Global Warming Hoax 2007

4theist20

Well-Known Member
The Truth About Denial

By Sharon Begley
Newsweek

Aug. 13, 2007 issue - Sen. Barbara Boxer had been chair of the Senate's Environment Committee for less than a month when the verdict landed last February. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," concluded a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries. Worse, there was now at least a 90 percent likelihood that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels is causing longer droughts, more flood-causing downpours and worse heat waves, way up from earlier studies. Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered." As she left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

If you think those who have long challenged the mainstream scientific findings about global warming recognize that the game is over, think again. Yes, 19 million people watched the "Live Earth" concerts last month, titans of corporate America are calling for laws mandating greenhouse cuts, "green" magazines fill newsstands, and the film based on Al Gore's best-selling book, "An Inconvenient Truth," won an Oscar. But outside Hollywood, Manhattan and other habitats of the chattering classes, the denial machine is running at full throttle—and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion.

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."

Just last year, polls found that 64 percent of Americans thought there was "a lot" of scientific disagreement on climate change; only one third thought planetary warming was "mainly caused by things people do." In contrast, majorities in Europe and Japan recognize a broad consensus among climate experts that greenhouse gases—mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas to power the world's economies—are altering climate. A new NEWSWEEK Poll finds that the influence of the denial machine remains strong. Although the figure is less than in earlier polls, 39 percent of those asked say there is "a lot of disagreement among climate scientists" on the basic question of whether the planet is warming; 42 percent say there is a lot of disagreement that human activities are a major cause of global warming. Only 46 percent say the greenhouse effect is being felt today.

As a result of the undermining of the science, all the recent talk about addressing climate change has produced little in the way of actual action. Yes, last September Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a landmark law committing California to reduce statewide emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent more by 2050. And this year both Minnesota and New Jersey passed laws requiring their states to reduce greenhouse emissions 80 percent below recent levels by 2050. In January, nine leading corporations—including Alcoa, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, Du Pont and General Electric—called on Congress to "enact strong national legislation" to reduce greenhouse gases. But although at least eight bills to require reductions in greenhouse gases have been introduced in Congress, their fate is decidedly murky. The Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives decided last week not even to bring to a vote a requirement that automakers improve vehicle mileage, an obvious step toward reducing greenhouse emissions. Nor has there been much public pressure to do so. Instead, every time the scientific case got stronger, "the American public yawned and bought bigger cars," Rep. Rush Holt, a New Jersey congressman and physicist, recently wrote in the journal Science; politicians "shrugged, said there is too much doubt among scientists, and did nothing."

It was 98 degrees in Washington on Thursday, June 23, 1988, and climate change was bursting into public consciousness. The Amazon was burning, wildfires raged in the United States, crops in the Midwest were scorched and it was shaping up to be the hottest year on record worldwide. A Senate committee, including Gore, had invited NASA climatologist James Hansen to testify about the greenhouse effect, and the members were not above a little stagecraft. The night before, staffers had opened windows in the hearing room. When Hansen began his testimony, the air conditioning was struggling, and sweat dotted his brow. It was the perfect image for the revelation to come. He was 99 percent sure, Hansen told the panel, that "the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now."
The reaction from industries most responsible for greenhouse emissions was immediate. "As soon as the scientific community began to come together on the science of climate change, the pushback began," says historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego. Individual companies and industry associations—representing petroleum, steel, autos and utilities, for instance—formed lobbying groups with names like the Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment. ICE's game plan called for enlisting greenhouse doubters to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact," and to sow doubt about climate research just as cigarette makers had about smoking research. ICE ads asked, "If the earth is getting warmer, why is Minneapolis [or Kentucky, or some other site] getting colder?" This sounded what would become a recurring theme for naysayers: that global temperature data are flat-out wrong. For one thing, they argued, the data reflect urbanization (many temperature stations are in or near cities), not true global warming.
 

4theist20

Well-Known Member
Shaping public opinion was only one goal of the industry groups, for soon after Hansen's sweat-drenched testimony they faced a more tangible threat: international proposals to address global warming. The United Nations had scheduled an "Earth Summit" for 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, and climate change was high on an agenda that included saving endangered species and rain forests. ICE and the Global Climate Coalition lobbied hard against a global treaty to curb greenhouse gases, and were joined by a central cog in the denial machine: the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank. Barely two months before Rio, it released a study concluding that models of the greenhouse effect had "substantially exaggerated its importance." The small amount of global warming that might be occurring, it argued, actually reflected a simple fact: the Sun is putting out more energy. The idea of a "variable Sun" has remained a constant in the naysayers' arsenal to this day, even though the tiny increase in solar output over recent decades falls far short of explaining the extent or details of the observed warming.

In what would become a key tactic of the denial machine—think tanks linking up with like-minded, contrarian researchers—the report was endorsed in a letter to President George H.W. Bush by MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen. Lindzen, whose parents had fled Hitler's Germany, is described by old friends as the kind of man who, if you're in the minority, opts to be with you. "I thought it was important to make it clear that the science was at an early and primitive stage and that there was little basis for consensus and much reason for skepticism," he told Scientific American magazine. "I did feel a moral obligation."

Bush was torn. The head of his Environmental Protection Agency, William Reilly, supported binding cuts in greenhouse emissions. Political advisers insisted on nothing more than voluntary cuts. Bush's chief of staff, John Sununu, had a Ph.D. in engineering from MIT and "knew computers," recalls Reilly. Sununu frequently logged on to a computer model of climate, Reilly says, and "vigorously critiqued" its assumptions and projections.
Sununu's side won. The Rio treaty called for countries to voluntarily stabilize their greenhouse emissions by returning them to 1990 levels by 2000. (As it turned out, U.S. emissions in 2000 were 14 percent higher than in 1990.) Avoiding mandatory cuts was a huge victory for industry. But Rio was also a setback for climate contrarians, says UCSD's Oreskes: "It was one thing when Al Gore said there's global warming, but quite another when George Bush signed a convention saying so." And the doubters faced a newly powerful nemesis. Just months after he signed the Rio pact, Bush lost to Bill Clinton—whose vice president, Gore, had made climate change his signature issue.

Groups that opposed greenhouse curbs ramped up. They "settled on the 'science isn't there' argument because they didn't believe they'd be able to convince the public to do nothing if climate change were real," says David Goldston, who served as Republican chief of staff for the House of Representatives science committee until 2006. Industry found a friend in Patrick Michaels, a climatologist at the University of Virginia who keeps a small farm where he raises prize-winning pumpkins and whose favorite weather, he once told a reporter, is "anything severe." Michaels had written several popular articles on climate change, including an op-ed in The Washington Post in 1989 warning of "apocalyptic environmentalism," which he called "the most popular new religion to come along since Marxism." The coal industry's Western Fuels Association paid Michaels to produce a newsletter called World Climate Report, which has regularly trashed mainstream climate science. (At a 1995 hearing in Minnesota on coal-fired power plants, Michaels admitted that he received more than $165,000 from industry; he now declines to comment on his industry funding, asking, "What is this, a hatchet job?")

The road from Rio led to an international meeting in Kyoto, Japan, where more than 100 nations would negotiate a treaty on making Rio's voluntary—and largely ignored—greenhouse curbs mandatory. The coal and oil industries, worried that Kyoto could lead to binding greenhouse cuts that would imperil their profits, ramped up their message that there was too much scientific uncertainty to justify any such cuts. There was just one little problem. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC—the international body that periodically assesses climate research—had just issued its second report, and the conclusion of its 2,500 scientists looked devastating for greenhouse doubters. Although both natural swings and changes in the Sun's output might be contributing to climate change, it concluded, "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate."
Faced with this emerging consensus, the denial machine hardly blinked. There is too much "scientific uncertainty" to justify curbs on greenhouse emissions, William O'Keefe, then a vice president of the American Petroleum Institute and leader of the Global Climate Coalition, suggested in 1996. Virginia's Michaels echoed that idea in a 1997 op-ed in The Washington Post, describing "a growing contingent of scientists who are increasingly unhappy with the glib forecasts of gloom and doom." To reinforce the appearance of uncertainty and disagreement, the denial machine churned out white papers and "studies" (not empirical research, but critiques of others' work). The Marshall Institute, for instance, issued reports by a Harvard University astrophysicist it supported pointing to satellite data showing "no significant warming" of the atmosphere, contrary to the surface warming. The predicted warming, she wrote, "simply isn't happening according to the satellite." At the time, there was a legitimate case that satellites were more accurate than ground stations, which might be skewed by the unusual warmth of cities where many are sited.

"There was an extraordinary campaign by the denial machine to find and hire scientists to sow dissent and make it appear that the research community was deeply divided," says Dan Becker of the Sierra Club. Those recruits blitzed the media. Driven by notions of fairness and objectivity, the press "qualified every mention of human influence on climate change with 'some scientists believe,' where the reality is that the vast preponderance of scientific opinion accepts that human-caused [greenhouse] emissions are contributing to warming," says Reilly, the former EPA chief. "The pursuit of balance has not done justice" to the science. Talk radio goes further, with Rush Limbaugh telling listeners this year that "more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not likely to significantly contribute to the greenhouse effect. It's just all part of the hoax." In the new NEWSWEEK Poll, 42 percent said the press "exaggerates the threat of climate change."

Now naysayers tried a new tactic: lists and petitions meant to portray science as hopelessly divided. Just before Kyoto, S. Fred Singer released the "Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change." Singer, who fled Nazi-occupied Austria as a boy, had run the U.S. weather-satellite program in the early 1960s. In the Leipzig petition, just over 100 scientists and others, including TV weathermen, said they "cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes." Unfortunately, few of the Leipzig signers actually did climate research; they just kibitzed about other people's. Scientific truth is not decided by majority vote, of course (ask Galileo), but the number of researchers whose empirical studies find that the world is warming and that human activity is partly responsible numbered in the thousands even then. The IPCC report issued this year, for instance, was written by more than 800 climate researchers and vetted by 2,500 scientists from 130 nations.

Although Clinton did not even try to get the Senate to ratify the Kyoto treaty (he knew a hopeless cause when he saw one), industry was taking no chances. In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine—including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon—met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty. The plan was to train up to 20 "respected climate scientists" on media—and public—outreach with the aim of "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom' " and, in particular, "the Kyoto treaty's scientific underpinnings" so that elected officials "will seek to prevent progress toward implementation." The plan, once exposed in the press, "was never implemented as policy," says Marshall's William O'Keefe, who was then at API.
 

4theist20

Well-Known Member
The GOP control of Congress for six of Clinton's eight years in office meant the denial machine had a receptive audience. Although Republicans such as Sens. John McCain, Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee spurned the denial camp, and Democrats such as Congressman John Dingell adamantly oppose greenhouse curbs that might hurt the auto and other industries, for the most part climate change has been a bitterly partisan issue. Republicans have also received significantly more campaign cash from the energy and other industries that dispute climate science. Every proposed climate bill "ran into a buzz saw of denialism," says Manik Roy of the Pew Center on Climate Change, a research and advocacy group, who was a Senate staffer at the time. "There was no rational debate in Congress on climate change."

The reason for the inaction was clear. "The questioning of the science made it to the Hill through senators who parroted reports funded by the American Petroleum Institute and other advocacy groups whose entire purpose was to confuse people on the science of global warming," says Sen. John Kerry. "There would be ads challenging the science right around the time we were trying to pass legislation. It was pure, raw pressure combined with false facts." Nor were states stepping where Washington feared to tread. "I did a lot of testifying before state legislatures—in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Alaska—that thought about taking action," says Singer. "I said that the observed warming was and would be much, much less than climate models calculated, and therefore nothing to worry about."

But the science was shifting under the denial machine. In January 2000, the National Academy of Sciences skewered its strongest argument. Contrary to the claim that satellites finding no warming are right and ground stations showing warming are wrong, it turns out that the satellites are off. (Basically, engineers failed to properly correct for changes in their orbit.) The planet is indeed warming, and at a rate since 1980 much greater than in the past.

Just months after the Academy report, Singer told a Senate panel that "the Earth's atmosphere is not warming and fears about human-induced storms, sea-level rise and other disasters are misplaced." And as studies fingering humans as a cause of climate change piled up, he had a new argument: a cabal was silencing good scientists who disagreed with the "alarmist" reports. "Global warming has become an article of faith for many, with its own theology and orthodoxy," Singer wrote in The Washington Times. "Its believers are quite fearful of any scientific dissent."

With the Inauguration of George W. Bush in 2001, the denial machine expected to have friends in the White House. But despite Bush's oil-patch roots, naysayers weren't sure they could count on him: as a candidate, he had pledged to cap carbon dioxide emissions. Just weeks into his term, the Competitive Enterprise Institute heard rumors that the draft of a speech Bush was preparing included a passage reiterating that pledge. CEI's Myron Ebell called conservative pundit Robert Novak, who had booked Bush's EPA chief, Christie Todd Whitman, on CNN's "Crossfire." He asked her about the line, and within hours the possibility of a carbon cap was the talk of the Beltway. "We alerted anyone we thought could have influence and get the line, if it was in the speech, out," says CEI president Fred Smith, who counts this as another notch in CEI's belt. The White House declines to comment.

Bush not only disavowed his campaign pledge. In March, he withdrew from the Kyoto treaty. After the about-face, MIT's Lindzen told NEWSWEEK in 2001, he was summoned to the White House. He told Bush he'd done the right thing. Even if you accept the doomsday forecasts, Lindzen said, Kyoto would hardly touch the rise in temperatures. The treaty, he said, would "do nothing, at great expense."

Bush's reversal came just weeks after the IPCC released its third assessment of the burgeoning studies of climate change. Its conclusion: the 1990s were very likely the warmest decade on record, and recent climate change is partly "attributable to human activities." The weather itself seemed to be conspiring against the skeptics. The early years of the new millennium were setting heat records. The summer of 2003 was especially brutal, with a heat wave in Europe killing tens of thousands of people. Consultant Frank Luntz, who had been instrumental in the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994, suggested a solution to the PR mess. In a memo to his GOP clients, he advised them that to deal with global warming, "you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue." They should "challenge the science," he wrote, by "recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view." Although few of the experts did empirical research of their own (MIT's Lindzen was an exception), the public didn't notice. To most civilians, a scientist is a scientist.

Challenging the science wasn't a hard sell on Capitol Hill. "In the House, the leadership generally viewed it as impermissible to go along with anything that would even imply that climate change was genuine," says Goldston, the former Republican staffer. "There was a belief on the part of many members that the science was fraudulent, even a Democratic fantasy. A lot of the information they got was from conservative think tanks and industry." When in 2003 the Senate called for a national strategy to cut greenhouse gases, for instance, climate naysayers were "giving briefings and talking to staff," says Goldston. "There was a constant flow of information—largely misinformation." Since the House version of that bill included no climate provisions, the two had to be reconciled. "The House leadership staff basically said, 'You know we're not going to accept this,' and [Senate staffers] said, 'Yeah, we know,' and the whole thing disappeared relatively jovially without much notice," says Goldston. "It was such a foregone conclusion."
 

4theist20

Well-Known Member
Especially when the denial machine had a new friend in a powerful place. In 2003 James Inhofe of Oklahoma took over as chairman of the environment committee. That summer he took to the Senate floor and, in a two-hour speech, disputed the claim of scientific consensus on climate change. Despite the discovery that satellite data showing no warming were wrong, he argued that "satellites, widely considered the most accurate measure of global temperatures, have confirmed" the absence of atmospheric warming. Might global warming, he asked, be "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?" Inhofe made his mark holding hearing after hearing to suggest that the answer is yes. For one, on a study finding a dramatic increase in global temperatures unprecedented in the last 1,000 years, he invited a scientist who challenged that conclusion (in a study partly underwritten with $53,000 from the American Petroleum Institute), one other doubter and the scientist who concluded that recent global temperatures were spiking. Just as Luntz had suggested, the witness table presented a tableau of scientific disagreement.

Every effort to pass climate legislation during the George W. Bush years was stopped in its tracks. When Senators McCain and Joe Lieberman were fishing for votes for their bipartisan effort in 2003, a staff member for Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska explained to her counterpart in Lieberman's office that Stevens "is aware there is warming in Alaska, but he's not sure how much it's caused by human activity or natural cycles," recalls Tim Profeta, now director of an environmental-policy institute at Duke University. "I was hearing the basic argument of the skeptics—a brilliant strategy to go after the science. And it was working." Stevens voted against the bill, which failed 43-55. When the bill came up again the next year, "we were contacted by a lot of lobbyists from API and Exxon-Mobil," says Mark Helmke, the climate aide to GOP Sen. Richard Lugar. "They'd bring up how the science wasn't certain, how there were a lot of skeptics out there." It went down to defeat again.
Killing bills in Congress was only one prong of the denial machine's campaign. It also had to keep public opinion from demanding action on greenhouse emissions, and that meant careful management of what federal scientists and officials wrote and said. "If they presented the science honestly, it would have brought public pressure for action," says Rick Piltz, who joined the federal Climate Science Program in 1995. By appointing former coal and oil lobbyists to key jobs overseeing climate policy, he found, the administration made sure that didn't happen. Following the playbook laid out at the 1998 meeting at the American Petroleum Institute, officials made sure that every report and speech cast climate science as dodgy, uncertain, controversial—and therefore no basis for making policy. Ex-oil lobbyist Philip Cooney, working for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, edited a 2002 report on climate science by sprinkling it with phrases such as "lack of understanding" and "considerable uncertainty." A short section on climate in another report was cut entirely. The White House "directed us to remove all mentions of it," says Piltz, who resigned in protest. An oil lobbyist faxed Cooney, "You are doing a great job."

The response to the international climate panel's latest report, in February, showed that greenhouse doubters have a lot of fight left in them. In addition to offering $10,000 to scientists willing to attack the report, which so angered Boxer, they are emphasizing a new theme. Even if the world is warming now, and even if that warming is due in part to the greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels, there's nothing to worry about. As Lindzen wrote in a guest editorial in NEWSWEEK International in April, "There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe."

To some extent, greenhouse denial is now running on automatic pilot. "Some members of Congress have completely internalized this," says Pew's Roy, and therefore need no coaching from the think tanks and contrarian scientists who for 20 years kept them stoked with arguments. At a hearing last month on the Kyoto treaty, GOP Congressman Dana Rohrabacher asked whether "changes in the Earth's temperature in the past—all of these glaciers moving back and forth—and the changes that we see now" might be "a natural occurrence." (Hundreds of studies have ruled that out.) "I think it's a bit grandiose for us to believe ... that [human activities are] going to change some major climate cycle that's going on." Inhofe has told allies he will filibuster any climate bill that mandates greenhouse cuts.

Still, like a great beast that has been wounded, the denial machine is not what it once was. In the NEWSWEEK Poll, 38 percent of those surveyed identified climate change as the nation's gravest environmental threat, three times the number in 2000. After ExxonMobil was chastised by senators for giving $19 million over the years to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and others who are "producing very questionable data" on climate change, as Sen. Jay Rockefeller said, the company has cut back its support for such groups. In June, a spokesman said ExxonMobil did not doubt the risks posed by climate change, telling reporters, "We're very much not a denier." In yet another shock, Bush announced at the weekend that he would convene a global-warming summit next month, with a 2008 goal of cutting greenhouse emissions. That astonished the remaining naysayers. "I just can't imagine the administration would look to mandatory [emissions caps] after what we had with Kyoto," said a GOP Senate staffer, who did not want to be named criticizing the president. "I mean, what a disaster!"

With its change of heart, ExxonMobil is more likely to win a place at the negotiating table as Congress debates climate legislation. That will be crucially important to industry especially in 2009, when naysayers may no longer be able to count on a friend in the White House nixing man-datory greenhouse curbs. All the Democratic presidential contenders have called global warming a real threat, and promise to push for cuts similar to those being passed by California and other states. In the GOP field, only McCain—long a leader on the issue—supports that policy. Fred Thompson belittles findings that human activities are changing the climate, and Rudy Giuliani backs the all-volunteer greenhouse curbs of (both) Presidents Bush.

Look for the next round of debate to center on what Americans are willing to pay and do to stave off the worst of global warming. So far the answer seems to be, not much. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds less than half in favor of requiring high-mileage cars or energy-efficient appliances and buildings. No amount of white papers, reports and studies is likely to change that. If anything can, it will be the climate itself. This summer, Texas was hit by exactly the kind of downpours and flooding expected in a greenhouse world, and Las Vegas and other cities broiled in record triple-digit temperatures. Just last week the most accurate study to date concluded that the length of heat waves in Europe has doubled, and their frequency nearly tripled, in the past century. The frequency of Atlantic hurricanes has already doubled in the last century. Snowpack whose water is crucial to both cities and farms is diminishing. It's enough to make you wish that climate change were a hoax, rather than the reality it is.

With Eve Conant, Sam Stein and Eleanor Clift in Washington and Matthew Philips

2007 Newsweek inc.
 

4theist20

Well-Known Member
I thought ViRedd woul be interested in this.

I have always beleived that the larger amount of money rest in the hands of those polluting the world, rather than those trying to save it.
 

medicineman

New Member
I thought ViRedd woul be interested in this.

I have always beleived that the larger amount of money rest in the hands of those polluting the world, rather than those trying to save it.
VI-redd is so brainwashed that he is impervious to any cohesive arguements on Global warming. If it were proven (and it has been) that global warming exists, he would blame it on natural occurences, natural cycles of the earth, certainly not any of mans doing. It's funny how two people about the same age (VI and I) can be so oppositly positioned on so many issues. You'd think he'd have gained some sense in his latter years,~LOL~.
 

ViRedd

New Member
VI-redd is so brainwashed that he is impervious to any cohesive arguements on Global warming. If it were proven (and it has been) that global warming exists, he would blame it on natural occurences, natural cycles of the earth, certainly not any of mans doing. It's funny how two people about the same age (VI and I) can be so oppositly positioned on so many issues. You'd think he'd have gained some sense in his latter years,~LOL~.
Show me where I've ever said that global warming isn't taking place. I've never said that at all. What I HAVE said is, there is a mixed consensus among scientists about the CAUSE of global warming. There is also a concentrated effort on the part of the "Green" industry to stifle any debate on the issue. I lean toward the scientific side that has come to the conclusion that global warming is a natural phenomen. The earth has gone through temperture cycles from day one.

And Med ... age doesn't have much to do with one's political viewpoints. Common sense, or the lack thereof does. I use history as the benchmark for my opinions ... and you use what ... emotions and feelings?

Vi
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
March 23, 2007
By Robert Tracinski

Al Gore made his triumphant return to Washington on Wednesday to give testimony before Democrat-controlled committees in the House and Senate. He returned, not as a failed presidential candidate, but as an environmentalist prophet. As Senator Barbara Boxer gushed, You have acted for us. You have acted more than anyone else."

Gore's transformation is remarkable. The stilted, insincere candidate from the 2000 election campaign is gone. The new Gore believes in global warming the way the pope believes in Catholicism--indeed, possibly more so--and he comes across as sincere and impassioned. While the sincerity may be doubtful (as we shall see below) the passion is definitely real. But what is it a passion for?

What does Al Gore really want?

To be sure, Gore's testimony had the faults of all sermons. It tended to pile too many analogies on top of one another and to veer into the maudlin. Gore made repeated appeals to the ideals and virtues of "our grandparents"--showing what hidebound conservatives all of these liberals really are under the surface--and under hostile questioning from Republican Rep. Joe Barton, Gore produced a metaphor so maudlin and simplistic that it ought to disqualify him from being taken seriously on any scientific subject:

The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don't say "I read a science fiction novel that says it's not a problem." You take action.

And this is also where Gore's honesty comes into question: the line about a "science-fiction novel" is a reference to Michael Crichton's State of Fear, a thriller in which global-warming alarmists are the heavies. By pretending that the only opposition to his claims comes from a single novelist, Gore is attempting to evade the fact that there are many distinguished scientists who reject his global warming hysteria. As an antidote to this evasion, I strongly recommend viewing the British documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle," which interviews some of these scientists and explodes the myth that global warming is "settled science."

But Gore's exaggerated scientific claims are just cover for his real agenda.

Most reports on his testimony have neglected to mention the most important thing Gore said. Here is my transcription of the crucial passage, starting about four minutes into Gore's House testimony:

America is the natural leader of the world, and our world faces a true planetary emergency. I know the phrase sounds shrill, and I know it's a challenge to the moral imagination to see and feel and understand that the entire relationship between humanity and our planet has been radically altered. [Emphasis added.]

Get that? The real issue here isn't about carbon dioxide or global temperature readings or coal-burning power plants or federal fuel efficiency standards. It's about mankind's relationship to nature.

This is not new; it is what has motivated Al Gore from the beginning. His 1992 book Earth in the Balance is subtitled "Ecology and the Human Spirit." In that book, he wrote about the alleged loss of "a sense of purpose in life." Projecting his personal crisis onto civilization in general, Gore diagnosed modern man's desire for material prosperity as a dangerous neurosis: "We retreat into the seductive tools and technologies of industrial civilization, but that only creates new problems as we become increasingly isolated from one another and disconnected from our roots." So the solution is to curtail industrial civilization and get back to our pre-industrial "roots." Global warming is just the scientific excuse for this quasi-religious agenda.

So what does this mean? Listen to what Gore claims are the factors that require us to change our relationship with nature. From his House testimony:

We quadrupled human population in less than one century, from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 6.5 billion today.... Having multiplied by four the number of people on this planet..., that in itself causes a big change in the relationship between humanity and the planet.

So Gore's global warming hysteria is really just a rehash of the old "population explosion" scare. In the 1970s, environmentalists predicted that an expanding global population would lead, by the end of the century, to mass starvation and shortages of oil and other natural resources. This claim was famously proven wrong--so as a fallback, the environmentalists have to claim that "overpopulation" is leading to a warmer climate, a proposition that is slightly harder to disprove.

But it's not just the size of the human population Gore is worried about. He goes on to name a second factor that requires us to alter our relationship with the earth:

Our technologies are thousands of times more powerful than any our grandparents had at their disposal. And so even though we're more skillful and more effective in doing the things we've always done, exploiting the earth for sustenance, providing for our families, and going about productive lives, the side-effects of what we're doing sometimes now outstrip the development of extra wisdom to make sure that we handle these new powers in a way that doesn't do unintended harm.

So that very fact that we are "much more skillful and more effective" at "exploiting the earth" to live "productive lives"--in short, the fact of our enormous, unprecedented prosperity--is the reason we have to fear that we are doing "unintended harm."

This, then, is the essence of Gore's complaint: there are too many humans and they are too well off.

Gore can fix that. He ends his speech by calling, among other things, for an immediate freeze on carbon dioxide emissions--which is to say, an immediate freeze on the generation of additional power--to be enforced by massive new "carbon taxes." On this proposal, he piggybacks the whole leftist welfare-state agenda, demanding that most of the money from these carbon taxes be "earmarked" for "those in lower income groups."

He concludes by saying that his plan will "discourage pollution while encouraging work." That's a very pleasant way to describe a global economic collapse into the unrewarded drudgery of a pre-industrial lifestyle.

This is what the Democratic victory in the last election has unleashed, and given Gore's surprising new skill at promoting his message, it looks like things are going to get worse before cooler heads can prevail and break the global warming fever.

But Al Gore is not getting it all his own way. In New York's Newsday, Ellis Hennican describes a three-on-three debate held last week in New York City, in which opponents of the global warming hysteria--including that meddling novelist Michael Crichton, along with distinguished British scientist Phillip Stott and MIT's Richard Lindzen--took on some of the scare's defenders. The interesting things about this debate is that the organizers polled the audience before and after the event. The result? The number of people who thought that global warming is a "crisis" dropped from 57% to 42%.

That's why folks like Al Gore have to keep claiming that there is an iron-clad "consensus" on global warming and that the debate is "over"--because the moment the debate on the scientific merits of global warming is actually allowed to begin, the alarmists start to lose.

Al Gore is trying to dragoon science in an attempt to win over converts who don't share his sense of personal spiritual crisis and don't find his anti-industrial moral vision compelling. But the moment people see through his charade--and realize that what Gore is really pushing is a not a scientific campaign against "pollution" but a quasi-religious crusade against industrial civilization--his campaign will collapse.

Note: In the third to last paragraph, Richard Lindzen was identified as "Harvard University's Richard Lindzen." This should have been "MIT's Richard Lindzen" and has been corrected in the above.
 

medicineman

New Member
So, what do we tell our grandkids if Al Gore was right? We didn't believe him and were too lazy to check out the scientific data, or we thought it would make it'self better as this was one of those natural earth phases. Hey, look around, weather is getting freaky, Droughts in the wrong places (Rockies) Torrential Rain in the wrong places, Central Texas- England- central europe. Snowcaps melting, Ice fields melting, There might just be some truth to old Als ravings.
 

4theist20

Well-Known Member
Show me where I've ever said that global warming isn't taking place. I've never said that at all. What I HAVE said is, there is a mixed consensus among scientists about the CAUSE of global warming. There is also a concentrated effort on the part of the "Green" industry to stifle any debate on the issue. I lean toward the scientific side that has come to the conclusion that global warming is a natural phenomen. The earth has gone through temperture cycles from day one.

And Med ... age doesn't have much to do with one's political viewpoints. Common sense, or the lack thereof does. I use history as the benchmark for my opinions ... and you use what ... emotions and feelings?
Firstly, I'd like to say that I respect your opinion, no matter how adamently I oppose it. You have that right.

I really don't understand how you can vouch for the energy industry PAID scientists that write article saying global warming is natural. Did you read this article? I honestly thought that you would find it interesting, because you have already poseted a Newsweek article. Anyway...It really is accepted in the MAINSTREAM scientific community that GW is real and man caused.

Secondly... OMG! What a fucking night... 8 beers 4 lines 1 bowl cocoa puffs 1 bowl kush 3 bowls hash.... It is the hardest I have ever parteied,,,, I love you people... Seriously... I have been coming here for a little while and there are good people in these forums!!! Good fuckin people. ViRedd.,. I dont hate you... I think you're .. perhaps a little confused on a few issues... But who the cuck am I> Where's FDD.... His thread was the first I ever read... FD! I'll be embarrassed tomorrow.. goodnight.
 

medicineman

New Member
And Med ... age doesn't have much to do with one's political viewpoints. Common sense, or the lack thereof does. I use history as the benchmark for my opinions ... and you use what ... emotions and feelings?

I guess if you call what I post as emotional bullshit, I may take offense. It may contain an emotional overtone as I am very concerned about the plight of Mankind and his agendas at this time in history. Speaking of history, did you remember that famous saying, "history repeats itself"? Well in the case of the USA, I believe it is repeating the fall of an empire, Greece, Macedonia, and even Rome were all once leaders in world power, now they are just has been or forgotten entities. China is the new kid on the block. It is using all our money to build up its military and hold our countries future in bonds. The greedy US industrialists don't care as they are world citizens and will find a place to light when this country goes down the shitter. I hope you are positioned to flee to another place and take me with you,~LOL~.
 

Wavels

Well-Known Member
Excerpted from Danks posted article.....
That's why folks like Al Gore have to keep claiming that there is an iron-clad "consensus" on global warming and that the debate is "over"--because the moment the debate on the scientific merits of global warming is actually allowed to begin, the alarmists start to lose.
Exactly correct!....I agree fully with dankdudes post....


Newsweek is covering for the phony science and the retarded mantra of "consensus" among scientists.

Last week NASA had to admit that the temperatures recorded in US were incorrect....the hottest temperatures were actually back in the 1930s...
this did not exactly make headline news in the MSM.
Does anyone believe if the reverse was true and the temps were revised upward for the 1990s that there would not have been screaming headlines?
What a crock!

In many cases, the changes are statistically minor, but their potential impact on the rhetoric surrounding global warming is huge.
The hottest year since 1880 becomes 1934 instead of 1998, which is now just second; 1921 is third.
Four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s, only three in the past decade. Claiming that man-made carbon dioxide has caused the natural disasters of recent years makes as much sense as claiming fossil-fuel burning caused the Great Depression.
The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its recent rise; seven occurred afterwards.
In other words, there is no discernible trend, no obvious warming of late.
Global warming? Look at the numbers

also....
Something rather odd happened the other day. If you go to NASA's Web site and look at the "U.S. surface air temperature" rankings for the lower 48 states, you might notice that something has changed.
Then again, you might not. They're not issuing any press releases about it. But they have quietly revised their All-Time Hit Parade for U.S. temperatures. The "hottest year on record" is no longer 1998, but 1934. Another alleged swelterer, the year 2001, has now dropped out of the Top 10 altogether, and most of the rest of the 21st century – 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 – plummeted even lower down the Hot 100. In fact, every supposedly hot year from the Nineties and this decade has had its temperature rating reduced. Four of America's Top 10 hottest years turnout to be from the 1930s, that notorious decade when we all drove around in huge SUVs with the air-conditioning on full-blast. If climate change is, as Al Gore says, the most important issue anyone's ever faced in the history of anything ever, then Franklin Roosevelt didn't have a word to say about it.
And yet we survived.
Opinion: Mark Steyn: A bad case of malignant narcissism - OCRegister.com
 

medicineman

New Member
Excerpted from Danks posted article.....
That's why folks like Al Gore have to keep claiming that there is an iron-clad "consensus" on global warming and that the debate is "over"--because the moment the debate on the scientific merits of global warming is actually allowed to begin, the alarmists start to lose.
Exactly correct!....I agree fully with dankdudes post....


Newsweek is covering for the phony science and the retarded mantra of "consensus" among scientists.

Last week NASA had to admit that the temperatures recorded in US were incorrect....the hottest temperatures were actually back in the 1930s...
this did not exactly make headline news in the MSM.
Does anyone believe if the reverse was true and the temps were revised upward for the 1990s that there would not have been screaming headlines?
What a crock!

In many cases, the changes are statistically minor, but their potential impact on the rhetoric surrounding global warming is huge.
The hottest year since 1880 becomes 1934 instead of 1998, which is now just second; 1921 is third.
Four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s, only three in the past decade. Claiming that man-made carbon dioxide has caused the natural disasters of recent years makes as much sense as claiming fossil-fuel burning caused the Great Depression.
The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its recent rise; seven occurred afterwards.
In other words, there is no discernible trend, no obvious warming of late.
Global warming? Look at the numberalso....
Something rather odd happened the other day. If you go to NASA's Web site and look at the "U.S. surface air temperature" rankings for the lower 48 states, you might notice that something has changed.
Then again, you might not. They're not issuing any press releases about it. But they have quietly revised their All-Time Hit Parade for U.S. temperatures. The "hottest year on record" is no longer 1998, but 1934. Another alleged swelterer, the year 2001, has now dropped out of the Top 10 altogether, and most of the rest of the 21st century – 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 – plummeted even lower down the Hot 100. In fact, every supposedly hot year from the Nineties and this decade has had its temperature rating reduced. Four of America's Top 10 hottest years turnout to be from the 1930s, that notorious decade when we all drove around in huge SUVs with the air-conditioning on full-blast. If climate change is, as Al Gore says, the most important issue anyone's ever faced in the history of anything ever, then Franklin Roosevelt didn't have a word to say about it.
And yet we survived.
Opinion: Mark Steyn: A bad case of malignant narcissism - OCRegister.com
It's not just the numbers, it's the locations. I'll agree that in Nevada, we haven't had a scorching summer since 2001, that was a hot one, but in the artic, shit is melting at an unprecedented rate. A 1 degree fluctuation there makes a difference, The icecaps are receding, the glaciers are melting. If you study this stuff, you'll reason that this is not a cyclic behaviour on the scale it is happening now. What I don't get are the Naysayers. What do they have to gain? A few more years of glutonous energy consumption. Just the replacement of regular bulbs with CFLs would cut their energy consumption 10-20%. I've been to Page Arizona and witnessed the smoke from those coal fired power plants, it is a constant stream 24-7 of global greenhouse gas pollutants, and it is only one little plant, there are many more and you can see them if you try, 4 corners has a bunch of them. These greedy bloodsuckers won't install the emission scrubbers mandated by the clinton Admin. and repealed by the Bush Hacks,they would reduce emissions by 90%. There is only so much atmosphere on the planet, and with the reduction of forests accross the globe, the oxygenation of it becomes less stable, with the dessimation of the seas and plankton, also an oxygenate, how much longer can we breath oxygen. If you're over 40, you'll probably not have to worry, but your grandkids might be in dire straights.
 

7xstall

Well-Known Member
glad you brought that up, i read the article and was a bit perplexed as to why the media didn't want to make a big deal about such a huge error on the part of our money pit/space agency...




.
 

medicineman

New Member
glad you brought that up, i read the article and was a bit perplexed as to why the media didn't want to make a big deal about such a huge error on the part of our money pit/space agency...




.
I agree with the money pit space agency. The money should be used to clean up our own little planet instead of looking for microbes on Mars or Jupiters moons.
 

7xstall

Well-Known Member
couldn't agree more, the private sector can go on it's own treasure hunts if it so desires - but stop throwing my money into these way over priced, crony based, politically motivated "projects"...






.
 

4theist20

Well-Known Member
We have learned much about our planet and we have advanced much in our technology thanks to those 'crony based, politically motivated "projects." I agree that the government wastes huge amounts of money, but I don't think that we should stop funding our space program. Cut the corners elsewhere.

I'm all for bringing private enterprise into the space game, but I would never want my government out of it. I had a science professor tell me once, for us to send a space craft up into space (From planning to construction to mission accomplished) it costs every American about as much as one candy bar...

After I heard that I just thought that those people not interested in the space program were just fat ignorant bastards that are still pissy over the Twix bar they missed out on. :-|
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Please tell me the real necessity for a Government Supported Space Program.
If one were to develop drugs in zero gravity, it would lose all it's properties once it was in gravity.
We have what we need up there already to observe the reaches of space (Hubble Telescope). At this point all it amounts to is a matter of national pride. We are never going to go to mars, it would take too long and unless we put people in suspended animation a human would not be able to survive.
 

medicineman

New Member
Please tell me the real necessity for a Government Supported Space Program.
If one were to develop drugs in zero gravity, it would lose all it's properties once it was in gravity.
We have what we need up there already to observe the reaches of space (Hubble Telescope). At this point all it amounts to is a matter of national pride. We are never going to go to mars, it would take too long and unless we put people in suspended animation a human would not be able to survive.
They'll have to print a lot more worthless paper (Money) to afford a trip to mars. What a waste. When Dubya proposed it, even had I been entertaining the prospect, I immediately decided it was wrong, because everything he has proposed has turned to shit.
 
Top