Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 06/06/2009 10:34:25 PM PDT by neverdem
WASHINGTON
U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher was in a froth, and his audience loved it.
The California Republican was talking about global warming and could barely contain his disgust.
"Al Gore has been wrong all along!" Rohrabacher yelled into the microphone. "This is outrageous! All of this is wrong! The people who have stifled this debate have an agenda that is just frightening!"
Welcome to the third annual International Conference on Climate Change, a daylong session of speeches and scientific presentations that took place Tuesday just blocks from the U.S. Capitol. Almost no media covered the event.
Organized by The Heartland Institute and other conservative think tanks and groups, the conference drew about 250 guests, most of them researchers and policy analysts, some from as far away as Japan and Australia.
There was plenty of wry laughter during the day, especially when former Vice President Gore and his award-winning movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," were brought up, which was often.
The conference hall also was filled with a tangible air of frustrated defeat, like the brainy kid in math class who thinks he knows all the answers, raises his hand time and again, but is never called upon.
"We are seldom heard in the policy debate," said Joseph L. Bast, president of The Heartland Institute. "If you open your newspaper, turn on your TV set, you're likely to see global warming alarmism, and nothing else."
Bast labeled as "popular delusion" the current conventional wisdom on the issue - that man-made emissions, notably carbon dioxide, from the burning of fossil fuels is dangerously heating up the planet, causing sea levels to rise and is increasing the ferocity of storms and drought.
As such, the conference represents a lingering - and still powerful - sentiment that global warming is not such a big deal after all.
Instead, attendees argued, the slow and slight increase in air, water and atmospheric temperatures during much of the 20th century is part of a natural cycle of the Earth's unpredictable, roller-coaster weather patterns.
Carbon dioxide, they debated, is not a pollutant that should be regulated, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Supreme Court now hold; it is an attribute that helps plant and sea life.
Bast acknowledged that the conference was hurriedly organized, and moved from New York City to Washington, to counteract proposals from President Barack Obama for a "cap-and-trade" program aimed at fighting global warming by drastically limiting carbon emissions.
Bast and others described the proposed programs as a complete waste of money, with potentially crippling consequences for the economy, and without any attainable goals.
"How do you control the weather?" asked Bob Carter, an Australian scholar from James Cook University. "For us to assume we can somehow control nature and regulate weather patterns, when we cannot even predict them correctly, is patently absurd."
Others saw darker motives in the climate debate.
These skeptics, including Rohrabacher, contended that global warming is a liberal-inspired hoax, intended to wrest control of world energy policy and wealth from Western countries so the United Nations can have its way.
To them, liberty, capitalism and the U.S. economy are at stake.
"I have to wonder what has happened to the sovereignty of the United States," said U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the keynote speaker at the conference and the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which debates climate policy.
Skeptics, or "realists," as they call themselves, focus much of their scorn on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Gore in 2007.
The IPCC consists of hundreds of scientists from across the globe who, for two decades, have tracked climate research and temperature trends, and attempted to interpret what they mean for policymakers.
Its most famous pronouncement, in 2007, was that a marked increase in greenhouse gases from mostly man-made sources is "very likely" causing climate change.
"Very likely," the IPCC wrote, means a 90 percent certainty that human activity, not natural variability, is the driving force.
The IPCC also noted that many geographical areas seem especially susceptible to climate change, including low-lying coastal areas, such as southeastern Virginia and northeastern North Carolina.
But scientist after scientist at the conference pointed out flaws and shortcomings in the calculations of the IPCC, especially its reliance on computer models to make forecasts.
One researcher, Roy Spencer, a professor at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, noted that the IPCC did not adequately calculate how clouds play a major role in ground temperatures.
When there are few clouds in the sky, temperatures typically are warmer, Spencer said, and when it is cloudy outside, conditions typically are cooler.
Is it possible then, Spencer asked, that decreasing clouds in recent decades caused the warmings recorded on Earth?
Spencer said he asked the IPCC about this and was surprised to learn that the organization had not researched this point and had assumed that cloud cover does not change over time but is fairly consistent.
The two revelations sparked more wry laughter from the audience.
"If a 1 percent change in cloudiness could trigger global warming, or global cooling, wouldn't you think that'd be a pretty important thing to nail down?" Spencer asked. "They have never gone there."
Skepticism over climate science is hardly new. Indeed, skepticism has always been a part of scientific discourse and has been around global warming since the 1970s, when the theory first gained credence.
William "Skip" Stiles, a Norfolk environmentalist, was working as a congressional aide back then, and he remembers the committee hearings, the charges and countercharges of bias and flawed science.
"I will agree that these models are only as good as the data that goes into them," Stiles said. "But when you think of all the shots these folks have had at this, and all the years of research by the IPCC - we're talking 25 years! - you have to think we've reached some fairly solid conclusions that global warming is real and we, as humans, are playing a major role in it."
Carl Hershner, a researcher and professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science who has tracked sea level rise in Virginia for years, expressed similar thoughts.
"One thing about science is that you never get rid of all the naysayers," Hershner said. He described the IPCC as "an extremely conservative group" that "constantly looks at achieving consensus, and updates its findings regularly."
In his keynote address Tuesday, Sen. Inhofe predicted that cap-and-trade will pass the House of Representatives - "Nancy Pelosi has the votes," he said - but will stall in the Senate, where previous climate-change programs have similarly died.
Last year, without any action coming from Washington, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine appointed a Climate Change Commission to suggest ways Virginia can reduce carbon emissions and lessen its role in accelerating warming.
The theory that global warming is a natural phenomenon, and not man-made, was not part of commission deliberations.
"The fact that global climate change is happening and is largely human-caused is now widely accepted," reads the commission's final report, published in December.
At the bottom of the page, however, is a footnote: "While we have concluded that the overwhelming evidence supports these points, we have heard testimony providing contrary information during public comment periods at our meetings."
State Sen. Frank Wagner, a Republican from Virginia Beach, was a member of the climate commission. He also has attended one of the skeptics' conferences in New York City.
"I've tried to keep an open mind," Wagner said. "There are so many theories out there, and so much detail, you're kind of overwhelmed.
"I mean, even the scientists themselves are debating with each other at these meetings. You're left wondering what the truth really is."
Scott Harper, (757) 446-2340, scott.harper@pilotonline.com
What’s your opinion of the Virginian-Pilot? Do you ever read it.
With a “solar minimum” in place this will be a very cool summer and the greenhouse guys will be perplexed. Al Gore will eat crow.
Abortions would become mandatory under the law.
Family sizes would be capped.
Life extending medical procedures would be denied
to the elderly and in firmed.
JJ61
Judging from this soft-hit piece, it's RINO.
James M. Taylor, senior fellow for The Heartland Institute explained, "It is not surprising the UN has completely rejected dissenting voices. They have been doing this for years. The censorship of scientists is necessary to promote their political agenda. After the science reversed on the alarmist crowd, they claimed 'the debate is over' to serve their wealth redistribution agenda."
It’s not “global warming”.
It’s “climate change”.
And we were right all along.
Now pay your taxes and vote democrat. :)
Thanks for the link.
I thought it was just so Al ("my mommie dresses me funny") Gore could make a bunch-o-$$$$(?)
Who was it who, earlier this week, said, “When is it time to execute the deniers” or some such?
Scary indeed!
AFAIC, Gore himself is a climate change denier regarding the sun’s, clouds’, wind patterns’ and earth axis’ contributions.
Since 1998, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased every year.
Since 1998, there has been NO increase in the global temperature measured by satellites.
Since 1998, there has been NO increase in global ocean temperature measured by buoys.
All the computer models used by the United Nations predicted that satellite and buoy temperatures would rise.
If the UN’s computer models cannot make correct estimates over ten years, why would anyone believe the models can correctly predict temperatures in 50 or 100 years?
“What’s your opinion of the Virginian-Pilot?”
“in a froth” (imagery - at the mouth)
I immediately have a bad opinion of it.
Never read it but I'm from Ohio :-) Did anyone else find this passage strange?.... :
===
William "Skip" Stiles, a Norfolk environmentalist, was working as a congressional aide back then, and he remembers the committee hearings, the charges and countercharges of bias and flawed science.
"I will agree that these models are only as good as the data that goes into them," Stiles said. "But when you think of all the shots these folks have had at this, and all the years of research by the IPCC - we're talking 25 years! - you have to think we've reached some fairly solid conclusions that global warming is real and we, as humans, are playing a major role in it."
Carl Hershner, a researcher and professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science who has tracked sea level rise in Virginia for years, expressed similar thoughts.
"One thing about science is that you never get rid of all the naysayers," Hershner said. He described the IPCC as "an extremely conservative group" that "constantly looks at achieving consensus, and updates its findings regularly." ====
I'm guessing these two guys were _not_ at the conference but the placement of the passage between two people's comments that were there, would make you think so. If that is the case, (ie. if they weren't there), then it looks as if the conference was a 'bipartisan' event and I'm pretty sure that was not the case. IOW, someone _could_ conclude that 'even among the skeptics there are dissenters', which would tend to dilute the message. Right?
Welcome to FR! Sorry to hear about your son. Do a bit of research on sunspots, that’s what’s caused the fluctuations. We’re at right around zero now, and I don’t know about you but it’s the seventh of June and I’m freezing my butt off (Chicago)!
Sounds like your son is surrounded by zealots, and it IS a religion to these people. Pray for him, and pray hard. The battle is the Lord’s.
Usually cogitator has chimed in with his glo-baloney by now.
Well climate and weather aren’t the same thing, which is why we should never argue against climate change being baloney because its freezing in the middle of June, or whatever.
However, the one certainly causes the other.
The profusion of evidence, assertions, charges and countercharges proves to me one thing: climate is very very complex, has a huge number of variables and we really dont know enough about it to make any kind of future prediction accurate.
The one aspect of all this I live is that if you pay attention the MidStream Media love to splatter some headline across all the front pages of the world like "Arctic Ice melting, thinnest ice in centuries" and then a few months later some new technology that they deploy to actually measure the ice thickness shows that their prior technique was wrong and that there is actually not only more ice than they appreciated but may be "GROWING" ice thickness THAT story can only be found of FreeRepublic. That story isn't even at the bottom of page D-32 between the mattress ads and the public service announcements.
It really has been clear that our media have been overtly lying to us for years (who knows maybe even all along, since there was "a press"). These kinds of variance in publication aren't coincidental. I remember 25 years ago there was a sign on the Skyline Drive in Virginia that claimed that pollution in OHIO was the cause of haziness one could see as you looked west. There was a picture taken from the same vantage in the '20s and one could really see clearly much farther. The sign proclaimed it was man caused pollution and "URGENT ACTION" was required to remedy the desperate situation. Reagan was ridiculed for pointing out that actually that haze was natural aerosols from trees and if you compared the landscape to the picture and gave it ANY THOUGHT AT ALL there was indeed one thing missing in the picture from 1920. TREES. There were NO TREES. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. Well that sign is gone now and only those few of us who remember it are here to still tell the tale. Where is the story in the media that looks back at the track record of these global warming folks? That story isn't on the "media template" and never will be because it makes the Fed Gummint look like a slobbering idiot.
They call them the Smokey Mountains for a reason. What could it be?
It snowed in North Dakota yesterday.....
That hoax gore pulled wasn’t his worst one. Claiming he won the election, was the worst. For 8 years that ass had people day after day saying selected not elected. Even though they and HE knew better.
They must be defeated, there is no getting along with any of them. F em all!
Snowing in Montana and Wyoming today. Nashville tied lows not seen since 1946 and the 1880’s. Al Gore’s 50,000 minutes is just about up.
It is getting so we almost cant talk to each other any more.
************************************************************
This is the intent of the warming freaks. They inject pure emotion into their arguments and unfortunately many simply buy into it and refuse to look at contrary evidence.
No “scientist” is worth his salt if he refuses to continually look at and evaluate new evidence. No science is EVER decided as the freaks have claimed this is.
I mean no disrespect towards your son but do hope you didn’t spend to much money on his education because it doesn’t look as if he was well served by his teachers.
The main problem I have is the my son says his opinion is based on his own data and research not just all other scientists he talks to, so when I try to challenge his notions he acts like Im calling him a lier or something. The other day he tried to show me some charts of ocean temperatures and plankten samples and how carbon was building up and making acid. Ill admit it was all a bit over my head, but since this is his own research he obviously has a lot of emotion tied to and that makes it hard to talk to him about it. He honestly thinks people like us are ‘killing the planet’. Im really glad Ive found a community like this where I can share because since my husband has been gone some years I dont have anyone to about this.
Perhaps a more important question to ask is what is your opinion of Al Gore?
Climate change is a given; the issue is can man control the change?
Al Gore knows that man cannot alter the change to any substantial degree. Nonetheless, Al Gore also knows there is considerable profit in persuading the nation’s fools that man can alter the climate.
Perhaps after Al Gore manages the climate we can get him to devout his talents to solving that pesky continental drift problem plaguing the nation.
Because there is no one definite cause for the weather cycles of the globe, it will be very hard to refute one single answer for warming, especially for dense, simple-minded, blind liberals.
First, it’s ridiculous for any scientist to proclaim that humans are killing the planet. We simply do not have the capability to destroy it. We do, however, have the ability to kill ourselves and that would happen long before we do any permanent damage to the planet. If he cannot admit that then he is no scientist.
It is short sighted to glean such grandiose assumptions based on such a narrow scope of data. How many times have scientist told us something would harm us and our environment, only to have them reverse course and say, oh never mind.
Youth is wasted on the youth. Based on their limited personal experience they form hypothesis about life. It all seems correct until they get more data. That data usually comes in the form of life experience.
Best thing you can do as a parent is make the argument that you love him and will always be there, regardless of his beliefs. Once his world is shattered and his beliefs shaken, he will have someone in the world who will say, “I love you” as opposed to, “I told you so.”
Don’t be that parent who says I told you so, because having to face that may be too large an obstacle for his pride to overcome. Make the path back to a loving relationship uncluttered with arguments that mean nothing.
“”I mean, even the scientists themselves are debating with each other at these meetings. You’re left wondering what the truth really is.””
Well doncha think you out to figure that out before wrecking your economy over a hoax, you MORON (directed at the rep, not the freeper who posted).
But it is the source of his data that is to be questioned. Surely he himself hasn’t done the sampling from 1000’s of sq kilometers as would be necessary to get dependable results.
You may want to ask him why the gang who began and are pushing all this crap, 68 alleged “experts” have had a few of their members actually turn on them and give back the NOBEL prize they were awarded for their work. These people resented that fcat their work was misrepresented and actually misreported.
Go here:
And remember, no one is disputing the fact that the globe may in fcat have been warming (it has actually been cooling since 2000, tell your son that) but are saying the change, warming OR cooling is not the result of what man has done.
With regards to cooling, go to this link and read ALL of it. You will be amazed at the level of expertise of the people who have provided input that is totally at odds with what your son believes. In the article are names which you can then research to get yet more info to support your case.
http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/ice_age_cooling/2009/01/13/170804.html
BTW, you may want to ask him why it snowed for the first time in 6+0 years in June in the State of North Dakota and they had sub freezing temperatures in upstate NY for the 1st time in 30 years only last week. Also just WHY did the wackos change Global Warming to Climate Change? I mean how dumb are they? There is ALWAYS climate change, it happens every day and has forever. The reason is they were getting humiliated by having thier events cancelled by blizzards and record low temps all the time so had to come up with another name to use to bullsh*t the masses.
As a long time Virginia resident, neither do I subscribe to or read the liberal-oriented Virginian Pilot, ever.
There is a pretty simple answer to this if your son will believe it. God made everything in the world a self-correcting cycle. Do you believe God would make the world he saved so fragile that man driving cars could destroy it. That is just nonsense. Tell him to go back to science 101 and study the rain cycle. The same thing will happen with the oceans, if they are becoming to acidic something will change to make them more alkaline, just don’t look at a small subset of data and think it will go on forever because it won’t (unless your future paycheck relies on it).
You could be right. If so, it would be a journalistic sleight of hand. I was just happy that it was being covered in a local paper, not the usual conservative site loaded with commentary, but not much news stories.
Thanks, LOL!
If this is a lefty rag, then its coverage is even better. Thank you for the feedback!
Is global warming caused by human activity? written by a physicist with a Ph.D.
You can look up global cooling and sunspots. Good luck!
ICCC Three Brings Climate Reality To Washington DC
Sotomayor and the Ugliness of Identity Politics
Menendez: Voters will punish GOP
Jack Cashill: Reopen the TWA Flight 800 Case
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Thanks for the ping!
That's my view and I will vote again for Dana,,...I am in his district!
That theory has deniers also and they have a strong case ...Looking for some threads...
Welcome by the way....
The Pain in Spain is Their Broken Energy Policy (The Energy policy that is coming to the US)
Pouring cold water on global warming - Global cooling has arrived. Global warming is dead.
Warming Skeptics Get Heard on the Hill
Is man-made global warming real?
AND now to NASA:
**********************Good Info**********************
NASA Still Hiding Correlation Between Solar Activity & Temperature
And a couple of threads off the same article:
NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming
***************
NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming...
Sun entering weakest cycle since 1928
NOAA releases new predictions for solar cycle
****************************************
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.
