CLICK FOR TODAY'S CARTOONS

Monday, February 26, 2007

Hollywood Adds Gore to Alar, the Snail Darter, Nuclear Power and DDT

It just gets more and more frustrating every day; the more the junk science of the global-warming alarmists gets shredded, the more these liberal dupes and European socialists push this nonsense in our faces. Their famous “hockey stick”, on which all their computer models have been based, has been shown to be a fraud. For every report of the thinning of glacier ice, there are two reports of its thickening. Man-made global warming has become a religion to some people – a leap of faith that historical facts and the scientific method can not breach. Al Gore gets an Oscar in 2007, but, like DDT, it will probably take 35 years before reason takes hold, and we can get back to more-serious problems than a temperature increase of 0.7 of one degree Celsius over 100 years (and we are not certain that even that is correct).

Plus Ça (Climate) Change
The Earth was warming before global warming was cool.

BY PETE DU PONT, Opinion Journal
Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:01 a.m.

When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late 900s, it was an ice-free farm country--grass for sheep and cattle, open water for fishing, a livable climate--so good a colony that by 1100 there were 3,000 people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive.

Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.
During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm--by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.

Many things are contributing to such global temperature changes. Solar radiation is one. Sunspot activity has reached a thousand-year high, according to European astronomy institutions. Solar radiation is reducing Mars's southern icecap, which has been shrinking for three summers despite the absence of SUVS and coal-fired electrical plants anywhere on the Red Planet. Back on Earth, a NASA study reports that solar radiation has increased in each of the past two decades, and environmental scholar Bjorn Lomborg, citing a 1997 atmosphere-ocean general circulation model, observes that "the increase in direct solar irradiation over the past 30 years is responsible for about 40 percent of the observed global warming."

Statistics suggest that while there has indeed been a slight warming in the past century, much of it was neither human-induced nor geographically uniform. Half of the past century's warming occurred before 1940, when the human population and its industrial base were far smaller than now. And while global temperatures are now slightly up, in some areas they are dramatically down. According to "Climate Change and Its Impacts," a study published last spring by the National Center for Policy Analysis, the ice mass in Greenland has grown, and "average summer temperatures at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet have decreased 4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since the late 1980s." British environmental analyst Lord Christopher Monckton says that from 1993 through 2003 the Greenland ice sheet "grew an average extra thickness of 2 inches a year," and that in the past 30 years the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet has grown as well.

Earlier this month the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a summary of its fourth five-year report. Although the full report won't be out until May, the summary has reinvigorated the global warming discussion.

While global warming alarmism has become a daily American press feature, the IPCC, in its new report, is backtracking on its warming predictions. While Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" warns of up to 20 feet of sea-level increase, the IPCC has halved its estimate of the rise in sea level by the end of this century, to 17 inches from 36. It has reduced its estimate of the impact of global greenhouse-gas emissions on global climate by more than one-third, because, it says, pollutant particles reflect sunlight back into space and this has a cooling effect.

The IPCC confirms its 2001 conclusion that global warming will have little effect on the number of typhoons or hurricanes the world will experience, but it does not note that there has been a steady decrease in the number of global hurricane days since 1970--from 600 to 400 days, according to Georgia Tech atmospheric scientist Peter Webster.

The IPCC does not explain why from 1940 to 1975, while carbon dioxide emissions were rising, global temperatures were falling, nor does it admit that its 2001 "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic temperature increase beginning in 1970s had omitted the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming temperature changes, apparently in order to make the new global warming increases appear more dramatic.

Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, four international scientists observed that "in less than two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri Lanka's malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths" in 1963. Then came Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," invigorating environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000.

Yet the Sierra Club in 1971 demanded "a ban, not just a curb," on the use of DDT "even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control." International environmental controls were more important than the lives of human beings. For more than three decades this view prevailed, until the restrictions were finally lifted last September.

As we have seen since the beginning of time, and from the Vikings' experience in Greenland, our world experiences cyclical climate changes. America needs to understand clearly what is happening and why before we sign onto U.N. environmental agreements, shut down our industries and power plants, and limit our economic growth.

Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.

A final note: The World Health Organization has now approved the use of DDT to control malaria. The long nightmare and millions of deaths caused by extreme environmentalists on this issue, at least, is finally over. And thank you again, Katherine Harris.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

15 Comments:

At 5:39 AM, Blogger Joseph Martini said...

Hi again Russ,

I saw a film last month called Mine Your Own Business. It exposes environmentalist for what they truly are.

You should check it out.

My Enviro-Genocide essay provoked some very interesting responses, mostly because I called Rachel Carson a mass murderer.

Sometimes I go a little overboard. Not this time.

 
At 9:27 AM, Anonymous Joe said...

I think that it’s great that the Hollywood crowd is standing by Al Gore, in spite of the fact that most people who have listened to Al, thinks that he suffers from Rectal Cranial Inversion Syndrome. So it stands to reason why Al and the Hollywood idols have so much in common.

 
At 9:39 AM, Blogger RobC said...

A couple of comments are in oreder.

It's clear that solar activity was the main driving force up until 1910, but it doesn't explain what's been happening since then. Solar activity peaked around 1980 but global average temperature has kept rising. From the charts it looks as though solar activity now is a secondary effect. The only thing that has been going up since is greenhouse-gas concentrations.

Greenhouse gases do cause global warming--that's just physics. It does explain the temperature rise and nothing else does.

Actually, the IPCC report does address the cooling trends between 1940 and 1975, although not expressly. As is well known, the effect was caused by aerosol pollution during that period. They've included the effect in their models, and the summary includes this remark: "It is likely that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations alone would have caused more warming than
observed because volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offset some warming that would otherwise have
taken place. {2.9, 7.5, 9.4}"

What concerns everyone isn't the magnitute of the temperature rise, but the effects of raising energy levels in a complex, dynamic climate system. You can expect to see a lot of anomalies, including local cold spots.

I'll admit to being an alarmist. I've analyzed the situation and posted the analysis at http://www.geocities.com/gwperplexed. This problem is real and it's serious. Tossing out epithets like "fraud" and "dupes" doesn't help anyone.

 
At 9:49 AM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

The conflict revolves around the word, 'significant', and the 'hockey stick' is indeed a fraud. Perhaps I wouldn't be so angry if some on the left would not lump man-made global warming deniers in with holocaust deniers, and if two Democrat governors did not dismiss or discipline their states' leading climatologists for pointing out the flaws in global warming 'science'.

 
At 10:06 AM, Blogger RobC said...

No, "fraud" supposes that the individual intended to misrepresent the facts. Another specialist in the same area pointed out some errors, which the first specialist corrected. Since then, a number of reconstructions have been made. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png.

The problem is they're all using proxy data, and it's just not reliable. They're not doing it to mislead anyone; they're just doing what scientists do: state and test hypotheses. It's amateurs like me who cause the trouble.

I keep hearing about climatologists being punished for disputing some aspects of the analysis, but no one ever gives the details so the reports can be checked. Where did you hear about this?

 
At 11:21 AM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

State distances itself from climatologist
Minner directs Legates not to use his title when speaking on climate change
By Jeff Montgomery
The News Journal

WILMINGTON, Del. — Gov. Ruth Ann Minner has directed Delaware's state climatologist to stop using his title in public statements on climate change, citing a clash of views on global warming and confusion over the position's ties to the administration.
Minner, who made the directive in a letter, described the move as a way to "clarify" the role of David R. Legates, a prominent skeptic of views that human activities are warming the planet and triggering climate shifts.


***********************************
ANOTHER GOVERNOR BLASTS CLIMATOLOGIST
This time, Delaware governor Ruth Ann Minner insists skeptic David Legates not mention his tie to the administration when speaking on climate change. (News Journal) Earlier this month, the governor of Oregon did much the same. (KGW) Meanwhile, a UK story noted “Half of young children are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep because of their concern, according to a new report today.”

 
At 12:09 PM, Blogger RobC said...

Russ, thanks for clarifying that. So, the two governors didn't dismiss or discipline the two state employees. All they did was order them not to identify themselves as state officials.

I'm not qualified to judge the appropriateness of such orders. It's clear that the motive was to avoid the impression that the employees represented the state governments' positions on the issue. I believe that also happens in other situations; for example, in legislative or judicial issues. But whether it's appropriate or not, it's very much different from punishing employees for expressing their views.

It will be much easier to work our way through this question if we all avoid the temptation to overstate.

Thanks.

 
At 1:11 PM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe 2/9/07

"I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."

As for other incidents of punishment meted out to those who question this, those were the only two examples I could lay my hands on, and if you don't think that this was a form of punishment, you live in some kind of dream world. There have been many examples of shoddy treatment including denial of tenure and refusal to publish that I have seen.

 
At 1:53 PM, Blogger RobC said...

I don't know anything about Ellen Goodman, but no one could claim she speaks for all the people like me who've looked at the data and concluded that global warming is a threat we have to take seriously.

Okay, I don't know everything. It could be that you've seen examples of people being punished for their views. I just haven't. But it also could be that you've heard of them secondhand. When I've tried to track these kinds of stories down, they always have dead-ended or turned out to be something much different. No, I don't agree that ordering an employee not to identify himself as a state official is a punishment. If you can show that he's been hurt by it, then that would be something to take seriously.

I'll offer an opinion here. There's no reason why this has to be conservative/liberal disagreement. There's no conservative principle that we have to trash our habitat or a liberal one that we have to preserve it. I think what happened was that someone identified it as a liberal issue and conservatives all decided they had to oppose it just for that reason.

 
At 7:44 AM, Anonymous Joe said...

To my way of thinking, Al Gore is nothing but a big hypocrite and a phony. He's telling us to cut down on energy consumption, and meanwhile he owns 5 large houses, big vehicles, and a jet plane that consumes 20 times more energy than the average American. How is he looking?

 
At 9:31 AM, Anonymous steve said...

Robc,
I appreciate your attempts at a reasoned and level headed discussion of this serious issue.

I've tried before but it's a losing battle here. The mindset here is that it's all hogwash and you cannot change that mindset even with facts.

Unfortunately, the folks here reject anything to do with this and lump it all in with Kyoto and negative impacts on the economy...then, they use that to discredit the warmimg even though the two are unrelated.

Good luck to you.

 
At 9:35 AM, Anonymous steve said...

Also, I agree that this should not be a conservative/liberal arguement, but here it IS.
If we could just get Al Gore to deny this whole business, then possibly some conservatives would take their hands off their ears.

 
At 6:29 AM, Anonymous Joe said...

I'm willing to concede that Global Warming exists, but if there is someone here who can tell me where man fits into the cause of Global warming, step right up and tell us. I'm hearing from other experts on this subject who are saying that man is in seventh place as the cause, and volcanoes comes in before man, along with five others in that category. I'm willing to go along with Bill O'Reilly when he says, "I believe that Global Warming exists, but there's a lot of impure stuff floating around in our atmosphere that we need to get rid of, if we can get rid of these impurities we may be able to slow this Global Warming down to where we can manage it." I just personally believe that there are a whole lot more things right now that are going on, that need more attention than Global Warming. Here's one example; A terrorist sneaks into this country via Mexico with a dirty bomb in a suit case and and makes his way to Boston and discharges it in downtown center. Now,---what's more important, Global Warming, something that you and your grandchildren won't be effected by in your/their life time, or the inevitability of you and your children dying of Cancer right now as a result of a terrorist attack of this nature? Think about it. Does this mean that I don't care about the effects of Global warming, or I'm incredulous about "Tree hugger's" rants and ravings about the issue? No! As a matter of fact, we can tackle both issues, and we are doing it, but don't forget that we have some fools on both sides of the isles that are not pushing to keep our borders secure, and allowing illegal aliens, drug smugglers, and murderers come over. We also have some dumb Liberal Democrats who are weak on defending our country and want to cut-and-run from fighting Terrorism, and dismantle the tools that this President has put in place to protect us. These are the things that are more important right now. If we don't tackle these issues right now, we'll never live to see tomorrow.

 
At 9:16 AM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

When someone sells me swampland in Florida, and 'forgets' to tell me that it is under water, that's fraud. When a concept such as the 'hockey stick' is put forth to justify man-made global warming, and the warming period of the middle ages and the little ice age is left out, that's also fraud.

 
At 9:45 AM, Anonymous steve said...

My fear is that you reject Kyoto (probably rightly so because it would penalize us with no impact to China)...you reject the negative impact some of the extreme GW controls would have on our economy. You then form a mindset and categorize all of this as "untrue" and reject it. You lump it all together and then are just LOOKING for a reason to reject the claims. Like admitting not liking how the Governor's penalized their GW advocates...and then use this as arguement to reject unrelated data.
Like discrediting the whole report because of hockey stick from hunderds of years ago. The problem we have is now...the problem was MOSTLY created recently (last 50-100 years or so)....temperature of the earth in Medieval times or dinosaur times is not relevant. I really think you are looking for a reason to reject. I think this is like a liberal looking at Joe Liberman's position on Iraq and terrorism and defining the Democratic party by that.

The fact is that the data was reviewed by thousands of scientists with critique and additional review from thousands more...from a pool of over 100 countries. The non-partisan consensus was that man had an impact and it was significant. In fact, the report went out of it's way in the language to temper their statements and to NOT sound alarmist.

You can continue to deny it, but denying it does not change the reality.

In response to Joe, I agree. If we all get nuked it won't matter if it was 80 degrees or 90. It won't matter if all the polar bears are dead. But we all multitask. There is not only one issue to address. We need to reasonably address all the issues that we are capable of.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home