The American Thinker Slaps Down Global Warming

[michaeledward]

Big Don, I thought you said, a few posts back, that companies should be forced to manufacture products in different ways. It was not an environmentalist making that ascertion, as I recall, it was you.

Like I said, why not force companies to manufacture and bring to market incandescent bulbs that don't die as fast, reverse engineer the planned obselescense out of them? ...

Why is it that you can make the demand to force a company to manufacture something, by you decry the environmentalists for doing the same thing?

 

[Xue Sheng]

One last thing

This entire topic both on and off MT is, to me, like a bunch of guys get together and decide to build a boat. Some start from the beginning and some come in later but in the end they have built a great boat. They then decide to go on vacation on the boat and they bring all their tools along just incase they need to do something.

Well they get out to sea and they are having a great time drinking, fishing, making business deals amongst themselves, watching the ocean and all sorts of things you can do on a boat that are fun and distracting when all of a sudden they hit something, they don’t know what they hit but it has damaged the boat slightly and it has caused a small leak.

So they start discussing who will fix the boat since they are all capable but they can’t seem to agree who should fix it. Eventually that discussion escalates into multiple arguments;

“I did more work to build the boat that you so you fix it”
“I did not have as much to do with the building of the boat so you fix it”
“I wasn’t driving so I’m not fixing it”
“Hey didn’t the Chinese guy design this boat so he should fix it””
“Well maybe I designed it but you have more money than me you fix it”

And of course some are saying

“I don’t believe we hit anything so I see no reason to fix anything”,

And of course politics enters into it, can't have a good argument without politics

“Hey wait a minute you guys are republicans so YOU should fix it since the whole boat idea was yours”,
“Well it was the democrats that said we hit something in the first place so they should fix it”

And the arguments go on and on and on from reason to reason as to why someone else should fix the boat

And while all this arguing is going on the hole is getting bigger and bigger.

What happens?

Well the boat sinks and they all drown…. But at least the accomplished one thing, even though they could not work together to fix the problem they did at least drown together…..

Argue away gentlemen.

 

[Sukerkin]

Quite right, Xue. If my grandfather were still alive there'd've been a simple solution to the repeated nonsense we've seen again and again on issues like this. Sadly that solution would've ended up with fewer members here at MT.

Equally sadly, in that it prevents me from venting my true feelings on certain issues, I accepted a position as a Mentor here which means I have to rise above such things and not give in to petty argumenting.

Then again, I've ever been of the mindset that if, online, something I write will have no effect on how people think, even momentarily, I'd prefer to stay silent.

That's a good policy ... click.

 

[Big Don]

I don't know that global warming is real, but I know it is really profitable....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=500586&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490

 

[That One Guy]

The United States is the only industrialized nation that even accepts doubt of the existence of global warming.

The debate of whether or not we humans caused it is still out in the international community -- but only just.

The debate of whether or not it's actually an emergency is also still out. Doomsday scenarios don't help. When you hear people hollering that the temperature change will kill all the bats and flood New York City, people don't take it seriously. Which means that when people point to substantial evidence that global warming is linked to heavier weather and faster desertification...well, people don't take that seriously either.

I tire of the doomsayers and people who use the issue (on either side) for political cache. Here I'm talking to you Al Gore and you George Bush.

took the words right out of my mouth man.

 

[Big Don]

Fark has the following headline on a link:

Al Gore: World savior or profiteering douchebag? You decide

Even if you don't like Gore being mentioned, that is funny.

 

[tellner]

We don't mind Al Gore being mentioned. What we mind is the way you abandon logic, reason, and facts in favor of the equation Al Gore = Evil, Al Gore = Global Warming, thus Global Warming is false.

First, he isn't evil.
Second, he isn't personally responsible for the laws of nature.
Third "I don't like him, so anything he says can't be true" is the worst sort of fuzzy thinking and willful stupidity. It's classic Republican Lie Machine tactics from "Harlem for Muskie" and "Don't Vote Jewish" to Willie Horton, Swift Boat and so on. Find an issue where the facts are against you. Identify them with a person. Demonize the person. Pretend that you've taken care of the issue.

That is most of what you've been doing here.

Just another little factlet...

Greenland ice sheet melting at record rate
10 Dec 2007 22:42:43 GMT
Source: Reuters


WASHINGTON, Dec 10 (Reuters) - The Greenland ice sheet melted at a record rate this year, the largest ever since satellite measurements began in 1979, a top climate scientist reported on Monday.

"The amount of ice lost by Greenland over the last year is the equivalent of two times all the ice in the Alps, or a layer of water more than one-half mile (800 meters) deep covering Washington DC," said Konrad Steffen of the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Using data from military and weather satellites to see where the ice is melting, Steffen and his colleagues were able to monitor the rapid thinning and acceleration of ice as it moved into the ocean at the edge of the big arctic island.

The extent of the melt area was 10 percent greater than the last record year, 2005, the scientists found.

Greenland is about one-fourth the size of the United States and about 80 percent of it is covered by the ice sheet. One-twentieth of the world's ice is in Greenland; if it all melted it would be equivalent to a 21-foot (6.4 metre) global sea level rise, the scientists said.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Heres a little factlet: *S*

By: Philip V. Brennan

As much of the U.S. is being blasted by vicious ice storms, a blockbuster report published in a prestigious scientific journal insists that the evidence shows that climate warming is both natural and unstoppable and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.


Writing in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society, professor David H. Douglass (of the University of Rochester), professor John R. Christy (of the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and professor S. Fred Singer (of the University of Virginia) report that observed patterns of temperature changes ("fingerprints") over the last 30 years disagree with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability.

The conclusion is that climate change is "unstoppable" and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

According to Dr. Douglass: ìThe observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.î

One of his co-authors, Dr. John Christy, added: ìSatellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater.

"We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.î

And the third co-author, Dr. S. Fred Singer, said: ìThe current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals.

"The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earthís atmosphere.

"In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earthís surface≠ and thus the climate.

"Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless ó but very costly."

So I would say the jury is still out....

 

[CoryKS]

So to sum up: we got a bunch of people who see things changing, not necessarily for the better, and want to keep the world just as they've always known it. To do this, they are demanding that we do more of the things we ought to do, and stop doing the things we oughtn't. The outcome of these actions is not certain. And all in the name of a theory which has not been proven.

Buncha conservative religious whackjobs, trying to take away our rights!

 

[michaeledward]

Heres a little factlet: *S*

So I would say the jury is still out....

See, the really cool thing about the internet, is you just run over to 'The Google', and you pop in the name ... David H. Douglass ... And up comes a link to a web site 'ExxonSecrets.Org'. And if you follow that, you find connections to the Cato institute for Mr. Douglass, and Mr. Singer, too, by the way.

It sure would be nice if we found, in the first 10 links, a scientific journal. You know, like the American Meteorological Society http://www.ametsoc.org/ ... or the International Journal of Meteorology http://www.ijmet.org/ ...

But, we don't seem to find his name referenced in these sites. Instead, we find he is connected to a Right Wing Think Tank, and to Exxon Funding.

As long as these guys are out there .... the Fascist controllers at Exxon can hang one of these banners over their desks.

 

[Big Don]

I and I would imagine, a number of others, would be more inclined to believe there is a genuine threat from global warming if there weren't so many people who, like Gore are getting rich(er) from it.

 

[Andrew Green]

People make money off of everything you can imagine. Every war in hostory, there have been people that made money off of it. People have made a ton of money off of the Taliban threat. People have made a ton of money saying global warming isn't happening, althought thats getting harder to do now...

Point is, there will always be people making money off both sides of the issue. Al Gore has made money doing his work, most people do like to make money with what they do. He's good at it, so he's made a good amount of money (he's also donated a fair chunk to enviromental groups). I see no problem with him making money off teaching enviromentalism.

 

[Big Don]

People make money off of everything you can imagine. Every war in hostory, there have been people that made money off of it. People have made a ton of money off of the Taliban threat. People have made a ton of money saying global warming isn't happening, althought thats getting harder to do now...

Point is, there will always be people making money off both sides of the issue. Al Gore has made money doing his work, most people do like to make money with what they do. He's good at it, so he's made a good amount of money (he's also donated a fair chunk to enviromental groups). I see no problem with him making money off teaching enviromentalism.

To paraphrase a catchphrase from the Clinton Campaign in 91: Its the hypocrisy stupid! Lining your pockets on global warming after screaming about how someone else "Played on our fears" seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black...

 

[Blindside]

To paraphrase a catchphrase from the Clinton Campaign in 91: Its the hypocrisy stupid! Lining your pockets on global warming after screaming about how someone else "Played on our fears" seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black...

I completely agree on the appearance of hypocrisy. I have many friends who fall into the "environmentalist" camp, and many of them are very much into the reduce, reuse, recycle, and minimal impact lifestyles. I have much less problem with a guy living in a yurt powered by solar electricity telling me about all the ways I can reduce my carbon footprint than a man living in a 20,000 foot mansion. One person is walking the walk, the other is just running his mouth. I don't however, think James talking is changing all that many people's minds, he is just a hippy who lives out in the woods. Most of the enviromental movement runs off the "act locally, think globally" motto, Gore seems to do the opposite.

I don't mind Gore making money off of new markets, capitalism is the name of the game. Should I think critically about the claims he has made, yes absolutely, just as I think critically about some of the claims made by an oil energy spokesman.

And thinking critically about where the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence is leaning, I think that global warming is happening, and I think that carbon emissions from humans are large contributing factor. Unfortunately, I believe that without a massive change in energy production technology (like fusion), we won't get out of this dependence on carbon based energy. As I said earlier in this thread, it is a Tragedy of the Commons on a global scale.

Lamont

 

[Andrew Green]

Just to point something out here, Al Gore's house is also his office. I imagine he also has a few other folks working fro him there. It does use more energy, but I imagine that if any of us set up a office in our house with a few employees, our house would start sucking back power a little faster. Anyways: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

Basically it uses renewabal energy sources and has a "carbon footprint" of zero, which is what Al Gore has been asking people to do.

 

[Blindside]

Basically it uses renewabal energy sources and has a "carbon footprint" of zero, which is what Al Gore has been asking people to do.

Then he is a piss poor environmentalist, the first thing you do in any situation is REDUCE. You use less, you have to offset less, my god, we can't ask people to make any sacrifices to save the planet.

I have a home based office in our house. I quite literally cannot tell the difference in energy use on the electric bill (two computers, one fax, one two printer/copiers, one paper shredder, phone). I can easily detect the difference in running the dryer three extra times (one hour each time) a month.

I couldn't believe that all Gore was asking was to "use renewable energy sources and have a carbon footprint of zero," because that would be so incredibly stupid. So I looked on the climatecrisis.com website, excerpted from the front page:

You have the power to make a difference. Small changes to your daily routine can add up to big changes in helping to stop global warming.

Reduce your impact AT HOME

Reduce your impact WHILE ON THE MOVE

Help bring about change LOCALLY, NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY

Download these 10 SIMPLE TIPS to take with you!

I'm going to assume that Gore, being a good environmentalist, is doing all the things in his house that he suggests to others to do. If so, then why is he using 12-20 times the amount of power as an average American home? According to that Snopes article it is ONLY "four times the size of an average American home."

As for offsetting, the entire carbon market is a joke, to make it viable, it is intentionally designed to ignore forestry/deforestation related issues all together, which is a bit silly since it is huge source of carbon emissions (something like 20% of world emissions). The carbon markets can't handle the relatively cheap credits of paying someone not to log.

So yeah, I'm sticking with "hypocrite."

Lamont

 

[Big Don]

I completely agree on the appearance of hypocrisy. I have many friends who fall into the "environmentalist" camp, and many of them are very much into the reduce, reuse, recycle, and minimal impact lifestyles. I have much less problem with a guy living in a yurt powered by solar electricity telling me about all the ways I can reduce my carbon footprint than a man living in a 20,000 foot mansion. One person is walking the walk, the other is just running his mouth. I don't however, think James talking is changing all that many people's minds, he is just a hippy who lives out in the woods. Most of the enviromental movement runs off the "act locally, think globally" motto, Gore seems to do the opposite.

I don't mind Gore making money off of new markets, capitalism is the name of the game. Should I think critically about the claims he has made, yes absolutely, just as I think critically about some of the claims made by an oil energy spokesman.

And thinking critically about where the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence is leaning, I think that global warming is happening, and I think that carbon emissions from humans are large contributing factor. Unfortunately, I believe that without a massive change in energy production technology (like fusion), we won't get out of this dependence on carbon based energy. As I said earlier in this thread, it is a Tragedy of the Commons on a global scale.

Lamont

Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores...
Kreider added. "They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero."

Emphasis mine.
Is buying the offsets from companies you own or have an interest in really doing anything more than lining your pockets?
Isn't Bush's mainly silent and yet more environmentally sound way better in real effect? A four thousand square foot home is huge, ten thousand is a bit excessive, even if you work out of it. Shouldn't he set an example by living more modestly? A ten thousand square foot home is a hell of a lot of wasted space with only two inhabitants...
By the way, here is Snopes on Bush's Texas home:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

 

[Blindside]

Emphasis mine.
Is buying the offsets from companies you own or have an interest in really doing anything more than lining your pockets?

At best it is the equivelent of getting something wholesale, if I buy my karate gi from myself, I don't really think it means I'm "lining my pockets."
I don't have any problem saving money that way, do you?

Lamont

 

[Big Don]

At best it is the equivelent of getting something wholesale, if I buy my karate gi from myself, I don't really think it means I'm "lining my pockets."
I don't have any problem saving money that way, do you?

Lamont

Yeah, but, if you buy a gi from yourself you don't expect people to praise you for it...

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

See, the really cool thing about the internet, is you just run over to 'The Google', and you pop in the name ... David H. Douglass ... And up comes a link to a web site 'ExxonSecrets.Org'. And if you follow that, you find connections to the Cato institute for Mr. Douglass, and Mr. Singer, too, by the way.

It sure would be nice if we found, in the first 10 links, a scientific journal. You know, like the American Meteorological Society http://www.ametsoc.org/ ... or the International Journal of Meteorology http://www.ijmet.org/ ...

But, we don't seem to find his name referenced in these sites. Instead, we find he is connected to a Right Wing Think Tank, and to Exxon Funding.

As long as these guys are out there .... the Fascist controllers at Exxon can hang one of these banners over their desks.

So, just to understand, your going to base you opinion, not on the fact that they were published in a peer reviewed professional journal, but on the basis of what links show up when you google their names. OK then.

As one who is fond of telling others that they are using the ad hominem fallacy, you seem to be doing the same here. You dont like their supposed funding, therefore what they are saying must be a lie. Rather than showing counter-arguments to their assertions.