PING!
this was a superb read.
When the president was asked about this today, he responded that we aren't sure if global warming is created by humans or just a natural cycle of the earth.
I hope someone makes sure he knows that over 17,000 scientists have disputed Gore's movie and think that what global warming there is is just another cycle of the earth. They mentioned that 30 years ago we were supposedly going through an ice age. LOL
Article about the scientists:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1654996/posts
....actually anAL GOREtentive is in a 'urinary emergency' over this....he is wetting his panties non-stop
NO current scientific study on global warming will pall peer review. NONE.
*
I don't read articles which can only be read by linking to a pay site...
No wonder the socialist indoctrination centers (public schools) don't emphasize history. In 1997, during Clinton-Gore, the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 to not consider Kyoto - the Left's global warming Kabuki Dance. Albert, clueless to the meaning of ’95-0’ went to Kyoto anyway and signed it. Clinton didn't bother sending it to the Senate for ratification.
Then, in 2005, at the UN Climate Conference in Montreal, Clinton said President Bush was ‘Flat wrong’ for ignoring Kyoto. Guess it depends on which way the wind is blowing. Wasn't it during the Kyoto-era they blamed cow poop for the methane emissions and global warming? I'm convinced if there is global warming it is caused by the methane emissions from Democrats.
Before the next earthquake in California, I have an idea to beat the Bush-bashers to it. I propose changing the name of the San Andreas Fault.
How 'bout Bush's Fault?
But first, these words from Schlitz!!!
Bump
Is there another way to get this article? I can get opinion journal, but I am not a subscriber to WSJ.
Nice snippet though.
Funny, isn't it, that when Bill Clinton was president, neither he nor Prince Albert did squat about Global Warming®. Now, a few years later, it is a major disaster in the making. What changed?
On the subject of consensus, I would love to see a good survey of climatologists. The Global Warming Alarmists are always crowing about how they are the overwhelming consensus. I'm don't believe that's the case. The recent survey in 2003 suggests that their consensus is not all that strong.
http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Bray.htm
also here:
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm
The question asked was "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes? A value of 1 indicates strongly agree and a value of 7 indicates strongly disagree."
There were 530 valid responses. The results were:
Mean = 3.62; Std. Error of mean = .080; Median = 3.00; Std. deviation = 1.84
Frequencies:
1...... strongly agree 50 (9.4% of valid responses)
2...... 134 (25.3% of valid responses)
3...... 112 (21.1% of valid responses)
4...... 75 (14.2% of valid responses)
5...... 45 (8.5% of valid responses)
6...... 60 (10.8% valid responses)
7...... strongly disagree 54 (9.7% of valid responses
This is a slight rise in consensus compared with the same survey conducted in 1996 which resulted in a mean of 4.1683 to the same question (Five countries USA, Canada, Germany, Italy, and Denmark only in 1996 survey, N = 511). So I guess the consensus is growing slowly - from 4.168 to 3.62 - or 13% in 8 years
I wonder how the result would have changed if the question specified "result of CO2 emissions" instead of "result of anthropogenic causes"
There are lots of other anthropogenic causes besides CO2 emissions (Land use, aerosols, methane, black carbon, dissipated heat from industrialization).
The result you get depends on how the question is worded.