed by nearly a hundred atmospheric specialists.

Dan Kauffman said...

Conclusion: There are true liberal bugaboos out there for you to direct your ire against, but global warming is not one of them.
Naw the Global Warming Paradigm is as valid as the Global Cooling Paradigm by the same group, using the same computer model 30 years ago.

Dan Kauffman said...

Here is a little playing around with the global warming mean, someone answer the basic question of it.

Global Warming For Dummies

Dan Kauffman said...

Oops that should be meme

Anonymous said...

What an arrogant nitwit. How can you -- and I'll assume you never took the time -- sit through "An Inconvenient Truth" and not come away with major concern?

I'll assume you have no offspring, which frankly is the best thing you could do, to contribute to the future well-being of mankind.

Based on the overwhelming evidence of the reality and rapid acceleration of global warming, joking about it is about as funny as joking about child molestation. What an ass-hat you must be.

The chance of an individual dying of a terrorist act is akin to the probability of getting hit by lightning. The probability of millions dying if global warming hits a tipping point is worst case better than 50%. How can you even compare the two? Oh yeah I forgot... your a moron.

Anonymous said...

Right. Topeka's Safe. And Wichita Falls. No problems will befall Indianapolis. It's all those hotbeds of liberalism: San Francisco, New York City, Miami, New Orleans, Boston, Cape Cod (for gosh sakes), that will get inundated.

Know what? This might be the time to invest in beachfront property in Arkansas.

Blader said...

I've just re-run my earlier calculations and detected a slight error...and sorry for that, really.

But I erred in concluding it would be safe to purchase beachfront property in 'Arkansas'.

I should have said, 'Kansas'

I hope its not too late

Anonymous said...

Global warming does not even exist. Examples such as Al Gore's propaganda film "An Inconvienient Truth" promote the "hockey stick" chart which has been proven false, claiming the Antaractic is warming and losing ice when in reality a small portion is losing ice but the bulk has been cooling and gaining ice, Gore inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers when they are in fact thriving. Funny how we never hear how Paramount backed marketing for this film. Finally the Associated Press ran an article declaring that "Scientists give two thumbs up to Gore's movie" Later the article quoted only five scientists praising Gore's science despite having contacted over 100 scientists. This is just one small example of liberal attempts to expose conservatives as preferring corporate profit over safety.

Anonymous said...

forget global warming for a minute and just try to be more efficient, that saves money! (although as a european more co2 in the atmosphere resulting in warmer summers and colder winters just makes sense to me).

if we can develop cars that do 100mpg why don't we, lets put more money into that r&d, that would not only reduce emission but also save money.

energy efficient light bulbs, if everyone in the usa used them energy usage would drop by 10%. that's a 10% saving on your electricity bill and a result is also less emissions creating the power.

this is true for almost everything, turning off lights and appliances on stand-by (saves 10-20% power), it saves you money! the environment should be a after thought benefit, it's about money saving and reducing waste.

public transport makes sense, especially in a city, it means you can get to work quicker, less traffic jams, saves you money on gas and time wasted in traffic. this again all leads to less emissions and if some people walk to work the huge increase in weight related diseases would be reduced, like diabetes which affects over 10% of americans and costs $132 billion in the usa alone every year.

get over the whole i want a hotter winter crap, that's just silly talk. it doesn't work like that. with the warming of the earth many things change, for example: the north atlantic drift is slowly moving north and independent studies have shown that this is happening, this will result in severely cold winters for western europe.

we don't know all the answers yet, but studies must be continued and we must see how bad the problem is and what measures need to be taken. it annoys me when the liberal vs conservative argument pops up, get over it.

also this isn't a fear story but just basic science. ice floats on water, so ice is less dense than water and so weights less. so ice sitting on the earths surface is lighter than water. what happens if all the ice melts, more weight on the earths surface. will this lead to more earthquakes and volcanoes, i don’t know but it can’t be good.

Anonymous said...

blah blah blah... liberals.... conservatives.... Al Gore.... panties in a twist.... something something..

That's about the extent of the insight I got from reading your jargon. There's only 1 globe, I don't know if you noticed, but the problem is called GLOBAL warming. Earth is similar to Vegas in that respect: what happens here stays here!

If you think you can escape significant problems resulting from Global Warming because you aren't in San Francisco or near the coast, you are in for a very serious, rude, and violent wake-up call.

There are many, many, many intricate consequences caused by Global Warming that extend beyond sheer climate change and probably many that will happen that nobody expected. Most of the catastrophes that Al Gore outlined in 'An Inconvenient Truth' are just the preliminary problems, as catasrophic as they are, the 'beginning of the snowball' if you will.

Quite frankly, if Global Warming happens in your lifetime: you'd be lucky to make it out alive. In fact, I have a haunting feeling that you will be bitch-slapped into reality in the not so distant future.

Anonymous said...

Your article about global warming was a great example of ignorance through a biased, almost blind perspective. You Preach against Bias, but yet you only get your news from conservative sources? Congratulations on the paradox you have created.

You are a reasonable conservative? By reasonable, do you mean you have your head so far up an elephants @$$ you can't see the light of day?

You are clearly a moron who is incapable of listening to the other side of the story and thus should your site only be looked at for a good laugh.

"I've always loved greenhouses." What the hell are you saying? Are you Forrest Gump?

I'm conservative...But I still read/watch liberal media. Why is that so hard for you? Don't you want to know both sides of the story, or is your extreme benightedness the equivalent to the great wall of china?

I guess this comment is in summary a statement addressing the fact that you are indeed an idiot and that anybody can post whatever they want on the internet even if it's as absurd as this. Please don't have children.

Dan Kauffman said...

What an arrogant nitwit. How can you -- and I'll assume you never took the time -- sit through "An Inconvenient Truth"
Your assumption would be wrong then and in keeping with the meaning of the word assume.

Have you bothered to read though Crichton's "State of Fear" takes a bit more time than sitting through Al Gore's cartoon enhanced media production.

Hmm I have noticed that while I generally feel the other side of the Global Warming Debate has been mislead or has been ill informed THEY generally respond with hysterical adhominen attacks anyone else find that so?

By the way thou "arrogant nitwit"

During the time period of the 1940s to 1970s global temperatures declined while CO2 levels rose.

You find that in Inconvienient Truths?

Or might that truth be inconvienient for Al's Propaganda machine?

Dan Kauffman said...

"Quite frankly, if Global Warming happens in your lifetime: you'd be lucky to make it out alive. In fact, I have a haunting feeling that you will be bitch-slapped into reality in the not so distant future.

1/14/2007 2:29 AM "

Isn't ODD that our ancestors survived the Medieval Warm Period when temperatures were even higher than now and most mammals did not have any trouble with the Holocene Maxima?

Compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vo. 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas

Global Warming:
A Chilling Perspective

Anonymous said...

I personally think the climactic ideal was back in the days of the dinosaurs when there were forests on Antarctica. What an ecological DISASTER that continent has been since then!


Anonymous said...

im only 14 and it makes me scared to think that idiots like you are some of the people who will decide what the world will be like in my generation.

Anonymous said...

Im only 14 and it scares me to think that there are idiots like you out there making decisions as to what the world is going to be like for my generation.

Anonymous said...

wow... your ignorance is amazing! thanks for the laugh! But seriously, you're an idiot. Do you're research and actually READ the articles in which you comment about! jeez...

Dan Kauffman said...

Yes if one reads one might find things like this

The World 18,000 Years Ago

Before "global warming" started 18,000 years ago most of the earth was a frozen and arid wasteland. Over half of earth 's surface was covered by glaciers or extreme desert. Forests were rare.

Not a very fun place to live.

(view full size map)
Our Present World

"Global warming" over the last 15,000 years has changed our world from an ice box to a garden. Today extreme deserts and glaciers have largely given way to grasslands, woodlands, and forests.

Big difference to Al Gore's hysteria.

PS it would be nice to see something other than "anonymous" makes it hard to figure out who is agreeing with whom.


PPS don't worry too much young 14 year old.

The 1930s were warmer than the present. the 1940s to 1970s were much colder, which is why some of the Chicken Littles were talking about an impending Ice Age (same ones who now claim a Heat Death for the Ecosphere

By 2015 we should be back in the part of the Climate Cycle as the to 1940to 1970s

Anonymous said...

You're kidding, right?

Anonymous said...

Seriously, Jon Swift. I'm glad that you can't decide what actions against the global warming will be taken - what would be NO actions.

because I won't let you fuck around with the world I live in! I want politicians an CEOs that have balls!

and not cowards like you that hide behind false "statistics" that are 10 years old. Open your fucking eyes and look out of your American box! life is not the coast you are living on.

Anonymous said...

They tend to agree at and I agree with you and them and everyone else who doesnt believe in this global warming garbage.

Ontario Emperor said...

Got here from Technorati. Hard to keep track of global warming, global cooling, mean temperature, nice temperature, and Al Gore's carbon emissions.

Jack said...

I'm not sure why...but I feel like I need to make a comment.

I have no idea why this is considered a liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican issue. It's a scientific issue that ultimately will impact everyone on this planet.

I recommend those of you who have open minds and want to learn (rather than call each other names) read the information on climate change at the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA websites. Assuming you don't find those two agencies to be part of some conspiracy to promote falsehood you will find - (a) Global temperatures are rising, (b) mankind is causing climate change and (c) the ice caps are shrinking.

You could go to a library and check out Scientific American or National Geographic stories on this topic as well.

It might be good to challenge your mind with some facts, and think on your own - rather than letting someone convince you that scientific fact and political philosophy are somehow intermixed.

Anonymous said...

I was going to write a comment and then I saw thye last post by jack which makes most of the points that I would make. This has absolutely nothing to do with Left /right politics - its an issue about science plain and simple. You either accept the overwhelming scientific concensus that has emerged or you don't. If you dont you better come up with some scientific facts that explain teh observed phenomena better. The reason the vast majority of climate scientists accept manmade gobal warming is that no one has yet shown a better explanation.

Politics only comes in as an issue when we discuss what if anything to do about man made global warming. I am middle to right of centre myself but when I read some of the narrow minded (often religiously inspired) twaddle from US conservatives I just hope that global warming creates some selective evolutionary pressure against such idiocy.

Ron said...

I had to comment on some of the extreme statements made.

Let's really look at some facts, not deductions or possible facts or even probable ones.

The earth is warmer than it was a while ago.

The earth was colder about 10,000 years ago.

Before that (they call it The Ice Age) it was warmer.

It is generally warmer during the day and cooler at night.

It is generally warmer in the Summer than in Winter.

Now for guesses or inferences.

I think it was warmer when the dinosaurs were here. Just an assumption mind you, but I am doubting they were trotting around in a glacier in South Dakota.

So...we have an established pattern of climate shift or change. Studies suggest that this is very cyclic with peaks and valleys separated by hundred, thousands, and millions of years. To think that in the blink of an eye that humans have been here we are the deciding input to the temperature of the planet is absurd and downright conceited.

Did humans cause the end of the ice age? That is Global Warming. That doesnt mean we should try to destroy, but honestly, things change in the world. What next? Are you going to suggest some global mud-jacking to prevent the shifting of tectonic plates? The continents are drifting. Did I cause that too?

This is a big deal because politicians have made it such. That is because it gets them in the headlines which in turn gets them more money. Anyone who thinks otherwise is very naive. Asking a typical politician about this is like asking a typical physicist how to pick up chicks in a bar. And asking ANYONE what the weather will be like in a month is just plain stupid, much less asking someone to guess what it will be like 10, 20, 100 years from now.

If you are really worried, turn on your A/C and open your windows. It will have just as much impact.

Unknown said...

"Global Warming for Dummies" comes out in early 2008.

Dan Kauffman said...

"It might be good to challenge your mind with some facts, and think on your own - rather than letting someone convince you that scientific fact and political philosophy are somehow intermixed."

Yes and you might also check out the BBC Documentary

The Great Global Warming Swindle?

I was particularly impressed with the head of the Pasteur Institute having to threaten the IPCC with legal action to get them to remove his name from the list of contributors.

Anonymous said...

Reality check for Dan Kaufman:

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" was NOT a BBC documentary; it was produced for Channel 4. The title is self-descriptive, given that it was a heady mixture of lies, misleading data, and Bad Science

Durkin faked a couple of graphs for the original broadcast to make them seem more convincing:

e.g here and here

A good general rebuttal of Durkin's documentary, plus a lot of actual science by actual scientists can be found here.

Apparently the pile of crap has been heavily re-edited for subsequent broadcasts, to remove some of the fakery.

Finally, I'm astonished by how few people here recognise satire when they see it...

Anonymous said...

screw you btich, you should fuckin STOP global warming, not make it faster

Anonymous said...

I have to admit Jon, although as a lifelong godless communist, I often find your reasoning somewhat suspect, I'm with you on this one 100%. Bring it on is right, but I am just not that optimistic that your strategy will stop the onslaught of the new age hippie counter-revolutinaries. We godless communists have long believed that we "evolved" from monkeys millions of years ago, before there were any damn ice caps. We could all be laying around on the beach waiting for fruit to drop into our mouths if only they would just listen to us.

resident UA said...

You really believe this: "First of all, I must say that I don't believe global warming exists no matter how much evidence scientists come up with to support it. I think it's just a lot of fear-mongering from ice berg-hugging scientists who are trying to distract us from the War on Terror. " ??????? :) I hope you are joking. Suddently conspiracy theory about 9/11 sound reasonable after your comment :)

Anonymous said...

Found this blog because I just wrote something and called it "Global Warming My Ass" also. Did a search for that term and here I am.

I just wrote something on my blog about this global warming B.S. Here in California the Governator is trying to add a new tax to pay for a global warming research committee. When in fact we're cooling.

If you wish you can read more at my site. I'm not selling anything so hopefully you don't take this as spam but I have links in my post that I believe dispels the notion of global warming.

Anonymous said...

Wow are you stupid. get a grip its appening all around us. your just making it worse for the next generation, think of other people for once.

Nabeel said...

I am, you should be, and your kids will be.

Anonymous said...

Just curious, how often do you consider becoming an ex-pat - or is that just a case of greener grass on my part? I guess you can't just leave the planet....

Anonymous said...

I dont agree even a little. yeah warmer weather would be great, but not for the polar bears, penguins and all the other animals that need cold weather to survive. stop being selffish and think of them.

Anonymous said...

Evidence and statements are only as sound as the references that are cited to back them up. And sources and references are only as sound as the scientists and writers who author or create them, which are in turn only as credible as their own academic credibility and expertise in that certain field. Either side of the argument citing a blog, or some random website for scientific evidence for example, should never suffice as legitimate scientific evidence. Nor does one citation alone, whether or pro or anti-Global Warming, prove anything. A real consensus regarding whether or not a scientific reporting, explained phenomena, or theory can only be reached by thoroughly examining a wealth of scientifically-backed evidence from a number of different sources and their references.

Dan Kauffman, I will address every comment which you leave. Your commentary on one book, Global Warming for Dummies 2, does very little to dispell the theory of global warming in my eyes. You do not cite any scientific evidence, facts, data, or studies to back it up, and I highly doubt you have the scientific credibility to say whether or not all the carbon dioxide stored in fossil fuels all used to be in the atmosphere during the same period of time and represents what is once normal.

The Leipzig Declaration was signed over 10 years ago and dates back to at least 1997 and the Heidelberg Appeal even further to 1992; both, in other words, before the all the scientific data and findings that have been released in the first decade of the 21st century supporting Anthropogenic Global Warming. Your link at the bottom of that comment leads to a blank webpage, and in referring to the Global Cooling Paradigm you do not cite references.

Regarding Chrichton's "State of Fear", no I have not read it, though this meteorologist, the DIRECTOR of one of the most relied-upon weather forecasting companies in the country, says in the 6th paragraph down that "unfortunately, Crichton presents a error-filled and distorted version of the Global Warming science." And your statement that global average temperatures fell between 1940-1970 is true, but then it is not In 1940 it rose slightly, then dropped more significantly, then in 1950 rose almost as significantly as it dropped in the 40's, only to rise and drop again. In the 60's it would drop, then rise again to where it had dropped from. Since then has been rising steadily.

Your link to the study regarding the climate and human civilization during the Holocene Maxima period is flawed because (1) the first link provided has nothing to do with a paper published by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy (2) the publication by said authors would itself be over 18 years old now as of December 2009 and (3) the current fears over global warming have to do with a predicted rise in global temperatures of 6 degrees celcius which is well beyond that of what the average global temperatures of the Holocene Maximum period was. The 2nd link, while seemingly convincing, leads to an article published on an independent site ( which shows no evidence of the author of the webpage holding any type of scientific degree in climatology or meteorology.

And, with your last comment posted, you again ignore the fact that it is what WILL happen if current temperatures (currently not enough to destroy our planet) CONTINUE to rise rapidly enough to reach a 6 degree celsius change by the end of the century that climatologists are so concerned about. Current temperature levels, I agree with you, are not yet threatening to humanity, but could become so if they continue to rise so rapidly. And in your "PPS" you again do not cite any references or studies to support you.

Cosmo said...

For my part one and all ought to look at it.
free online games

Margaret said...

I fully match with whatever thing you have presented us.

Dr. Jagdish Chander said...

Thanks for sharing that. It was fun reading it. :-)

Pulmonary Embolism said...

Thank you, that was just an awesome post!!!

Dr. Mohit Jain said...

That was a VERY interesting one! Seriously interesting.

The 2008 Weblog Awards