Global Warming: Still More Inconvenient Truth

By May 23, 2006Global Warming

For those of you who haven’t yet seen them, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an environmental think tank, has been running 30-second TV ads combating the global warming hysteria. On the eve of Al Gore’s movie, it’s almost at a fever pitch.

Here’s a link to the spot entitled, “Energy” and here’s a link to the second one called, “Glaciers.” They’re both quite good. And, we should note that CEI backs it all up with data. While Gore likes to say that the entire global scientific community has reached consensus on the topic, you’ll see from CEI’s site that it’s just not true. There are some good FAQ’s on global warming, replete with links to lots of academic studies to back it all up. We’d commend the CEI site to anyone interested in balance in the coverage of this story.

To Al Gore, we just say, “Chill.”

Join the discussion 14 Comments

  • Understand what the Precautionary Principle says:

    As enunciated in Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, this states that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

    This seems much more reasonable than the head-in-the-sand approach of ‘free market’ advocates that says let’s squander resources as fast as we can, and damn future generations if this policy happens to use up critically valuable resources and leave a waste-strewn, habitat-modified, climate-altered legacy to our descendents!!

  • hugh says:

    propaganda from the CEI does little favours to the image of big business

    there is a general acceptance that climate change from mans influences is under way (general, but not complete – there are still folks who maintain that the earth is flat and that cigarettes r good 4 u!)

    after fluctuating between the low 200’s and the high 200’s for 400,000 years the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere is now at around 380PPM and rising with all the increase since the industrial revolution (they don’t mention that in the ad)- maintaining that man is not changing things is simply a mistaken belief that u r helping ur self interests

  • markus says:

    Hmmm. Guess I touched a nerve there.I’m not sure, but I think that the ‘ignorant slanderous statement’ you are refering to was actually a question.

    I’ll restate it to help you out (still in the form of a question) – if it’s fair to question the motives of the CEI because they get money from oil companies, then isn’t it also fair to question whether gw researchers can get more money if they research the ‘correct’ things?<-question mark<-

    Or are you so naive as to believe it’s not a political process?

  • caerbannog says:


    Please substantiate your claim that climate researchers are coloring their research in order to obtain public funds.

    And I’ll even help you out here. Here is a link to a comprehensive list of all the global-warming research proposals that have been funded by the National Science Foundation this year:

    Please read through the proposal abstracts and identify the proposals where global-warming is being hyped in order to secure funding.

    Either that or retract your ignorant, slanderous statement.

  • markus says:

    I think the problem is well stated near the end of CEI’s response to Professor Curt Davis’ criticism.

    They say, “CEI Response: Professor Davis admits that he doesn?t know whether the coastal losses offset or outweigh the gains in the interior. This is precisely our point?the public needs to hear both sides of the story, not just the coastal losses, if they are to judge whether we face an imminent catastrophe justifying policies that would drastically affect our way of life.”

    The cure for global warming, if it exists, would dramatically change our way of life. And in the specific case of the Kyoto Treaty the gains we would get for our pains would be at best a .1% decrease in global warming. Statistically insignificant.

    I acknowledge the evidence seems to point to a warming trend but whether this is a normal climate trend or anthropogenic is far from clear. Before we make the sacrifices to our way of life that are being called for I would like to see both sides of the debate.

    And why should I trust some researcher vying for public funds any more than any one else?

  • Xerxes says:

    Those ads are fantastic! Talk about fleecing the oil companies – I can’t believe they actually paid for those. They look like they were made as deliberate parodies by Saturday Night Live or The Onion!

    “They call it piles of **, we call it dinner”

  • John J. Simmins says:

    If all the people who voted for Gore in 2000 would just die, it would reduce the amout of CO2 produced by the US by an astonishing 50%! Volunteers?

  • Shepherd says:

    So, in all honesty, how many people out there trust the astroturfing PR firms paid to tell people what to think? Remarkably, you will find it difficult in most circles to find someone who hasn’t been exposed to information from either side of the fray who are misleading people about global warming. The reality is that climate change brought about by antropogenic contributions of greenhouse gases has taken hold. You can pretend industrialized nations aren’t chiefly responsible, you can try to ignore the severity of consequences playing out on the evening news, and you can even try to develop technologies to help ease the transition to this less than idle environment for sustaining a life of prosperity. What you can’t do is make everyone be like you and, as the medium has improved, people will be free to learn and understand what happens around them so they can make educated decisions despite predatory behavior by fools who can’t see beyond their portfolio.

  • ItsHotHere says:

    Yes, the CEI, the NCPA (National Center for Policy Analysis) — these are all scientific institutions of the highest caliber. Ha,ha,ha! The current author of the “global warming isn’t happening” article touted by the NCPA, for example, has 1 peer-reviewed ariticle in the last 3 years.

    Hey, it only took 100+ years for people to understand evolution — oh, wait…

  • johnny says:

    Yeah, I mean, seriously guys, if we don’t do something RIGHT NOW about these global warming alarmists, next thing you know we’ll be riding bikes to work in a blizzard. It’s WAY past time that we did something about this. THEY ARE WINNING! People hardly drive anymore and all the factories are closing because of strict regulations enforced by President Bush. We must end the lies! We must rise up together, and alarm the world ourselves, alarm them into realizing the true greatness that is God, the Corporation!

  • Pat says:

    It seems a researcher whose paper is shown in one the advertisements (“Glaciers”), Curt Davis, is not too happy about CEI misrepresenting his research. I’m shocked, just shocked they would do such a thing!

  • Chris Stetkiewicz says:

    Environmental think tank? This is from the CEI web site: The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. The truth will set you free.

  • David says:

    The second CEI commercial refers to two papers in the journal Science, which the commercial purports are evidence against global warming. But if you actually read these two papers, both make a point of saying that their results are consistent with the theory of global warming and what you would expect to happen if it were taking place.

  • Nasty says:

    So how do we reverse the flow of facts that are escaping into the mainstream? Alarmists seem to be everywhere: