Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The global warming scam
Melanie Phillips ^ | 09 January 2004 | Melanie Phillips's Diary

Posted on 01/10/2004 6:01:06 PM PST by Lando Lincoln

The global warming scam

The British government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, has said that global warming is a more serious threat to the world than terrorism. His remarks are utter balderdash from start to finish and illustrate the truly lamentable decline of science into ideological propaganda.

Sir David says the Bush administration should not dismiss global warming because: 1) the ten hottest years on record started in 1991 2) sea levels are rising 3) ice caps are melting and 4) the 'causal link' between man-made emissions and global warming is well established.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. There is no such evidence. The whole thing is a global scam. There is no firm evidence that warming is happening; even if it is, it is most likely to have natural, not man-made causes; carbon dioxide, supposedly the culprit, makes up such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere that even if it were to quadruple, the effect on climate would be negligible; and just about every one of the eco-doomster stories that curdle our blood every five minutes is either speculative, ahistorical or scientifically illiterate.

To take a few examples from Sir David's litany.

1) Sea levels are rising. As this article explains, this claim is not the result of observable data. Like so much of the global warming industry, it is the result of frail computer modelling using dodgy or incomplete data. It is therefore not an observed value, but a wholly artificial model construct. Furthermore, the data fed into the computer is drawn from the atypical North Atlantic basin, ignoring the seas around Australia where levels have remained pretty static. And anyway, as this article explains, sea level rises have nothing to do with warmer climate. Sea levels rose during the last ice age. Warming can actually slow down sea level rise.

2) Ice caps are melting. Some are, some aren't. Some are breaking up, as is normal. But some are actually expanding, as in the Antarctic where the ice sheet is growing, as this article points out. The bit of the Antarctic that is breaking up, the Larsen ice-shelf, which has been causing foaming hysteria among eco-doomsters, won't increase sea levels because it has already displaced its own weight in the sea.

3) The hottest years on record started in 1991. Which records? The European climate in the Middle Ages was two degrees hotter than it is now. They grew vines in Northumberland, for heaven's sake. Then there was the Little Ice Age, which lasted until about 1880. So the 0.6% warming since then is part of a pretty normal pattern, and nothing for any normal person to get excited about.

4) The causal link is well established. Totally false. It is simply loudly asserted. Virtually all the scare stuff comes from computer modelling, which is simply inadequate to factor in all the -- literally-- millions of variables that make up climate change. If you put rubbish in, you get rubbish out.

That's why this week's earlier eco-scare story, that more than a million species will become extinct as a result of global warming over the next 50 years, is risible. All that means is that someone has put into the computer the global warming scenario, and the computer has calculated what would happen on the basis of that premise. But -duh! -the premise is totally unproven. The real scientific evidence is that -- we just don't know; and the theories so far, linking man, carbon dioxide and climate warming. are specious. There's some seriously bad science going on in the environmentalist camp.

After Kyoto, one of the most eminent scientists involved in the National Academy of Sciences study on climate change, Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT, blew the whistle on the politicised rubbish that was being spouted. Since his article was so significant, I reproduce it in full here:

'Last week the National Academy of Sciences released a report on climate change, prepared in response to a request from the White House, that was depicted in the press as an implicit endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol. CNN's Michelle Mitchell was typical of the coverage when she declared that the report represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."

'As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is simply untrue. For starters, the NAS never asks that all participants agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.

'As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The summary began with a zinger--that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this.

'Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds).

'But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions.

'One reason for this uncertainty is that, as the report states, the climate is always changing; change is the norm. Two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned with global cooling.

'Distinguishing the small recent changes in global mean temperature from the natural variability, which is unknown, is not a trivial task. All attempts so far make the assumption that existing computer climate models simulate natural variability, but I doubt that anyone really believes this assumption.

'We simply do not know what relation, if any, exists between global climate changes and water vapor, clouds, storms, hurricanes, and other factors, including regional climate changes, which are generally much larger than global changes and not correlated with them. Nor do we know how to predict changes in greenhouse gases. This is because we cannot forecast economic and technological change over the next century, and also because there are many man-made substances whose properties and levels are not well known, but which could be comparable in importance to carbon dioxide.

'What we do is know that a doubling of carbon dioxide by itself would produce only a modest temperature increase of one degree Celsius. Larger projected increases depend on "amplification" of the carbon dioxide by more important, but poorly modeled, greenhouse gases, clouds and water vapor.

'The press has frequently tied the existence of climate change to a need for Kyoto. The NAS panel did not address this question. My own view, consistent with the panel's work, is that the Kyoto Protocol would not result in a substantial reduction in global warming. Given the difficulties in significantly limiting levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a more effective policy might well focus on other greenhouse substances whose potential for reducing global warming in a short time may be greater.

'The panel was finally asked to evaluate the work of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, focusing on the Summary for Policymakers, the only part ever read or quoted. The Summary for Policymakers, which is seen as endorsing Kyoto, is commonly presented as the consensus of thousands of the world's foremost climate scientists. Within the confines of professional courtesy, the NAS panel essentially concluded that the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.

'The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.

'Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty--far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge--and that the NAS report has hardly ended the debate. Nor was it meant to.'

As Professor Philip Stott wrote in the Wall Street Journal on April 2 2001:

'"Global warming" was invented in 1988, when it replaced two earlier myths of an imminent plunge into another Ice Age and the threat of a nuclear winter. The new myth was seen to encapsulate a whole range of other myths and attitudes that had developed in the 1960s and 1970s, including "limits to growth," sustainability, neo-Malthusian fears of a population time bomb, pollution, anticorporate anti-Americanism, and an Al Gore-like analysis of human greed disturbing the ecological harmony and balance of the earth.

'Initially, in Europe, the new myth was embraced by both right and left. The right was concerned with breaking the power of traditional trade unions, such as the coal miners -- the labor force behind a major source of carbon-dioxide emissions -- and promoting the development of nuclear power. Britain's Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research was established at the personal instigation of none other than Margaret Thatcher.

'The left, by contrast, was obsessed with population growth, industrialization, the car, development and globalization. Today, the narrative of global warming has evolved into an emblematic issue for authoritarian greens, who employ a form of language that has been characterized by the physicist P.H. Borcherds as "the hysterical subjunctive." And it is this grammatical imperative that is now dominating the European media when they complain about Mr. Bush, the U.S., and their willful denial of the true faith.'

Go figure.




TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climatechange; globaloney; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; kyoto; scam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last
Lando
1 posted on 01/10/2004 6:01:07 PM PST by Lando Lincoln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
Rank Location Receipts Donors/Avg Freepers/Avg Monthlies
1
California
$3,138.00
93
$33.74
1,834
$1.71
$1,492.56
100

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

2 posted on 01/10/2004 6:02:20 PM PST by Support Free Republic (If Woody had gone straight to the police, this would never have happened!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
3 degrees below zero in Boston last night, coldest ever since 1875.

Thirty four degrees below zero in Saranac Lake (near Albany) New York.
3 posted on 01/10/2004 6:04:04 PM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
read later
4 posted on 01/10/2004 6:07:16 PM PST by sauropod (Graduate, Boortz Institute for Insensitivity Training)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
Just heard on the news that Tony Blair is imploring Bush to act on global warming. Agitprop.
5 posted on 01/10/2004 6:08:22 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Ping
6 posted on 01/10/2004 6:09:02 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; AAABEST; Ace2U; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; amom; AndreaZingg; Anonymous2; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

7 posted on 01/10/2004 6:10:30 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: *Global Warming Hoax
Bump
8 posted on 01/10/2004 6:11:24 PM PST by coloradan (Hence, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf
Dear God,

Please send some global warming up here to Minnesota.

Thanks!
9 posted on 01/10/2004 6:11:40 PM PST by Egon (If you can read this tagline, you may be sitting too close to the monitor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
Bookmarked. Thanks for posting this - every single bit of ammunition to use on the enviros is appreciated. They certainly don't stand up well to truthful science.
10 posted on 01/10/2004 6:14:24 PM PST by 11B3 (Democratic Socialists of America: 78 members in Congress. Treason? YES.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Egon
You have my sympathies. It did get down to ten degrees here in Seattle last week, the coldest I've seen it in about 12 years. Still, that ain't no -34!!
11 posted on 01/10/2004 6:16:47 PM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
There are FOUR edges to the "global warming" scam that the enviro's and international socialists are using (1) to attack Bush (in general), the US (in particular) and capitalism (in general).

First: Is the climate warming? Answer: Maybe. Some data says, some is inconclusive. Previous data from the 70's would have indicated we faced a cooling crisis!

Second: What is causing that warming?

We don't know for sure. Previous cycles could NOT have been caused by man, and current CO2 levels DON'T support the warming that (might have) happened already, so we don't know.

Third: Is the US's part of these CO2/freon/methane gasses causing the increase - if the increase is occurring at all? Answer: We don't know, since we don't know if they are the cause. Further, just because some of the gasses are admittedly from the US-econmy, that's only a small part of the total gasses.

Four: Is the US- economy part of these discharges, if controlled by the anti-capitalist Kyoto treaty, going to make a difference in global warming?

And, what EVERYBODY who is using the global-warming excuse ignores - is "If a small rise in fuel and gas cripples the economy, what is the EXREME limit in economic output mandated by our competitors going to do to the economy?
12 posted on 01/10/2004 6:17:40 PM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only support FR by donating monthly, but ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
INTREP - JUNK SCIENCE ALERT
13 posted on 01/10/2004 6:18:35 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf
Maybe we should get Kyoto bunch to address the
36 coalfield fires on a total of 826 hectares scattered along the northern and southern sides of Mt. Tianshan (Heavenly Mountain) in China, burning 10.03 million tons of coal. These fires have been burning for more than 100 years and annually put out more CO2 than all US cars and light trucks do.
Then if we put out the Centralia Pennsylvania fire, we would reduce the CO2 equivalent to all heavy trucks too...
Hey, I can keep my 2 SUV's !!!
14 posted on 01/10/2004 6:19:28 PM PST by DelaWhere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln; RhoTheta; Eb Wilson
I'm not sure I understand the problem.

The global warming people have a WAY inflated estimation of the effect we humans can have on a global level. If they're correct, it should be very easy to come up with an imaginative solution.

I propose the following:

The entire country of Britain can plan a chili cook-off for the middle of summer....at noon. At a pre-arranged signal, everyone can aim their collective asses at the sun... and fart!

The resulting shift in the earth's orbit around the sun should offset the effects of global warming nicely. Additionally, thousands of bean farmers will instantly see black ink on their budgets.
15 posted on 01/10/2004 6:23:01 PM PST by Egon (If you can read this tagline, you may be sitting too close to the monitor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
"...carbon dioxide, supposedly the culprit, makes up such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere that even if it were to quadruple, the effect on climate would be negligible;..."

Why does Ms. Phillips have to say this? CO2 makes up 21% of the atmosphere, hardly "a tiny fraction".

16 posted on 01/10/2004 6:23:46 PM PST by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DelaWhere
All it takes is one good volcanic burp to put millions of tons of CO2 in the air. But CO2, IMHO, is not the cause of weather extremes. The cause is a heating up of the upper atmosphere, caused mainly by air travel. This puts a damper on the normal vertical displacements.
17 posted on 01/10/2004 6:26:28 PM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DaGman
I believe CO2 is only about 3 percent.
18 posted on 01/10/2004 6:27:28 PM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
Kyoto is nothing more than the 3rd wave's way of introducing the PC version of socialism into the world. THANK GOD the Russians and US have held the line thus far.
19 posted on 01/10/2004 6:29:55 PM PST by Beck_isright ("Deserving ain't got nothing to do with it" - William Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaGman
Why does Ms. Phillips have to say this? CO2 makes up 21% of the atmosphere, hardly "a tiny fraction".

You're thinking of oxygen.

Introduction to the Atmosphere: Background Material

20 posted on 01/10/2004 6:31:40 PM PST by Egon (If you can read this tagline, you may be sitting too close to the monitor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DaGman
Not even close to 21% - the atmosphere is composed as follows:

PERMANENT gases in the atmosphere by percent are:

Nitrogen 78.1%
Oxygen 20.9%

(Note that these two permanent gases together comprise 99% of the atmosphere)

Other permanent gases:

Argon 0.9%
Neon 0.002%
Helium 0.0005%
Krypton 0.0001%
Hydrogen 0.00005%

VARIABLE gases in the atmosphere and typical percentage values are:

Carbon Dioxide 0.035%
Methane 0.0002%
Ozone 0.000004%
Water Vapor varies
21 posted on 01/10/2004 6:34:01 PM PST by DelaWhere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: djf
Many places in Florida arer only feed above sea level, If anything had changed you'd see it there!
22 posted on 01/10/2004 6:34:20 PM PST by observer5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DelaWhere
OOps! Knew I was off by at least one decimal point!
23 posted on 01/10/2004 6:37:37 PM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DaGman
You are thinking of oxygen, 21%.
24 posted on 01/10/2004 6:38:16 PM PST by Iris7 ("Duty, Honor, Country". The first of these is Duty, and is known only through His Grace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: djf
LOL Don't feel bad - I've done the same kind of thing many times...
25 posted on 01/10/2004 6:38:55 PM PST by DelaWhere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
As I sit here looking at a thermometer reading -7.4 degrees Farenheit at 2130, I say lets have some climatic warming in upper NY state.

Naturally, the weather varies it always has and it will continue to do so.

26 posted on 01/10/2004 6:40:53 PM PST by Citizen Tom Paine (If information is not presented, is it disinformation?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Global Warming Hoax; *Globaloney
`
27 posted on 01/10/2004 6:43:16 PM PST by Coleus (Merry Christmas, Jesus is the Reason for the Season, Keep Christ in CHRISTmas and the X's out of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DelaWhere
Hey, I can keep my 2 SUV's !!!

Interesting information you have on the Chinese and Centralia coal fires and their relative contributions to atmospheric CO2.

And I don't give a darn how much your 2 SUV's CO2 emissions contribute to "global warming".

What I DO object to is the fact then when my poor little Lincoln Town Car gets parked between two of your tank-like monstrosities, there's no way under heaven that I can back out of a parking place and see oncoming traffic without just backing out and endangering my life.

Or even see a red light over your turrets.

In conclusion, I plain old don't like SUV's.

28 posted on 01/10/2004 6:44:45 PM PST by Ole Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ole Okie
Hehehe - but when you block in my Jeep, I can climb over your Town Car and be on my way.....
Just Kidding...

But- I get better gas mileage than your Lincoln...
29 posted on 01/10/2004 6:48:58 PM PST by DelaWhere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
It.s 4.6 degrees here in CT.and reached a whopping 15 degrees today, please send some of this warming my way.
30 posted on 01/10/2004 6:53:03 PM PST by dirtydanusa (100% American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dad was my hero
bookmark for info.
31 posted on 01/10/2004 7:03:23 PM PST by Dad was my hero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ole Okie
In conclusion, I plain old don't like SUV's.

From one Old Okie to another, get out of that old Town Car and into a Navigator, you will never go back, believe me. I couldn't afford a Navigator so I went with the Expedition, less bells and whistles.

32 posted on 01/10/2004 7:21:06 PM PST by itsahoot (The lesser of two evils, is evil still...Alan Keyes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: djf
3 degrees below zero in Boston last night, coldest ever since 1875.

The main reason I am here instead of there. :)

Local forecast for Palm Springs Rgnl

Tonight. Clear. Lows 38 to 48. Northwest winds around 10 mph.

Sunday. Partly cloudy. Highs 74 to 82. Light winds.

Sunday night. Partly cloudy. Lows 39 to 49. Light winds.

Monday. Mostly sunny. Highs 71 to 81. Northeast winds 10 to 15 mph. Becoming northwest in the afternoon.

Monday night. Partly cloudy. Lows 39 to 49. Northwest winds 10 to 15 mph. Becoming north after midnight.

Tuesday. Partly cloudy in the morning. Then clearing. Highs 73 to 81.

Tuesday night. Clear. Lows 40 to 50.

Wednesday. Sunny. Highs 73 to 82.

Wednesday night. Mostly clear. Lows 40 to 50

Thursday. Mostly sunny. Highs 73 to 81.

Thursday night. Mostly clear. Lows 40 to 50.

Friday. Mostly sunny. Highs 72 to 82.

Friday night. Mostly clear. Lows 41 to 51.

Saturday. Mostly sunny. Highs 71 to 79.

33 posted on 01/10/2004 7:32:56 PM PST by itsahoot (The lesser of two evils, is evil still...Alan Keyes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
The Europeans chose the rules, numbers, and baseline year
to help them and their friends, with the intention of
appearing to be fair, at the same time as causing
massive problems for the US.
Ex1. Baseline year 1990 was chosen by the EUians so that
, with the inclusion of East-Europe in the EU, the
baseline of old-Soviet-style industry, that later went
out of business, would be included in their quota baseline.
Ex2. EUians helped Australia with a rule 3.7 that allows
Australia to include the co2 from burning-down-forests
in their baseline.
Ex3. Why does New Zealand get a number of 100, why does Australia
get a number of l08,when Australia has the highest per-capita co2 emmisions in the world, when the US gets a number of 93.
Because of these rules, the Aus will not need to do anything to be under quota,
the EU is almost under quota by doing nothing,
but there would be massive problems in the US if Kyoto was adopted.
34 posted on 01/10/2004 7:39:51 PM PST by greasepaint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iris7; djf; Egon; DelaWhere
"You are thinking of oxygen, 21%."

Whoops! I stand greatly corrected.

35 posted on 01/10/2004 7:50:19 PM PST by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
Good post. I'm not familiar with Melanie Phillips, but I've made some of these same points myself.

Thanks
36 posted on 01/10/2004 7:50:33 PM PST by nuconvert ("This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
I'm pickin' and grinnin'

One of my daughters had a Ford Explorer. She decided that she needed four-wheel drive to handle the Oklahoma snow, so she acquired a Suburban. Now she can really block my vision.

Fortunately I moved to Jawjuh. While a flake of snow panics the local populace (all the bread and milk disappears from the grocery stores), it doesn't require four-wheel drive to handle.

I LIKE my Town Car. Smooooooth. But I still can't back out of a parking space when surrounded by tank-like monstrosities without risking life and limb.

;)
37 posted on 01/10/2004 7:52:07 PM PST by Ole Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
That was the Independent, a thoroughly socialist rag (Fisk works for them).
38 posted on 01/10/2004 8:01:08 PM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Egon
"Dear God, Please send some global warming up here to Minnesota. Thanks!"

That's the same prayer we pray here (montgomery mn) every year. Bumping...

39 posted on 01/10/2004 8:09:37 PM PST by redhead (Les Franšais sont des singes de capitulation qui mangent du fromage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
Global warming is another big money grab based on unethiccal junk science, like the CFC scam.

Both are intended to make billions for their sponsors, which, in the CFC scam, has already been done.
40 posted on 01/10/2004 8:36:37 PM PST by Imal (No one told me Steve Martin was running for president!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf
The "world of Science" is as full of prejudicial boobs and morons as any other segment of today's society, including religion and Hollywood....well maybe not quite as idiotic as Hollywood.
41 posted on 01/10/2004 8:56:49 PM PST by cookcounty (Howard Dean, mayor of a picturesque small town in New England.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DaGman
You're thinking of O2 not CO2. CO2 is small, about .035%. CO2 is only important because it helps retain heat. http://www.met.fsu.edu/explores/atmcomp.html
42 posted on 01/10/2004 9:02:31 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
They grab ahold of a theory, and hold to it like some kind of sacred mantra. Look at how much resistance there is now to the Atkins diet. The low-fat low-cholesteral veggie types will go kicking and screaming to their graves that Atkins can't work. Even in the face of solid evidence otherwise. I think the global warming crowd is just as fanatical.
43 posted on 01/10/2004 9:19:44 PM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
Here's a wonderful and well sourced article that documents that the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is about 0.28%.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

44 posted on 01/10/2004 9:21:12 PM PST by StopGlobalWhining (Vote Cheney - Rumsfeld in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beck_isright
More accurately, NO NATION has ratified the treaty, last I looked.

See, Bush is being murdered by the media/democrats/socialists/Europeans for refusing to allow the treaty to kill our economy, when the democratic-controlled Senate voted it down 99-0, and NO OTHER nation accepted it limits.

But the ENTIRE WORLD'S temperature problems are Bush's responsibility!
45 posted on 01/10/2004 9:24:11 PM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only support FR by donating monthly, but ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot
ping
46 posted on 01/10/2004 9:25:26 PM PST by nuconvert ("This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
Michael Crichton made a point worth remembering on global warming in a 2002 speech to the International Leadership Forum:
The other thing I will mention to you is that during the last 100 years, while the average temperature on the globe has increased just .3 C, the magnetic field of the earth declined by 10%. This is a much larger effect than global warming and potentially far more serious to life on this planet. Our magnetic field is what keeps the atmosphere in place. It is what deflects lethal radiation from space. A reduction of the earth's magnetic field by ten percent is extremely worrisome.

But who is worried? Nobody. Who is raising a call to action? Nobody. Why not? Because there is nothing to be done.

Bring up the magnetic field at the next party where a hand wringer on global warming spouts off and see if he or she knows what the hell you are talking about.

47 posted on 01/10/2004 10:08:18 PM PST by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beckett
They'll likely just blame any effects, however improbable, on 'global warming'.
48 posted on 01/10/2004 11:17:37 PM PST by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
BTTT!!!!!
49 posted on 01/11/2004 3:12:40 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
I am in the northeast. I would enjoy a little global warming right now.
50 posted on 01/11/2004 3:20:04 AM PST by marbren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson