Global Warming: What You Need to Know

By July 17, 2006Global Warming

Those of you who suffered through Tom Brokaw’s fanciful tour of global warming last night and rushed to Google for more info will hopefully stumble upon us. We are happy to tell you what you need to know about global warming, a story not often told by the mainstream media.

What you need to know is that there is no consensus about global warming, contrary to the oft-repeated canard that there is.

What you need to know is that people have blamed global warming for everything, including more poison ivy, fewer grapes and yes, even global cooling.

What you need to know is that last night’s show didn’t rely on a single one of the hundreds of scientists who don’t subscribe to the theory of global warming. Some 60 scientists alone signed a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, urging him to get more facts before subscribing to the theory’s shaky tenets. None of them were interviewed for the show. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, right?

What you need to know is that in some areas, the ice is getting thicker, but you won’t hear much about that.

What you need to know is that only 30 short years ago (remember the earth is some 4.5 billion years old), both Time and Newsweek ran cover stories heralding global cooling and the coming ice age. That scare is so yesterday.

What you need to know is that Tom Brokaw isn’t exactly impartial on this issue. His wife is Vice Chair of an environmental group that subscribes to this theory. It is a theory after all, remember. He’s certainly entitled to his opinion, as long as everyone understands it’s an opinion, nothing more.

What you need to know is that the famed “hockey stick” theory that supposedly shows global temperatures soaring has been debunked over and over again. Here’s an article from the Wall Street Journal just a few days ago about a recent white paper casting doubt on the “hockey stick” claim.

What you need to know is that the US decision not to sign on tho the Kyoto accords was ratified during the Clinton Administration by a vote of 98-0. China and India, among others, are not signatory to that accord.

What you need to know is that if environmentalists were really concerned about the global environment, they would want as much development as possible done in the US, because we have some of the strictest environmental controls in the world. By forcing development into third world countries, it will be done with virtually no environmental safeguards whatsoever, leaving the global environment much worse off.

What you need to know is that this is the latest media hysteria, and that people who push this theory often have a very distinct political agenda outside the mainstream of public opinion.

We now re-join our regularly scheduled programming….

Join the discussion 18 Comments

  • austin says:

    You make me sick. All you poeple ever think about is money. Well thank god that democrats have power now and will be able to force you people to put a cap on emmisions. According to the new International Delegation in france currently happening,(hundreds of sciencists from around the world, governemnt scienists and independent companies) OVER 90% of them agree that it is man made.

  • Dan says:

    You are in denial if you don’t understand that we may be harming the habitat we take for granted. Time will tell your grandchildren’s children if we error on the side of their discomfort. I would rather us error on the side of nature.

  • Nissy says:

    How do we know Gloabal Warming is a problem and also how does gloabal warming work?

  • steven rapp says:

    god has everything under control thank-you very much!!!!!!!!

  • trent east says:

    By Gary W. Harding
    The relationship between humans and the state of the ecosystem is not only dependent upon how many people there are, but also upon what they do. When there were few people, the dominant factors controlling ecosystem state were the natural ones that have operated for millions of years. The human population has now grown so large that there are concerns that they have become a significant element in ecosystem dynamics. One of these concerns is the relationship between human activities and climate, particularly the recent observations and the predictions of global warming, beginning with the alarm sounded by W. Broecker (1975).
    The relationships among humans, their activities and global temperature can be assessed by making the appropriate measurements and analyzing the data in a way that shows the connections and their magnitudes. Human population can be closely estimated and the consequences of their activities can be measured. For example, the volume of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions is an indicator of human’s energy and resource consumption. An examination of population size, atmospheric concentrations of these gases and global temperature relative to time and with respect to each other is presented here to demonstrate the relations among these factors.
    Many of us have seen linear graphs of human population showing the enormous growth in the last two centuries. However, significant changes in population dynamics are lost in the exponential growth and long time scales. If the data are replotted on a log-population by log-time scale, significant population dynamics emerge. First, it is apparent that population growth has occurred in three surges and second, that the time between surges has dramatically shortened (Deevey, 1960).
    Figure 1. Population (Log-population verses log-time since 1 million years ago). Time values on x-axis, ignoring minus sign, are powers of 10 years before and after 1975 (at 0). Vertical dashed-line at 1995. Filled circles for known values are to left of 1995 and open circles on and to right of 1995 are for projected values. (Data updated from Deevey, 1960).
    Deevey’s 1960 graph has been brought up to date in Figure 1 to reflect what has been learned since then. The data have been plotted relative to 1975 with negative values before 1975 and positive values thereafter. The reason for this will become clear below. The values of the time scale, ignoring the minus signs, represent powers of 10 years.
    It has been argued that a population crash occurred about 65,000 years ago (-4.8, Fig. 1), presumably due to the prolonged ice-ages during the preceding 120,000 years (Gibbons, 1993). Humans came close to perishing and Neanderthal became extinct. However, by 50,000 years ago (-4.6, Fig. 1), humans had generated population mini-explosions all around the planet. Deevey’s data for population size since 500 years ago have been replaced with more recent estimates taken from The World Almanac, (1992 – 1995) including population projections out to 2025. A vertical dashed-line has been placed at 1995. Filled symbols for the known values are to the left of it and open symbols on and to the right of it are for values projected into the short-term future.
    The first surge coincides with the beginning of the cultural revolution about 600,000 years ago, interrupted by the population crash 65,000 years ago. Population size rebounded 50,000 years ago and then growth slowed considerably. The second surge began with the agricultural revolution about 10,000 years ago and was followed by slow growth. Deevey argued that moving down the food chain was the underlying cause of this large and rapid spurt. The timing of the present surge matches the rise of the industrial-medical revolution 200 years ago.
    A relation between innovation and population growth is embedded in the log-log plot. There was rapid growth at the start of each surge. Then, growth rate slowed as people adapted to the precipitating innovations. Each surge increased the population more than 10-fold. It appears that we are nearing the end of the present surge as recent growth rates have declined. After the initial spurt, subsequent innovations did not perpetuate growth rates. The only significant innovations were those that produced the next surge. However, accumulated innovations during the surges may have played a role in the eventual decline in population growth rates. Starting with high birth and death rates, death rate declines and longevity increases, but birth rates stay high. Some time later, birth rates decline so that eventually, net births minus deaths produces slow growth. The result is a spurt in population size. When referring to the industrial revolution, this phenomenon has been called the “demographic transition”. It appears that this dynamic may have occurred twice before.
    The decreases in time between surges suggests that, if past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, we are due for another surge. It may have already begun, as indicated by the upturn in the projections at the right end of the curve in Figure 1. What might the basis for another surge be? One can think of several possibilities, including the “green revolution” and the “global economy”. A dominant element in past surges has been innovations in energy use (e.g., fire, descending the food-chain, beasts of burden, fossil fuels, high-energy agriculture). Thus, the development of an abundant and cheap energy source would have a profound effect. Another 10-fold (or more) surge would produce a population of 60 to 125 billion.
    Figure 2. Greenhouse Gases and Mean Global Temperature (Greenhouse gas concentrations and mean global temperature verses time). Time scale same as in Fig. 1. Gas-concentration data have been normalized to the 0 to 1 scale on left: CO2 (squares) – 190 to 430 ppm; CH4 (triangles) – 600 to 2400 ppb; N2O (diamonds) – 280 to 340 ppb. Mean global temperature (circles) plotted relative to oC on right. Vertical dashed-line at 1995, horizontal dotted line at maximum CO2 concentration and global temperature over human history before 1990. Filled and open symbols same as in Fig. 1. Projections in short-term future are based upon continuation at current growth rates. (Data measured from graphs in Gribbin, 1990 and Khalil and Rasmussen, 1992).
    Mean-global-temperature (MGT) is related to the concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor and other trace gases) in the atmosphere. The most prevalent greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO2). It has been shown that there is a strong relation between the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and MGT over the last 160,000 years (Gribbin, 1990). It has been suspected that the burning of fossil fuels and the clearing of land has reached such proportions that these activities have precipitated a significant increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been directly measured since about 1960 and have been determined over the more distant past from air-bubbles trapped in old Antarctic, Greenland and Siberian ice and from deep-sea sediments. Mean-global-temperature has also been measured directly over the last few decades. Estimates of global temperature in the distant past have been deduced from a variety of sources. From these data, the relation among atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations, MGT and time is illustrated in Figure 2.
    The time scale in Figure 2 is the same as that in Figure 1. Because CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) concentrations have different scales, the data have been normalized on a 0 to 1 scale on the left. For CO2 (squares; Gribbin, 1990), 0 is equivalent to 190 parts per million (ppm) and 1 is equivalent to 430 ppm. For CH4 (triangles; R. Cicerone in Gribbin, 1990), the range is 600 to 2400 parts per billion (ppb). For N2O (diamonds; Khalil and Rasmussen, 1992), the scale is 280 to 340 ppb. Mean global temperature (circles; Gribbin, 1990) has been graphed relative to the degrees-centigrade scale on the right. The vertical dashed-line is the same as that in Figure 1. The horizontal dotted-line is the highest CO2 concentration and temperature in human history before 1990. Greenhouse-gas concentrations and MGT in the short-term future are based upon continuation at the current growth rates. This will be justified in another context below.
    Figure 3. Population and Global Warming (CO2 concentration and mean global temperature verses log-population) CO2 concentration (circles) and mean global temperature (squares) plotted relative to their absolute scales, ppm on the left and oC on the right, respectively. Vertical dashed line at 1995. (Data from Figs. 1 and 2)
    It is clear that the concentrations of all three gases have increased exponentially since 1950 (-1.4, Fig. 2) and that MGT has done so since 1975. Carbon dioxide concentration began to rise in conjunction with the use of fossil fuels after 1850. Although methane comes from a variety of sources, including plant decay, termites and bovine flatulence, CH4 concentration rises at the same time as CO2. This is probably due to its association with fossil-fuel production. Nitrous oxide concentration does not begin to rise until 1950. At this time, the use of human-made fertilizers and internal-combustion-engine exhaust increased dramatically. Ten thousand years ago (-4, Fig. 2), MGT increased substantially just as the agricultural revolution got started. Over the previous 200,000 years, the ecosystem was dominated by ice-ages. Projected MGT in 2025 (1.7, Fig. 2) is about 17oC, 1.5oC higher than in human history prior to 1990.
    We have seen in Figures 1 and 2 that recent population, atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and MGT have grown exponentially over about the same time-course. The relation of CO2 and MGT relative to population size can be observed by graphing these variables as above. Figure 3 shows this graph, where the log of population replaces log-time and CO2 concentration (circles) and MGT (squares) are plotted relative to their absolute scales, ppm on the left and oC on the right, respectively. The vertical dashed-line denotes 1995, as in Figures 1 and 2. When the population reached 4 billion in 1975, the converging relation between population and the other two variables becomes apparent.
    The magnitude of the relations in Figures 2 and 3 can be determined by calculating the correlation coefficient between pairs of variables. Table 1 lists these coefficients for the population, greenhouse-gas concentration and MGT variables that we have been examining. The coefficients for the relations during the industrial revolution, 1800 through 1994, are above the diagonal of the table. The coefficients since 2000 years ago through 1994 are below the diagonal. Over the past 2000 years, there is a nearly perfect correlation between the concentration of greenhouse gases and population and between the greenhouse gases themselves. However, the correlations between both population and greenhouse-gas concentrations and MGT (bottom row) are not as strong. After 1800, the latter correlations increase to near perfection (rightmost column). The conclusion from the graphs and table is that there is a strong relationship among population size since 1800, greenhouse-gas concentrations and MGT.
    TABLE 1. Correlation coefficients among population size, atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and mean global temperature (1800 through 1994 above the top-left to bottom-right diagonal, n=10; 2000 years ago through 1994 below the diagonal, n=15).
    Pop CO2 CH4 N2O Temp
    Pop .996 .984 .977 .916
    CO2 .990 .994 .974 .942
    CH4 .991 .992 .949 .945
    N2O .959 .943 .942 .932
    Temp .718 .716 .728 .829
    Determining that there is a strong relation between population size and global warming does not tell us what the underlying mechanisms are. However, documentation of the relationship between human activities and the release of greenhouse gases produces a strong inference that population size and global warming are closely related (Gribbin, 1990).
    Forecasting the future is risky business. Growth rates for greenhouse-gas concentrations and MGT could decline from those at present due to unanticipated innovations or natural events. For example, volcanoes can spew enough ash into the atmosphere to block sunlight and temporarily reduce MGT slightly. However, short-term continued growth at current rates is probably an underestimate. Although population growth rate has slowed, the population is still growing. The dominating factor is that per-capita energy and resource consumption rates are increasing much faster than the population. This is not only due to anticipated increases in standards of living in underdeveloped countries, but also to future increases in the demand for energy in the developed countries (e.g., air conditioning) as summer temperatures rise. Since most of the energy will come from fossil fuels, at least for the next few decades, we can expect the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and MGT to rise in the short-term future at a faster rate than they have recently. As MGT rises, water vapor, another greenhouse component, will become a more and more significant factor due to increased evaporation.
    Although a 1.5oC increase in MGT above where we were in 1990 (1990 to 2025 in Fig. 2) does not seem like much of a change, it is enough to precipitate major changes in climate. A 1.5oC drop in MGT from where we were in 1990, for example, would put the ecosystem on the verge of an ice-age. Already, there is a suspicion that, since 1975, the persistent El Nino is the first sign of the relation between global warming and climate (Kerr, 1994). As MGT increases further, we can expect more frequent and severe hurricanes and perpetual summertime droughts in many places, particularly in the US Midwest. Paradoxically, more intense winter storms will occur in some places and climatic conditions for agriculture will improve in some areas, such as in Russia (Gribbin, 1990; Bernard, 1993).
    There has been considerable debate over the ecosystem’s carrying capacity for humans. If we define that carrying capacity as the level that the ecosystem can support without changing state more than it has over the duration of human history, then Figures 2 and 3 indicate that we exceeded that capacity in 1975. This is the point in time where exponential growth began to push MGT along a path which has taken it outside the previous range. This does not necessarily mean that humans could not survive if MGT is about 2oC higher than it has ever been in their history. However, we will have to adapt to a radically different climate pattern and, if MGT goes any higher than that, there could be disastrous problems.
    If MGT continues to increase beyond 2025 to 4oC above that in 1990, high-northern-latitude temperatures could be as much as 10oC higher than at the equator. The Arctic ice-cap would begin to melt and the permafrost under the tundra would start thawing out. As a consequence, a thick layer of rotting peat would contribute further to atmospheric CO2 and CH4 concentrations (Gribbin, 1990). With a number of human-made and natural positive-feedback elements in operation simultaneously, a threshold could be crossed (Meyers, 1995; Overpeck, 1996). Are these risks that we should be willing to take for the sake of short-term gains?
    Bernard, H. W. Jr., “Global Warming Unchecked”, Indiana Univ. Press, Bloomington, 1993
    Broecker, W., Science, 189:460, 1975
    Deevey, E. S., Scientific American, 203:195, 1960
    Gibbons, A. , Science, 262:27, 1993
    Gribbin, J. , “Hothouse Earth”, Grove Weidenfeld, New York, 1990
    Kerr, R. A., Science, 266:544, 1994
    Khalil, M. A. K. and R. A. Rasmussen, J. Geophys. Res., 97:4651, 1992
    “The World Almanac”, Pharos, New York, 1992 – 1995
    Meyers, N. Science 269:358, 1995
    Overpeck, J. T. Science, 271:1820, 1996
    Post Script
    After this document was written (about a 2 years ago), two books came out which provide much more detail relevant to some of these issues:
    HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN THE EARTH SUPPORT? by Joel E. Cohen; Norton, 1995.
    DIVIDED PLANET: THE ECOLOGY OF RICH AND POOR by Tom Athanasiou; Little Brown, 1996.
    Both are superbly done and provide a much more comprehensive and up to date treatment of the population and economic topics included here.
    Recent evidence (Mora et al.; SCIENCE 271:1105, 1996) indicates that the possibility of a “greenhouse runaway” on Earth is much more remote than indicated at the end of the previous version of this document. Therefore, the former apocalyptic ending has been changed. Although the data presented points to a catastrophic conclusion, this was (perhaps) an overstatement of the case.
    Copyright © 1995 by Gary W. Harding
    Last Updated 2 July 1996
    Access count: Web-Counter
    Back to the Tragedy of the Commons Homepage
    MYTH: Global warming can’t be happening, since winters have been getting colder.
    FACT: Winters have been getting warmer. Measurements show that Earth’s climate has warmed overall over the past century, in all seasons, and in most regions. The skeptics mislead the public when they bill the winter of 2003-2004 as record cold in the northeastern United States. That winter was only the 33rd coldest in the region since records began in 1896. Furthermore, a single spell of cold weather in one small region is no indication of cooling of the global climate, which refers to a long-term average over the entire planet.
    MYTH: Satellite measurements of temperature over the past two decades show a much smaller warming in the atmosphere than is measured by thermometers at the surface. This contradicts global warming predictions based on climate models.
    FACT: Recent research has corrected problems that led to underestimates of the warming trend in earlier analyses of satellite data. The new results show an atmospheric warming trend slightly larger than at the surface, exactly as models predict.
    MYTH: The global warming over the past century is nothing unusual. For example, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), roughly from A.D. 1000 to 1400, was warmer than the 20th century. This indicates the global warming we are experiencing now is part of a natural cycle.
    FACT: Ten independent scientific studies all have found a large 20th-century warming trend compared to temperature changes over the past millennium or two. Uncertainty exists as to exactly how warm the present is compared to the MWP. Some studies have received valid criticism for possibly underestimating the magnitude of longer-lasting, century-scale temperature changes, such as the warming during the MWP. However, other studies, using different methods, still find no evidence of any period during the last 2,000 years that was warmer than the 1990s. Most importantly, any uncertainty about whether the present is warmer than the MWP has little effect on the finding that humans likely have caused most of the warming over the past 50 years. A separate body of studies has provided the main evidence for this finding. (See the Myth on causes of warming.)
    MYTH: Human activities contribute only a small fraction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, far too small to have a significant effect on the concentration of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
    FACT: Before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of CO2 emitted from large natural sources closely matched the amount that was removed through natural processes. That balance has now been upset by human activities, which since the Industrial Revolution have put twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere as can be readily removed by the oceans and forests. This has resulted in the accumulation of CO2 to the highest levels in 420,000 years.
    MYTH: The Earth’s warming is caused by natural factors like increased sunlight and sunspots or decreased cosmic rays, not by greenhouse gases (GHGs).
    FACT: Modeling studies indicate that most of the warming over the past several decades was probably caused by the increase in human-produced GHGs. Climate models have difficulty reproducing the observed temperature changes over the past 150 years unless they account for the increase in GHGs as well as natural factors, such as sunlight and volcanic eruptions, and changes in the amount of human-produced sulfate particles, which cool the planet. Satellite measurements of the intensity of sunlight exhibit little or no trend over the past 25 years, when there was rapid warming on Earth. The purported correlations between the amount of cosmic rays and Earth’s temperature are the result of flawed analysis methods.
    MYTH: The warming observed during the past century was caused by urbanization (urban heat island effect).
    FACT: Urbanization does increase temperatures locally, affecting thermometer readings in certain areas. But the temperature data used in trend analyses are adjusted to remove any bias from urbanization. In any case, urbanization has an insignificant effect on global temperature trends.
    Read the full report, The Latest Myths and Facts on Global Warming.
    Adobe Acrobat required
    MYTH: Models have trouble predicting the weather a few days in advance. How can we have any confidence in model projections of the climate many years from now?
    FACT: Climate prediction is different from weather prediction, just as climate is different from weather. Models are now sophisticated enough to be able to reproduce the observed global average climates over the past century as well as over other periods in the past. Thus, scientists are confident in the models’ ability to produce reliable projections of future climate for large regions. Furthermore, climate assessments typically consider the results from a range of models and scenarios for future GHG emissions, in order to identify the most likely range for future climatic change.
    MYTH: The science behind the theory of global warming is too uncertain to draw conclusions useful to policy makers.
    FACT: The primary scientific debate is about how much and how fast, rather than whether, additional warming will occur as a result of human-produced GHG emissions. While skeptics like to emphasize the lower end of warming projections, uncertainty actually applies to both ends of the spectrum–the climate could change even more dramatically than most models predict. Finally, in matters other than climate change, policy decisions based on uncertain information are made routinely by governments to ensure against undesirable outcomes. In the case of global warming, scientists have given society an early warning on its possibly dangerous, irreversible and widespread impacts.
    MYTH: Global warming and increased CO2 would be beneficial, reducing cold-related deaths and increasing plant growth (“greening the Earth”).
    FACT: If society does not limit further warming, the beneficial effects probably will be heavily outweighed by negative effects. Regarding cold-related deaths, studies have indicated that they might not decrease enough to compensate for a significant increase in heat-related deaths. Even though higher levels of CO2 can act as a plant fertilizer under some conditions, they do not necessarily benefit the planet, since the fertilization effect can diminish after a few years in natural ecosystems as plants acclimate. Furthermore, increased CO2 may benefit undesirable, weedy species more than others.
    MYTH: Society can easily adapt to climate change; after all, human civilization has survived through climatic changes in the past.
    FACT: While humans as a species have survived through past climatic changes, individual civilizations have collapsed. Unless we limit GHGs in the atmosphere, we will face a warming trend unseen since the beginning of human civilization. Many densely populated areas, such as low-lying coastal zones, are highly vulnerable to climate shifts. A middle-of-the-range projection indicates the homes of 13 to 88 million people would be flooded by the sea each year in the 2080s. Many ecosystems and species already threatened by other human activities may be pushed to the point of extinction.
    MYTH: CO2 is removed from the atmosphere fairly quickly, so we can wait to take action until after we start to see dangerous impacts from global warming.
    FACT: Global warming cannot be halted quickly. CO2 and other GHGs can remain in the atmosphere for many centuries. Even if emissions were eliminated today, it would take centuries for the heat-trapping GHGs now in the atmosphere to fall to pre-industrial levels. Only by starting to cut emissions now can humanity avoid the increasingly dangerous and irreversible consequences of climate change.

  • Jane says:

    this stuff is so interesting. i wonder if in 10, 20, or 30 years that americans will be looking back saying “boy i wish i would have stopped using fossil fuels and polluting co2” or if we will be like “what the heck? global warming. what a sham!” right now it seems like there is just as much information supporting both sides of the argument, but of course since this is a country who loves drama and reality television, americans are going to want to believe the most dramatic and devistating side of the argument, even if it isnt true. if this is what the earth looks like after many ice ages and global warmings then i dont think things will be so bad. i would love to hear someone tell me the god honest truth and know what they are talking about. but i guess this is one of the things that takes time to untangle. but we only have one earth. we should take care of it reguardless of the climate changes! i think that maybe the tons and im talking literally tons and tons of good food that is thrown away every day from american resteraunts who made too much or made a fresh batch is a bigger issue. call me old fashioned, but i think wasting and consuming too much might be worse than driving too much. HEY HERE IS AN IDEA!

    ok, the generation of children who are attending middle and elementary school right now are going to be the first generation of people who don’t live longer than their parents based on a projection of the average age of death for that generation. this means that that generation will be the first to not outlive the one before. ok, this is because of all of that high consumption that i was talking about. WELL since the earth is going to suck in a few years according to mr. gore then thats ok of they don’t live as long, because the world is going to suck! GOD WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS!

    someone give me indisputable truth that global warming is actually happening and i will believe it. otherwise i say bring on the volcanic activity! as long as no lava hurts people.

    anyone with information please e-mail me i would love to hear about it all. but only if you are accredited. no posers please!

  • Captain Obvious says:


    Say whatever you want about the possibility that global warming may or may not be happening. I agree that as with most scientific theories, there is always a healthy debate out there and more research can always be done.

    However, don’t go saying that there are people making gobs of money off of global warming. Even if there are one or two people who are able to actually live *lavish* lifestyles through fear-mongering (I doubt it), there is no question that oil companies and manufacturers make absolutely ridiculous amounts of money, and for them any strong action by the government would be a death warrant. The global warming skeptics have a *lot more* to lose than the global warming theorists if they turn out to be wrong.

  • George says:

    Thanks Pat! Glad to know there’s nothing to worry about! The manufacturing industry would never put profits above the safety and well-being of the public.

  • ryan says:

    you people should be ashamed. you know darn well that heavy manufacturing is aiding the speed of global climate change, and you could fix it, too, if you were just willing to give up a LITTLE profit for a LITTLE while. But, why bother? It’s not like our children or theirs could still be around in 150 years, wanting to buy things from your companies. No need to think ahead or anything ….

  • George says:

    Perhaps we don’t want to know the truth. USA is full of mongers of fossil fuel and pollution devices. Go on America keep super-sizing yourselves. Have some more icecream and surf the boob-tube :).

  • Natural-Philosopher says:

    Unlike you I am a scientist and have studied the scientific issues involved. I didn’t take some publicist’s opinion.

    And like 23,000 other scientists and engineers I signed the Oregon Petition.

    Did you ever hear of it? An honest media would report it but it has not been widely acknowledged by the media. The totally warped reporting would supposedly report it as they seem to find the time to report any single crackpot’s opinion supporting Global Warming. But 23,999 knowledgerable people can’t be bothered with.

    We 23,000, said the the IPCC text is correct interprettion of the science. And the executive summary, hastily re-written by politicians and global warming idiots, does not agree with the IPCC’s study text and results.

    Global warming is NOT proven fact. There is plenty of incentive by the fear mongers who obtain their lavish lifestyles by spreading fear and collecting money. It is not clear that a half degree rise in temperature per century is any big deal. Step back and realize what is being said. If in a hundred years the temperature rises as much as if you moved from the Upper West side of Manhattan to the Walls Street area and hence closer to the Equator, is simply not something to merit all this nonsense.

    As a consequence, the loony environmentalists are now starting to push “apocalyptic climate change”. They are trying to peddle ideas that although change is presently slight, or impossible to measure definitively, a mere bit more would tip things into a situation which would cause enormous temperature changes.

    The problem is that it has been hotter and cooler over time, and no such tipping point has ever been observed. More nonsense, but more scary to encourage flagging contributions. What politicians does not lick his lips in anticipation of imposing (and spending!) Carbon taxes, fuel taxes, energy taxes, pollution taxes yada, yada, yada.

    Do not be a SUCKER. Question this global warming chicken Little-ing exercise. Even if we did absolutely nothing, the temperature will not rise since it would take several hundred years of increasing burning of fossil fuel, or increasing use of Albedo altering technologies such as wind or “solar” energy devices, both of which increase global warming.

    That’s Right. These good energy sources are in fact bad. Solar, either thermal solar, or photo voltaic solar, and wind are albedo altering technologies, increasing the amounts of heat absorbed by the Earth, hence aiding global warming.

    How can this be? Why haven’t you been told these technologies are not so good? A wacky environmentalist believed that “Small is good” on Faith. He believes this as thoroughly as Mao Tsetung believed in “small is beautiful” backyard blast furnaces.

    The dolts pushing this theory don’t WANT a solution. They wouldn’t recognize one if it bit them in the ass. They have ulterior motives and I don’t mind impugning theirs. They are so ready to impugn every one else’s motives,as a modus operandi because they can’t discuss the issues rationally.

    The CO2 percentages will decline again from a trace to an even smaller trace gas. It is a better bet the world will cool insignificantly rather than heat insignificantly.

  • Linda says:

    Well Bravo to Tom Brokaw, at least he has gotten people to start thinking about the environment and our impact on the environment. Good or bad, those who believe and don’t believe, makes for an interesting topic, Doesn’t It?

    Remember, satelitte images do not lie!!!!


  • karen says:

    Hi Pat,

    >The fact is we have not made this our life’s work, like Al Gore has apparently done.

    Maybe you should educate yourself then before posting. Remember, educate, then write. Educate, then write. Repeat that three times and you won’t come across as ignorant.

    Posted by: Andrew McPherson at May 24, 2006 11:50 AM


    I am taking your advice and posting a response to our exchange earlier…

    let me first off restate my assertion that the CEI and NCPA are infact reciepients of large amounts of money from big business, including ExxonMobile, now right off the bat, when you have groups like this fighting an issue that will obviously hurt the reputation/revenues of oil companies, they should be taken as suspect.

    I will admit I am not a scientist, but I can read the studies issued by 90% of the scientists mentioned, and for instance in the case of the thickening INTERNAL ice-sheets in antartica,this was expected in UN models, the inner sheets are being fed by higher precipitation over the antartic, which was expected due to increased temperatures, the cooler temps in greenland were explained by the main author of the paper as an effect of weather patterns over the southern portion of greenland, when the numbers from northern greenland stats are compared to baseline stats, we see a 2.2x increase in temp, infact the scientist, Curt Davis is quoted as saying, “[conclusions]ignored by CEI in a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public.”

    how about we sit down like adults and face the fact that we are adding to a growing problem, and we can either ignore is and continue business as usual, or step up and figure out exactly what we can do to curb our impact, this will mean that we have to rethink how we interact, and by extension our responsibility for proper terrestrial stewardship…this is an issue if ignored will be handed to our children, and their children…hows that for personal responsibility?

    Posted by: Jason Smalley at May 24, 2006 12:18 PM

    You need to find out what real climate scientists who do real climate research are saying about Gore’s movie. Over at, a web-site run by about a dozen Ph.D. climate-scientists (several of whom are internationally recognized experts), there’s a review of “An Inconvenient Truth” — you can find at:

    I strongly suggest that you take the time read it carefully.

    Posted by: caerbannog at May 24, 2006 01:04 PM

    The Association of British Drivers, Pat? Are you bloody serious? Buwahahah!

    Posted by: Pat at May 24, 2006 05:24 PM

    The experts and the organizations cited above are lawyers and politicians and lobbyists posing as “scientists” or “science policy experts”. They are entirely obvious as industry shills, not actual experts or scientists. How about the real scientists? What do they say? Ha!

    Posted by: BigMouth at May 24, 2006 09:51 PM

    Poor Al. Was it the drugs he didn’t inhale (or snort) with his boss? Or is he just naturally OTL? And how did such a goof-ball ever get to be VP, anyway?

    The answers to those questions may never be known, but what is becoming increasingly clear is that “global warming” is just the wacky incorrect “concensus” of SOME scientists, and not necessarily the best or most objective, either.

    The debunking of “concensus science” by Michael Crichton, in his “Aliens Cause Global Warming”, found here:

    makes for some very entertaining reading, as he clearly shows how comic it is to dignify this cult by calling it “science.”


    (Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the earth isn’t warming. It may well be,… or not. We just don’t know if it is or isn’t, or why; and to pretend that we do is just plain dishonest.)

    p.s – I just saw a NOVA special on Africa’s Nyiragongo volcano. At one point the announcer said that this single volcano puts out more gaseous emissions “…than all industry and autos in the USA.” So, as a friend of mine humorously suggested when I told him, “maybe we could just plug it up.” Say, I know, let’s use use all the videos with Al’s movie on them. And, if that doesn’t work, at least we’ll be rid of that junk.

    Posted by: ytba at May 26, 2006 12:56 AM

    Ahh, yes, here it is….


    “NARRATOR: The satellite identifies the gas as sulfur dioxide, SO2, the primary cause of acid rain. And Nyiragongo is producing more than any place in the world, up to 50,000 tons per day. That’s more than the amount produced by all power plants, factories and cars in the United States.”

    OOPS! What an “inconvenient” emission-admission. Gotta love it! (And even though they didn’t give data on CO2, Nyiragongo puts out a gobs and gobs of that, as well.)

    And remember, that’s just ONE of the MANY active volcanoes worldwide.

    Just how do these climate cultists take them selves seriously, anyway?

    Posted by: ytba at May 26, 2006 01:27 AM

    The debunking of “concensus science” by Michael Crichton, in his “Aliens Cause Global Warming”, found here:


    Wow… next time any of us don’t like the outcome of any scientific consensus let’s get a science fiction writer to ‘debunk’ it.

    Posted by: Wadard at May 26, 2006 07:20 PM

    Wadward’s ad hominem attack against Crichton, dismissing him as merely a “science fiction writer,” shows Wad’s ignorance, and or disregard for truth.

    “John Michael Crichton was born on October 23, 1942 in Chicago, Illinois to John Henderson Crichton and Zula Miller Crichton, and raised in Roslyn, Long Island, New York.[1]

    He attended HARVARD UNIVERSITY, where he graduated SUMMA CUM LAUDE [= he’s smart] in anthropology. He went on to teach physical anthropology at the UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE in England [= he’s a scientist], later returning to Massachusetts to gain an M.D. degree from HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL. [= he’s smart and a masochist]


    In other words, he’s not your average “science fiction writer.” He is also a very intelligent and well rounded scientist of the highest caliber.

    And for those who are interested in more of his thoughts, here’s another link you may enjoy, if you are able to follow intelligent and well reasoned argument, that is.

    Posted by: ytba at May 28, 2006 03:12 AM

    From the Telegraph article about the “hotter sun:”

    “Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades but have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures.”

    And this, from the scientist who led the research:

    “Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of “greenhouse gases”, such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth’s temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.”

    Not really a debunking. If natural forces and man made forces have both contributed to global warming, doesn’t it make sense to try to control the one we can affect?

    Posted by: John Bliss at May 30, 2006 09:52 PM

  • Christopher Carrington says:

    You manafacturers are loosing your minds, why would you endanger future earnings and underestimate the potential costs (insurance, relocation of facilities, mass migrations)through this foolish strategy of attacking the messengers (the vast and substantial majority of scientists across a host of research fields) bringing us information about global climate change? Any wise investor would look askance at the failure of constituent organizations to get serious about climate change, to plan and to stem your losses. I am amazed at this utter foolishness from business people who should be much more practical and conservative in their approach to potential risks.


    Dr. Christopher Carrington
    San Francisco

  • What you really need to know is that the NAM represents the who’s who of the climate change denial lobby and many companies who would lose the most if we moved towards a solution to global warming.

  • BluePhoenix says:

    You’re ridiculous. Even before this report last night, NASA, the EPA, IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences,,, you name it, if there isn’t a political or encomomic agenda, they’ve all be coming to the same conclusions. Global Warming is real

    NASA -Global Change Master Directory

    The EPA

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC

    National Academy of Sciences have submitted there report to congress and it backs up the special everyone saw last night, it is real, we know why it’s happending and there will be consequences.
    It’s not just the C02 (American Families produce 15 tons annually – each)helping to hold more heat in the atmosphere (green house effect – essential) the 1% and growing increase in average global temperature is having a ripple effect known as ‘feed back loops’ When more reflective white ice melts, more darker ground and water is exposed, increasing the heat of the water, further reducing the ice melt and thermal expansion of the sea and the cycle continues…
    Only in America are people still getting fooled by the ‘global warming debunkeing frenzy’ which is a small minority but well backed and very loud. Confusing the media and population is the whole key. But you can’t keep it up for much longer. The Debate is over! Again, 20 of the 21 hottest days in recorded history, all occured since 1980. Are you seriously forgetting about the heat wave which killed over 30,000 people in Europe a few years ago? Katrina and many other cat 4 and 5 hurricanes which are becoming more the norm than the exception for intensity these days, the increase in fires occurning around the globe, even in place which previously weren’t effected. The receding glaciers around the globe – it goes on and on.
    To top it off, we drafted and initated the only global effort to do something about this, and in 2001 we pulled out and congress has been avoiding it ever since, couple with the fact that Americans are by very far the largest contributors of C02 emmission, we contribute %25 of it all on our own, and we are only 5% of the world population, to make matters worse – China and India are becomong more likes us every day in regard to driving, using energy, etc. And soon they will be worse, much worse (Those two countries account for 1/3 of the world’s population.)

    Give me a break already – it’s over, start realizing that and start learning what you can be doing about it (not reversing it, too late, but atlest help to put on the brakes in making even worse for our kids and grandkids and not to mention, the thousands of species of animal which will be dying out even if we do stop now – have a concience), don’t worry, I won’t call you an ‘alarmist’ or ‘tree hugger’, two very frequently used keywords favored by the debunkers.,2933,200590,00.html

    But the govenment isn’t doing anythign about it.


    Discovery Channel

  • Jason says:

    What’s your motivation for dispelling the “Global Warming” theory? Economics?

  • Thomas E.Harley,Sr. says:

    Global Warming. The latest gimic for raiseing revenue for states and Feds,,and increase the sales for businesses.
    And another burden for the tax payer.
    The average person is more educated today,and not so easily talked into buying a product or service,by the usual mehods,,,,But scare tactics always work.
    GW will not be accepted ,nor recognized by authorities until a way of makeing money from it can be established.First by DC politicians for taxation,and secondly by big busines for the secondary market. If a profit can be made,,GW will indeed be a fact. If there is no profit to be made,,it will disappear ,just as “The new iceage” did a few years ago.