February 25, 2007
Convenient Fiction

Al Gore's sci-fi film Inconvenient Truth has won the Oscar for Best Documentary.

Meanwhile, in other global warming headlines, "Nine die as snow, freezing rain sock US midwest, east"

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 25, 2007 08:13 PM | Email This
Comments
1. you're NOT really watching it/// you read it somewhere right?

Posted by: Andy on February 25, 2007 08:15 PM
2. Al Gore's film is not a documentary. It is fiction. It should not have won, but we all knew it would because the award is agenda driven and not on merits. Why anyone watches the Oscar garbage, I have no idea.

Read more here.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 25, 2007 08:46 PM
3. I watched Al Gore's documentary in its entirety on the Internet (the cable modem is great for full-screen streaming video) and am certain that the Oscar was won based upon its merits. Has anyone here watched An Inconvenient Truth?

Now, back to the weather: The air conditioner became necessary again last night and again tonight. The Florida "winter" did not last very long: Just a handful of days requiring the heater's use for a handful of hours. The jacket was never needed this winter. Not once did I wear jeans instead of shorts because of the temperature.

In other words: Florida had a hot winter this year.

As to last week's cold front: For those who want to appreciate what cold fronts do to Florida's weather, I encourage you to visit my photo page:

David Mathews' Photo Page

View the folders titled:

February 20a, 2007 and
February 20b, 2007

You will gain a true appreciation for why winter in Florida is a wonderful season.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 25, 2007 08:50 PM
4. Stefan, the ongoing rants about climate change are amusing, but hardly an example of sound reasoning on your part. The discussions in "An Inconvenient Truth" and in the underlying scientific literature make it clear that different geographic areas will see different effects, including warmer or cooler local temperatures and wetter or drier local weather. The concern is with ongoing global temperature averages, not short-term fluctuations.

In particular, the consequences of substantial melting of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica may be devestating. Even the melting of mountaintop glaciers will have real impacts on the ecosystems surrounding them, and consequently on people.

While there is plenty of information available on the current state of the ice sheets in the Antarctic and Greenland, there is no need to go far to see some of the results. I hiked up to the Carbon Glacier at Mount Rainier a couple of summers ago and was shocked at both how it had changed since I was a kid and how obviously it was shrinking. Assuming that Rep. Dicks gets the funding necessary to reopen the park this summer, it's worth a hike to see it yourself. The science is unambigious, but there's something compelling about firsthand looks.

Posted by: Darcy Burner on February 25, 2007 08:58 PM
5. Darcy--
First you say we will see different impacts of Global Warming in different places........
then you identify a Mt. Rainier Glacier & hold it up as evidence.

Fear-mongering, illogic & blaming Bush are easier than solving problems like terrorism huh?!

Posted by: duh on February 25, 2007 09:03 PM
6. I hiked up Mt. Shasta in 1997, but I didn't conclude anything about the glaciers because spot observations based on emotion and gut feel is not science.

In fact, that reminds me of Gore's Inconvenient Truth, where spot observations of glacier calving, with ominous music is a poor substitute for actual research with respect to increase of ice on the continent of Antarctica as a whole. The research is out there for the reading, but it's not in Al Gore's movie.

How inconvenient.

And now, the Oscar for best use of PowerPoint goes to, Al Gore.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 25, 2007 09:08 PM
7. Jeff B. -- It was for folks like you that the word "truthiness" was invented.

As I stated earlier, the science is unambiguous. If you're not sure where to start, and if you can't bring yourself to watch Al Gore (though he does deliver a heck of a Powerpoint presentation), you might consider starting with the recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf.

Of course, I admit I'm assuming that you actually have some interest in understanding reality.

Posted by: Darcy Burner on February 25, 2007 09:15 PM
8. Smarmy and Supercilious come to mind the rest of us think of you too Darcy. Hey thanks agian for all of your help over at the Senior Center..oh wait, you don't help out there. Joel says thanks for walking the talk and campaigning so hard for the School Bond, maybe we can get it next time....that's right you were not involved again! Good thing you have this Global Warming thing to fall back on.

Posted by: Huh? on February 25, 2007 09:30 PM
9. There's no scientific consensus that Global Warming is man made, or that man would have a significant impact in reducing it through so-called, Greenhouse gases. Anyone who has done even a cursory study of the atmosphere knows that water and nitrogen make up far more of the atmosphere than CO2. And, we don't even know what the "right" climate is. It could be that a little bit warmer is actually beneficial. Many scientists have peer reviewed papers that show that CO2 is not the mechanism for so-called Greenhouse effects.

The IPCC cover political document which was just released in advance of the actual scientific report, and in its own words, to give time for the science to be brought in line with the advance political statement, lowers estimates of possible sea level rise from what was quoted in Al Gore's mockumentary.

There is no crisis, nothing even close. Eight inches of sea level rise over 100 years would easily be adapted to by humans with individual resources. The crisis reaction would solve only to divert funds from wealthier nations to poorer nations and would work against the solving of real and important problems that confront mankind such as cancer, AIDS, transportation, etc.

Go do the searches and read the articles. Start with Googling Global Warming Myths. There's a lot research and a lot of real scientists, many of them top level climatologists that disagree. But it takes courage to develop a scientific understand, it's not glamorous, and it often takes a long time, as opposed to a 90 minute emotion laden mockumentary. And Gore's fiction is all that many people have ever bothered to take in when forming their basis for understanding whether or not there is any threat.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 25, 2007 09:41 PM
10. Sorry Darcy, but you guys have already been "outed" as picking and choosing passages of that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ... how typically convenient.

Furthermore, while good old Al blames global warming for an increase in hurricanes, he is again soundly refuted by Chris Landsea, science and operations director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami who said the notion that global warming is causing an increase in hurricanes gained widespread attention after the stormy seasons of 2004 and 2005.

But that perception is wrong and the statistics don't bear it out, Landsea told about 200 students and professors in the auditorium at USC's geography building. Further study continues to show that hurricane activity occurs in cycles of 20 to 45 years, he said. Even though the seasons of 2004, when four hurricanes bashed Florida, and 2005, when Katrina devastated New Orleans and neighboring parts of the Gulf Coast, seemed shocking, they were no more intense than some storms in the early part of the 20th century and in the 1930s, Landsea said.


The 1926-1935 period was worse for hurricanes than the past 10 years and 1900-1905 was almost as bad, he said. So it is not true that there is a trend of more and stronger hurricanes.

"It's not a trend, it's a cycle: 20-45 years quiet, 20-45 years busy," Landsea said. Scientists currently have no idea what causes the time period.

As a point of future reference you might not want to confuse consensus with fact...especially when those forming the consensus are the very same folks benefitting from it. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.

It is supreme arrogance to think that mere humans can affect the climate.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 25, 2007 09:46 PM
11. Al's 10 years to global doomsday is down to 8 years, 337 days, 2 hours and about 5 min.

BOO!

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 25, 2007 09:52 PM
12. And "truthiness?" How quaint. That shows that some people spend time watching faux comedy news shows. What matters is not trite bromides like "truthiness" that are meant as dismissals, but fact based arguments.

1. truthiness (noun). 1 : "truth that comes from the gut, not books"

Truthiness appears to fit more with watching Al Gore's movie or walking up a glacier than researching climatology on the Internet.

A rational person should place way more weight in reading and comprehending 10 or 20 papers on climatology to gauge arguments, and form their own conclusions instead of being swayed by emotion laden fiction posing as a documentary. But in the sound bite world in which we live, far too many are happy with fallacious dismissals based on "truthiness," and movie star award ceremonies than the hard scientific work it takes to arrive at best answer to complex questions.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 25, 2007 09:53 PM
13. Darn that inconvenient global warming:

Huge Storm Heads East; 8 Dead in Midwest
Feb 25, 6:13 PM (ET)
By DAVID N. GOODMAN
DETROIT (AP) - The remnants of a huge winter storm plowed toward the East Coast on Sunday after dumping as much as 2 feet of snow in the upper Midwest, grounding hundreds of airline flights and closing major highways on the Plains.

Eight traffic deaths were blamed on the storm, seven in Wisconsin and one in Kansas.

~~

Wintry Mess Affecting The Mid-Atlantic
State College, PA) - The intense storm that brought severe thunderstorms to the southern Plains Saturday, and a paralyzing blizzard to the High Plains, has advanced into the East. Despite losing some of its strength, the storm is still packing a punch with snow and ice from the northern Plains into the Northeast.

With temperatures falling below freezing across parts of the East and warm moist air ahead of the storm system advancing from the West, there will be some significant icing across areas of the East during the overnight hours.

~~

35 Cars Collide in Colorado Whiteout
Feb 24 4:01 PM US/Eastern
By CHASE SQUIRES
Associated Press Writer

DENVER (AP) -- A large, fast-moving snowstorm closed sections of major highways on the Plains on Saturday and threatened to dump more than a foot of snow on the Upper Midwest.
Interstate 70, a major cross-country route, was closed for about 200 miles in both directions from just east of Denver to Colby, Kan., because of blowing snow and slippery pavement, according to Colorado and Kansas highway officials.

~~

It cracks me up that every time Al gets up to bloviate, God smacks him down with distinctly anti-global warming weather!

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 25, 2007 10:02 PM
14. Darcy, since you cite the IPCC as "fact," are you completely unaware that even its absurd scaremongering is about 2000% less scary than the Prophet Gore's "science"? 17" of sea level rise as opposed to 30 feet? His movie was no more an accurate portrayal of climate change than was "The Day After Tomorrow." I understand global warming is the religion of the Left, but when your various apostles disagree so profoundly, doesn't that give you some pause?

If any of these self agrandizing fools gave two and a half damns about global warming, they would:

- Cancel the Oscars - think of all the energy it took!

- Urge people to turn off their televisions to save energy.

- Urge people not to attend their movies, because of the driving to the theater and energy the theater takes.

- Stop making movies all together, stick to plays by candlelight, and spend their time planting trees.

- Refuse to ever fly anything but coach, and then only if they really, really needed to.

- Sell their energy sucking mansions and live in one bedroom flats.

Of course, none of them do, including Al Gore, which means they're betting their lives and the lives of their children that they're completely wrong.

Same goes for you, Darcy - if you actually thought it was a problem, you'd sell your house and your car. Next quarter, if you use your laptop to take notes in class, I shall brand you guilty of contributing to the problem.

Gore said he was working on this for 30 years - wasn't global COOLING the problem back then?

Posted by: Orrin Johnson on February 25, 2007 10:06 PM
15. Imagine A World Without America

"At a time of rampant anti-Americanism this ad aims to remind the world of the great economic, technological and political benefits that the US has brought to the world."

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 25, 2007 10:07 PM
16. Right- go live in a grass hut because Al Gore said so. America bad- third world victimized. We so evil, we so evil.

Gore's another breed of the 80's tele-villain-vangelist preying on a different type of self loathing and fear. Where do I mail my check to?

When Gore's family consumes less energy than mine, I'll think about watching his b-movie.

Posted by: Andy on February 25, 2007 10:13 PM
17. So, a bunch of obscenely-rich, fluff-haired, empty-headed, reality-challenged scientologists think "the Goreacle's" fraudumentory is worthy of an oscar. They should know, they're the experts on "suspended disbelief".

Posted by: starboardhelm on February 25, 2007 10:27 PM
18. Privately, I'm hoping Gore is right. He claims the seas will rise 200+ feet by 2100. In that case, my heirs will have some prime waterfront property to sell!

Posted by: starboardhelm on February 25, 2007 10:32 PM
19. Now that Dr. Al Gore, eminent honorary climatologist, has been duly recognized by his fellow experts as the true bringer of wisdom to the ignorant masses can't we all just stop debating the issue.

The science is complete, the debate is over, the consensus has spoken.

Praise be to Dr. Gore!

Posted by: deadwood on February 25, 2007 10:49 PM
20. Gee. When I was a kid ... hiking and observing glaciers just so I could have a baseline 30 years later when trying to make a useless point ... they were saying this:

"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

July, 1974. Time Magazine.

I didn't buy into the political agenda and scare tactics of your elders then, Darcy. I don't buy into your political agenda and scare tactics now.

Posted by: jimg on February 25, 2007 10:53 PM
21. Meanwhile on PBS...Nature had a program on how cold it is in the Southern Hemisphere and how southern glaciers in Chile are growing at far higher latitudes (as in longitude & latitudes) than in the northern reaches...go figure!!!

Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on February 25, 2007 11:13 PM
22. The only reliable way to get average temeratures over the surface of an entire planet is to have a grid regularly spaced instruments placed over the entire planet.

We don't have that. All we have are instruments of varying accuracy placed where a wide variety of people have placed them for a wide variety of purposes and mostly in places where people live.

There is one set of readings, those taken by satelites, that can provide something close to a regular grid of readings, but these only provide a record for the fourty years or so.

A funny thing happens though if you compare the satelite readings with the land based instrument record. They don't agree very well on what is happening over the last 40 or so years. The lad based instruments placed hap-hazardly where people live show much greater temperature rises than the satelite ones.

So which ones do the AGW crowd chose to callibrate their models? No brainer, eh? Choose the ones that fit the theory best. Don't all good scientist do it that way?

Another problem with the land based intruments is that they only go back a short way in time. Good instruments have only been around in quantity since the 1940's and before the mid 19th century none existed at all.

There are ways to estimate temperature from before the mid 19th century (these are called temperature proxies), but even the IPCC political scientists have had to admit that estimates for anything before 1850 are poor at best.

So we have climate models that are callibrated using the least accurate temperatures. And these models are providing us with estimates of future climate scenarios that the AGW chicken littles say require all of the developed world to stop right now doing what made us the developed world.

Oh yeah, and the undeveloped and developing world can go on doing what we must stop.

What is wrong with this? Perhaps now that Dr. Gore, eminent honorary climatologist, has gotten his little gold statue we can all just forget about how to do science the way it has been done for the last 200 years.

Then again, what happens when the planet once again goes back to cooling in 5 or 20 years? Will we have forgotten Dr. Gore, eminent honorary climatologist, and fall for the global cooling scare again?

Or will enough of us remember how we were once fooled by these snakes. And what happens if we encounter a real environmental problem? Will we have heard wolf cried once too often?

Posted by: deadwood on February 25, 2007 11:34 PM
23. Deadwood, if only it were that simple. Unfortunately, what's going to happen is the Prophet Al will take credit for the non-disasters that have taken place. He will then use it as vinidcation and thus moral authority to continue his political agenda, which happens to coincide nicely with socialism, substantial diminishment of private property rights (except his), and a weak USA. Whatever bad comes of it will be Bush's fault.

If ridiculous scare-mongerers and religous doomsdayers who say "only by following ME and sending ME money can you avert disaster!" didn't sell, they wouldn't be such a fixture in world history. Sadly, Gore is nothing new, nor will his ilk ever disappear.

Posted by: Orrin Johnson on February 25, 2007 11:50 PM
24. For a different perspective, read the LA Times story, picked up in the Seattle Times, about the impact of rising sea levels in Bangladesh.

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=bangladesh23&date=20070223&query=bangladesh

===

Global warming has a taste in this village. It is the taste of salt.

Only a few years ago, water from the local pond was fresh and sweet on Samit Biswas' tongue. It quenched his family's thirst and cleansed their bodies.

But drinking a cupful now leaves a briny flavor in his mouth. Tiny white crystals sprout on Biswas' skin after he bathes and in his clothes after his wife washes them.

The change, international scientists say, is the result of intensified flooding caused by shifting climate patterns. Warmer weather and rising oceans are sending seawater surging up Bangladesh's rivers in greater volume and frequency than ever before, experts say, overflowing and seeping into the soil and water supply of thousands of people.

Posted by: Stuart Jenner on February 25, 2007 11:53 PM
25. Stuart -

I too read that bit of GW propaganda about the pond water getting salty. Obviously these folks never heard of over irrigation in low lying river deltas, about land subsidence, and other factors that lead to the same phenomenon.

But then again, none of the other explanations help Dr. Al sell his patent medicine.

Posted by: deadwood on February 26, 2007 12:02 AM
26. How is this any different then Michael "Fat Ass" Moore winning in 2004 for his "documentary"....

Posted by: Manco_Dollars on February 26, 2007 12:25 AM
27. Al Gore greatly deserved AN Oscar, but it should have been for Best Actor.

Posted by: Bart Cannon on February 26, 2007 12:52 AM
28. I work with an office full of Liberals. We agree on almost NOTHING when it comes to politics. However the one thing I have found that most of us do agree on is that Global Warming is a farse. I was quite surprised to find this out.

Apparently not all the lefties drank the kool-aide.

Posted by: Right Wing Wacko on February 26, 2007 04:28 AM
29. I love the idea of the seas rising so much. There is not that much water in the world to cause this action.
One study of 125 thousand years ago says the water levels were 10 to 15 feet higher than today.
And the Global Temperature was 3 - 4 Degrees warmer than today. And it took centuries to melt all the ice in Greenland at that temperature.
The incovient truth is that some areas are loosing thier ice pack but other areas are getting thicker. The scientists that support Global warming will ignore nor take into account that Differences. Plus instead of starting thier study in the 1800's where there are temperture records. They start in 1960. I guess the world did not exist prior to 1960. Yet CO2 levels have been growing since the early 1900's.
The inconvient truth of thier theories are nothing more than hot air. To talk about climate you have to talk about Centuries. Not Decades. 1960 was about the coolest year on the recent past. So it gives a chance to make Global warming appear to be happening.
As one weatherman explained the weather. As Temperatures rise more snow and Glaciers start growing again. More mosture makes it ways to the poles and into the mountains. Sure some areas are losing Ice packs but other are growing. I do not see the oceans rising a foot or more a year. To get Gore's prediction. the Seas must be rising very rapidily yet I do not see any indication that it is even rising 1 or 2 inches a year. Let alone enought to cause the oceans to rise 100 feet. That is a lot of ice that has to melt. I would like to know where they found that much ice.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on February 26, 2007 07:00 AM
30. Darcy,
It's hopeless. Some folks are immune to new information.

Posted by: David Sucher on February 26, 2007 07:25 AM
31. A skeptic's take on man-made global warming

By Bill Steigerwald

Timothy Ball is no wishy-washy skeptic of global warming. The Canadian climatologist, who has a Ph.D. in climatology from the University of London and taught at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, says that the widely propagated "fact" that humans are contributing to global warming is the "greatest deception in the history of science."

Ball has made no friends among global warming alarmists by saying that global warming is caused by the sun, that global warming will be good for us and that the Kyoto Protocol "is a political solution to a nonexistent problem without scientific justification."

Needless to say, Ball strongly disagrees with the findings of the latest report from the United Nations' Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change, which on Feb. 2 concluded that it is "very likely" that global warming is the result of human activity.

I talked to Ball by phone on Feb. 6 from his home on Victoria Island, British Columbia, which the good-humored scientist likes to point out was connected to the mainland 8,000 years ago when the sea level was 500 feet lower.

Q: The mainstream media would have us believe that the science of global warming is now settled by the latest IPCC report. Is it true?

A: No. It's absolutely false. As soon as people start saying something's settled, it's usually that they don't want to talk about it anymore. They don't want anybody to dig any deeper. It's very, very far from settled. In fact, that's the real problem. We haven't been able to get all of the facts on the table. The IPCC is a purely political setup.

There was a large group of people, the political people, who wanted the report to be more harum-scarum than it actually is. In fact, the report is quite a considerable step down from the previous reports. For example, they have reduced the potential temperature rise and they've reduced the sea level increase and a whole bunch of other things. Part of it is because they know so many people will be watching the report this time.

Q: Why should we be leery of the IPCC's report -- or the summary of the report?

A: Well, because the report is the end product of a political agenda, and it is the political agenda of both the extreme environmentalists who of course think we are destroying the world. But it's also the political agenda of a group of people ... who believe that industrialization and development and capitalism and the Western way is a terrible system and they want to bring it down.

They couldn't do it by attacking energy because they know that would get the public's back up very quickly. ... The vehicle they chose was CO2, because that's the byproduct of industry and fossil-fuel burning, which of course drives the whole thing. They think, "If we can show that that is destroying the planet, then it allows us to control." Unfortunately, you've got a bunch of scientists who have this political agenda as well, and they have effectively controlled the IPCC process.

Q: You always hear the argument that the IPCC has several thousand scientists -- how can you not accept what they say?

A: The answer, first of all, is that consensus is not a scientific fact. The other thing is, you look at the degree to which they have controlled the whole IPCC process. For example, who are the lead authors? Who are the scientists who sit on the summary panel with the politicians to make sure that they get their view in? Š You've got this incestuous little group that is controlling the whole process both through their publications and the IPCC. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I hate being even pushed toward that, but I think there is a consensus conspiracy that's going on.

Q: What is your strongest or best argument that GW is not "very likely" to be caused by SUVs and Al Gore's private planes?

A: I guess the best argument is that global warming has occurred, but it began in 1680, if you want to take the latest long-term warming, and the climate changes all the time. It began in 1680, in the middle of what's called "The Little Ice Age" when there was three feet of ice on the Thames River in London. And the demand for furs of course drove the fur trade. The world has warmed up until recently, and that warming trend doesn't fit with the CO2 record at all; it fits with the sun-spot data. Of course they are ignoring the sun because they want to focus on CO2.

The other thing that you are seeing going on is that they have switched from talking about global warming to talking about climate change. The reason for that is since 1998 the global temperature has gone down -- only marginally, but it has gone down. In the meantime, of course, CO2 has increased in the atmosphere and human production has increased. So you've got what Huxley called the great bane of science -- "a lovely hypothesis destroyed by an ugly fact." So by switching to climate change, it allows them to point at any weather event -- whether it's warming, cooling, hotter, dryer, wetter, windier, whatever -- and say it is due to humans. Of course, it's absolutely rubbish.

Q: What is the most exaggerated and unnecessary worry about global warming or climate change?

A: I think the fact that it is presented as all negative. Of course, it's the one thing they focus on because the public, with the huge well of common sense that is out there, would sort of say, "Well, I don't understand the science, but, gee, I wouldn't mind a warmer world, especially if I was living in Canada or Russia." They have to touch something in the warming that becomes a very big negative for the people, and so they focus on, "Oh, the glaciers are going to melt and the sea levels are going to rise." In fact, there are an awful lot of positive things. For example, longer frost-free seasons across many of the northern countries, less energy used because you don't need to keep your houses warm in the winter.

Q: Is the globe warming and what is the cause?

A: Yeah, the world has been warming since 1680 and the cause is changes in the sun. But in their computer models they hardly talk about the sun at all and in the IPCC summary for policy-makers they don't talk about the sun at all. And of course, if they put the sun into their formula in their computer models, it swamps out the human portion of CO2, so they can't possibly do that.

Q: Is the rising CO2 level the cause of global warming or the result of it?

A: That's a very good question because in the theory the claim is that if CO2 goes up, temperature will go up. The ice core record of the last 420,000 years shows exactly the opposite. It shows that the temperature changes before the CO2. So the fundamental assumption of the theory is wrong. That means the theory is wrong. ... But the theory that human CO2 would lead to runaway global warming became a fact right away, and scientists like myself who dared to question it were immediately accused of being paid by the oil companies or didn't care about the children or the future or anything else.

Q: Have you ever accepted money from an oil company?

A: No. No. I wish I did get some. I wouldn't have to drive a '92 car and live in a leaky apartment bloc.

Q: Why are sea levels rising and should we worry?

A: Sea levels have been rising for the last 10,000 years. In fact, 8,000 years ago, sea level was almost 500 feet lower than it is today. It's been rising gradually over that time. It's risen very slightly in the modern record, but it has risen no more rapidly than it has in the last 8,000 years. One of the factors that people forget is that most of the ice is already in the ocean, and so if you understand Archimedes' Principle, when that ice melts it simply replaces the space that the ice occupied -- even if the ice caps melt completely. What they do is they say if we estimate the volume of water in Antarctica and Greenland, then we add that to the existing ocean level. But that's not the way it works at all. But it does work for panic and for sea-level rises of 20 feet, like Gore claims.

Q: Why are the sea levels rising, just because we are in a warming period?

A: Yes. We are in an inter-glacial. Just 22,000 years ago, which is what some people can get their minds around, Canada and parts of the northern U.S. were covered with an ice sheet larger than the current Antarctic ice sheet. That ice sheet was over a mile thick in central Canada. All of that ice melted in 5,000 years. There was another ice sheet over Europe and a couple more in Asia. As that ice has melted, it's run back into the oceans and of course that's what's filled up the oceans. But if you drilled down in Antarctica, you go down almost 8,000 feet below sea level. That ice below sea level, if it melts, is not going to raise sea level.

Q: Is there any aspect of global warming alarmism that you are worried about?

A: There are a couple of very minor things. I'm interested in and need more research done on commercial jet aircraft flying in the stratosphere. The research that's been done so far says no, it's not an issue, but I think the jury is out on that still. The other concern I have is that we're totally preparing for warming. The whole world is preparing for warming, but I mentioned that we have been cooling since 1998 and the climate scientists that I respected -- particularly the Russians and Chinese -- are predicting that we're going to be much, much cooler by 2030. So we've got completely the wrong adaptive strategy.

Q: Is it not inevitable that we will have another ice age?

A: Yes, I think there is another ice age coming, because the major causes of the ice ages are changes in the orbit of the Earth around the sun and changes in the tilt of the Earth. Those are things we've known about for 150 years.

Q: If someone asked you where he should go to get a good antidote on the mainstream media's spin on global warming, where should he go?

A: There are three Web sites I have some respect for. One is the one I helped set up by a group of very frustrated professional scientists who are retired. That's called Friendsofscience.org. It has deliberately tried to focus on the science only. The second site that I think provides the science side of it very, very well is CO2Science.org, and that's run by Sherwood Idso, who is the world expert on the relationship between plant growth and CO2. The third, which is a little more irreverent and maybe still slightly on the technical side for the general public, is JunkScience.com.

Q: If you had to calm the fears of a small grandchild or a student about the threat of global warming, what would you tell him?

A: First of all, I probably wouldn't tell him anything. As I tell audiences, the minute somebody starts saying "Oh, the children are going to die and the grandchildren are going to have no future," they have now played the emotional and fear card. Just like in the U.S., it's almost like the race card. It's not to say that it isn't valid in some cases. But the minute you play that card, you are now taking the issues and the debates out of the rational and logical and reasonable and sensible and calm into the emotional and hysterical.

So I wouldn't raise these kinds of fear with the children. What I would do with my children and grandchildren is what I'm trying to do with the public and say, "Look, here's the other side of the story. Make sure you get all of the information before you start running off and screaming 'wolf, wolf, wolf.'"

Bill Steigerwald is a columnist at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. E-mail Bill at bsteigerwald@tribweb.com. ┬ęPittsburgh Tribune-Review, All Rights Reserved.

Posted by: JDH on February 26, 2007 07:31 AM
32. "Was life better when a sheet of ice a mile thick covered
Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings
farmed there?" ---George Will

Posted by: Bad Bob on February 26, 2007 07:32 AM
33. If the world is getting warmern, so what? The world does what it does without any direction from us.

Posted by: Libertarian on February 26, 2007 07:46 AM
34. Hello Bad Bob,

> "Was life better when a sheet of ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there?" ---George Will

An excellent question which appeals very well to the ignorant & uninformed American consumer.

Global Warming wouldn't be a problem if humankind had not placed $trillions worth of property in harms way along the entire world's coasts. Hundreds of millions of people also live in areas which will become flooded by the melting ice caps.

In other words: The 21st century world is different from the world of hundreds and thousands of years ago.

The best comparison: For thousands of years major hurricanes have impacted the Mississippi Delta. Hurricane Katrina was a catastrophe only because hundreds of thousands of people have built a city in a dangerous place.

The natural cycles of sea level change had no major impacts upon global human civilization simply because humans had not yet built up the world's entire coastline. Future cycles of sea level change will have catastrophic consequences because houses, cities, ports, industrial plants, etc. will be claimed by the oceans.

Where will all of these millions of humans live once their homes are gone? How will the global economy cope with the loss of $trillions of property value along the coast?

How will billions survive if climate change destroys America's breadbasket?

So you see, climatic changes which were harmless in the past can have catastrophic consequences now.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 26, 2007 07:53 AM
36. That website, again:

Barringer Meteor Crater

Posted by: David Mathews on February 26, 2007 08:15 AM
37. Time scale is an important concept that the crisis mongers want all of us Average Joes to ignore. A "possible" gradual change over 100 to 500 years does not constitute crisis. An instantaneous cataclysmic would be an issue, but often in cases like earthquakes, there is little or no warning before they occur. Fear is not a good way to induce positive change. Al Gore and the rest of the fear mongers will fail.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 26, 2007 08:50 AM
38. Darcy and David Matthews both checking in eh? How fun.
Perhaps those two could call their good buddy
Al and even Michael Moore and ask them why they won't take the stage with Patrick Michaels and debate the issue?

Posted by: PC on February 26, 2007 08:57 AM
39. Yep - I look to Al Gore for all my scientific research. He must know, after all he was smart enough to invent the internet.

Posted by: Gore Y on February 26, 2007 09:02 AM
40. Hello Jeff,

> A "possible" gradual change over 100 to 500 years does not constitute crisis.

This must rank as one of the most foolishly self-involved thoughts generated by the pro-pollution capitalists. Doesn't the present generation bear some responsibility to future generations?

But Jeff is also seriously mistaken about the trule scale of the problem and the time scale of the catastrophe. Climate change is occurring now. Humans are suffering now.

And worse is coming. Much worse. We will live to see some dark days. We will experience some of the horrors which future generations will encounter on a more routine basis.

The Earth is going to reach 9,000,000,000 population within the next forty years. If a catastrophe is coming, it will occur within the 21st century. We all may witness this catastrophe with our own eyes. Or, at least, watch it on CNN as it occurs to someone else.

The United States of America is a country in decline and it is poised to collapse. We will likely witness the collapse of America with our own eyes.

I met a woman from Ukraine and a woman from Russia and asked them if they had anticipated the collapse of the Soviet Union. They had not. No one expects the end, that is why the end must always occur unexpectedly.

We are living in the era of catastrophe, we are living in the apocalypse. Americans need to wake up.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 26, 2007 09:02 AM
41. Hello PC,

Patrick Micheals? Who is Patrick Micheals?

I happened to look him up and found this:

Patrick Micheals

"Writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995, author Ross Gelbspan noted that "Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels."

Needless to say, Patrick Micheals doesn't amount to much an argument. He is not an objective source of inforation regarding anything.

So much for Patrick Michaels.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 26, 2007 09:11 AM
42. We are living in the era of catastrophe, we are living in the apocalypse. Americans need to wake up.

Posted by David Mathews at February 26, 2007 09:02 AM

Are you an End Times Christian Believer (a religion) or an End Times Global Warming Believer(another religion)?

Posted by: SD on February 26, 2007 09:18 AM
43. Does anyone here no anyone who is suffering due to climate change? I didn't think so. But it sounds good to the scaremongers to say scary baseless things like that about unknown third parties doesn't it? Well, at least if you are Al Gore.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 26, 2007 09:34 AM
44. Al Gore said it all "this is not a political problem but a moral problem". What happened to the Scientific facts of "Global Warming"
Gore is a true liar regarding the facts!

Posted by: Bill on February 26, 2007 09:46 AM
45. 2& 23 exactly.

a fool & his money are easily parted. same with lazy minds who do not want to dig facts. also true for a complacent public willing to surrender rights, $ & property at every trendy turn.

look at the awarders--a self-serving movie group--any physicists or climate experts in the Academy? any colleg grads for that matter? hollywood--guilded bandstand; sour notes.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on February 26, 2007 09:54 AM
46. David,

I've been reading your posts these last few months, and as far as I can tell all your pontificating boils down to this statement:

Death is coming in the future, so you all should slit your wrists now to avoid it.

Yes, a meteor hitting the earth taday has a greater chance of kiiling large groups of people than it did 2.5 million years ago. Do we then live in such a way as to maintain a human population of less than a million so we can avoid an unknown calamity at and unknown time in an unknown location? Do you stay locked in your home so you can avoid the unknown crash on an unknown road by an unknown vehicle? Because I think the odds of you dying that way are much greater than many other nature induced methods.

But ultimately, my biggest problem with you and others who believe in the scourage of mankind is that you fail to do anything about it. You preach a gospel of shame an repentance, but you will not lead by example. If everyone who claims they buy into the religion of environment unilaterally lived as they preached, there would be no environmental problem today, but you won't. By your own inaction you clearly prove that you do not actually believe your own prognostications. You have not put faith into action, and therefore you are a poor witness to the words you preach. You want to shame and guilt everyone else into doing what you, yourself refuse to do.

When the global change faithful acutally LIVE their words, maybe others will be more likely to join in, but no one believes you, including yourself, so you can stop trying to convince us and work on yourself for a while.

Posted by: Eyago on February 26, 2007 09:55 AM
47. If Al Gore could only show that the imminent global roasting is caused by special Israeli and American emissions, he would be a shoe in to win both the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Physics Prize in the same year as his Oscar. Then he could win the US Presidency by acclamation, be appointed head of the UN, and run the world correctly for a change. Dave Matthews will enter nirvana, and the Messiah will be just around the corner.

If only that bastard Gutenburg hadn't invented printing, dead white males in Europe would have remained illiterate, the renaissance wouldn't have happened, Watt wouldn't have invented the steam engine, Edison wouldn't have invented the incandescent bulb, the internal combustion engine wouldn't exist, those red-state Wright brothers wouldn't have invented the airplane, and all would be hunky dory in a cold, dark, hungry, disease ridden world. Back to the caves!!

Posted by: Steve on February 26, 2007 10:16 AM
48. Al Gore (the High Priest) says that we have 10 years before it is too late.

Then he says China does not need to reduce greenhouse gases until the US and other rich countries do it first.

Sorry, but that just doesn't jive. If the entire earth is really in jeopardy then Al would be demanding ALL NATIONS stop immediately. What his contradicting statements tell me is that global warming is not a serious issue to him (a liar perhaps?) -- otherwise he would not let China off the hook.

Posted by: SD on February 26, 2007 10:19 AM
49. Hello david mathews

you said

"The Earth is going to reach 9,000,000,000 population within the next forty years. If a catastrophe is coming, it will occur within the 21st century. We all may witness this catastrophe with our own eyes. Or, at least, watch it on CNN as it occurs to someone else."

Hopefully it will occur in the middle east and then we can have whats left of our oil for less....

Posted by: warmonger on February 26, 2007 10:20 AM
50. IT'S AN IMPENDING WORLDWIDE CATASTROPHE...give me your property...IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN...give up your freedom...BILLIONS WILL DROWN ON THE COASTS...live like a 3rd world peasant...ONLY HOLOCAUST DENIERS DISAGREE WITH US...smile and pay more taxes...ALL THE ATTRACTIVE RICH PEOPLE ON TV AGREE WITH US...give up your wealth...AL GORE IS A GOOD MAN BECAUSE BUSH CHEATED HIM

Posted by: Steve on February 26, 2007 10:39 AM
51. How refreshing to have a discussion without musician/photographer turned resident junk-scientist David Mathews chiming in for over 30 posts! (DM free, #3 at 8:50 p.m. to #34 at 7:53 a.m.) Must have been time for beddy-bye before a hard day of blogging.

For anyone with an open mind as to the fallacy of the cause of climate change regardless of it's hysteric Hollyweird thought-police advocates, check out this excellent treatise from The Patriot Post.

Refutations welcome from David, Nancy, dinesh and other worshippers at the "Altar of Man-Induced Climate Change". Even you, Candidate turned climateologist Darcy.

Posted by: Gorebal Smarmyng on February 26, 2007 10:43 AM
52. The problem with the GW crowd is that no matter what happens they can claim victory.

If the planet warms up, they claim they were vindicated. If it cools down, then they got their message across.

I saw a show on Discovery that showed models of GW that included deserts and massive ice sheets in the same regions of the world, depending on the jet stream fluctuations caused by GW. Again, they're covered either way.

So it's not science, it's just hedging your bets.

Posted by: Ken on February 26, 2007 11:12 AM
53. Gorebal Smarmyng:
"Dave Mathews" is a nom de plume for a collective. They have shifts, so sleep is not an issue. As for the Hallmark photos, one of the biggest issues with Myspace and Youtube is the fact that pervs and other miscreants post equally begign photos and info hoping to lure the uninformed. "Mathews" is an astroturf effort.

Posted by: WVH on February 26, 2007 11:13 AM
54. Oy vay!
The scarey part is I really think Darcy believes all this spew.
The debate on "truthiness" reminds mean of O'Reilly's recent interview of Whoopie Goldberg. O'Reilly kept trying & trying to discuss the facts. Yet Whoopie kept repeating to O'Reilly that not everyone looks at the world the way he does. Then came Whoopie's clincher which pretty much says it all for the fringe lunatic LEFTIST PINHEADED KLOWNS (which Darcy is apparently a Charter Member of)....................
Whoopie told O'Reilly she does really care about FACTS on many issues....she relies on her FEELINGS!! Did anyone else see that interview?
It truly says it all.
For the KLOWNS, FEELINGS are more important than scientific facts.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 26, 2007 12:32 PM
55. Well, Hollywood is used to dealing in "Fantasy". But in all seriousness, all these so-called awards are a bunch of agenda driven self promotion of liberalism. Grammys, Oscars, Emmys, Nobel Prizes... They are all crap. All you have to know about the Nobel Prizes is they are presented by a country that is as anti-American as you can get. The difference between them and Hollywood is Western Europe will soon become a collection of Islamic states; and that whole Nobel Prize thing will be a thing of the past.

Posted by: Scott C on February 26, 2007 12:41 PM
56. 2018 Nobel Prizes:

Physics - Ali al Husseini: General relativity of vaporization of body parts

Chemistry - Hussein al Ali: High energy explosions in confined spaces

Literature - Khomeni al Jihadi: Fatwa III (death to all who wear baseball caps)

Biology or Medicine - Jihadi al Khomeni: Effect of noxious vapors on Jewish sons of dogs and pigs

Peace - Jimmy al Carter: selling out of USA and so-called state of Israel

Economics - Faisal al Admenijad: Blackmailing the west through petrodollars.

Posted by: Steve on February 26, 2007 01:17 PM
57. To all the global warming doubters, I encourage you to run a hose from the tailpipe of your car into the car's cabin. Hop into the driver's seat and start it up. See what happens. Or perhaps, to paraphrase Ragnar, "It is supreme arrogance to think that mere humans can affect the climate".

Posted by: him on February 26, 2007 01:29 PM
58. him-

I believe the challenge has been put forth for all of you GW bible thumpers to lead by example. When AlGore and his ilk move to 2 bedroom flats (like mine) use to live on a private golf corse, get rid of their umteen vehicles and commit to hybrid vehicles and mass transit, and only fly coach and only fly when absolutely required, we will start to listen.

In the mean time, I suggest you try your little experiment first.

Posted by: Jeffro on February 26, 2007 01:37 PM
59. If that isn't a non-sequitur, I don't know what is, Him.

Let me follow your logic if I may. Humans can poison the air inside an automobile. The earth's atmosphere made of air. Therefore humans are the cause of atmospheric climate change on the earth.

Am I missing something?

Try this one (it's a fun game to abuse logic):

Without ambulances, many people would die. Ambulances have internal combusition engines. Therefore, internal combustion engines prevent death.

Your turn...

Posted by: Steve on February 26, 2007 01:39 PM
60. Shouldn't Al Gore have sent the daughter of Sasheen Littlefeather to accept the Oscar in protest that the Oscars consume more energy and produce more CO2 (all those cars driving up) than many of the bottom 50 nations of the world do in a month?

Posted by: John Bailo on February 26, 2007 01:49 PM
61. Shut up, AlGore explained. Debate's over.

Posted by: sandalista on February 26, 2007 02:05 PM
62. So Matthews, where money comes from discredits researchers? Is that what you're saying???
And you don't think AlGore gets money from the Henny Penny crowd?? Oh wait, he's a stock holder for Occidental Petroleum if memory serves me right. Another blatant example of hypocrit in motion.
Oh and lookey here, Wikipedia says Occidental has a deal with Libya's Muammar Ghaddafi.
Like an onion, Matthews, when you peel it away, the odor of the core gets stronger.

Posted by: PC on February 26, 2007 02:36 PM
63. Stefan takes note of the current storm that dumped 2-feet of snow on the midwest and resulted in 9-deaths. Traffic is snarled, airports are closed and the storm is now headed for the east coast.

Anyone notice how this storm has barely been reported by the media? I found no mention in either of the socialist Seattle dailys today. Ditto ABC, and CBS. NBC did cover the story although I don't know how deeply they buried it in their newscasts.

This is what the media does when news goes against what the left wants you to believe. It could certainly be said that, coming during Al Gore's big Oscar moment that the timing was, er, "inconvenient".

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 26, 2007 02:58 PM
64. Forget global warming, people. When is someone going to do something about the hideous effects of Dihydrogen Monoxide? That's the real killer!

Posted by: Gorebal Smarmyng on February 26, 2007 03:18 PM
65. You got to love the hypocrisy of the left. Here's a real inconvenient truth - about former vice-president Al Gore.

From Drudge:

POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'
Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:

Last night, Al Gore's global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore's mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh--more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh--guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore's average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore's extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

For Further Information, Contact:
Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431
editor@tennesseepolicy.org

Posted by: MJC on February 26, 2007 03:26 PM
66. Drudge has a report on Al Gore's electrical consumption in August last year, which was 20 times what the average household in the U.S. consumes in a year! I watched him get his Oscar, and nearly died laughing. Seems like the electrical consumption for Al isn't the only thing out of control. If he can't even control his food consumption, how does expect to control an entire nation's fuel consumption? I wonder if D.M. considers Al one of the greedy, obese Americans he holds in such contempt? And I think I know why Al got off stage so suddenly. Whoever the guy was next to him, producer, director, whatever, he was pawing Al so extravagantly, they were probably afraid he was going to plant a big wet one on him. Watch your back, Tipper!

Posted by: katomar on February 26, 2007 03:29 PM
67. I'd be interested in his total fuel consumption in a year as well (private jets, chaffeured limos, etc, etc).

Typical elitist.

Posted by: Palouse on February 26, 2007 03:34 PM
68. you guys crack me up. bush/cheney screwed up iraq BIG TIME and you guys put up 67 posts about global warming and al gore (who is not even a candidate).

if you are so concerned about truth, facts and reality, pay attention to your republican f-ups. accountability sucks, but you guys are starting to sound like a bunch of whiners.

Posted by: dinesh on February 26, 2007 03:42 PM
69. What part of 1400 scientists from around the world do you people not understand?

Posted by: kds on February 26, 2007 03:51 PM
70. "but you guys are starting to sound like a bunch of whiners."

Not to be confused with the leftist whiners who try to turn every thread into a discussion of the Iraq War.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 26, 2007 03:56 PM
71. bill: no whining--you are mistaking impassioned pleas regarding our leaders' ignorance and intransigence. we were right, you were wrong re the war--that's neither whining nor gloating. its just a sad reality.

look if you don't believe in global climate change, why spend your time trolling here. stefan turns your crank, and everyone gets started.

but remember, a lot of right wingers have had serious blows to their credibility. you can't miss that bad on an issue as big as iraq and terror and expect to be received as an honest broker.

Posted by: dinesh on February 26, 2007 04:06 PM
72. Hey dinesh, we on the right don't have an elitist former veep running around the country, sucking up to hollywood snobs and telling everybody to change their lifestyles and freedoms.

Posted by: PC on February 26, 2007 04:07 PM
73. uhhh, pc--yes you do. gore was every bit as much as your vp and the current idiot-in-chief is my president. too bad for both of us, it sounds.

Posted by: dinesh on February 26, 2007 04:15 PM
74. Nice try, dinesh. Maybe you could stay focused on the topic and explain why Gore continues to use 20-times the amount of energy than the national average while telling the rest of us to cut back on our energy usage. And perhaps you can further explain why this will not be reported in the Mainstream Media.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 26, 2007 04:29 PM
75. Agreed. Guggenheim's "Incovenient Truth" stole best documentary from "Deliver us from evil". Had this superior documentary rightfully won instead, we could be using this thread to talk about how the church has encouraged abuses from pedophile preists by moving abusers from one parish to another.

"Deliver us from evil" as a documentary, showed research and interviews with Priest "Oliver O'Grady" as well as with the victims and families. And doing so, told the tabloid tale, of the dark secrets of the church, in a very real way using these first-hand stories.

Posted by: redkittyred on February 26, 2007 05:00 PM
76. Global warming question:

Do high CO2 levels cause the global temperature to rise?

Our CO2 levels right now are considerably higher than anything that the Earth has had in the last 650,000 years -- a point AlGore correctly makes in his movie.

However, temperatures in the past have been 3 or 4 degrees higher and sea levels 15 to 20 feet higher, all with far lower CO2 levels than the present day.

Warmer temperatures historically have caused CO2 levels to increase. Basically, CO2 dissolves less in warmer ocean water, and melting peat bogs generate CO2. Cold temperatures have the opposite effect. CO2 increases tend to historically follow temperature increases by about 800 to 1000 years.

On the other hand, the high CO2 levels of today are clearly of man-made origin. No doubt about it.

Do higher CO2 levels cause higher temperatures? In the past, temperature changes were presumably driven by solar radiation (distance from sun, inclination of axis, etc.) issues, as opposed to CO2 levels. Of course, the CO2 effect could magnify the effects of the change in solar radiation.

So what is the bottom line? Surely, the increased CO2 levels that we have from man-made activities don't cause global cooling?

Higher CO2 levels will probably cause global warming, but not to the extent that many models predict.

Posted by: Richard Pope on February 26, 2007 05:14 PM
77. As a lefty, I occasionally check out soundpolitics to see what the other side is talking about. Some of it I find interesting and compelling, but your constant head-in-the-sand stance on global climate change is mystifying.

No one ever explains how we can keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere (you can't argue CO2 isn't rising - there is plenty of scientific data collected) and not expect it to affect our climate.

What I want to know is - what is the downside of conservation of energy resources? Doesn't the free market reward efficency?
What about clean air - the rise in the rates of asthma alone justifies cutting down the use of fossil fuels.

I don't see the downside of cutting our carbon output.

JB

Posted by: jb on February 26, 2007 05:21 PM
78. "I don't see the downside of cutting our carbon output."

Apparently Al Gore feels there is a downside to cutting his personal hoggish amount of carbon output,(see #65, above). In fact he's increased his electrical consumption since he made his stupid movie.

If Gore, and the rest of the left were truly passionate about this issue they would modify their lifestyles. Until they do one can hardly be blamed for believing that for the left, "global warming" is just about political advantage.


Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 26, 2007 05:38 PM
79. Only 7 posts by the AGW cultist Mathews!

jb:

There is no down side to cutting CO2 that I can see. I believe that we should always do our best to minimize our footprint.

However, that's a long way from what the AGW cult is preaching. If they have their way, we abandon everything we have gained from our industrialization just because it has an impact on the environment.

But in addition to the negatives that means we also abandon all the benefits we have gained in last 150 years. Things like a mobile educated society, a doubling of our longevity, food in abundance, and the 40-hr work week just to name a few.

If Dr. Gore, eminent honorary climatologist (and now oscar winner), wants to give up 150 years of progress, fine let him show us by example.

Posted by: deadwood on February 26, 2007 06:07 PM
80. An Ice Age versus Global Warming

History and science suggest that we are, in fact, on the brink of the next major, cyclical Ice Age and it is far more likely that the northern hemisphere will begin to cool.


The latest summary of yet another revised edition of a report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control has evoked all the usual fears predicting the deaths of millions by 2080, and other end of the world scenarios.

2080 is a mere 73 years from now. In meteorological terms, it is a blink of the eye. Real climatologists measure time far differently than the rest of us. While the IPCC, Al Gore, and the other fear mongers are warning of the horrors of Global Warming, it is useful to look at the time scales. The end of the last Ice Age was 11,500 ago.

It is also useful to keep in mind that the known cycle of time between Ice Ages is about 11,500 years. If you believe the fear mongers, in less than the lifetime of the average American, coastal cities will be under water. If the Ice Age cycle holds true, however, at some point it is far more likely that they will be under a thick sheet of ice.

Since we are at the end of an inter-glacial period, we are far closer to the next Ice Age than the last. Everything we call "civilization" has occurred since the last Ice Age. The rise of various empires began about five thousand years ago with Egypt initially being the most prominent.

Let me stipulate that none of the facts to be cited -- taken from the open source of Wikipedia -- will make any difference to those who are wedded to the global warmer's end of the world scenario, though dying from too much ice is surely as unpleasant as dying from an over-heated planet.

The notion that humans can prevent either is so absurd as to defy belief, but it clearly doesn't defy belief because millions have been convinced it can be done.

For now, it comes down to the amount of time in which Global Warming is predicted to end life on planet Earth. For the Global Warmers, the real agenda is not about somehow pumping all the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Even they know it's impossible. It is also an idiotic goal given the fact that all vegetation is totally dependent on CO2 for its existence. Take away vegetation, forests, jungles, and all crops, and you also remove all human and other species. For true believers, the real pollution of the Earth is the human race.

The real agenda of Global Warming is political and economic. The IPCC's predictions are intended to stampede the legislation of vast restrictions on all use of energy. It is energy and "labor saving devices" that have transformed what we regard as the modern world. Take away electricity and we are all instantly transported back to the days when the Declaration of Independence was written by candlelight.

An Ice Age, says Wikipedia, "is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of Earth's climate, resulting in an expansion of the continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and mountain glaciers."

Bear in mind that real science is of little interest to Global Warming advocates. History, too, is a great nuisance because it inconveniently suggests they are lying through their teeth.

For example, there was a Little Ice Age that Wikipedia says occurred "approximately the 16th to the mid-19th centuries, while others suggest a span from the 13th to the 17th centuries. It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals."

Prior to the Little Ice Age of some three centuries length there was the Medieval warm period, sometimes called the Climate Optimum because it was a period when more crops produced more food, populations expanded, life spans were extended, and, life for those in the northern hemisphere improved.

Remember the stories of Valley Forge where George Washington's rag-tag Revolutionary Army damned near froze to death in the winter of 1777-1778? Think mini-ice age. The one that began again around 1850 didn't end until around 1950, a century later.

Now apply a bit of common sense. If the last mini-ice age ended in 1950, does it not follow that the Earth has warmed since then? Yes, it has. Climate scientists agree it has warmed about one degree Fahrenheit. Is this cause for panic? No. Should we cease using oil, natural gas and coal? No.

The Global Warmers tell you that it will get worse barely seven decades from now, but history and science suggest that we are, in fact, on the brink of the next major, cyclical Ice Age and it is far more likely that the northern hemisphere will begin to cool. The really bad news is that this will occur quite rapidly once it begins.

For those with the wits to examine the history and science of climate, it is obvious that the Global Warmers are seeking to deceive whole nations and continents into the destruction of a thriving period of world trade and relative peace we call globalization.

Short range, this is occurring today in the Congress of the United States. It must not be allowed to happen and those behind it should be driven from public office at the earliest possible moment.


Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 26, 2007 07:14 PM
81. Hello SD,

> Are you an End Times Christian Believer (a religion) or an End Times Global Warming Believer(another religion)?

No, I my beliefs regarding the end of time are not derived from Christianity. I examined the Christian apocalypse scenarios a long time ago and realized that the book of Revelation is simply too vague & contradictory in order to derive any sort of certain information regarding the end times.

Nor are my beliefs regarding the end of humankind specifically derived from the Global Warming idea. I have believed in Global Warming for a long time but my opinions about humankind's future predate my acceptance of the climate change concept.

My beliefs regarding humankind's dismal future are derived from both scientific and historical evidences:

1. From a scientific standpoint, all species go extinct: Extinction for a species is as natural as death for an individual.

2. From a historical standpoint, all civilizations collapse. This present global, technological civilization is not exempt from the forces of decay & collapse which have destroyed every prior civilization.

3. From a scientific standpoint, humankind's present patten of population growth is following a boom-bust pattern well known to biolology. At some point, inevitably, the population growth must come to an end. Since humankind doesn't possess the wisdom of self-restraint Nature must perform this task for us. Nature's methods are harsh, relentless and remorseless.

4. From a scientific standpoint, humankind's consumption of the Earth's resources also cannot continue increasing forever. At some point -- perhaps very soon -- these resources will become depleted and humankind will soon have no choice ezcept to live (or die) without.

... and so forth ....

The argument is really quite complicated but the conclusion is very simple: Civilization will end, technology will fail, and Homo sapiens will go extinct.

Since these are conclusions about future events there are no really effective techniques to either prove or disprove them. Time itself will reveal the end of this story. But the evidence for doom is abundant and displayed globally. The evidence for utopia is absent and becoming less likely every day.

I do believe that the human cause is hopeless. Humans simply are not wise enough to avoid the catastrophes that our behaviors are generating. Too bad for humankind.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 26, 2007 07:27 PM
82. Hello Everyone,

The air conditioner is on again tonight. The transition from "winter" to summer occurs rather swiftly in Florida. I fear that the last cold front really was the last cold front of this winter season.

The heat is beginning to return and with the approach of summer thoughts begin to turn to the hurricane season ... seven hurricanes between 2004-2005 sort of got my attention. 2006 was an extremely mild year, only one tropical storm.

But June is still months away and there are plenty of other problems in this world:

One million in China face water shortage

BEIJING (AFP) - A severe drought in southwestern China is threatening the water supplies of one million people and crippling navigation on the depleted Yangtze River, state media reported on Monday.

And, no, I need not attribute the above problem to Global Warming (though undoubtedly it does plays a role in these droughts).

Instead, I will point out the obvious: Humankind is encountering plenty of problems right now at 6.5 billion, how will humankind survive at 9 billion with climate change, peak oil, and peak food all in the past by that point?

Here we are dealing with what appears to be a pretty serious problem. Yet we'd rather not think about it so we don't. The public is more concerned about Britney's hair than they are about humankind's future only several decades into the future.

There are serious problems already evident throughout the world. Americans respond by ... shopping.

When will Americans wake up? Does the price of gasoline have to reach $5 a gallon before Americans finally realize that our way of life is coming to an end?

Posted by: David Mathews on February 26, 2007 07:44 PM
83. David Mathews - Are you a computerized regurgitation blog-bot program?

dinesh - Where did you learn grammar? Do you know what that little key labeled 'shift' does?

jb - Even conservatives exhibit energy efficient practices; CF lamps, window replacement, not jet-setting around to film premiers. We're not stupid; saving energy expenses IS conservative, which Albert Arnold Gore obviously is not. Sensible people just don't succumb to hysterics that want to degrade our standard of living to that of the third-world just to BE FAIR.

redkittyred - Your idol's movie is not a documentary, just miscategorized, much like Michael Moore's trash-fiction.

Posted by: Gorebal Smarmyng on February 26, 2007 08:27 PM
84. Hello Gerbil Smarmy,

> Sensible people just don't succumb to hysterics that want to degrade our standard of living to that of the third-world just to BE FAIR.

Is it sensible for Americans to destroy the world on behalf of our prosperity, obesity, and numerous unhealthy addictions?

The United States of America is busy destroying its own future by the excesses of the American lifestyle and the depletion of our own resources. When this party comes to an end Americans will be lucky merely to survive.

When the oil, natural gas, and coal are all burnt away into the atmosphere, how will Americans live?

When the oceans rise and swallow America's coasts, where will the millions of displaced citizens go to live?

When droughts and heat waves destroy America's crops what will Americans eat?

The the rivers of the Southwest run dry, what will the citizens of Las Vegas and Phoenix drink?

So you see ... America has some really big problems and you aren't solving any of them.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 26, 2007 08:53 PM
85. Richard Pope perceptively noted:

''Our CO2 levels right now are considerably higher than anything that the Earth has had in the last 650,000 years -- a point AlGore correctly makes in his movie.

However, temperatures in the past have been 3 or 4 degrees higher and sea levels 15 to 20 feet higher, all with far lower CO2 levels than the present day.''


The above is a great question to ask the GW-is-an-imminent-disaster crowd, because it is well-documented by historical climate data; i.e.:

How did the earth get much warmer that it is right now in the far distant past, when CO2 levels were MUCH lower than they are now ??

Obvious answer: There are other major factors that drive global warming.

I also still like Fareed Zakaria's comment in Newsweek a few weeks ago, where he proposed that it would be much more cost-effective to work on ADJUSTING to whatever slow global warming may continue to happen (if we don't fall back into a cold stretch), rather that spending huge amounts of money ''fighting'' global warming that we can't stop.

Posted by: Methow Ken on February 26, 2007 09:21 PM
86. David: You still have not answered my question. Do you consider Al Gore one of the greedy, obese Americans you hold in such contempt? He's obese, and he consumes obscene amounts of energy while telling all the rest of us to cut back. Also, don't you feel guilty using all that energy to run your A/C? That's quite a modern luxury for one who feels we should all live in caves. Actually, caves are cooler. You should try one.

Posted by: katomar on February 26, 2007 09:43 PM
87. Speaking of emissions, humans, the future and the economy...

I was watching Future Cars on the Discovery Channel, episode: Fuel.

I'm looking forward to the air car. It's a car that runs on compressed air. 200miles at 60mph. developed by french, invested by Indian company. They have working prototypes. Refuels at a compressed air station in 3 minutes.
http://www.theaircar.com/

And Norway has opened its first Hydrogen fueling station initiating their plans for HyNor. It will be a highway with Hydrogen fueling stations. The company working on the fueling stations is working towards adding solar power to create the hydrogen at the station.
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11125&ref=rss

Meanwhile GM is still working on the fuel cell but not sure what stage of development it's at.
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/400_fcv/index.html

Posted by: redkittyred on February 26, 2007 10:04 PM
88. "redkittyred - Your idol's movie is not a documentary, just miscategorized, much like Michael Moore's trash-fiction."

83-

hello, where did you learn to read? that's what I'm saying, Guggenheim's movie about Gore's PPT should not have won the Oscar. I thought this thread was about who deserves the award, you know (since we've already beat the climate thing to around 14 threads since the new year), and it should have been to the preacher-feeling-up-little-boys-documentary. Anyway, Gore is not my idol, (that would have to go to Alton Brown and Deborah Harry) he is merely the man I (and a statistical majority of our nation) elected to preside over our nation in 2000.

anyway, your remark about grammar was petty unless you plan on calling out EVERYBODY's poor grammar.

Posted by: redkittyred on February 26, 2007 10:38 PM
89. All I can say after watching this poor man, Gore, make a fool of himself in front of the world last night is thank God he was not elected Commander-in-Chief in 2000.

Posted by: Organization Man on February 26, 2007 10:47 PM
90. I thank God for not making me a little boy who's molested by priests.

Posted by: redkittyred on February 26, 2007 11:04 PM
91. oops correction on #88, it's not a PPT, it's a keynote.
Macs rule.

Posted by: redkittyred on February 26, 2007 11:40 PM
92. I saw the little excerpt that they showed with Al Gore getting the Oscar, unfortunately they I think pick the wrong piece,it was accurate but not truthful, it had nothing to do with global warming. it was a fact it does happen but not because of global warming.

If hurricanes(weather) is related to the sun, we should have a relative quiet year.

Posted by: ronk on February 27, 2007 03:09 AM
93. Hello katomar,

> David: You still have not answered my question. Do you consider Al Gore one of the greedy, obese Americans you hold in such contempt? He's obese, and he consumes obscene amounts of energy while telling all the rest of us to cut back.

Al Gore is not a perfect man. No one claims that Al Gore is perfect. The environmental movement does not idolize Al Gore.

> Also, don't you feel guilty using all that energy to run your A/C? That's quite a modern luxury for one who feels we should all live in caves. Actually, caves are cooler. You should try one.

Have you ever tried living in Florida without an air conditioner? There is a reason why Florida did not become a populous state until the invention of the air conditioner.

Caves a cooler, that is true, but Florida is a flat state and therefore all of Florida's caves are flooded with water (except for one cave up the panhandle).

The Native Americans lived in Florida for thousands of years without air conditioners, cars, or any modern convenience. Americans are weak.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 27, 2007 04:41 AM
94. Hello Organization Man,

> All I can say after watching this poor man, Gore, make a fool of himself in front of the world last night is thank God he was not elected Commander-in-Chief in 2000.

Thank God we got George W. Bush! 3100 dead soldiers, one failed war and five years of the most despicable abuses of the constitution.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 27, 2007 04:44 AM
95. So be strong, David! Live up to your dreams! Throw that air conditioner out and live like the native Americans did! Save our world!

Posted by: katomar on February 27, 2007 07:14 AM
96. David.

Do you even read your own posts?

On the one hand you say:

The United States of America is busy destroying its own future by the excesses of the American lifestyle and the depletion of our own resources. When this party comes to an end Americans will be lucky merely to survive.

and then you tell us you not only use your A/C in the WINTER, but that people cannot live in Florida without it.

I would say you now have zero credibility on this issue, but that would be generous. You have managed to justify additional converts AGAINST GW by your laughable hipocracy. YOU are living the party you decry and you make no excuses for it apparently but rather spend your time ranting and raving how the very lifestyle you live in abundance is destrying the world. YOU are unwilling to make a single sacrifice to limit your obscene consumption of natural resources.

All it would take to fix the problem is for all the David Matthews and all the Al Gore's of America to actually DO what they SAY and our nation would become, overnight, one of the greenest and most eco-friendly in the world.

Be a hero David, be a pioneer in real eco-friendliness and lead by example. THEN, and ONLY THEN, come back to us and show us how you were able to live a full and enriching life without all your power guzzling conveniences. Until then, you can only insure that there will be MORE skeptics to GW, not less.

Posted by: Eyago on February 27, 2007 07:15 AM
97. Right there on the second page of my PSE bill is located the Energy Usage Comparison. What does it tell me? well for one thing comparing this year to last year it was six (6) degrees COOLER on average this January as compared to last January.This will be on your bill as well.

Posted by: JDH on February 27, 2007 07:53 AM
98. David, seriously - why not just off yourself? We're doomed anyway, and you sound miserable about it. You admit you're too weak to change your ways and help protect the earth. How do you live with yourself, knowing you're contributing to the demise of the planet through your weakness for A/C?

What a sad thing it must be to be a liberal. So self hating. So lacking in optimism. No wonder they aren't having children - why not live in perpetual adolescence if the world is coming to an end anyway, and there's no God to answer to?

Unbeleivable.

Posted by: Orrin Johnson on February 27, 2007 09:16 AM
99. bill:

the logic that compels gore to advocate for reduced co2 use while increasing his own consumption (if true) is the same as a bunch of chickenhawks advocating for war from the comfort of their living room without serving or sending their own kids to serve in the war. hubris.

Posted by: dinesh on February 27, 2007 09:30 AM
100. Matthews, you must be a gen x'er. We've been in Iraq 4 years now and you're bellyaching about how long it's been.
You'd pee your pants about Viet Nam and how long that took to lose.
If the military didn't have to second guess every person over there as an enemy compatant, it could be over very fast.
Thank you peaceniks for handcuffing our soldiers.

Posted by: PC on February 27, 2007 10:53 AM
101. Hello Eyago,

> and then you tell us you not only use your A/C in the WINTER, but that people cannot live in Florida without it.

Winter in Florida is not like winter in Seattle. The sun was shining hot today. The temperatures are climbing from the 70's now to the 80's.

Soon enough, temperatures will start reaching the 90's. Florida has had a hot winter.

> Be a hero David, be a pioneer in real eco-friendliness and lead by example. THEN, and ONLY THEN, come back to us and show us how you were able to live a full and enriching life without all your power guzzling conveniences. Until then, you can only insure that there will be MORE skeptics to GW, not less.

America's obesity and gluttony are national problems in need of national solutions. Individual sacrifices are not enough to solve this problem. Under the great mass of Americans begin changing their habits there is no hope whatsoever for Americans.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 27, 2007 11:46 AM
102. Hello Orrin,

> David, seriously - why not just off yourself?

That's some bold advice coming from a Christian. You better be careful, Orrin, or Jesus Himself is going to condemn your soul to eternal torment in Hell.

> We're doomed anyway, and you sound miserable about it. You admit you're too weak to change your ways and help protect the earth.

I am confident that Nature will accomplish those things which I am too weak to accomplish. Nature is going to solve the human problem, end of story.

> How do you live with yourself, knowing you're contributing to the demise of the planet through your weakness for A/C?

Very easily. I know that Nature is going to survive even if Homo sapiens do not.

> What a sad thing it must be to be a liberal. So self hating. So lacking in optimism. No wonder they aren't having children - why not live in perpetual adolescence if the world is coming to an end anyway, and there's no God to answer to?

Not having children is a wise and honorable decision. The Earth is already overpopulated, and Americans are already morbidly obese. Wisdom suggests that humankind begin limitings its reproductivity because otherwise Nature will resolve this problem using its harsh but extremely effective tools.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 27, 2007 11:51 AM
103. Hello PC,

> Matthews, you must be a gen x'er. We've been in Iraq 4 years now and you're bellyaching about how long it's been.

How long would you prefer for the Iraq war to last, PC? Forever?

> You'd pee your pants about Viet Nam and how long that took to lose.

Comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam are becoming more common among conservatives. America lost both wars & America will surrender Baghdad as dishonorably as it surrendered Saigon.

> If the military didn't have to second guess every person over there as an enemy compatant, it could be over very fast.

Conservatives advocating genocide against the Iraqis ... I understand & sympathize with the Iraqis who have decided to fight against the army of occupation.

The United States of America has a long history of committing atrocities, genocide and terrorist acts against its enemies.

> Thank you peaceniks for handcuffing our soldiers.

Your welcome. I would restrict the soldiers even more if it were within my power. I would bring them home, too.

America has murdered enough Muslims. America's crime against Iraq vastly exceeds Osama's crime against America.

Posted by: David Mathews on February 27, 2007 11:57 AM
104. Who said I'm a Christian? Besides - I'm not advocating your suicide, just perplexed it hasn't yet occured. If Mother Gaia is inevitably going to bruch humanity off of her shoulders like so much dandruff, why are you wasting electrons and time with this Chicken Little act? Why spread your misery? Why not let us all just live in ignorant bliss until the end? Why not just spend the end of your days looking at pictures of baby elephants or something - whatever makes you happpy?

The reason is because deep down, even you don't believe this tripe. Otherwise, you'd be living in the Unabomber's old cabin, safe from the impending civilization apocolypse.

Posted by: Orrin Johnson on February 27, 2007 12:17 PM
105. Oh, and not having children is cultural suicide. You may think such self-loathing is moral, but muslims world wide disagree. Demographics win in the end - it's already happening in Europe. Will you be so tolerant of all religions when you're subject to Sharia law?

Posted by: Orrin Johnson on February 27, 2007 12:21 PM
106. Hello Orrin,

> Who said I'm a Christian?

Orrin, if you are not a Christian Jesus is going to condemn your soul to eternal torment in the fires of Hell. You better become a Christian, Orrin, unless you enjoy spending eternity in the fires and darkness of Hell.

> Besides - I'm not advocating your suicide, just perplexed it hasn't yet occured.

Yeah, that's a mystery.

> If Mother Gaia is inevitably going to bruch humanity off of her shoulders like so much dandruff, why are you wasting electrons and time with this Chicken Little act?

In order to minimize human suffering. Maybe talk humankind off of its suicide cliff. Maybe in order to provoke God's grace upon the evil, just as Jonah's warnings served to preserve Ninevah from God's punishment.

> Why spread your misery? Why not let us all just live in ignorant bliss until the end?

Because there are plenty of humans -- billions of humans -- who are already suffering. You don't care about these people. Their deaths are of no concern to you. So I spread misery to you in order to wake America up from its drug-induced coma.

> Why not just spend the end of your days looking at pictures of baby elephants or something - whatever makes you happpy?

I do this already. I happened to see three manatees today in Safety Harbor, and a pod of dolphins last week at Ft. DeSoto, and hawks & ospreys in Oldsmar the week before.

The animals comfort me when humankind fills me with despair.

> The reason is because deep down, even you don't believe this tripe. Otherwise, you'd be living in the Unabomber's old cabin, safe from the impending civilization apocolypse.

I have no desire for safety. When the catastrophe occurs I am ready to suffer, and die, with everyone else. I am not the sort of person who would run away from a problem.

> Oh, and not having children is cultural suicide. You may think such self-loathing is moral, but muslims world wide disagree. Demographics win in the end - it's already happening in Europe. Will you be so tolerant of all religions when you're subject to Sharia law?

Orrin, don't you know that ignorant bigotry against the Muslims is a sin which will condemn your soul to eternal torment in Hell?

You really do need to become a Christian, Orrin. Don't you want to spend eternity in Heaven with George W. Bush?

Posted by: David Mathews on February 27, 2007 12:49 PM
107. Sad, but entertaining. Wake us up to what? The inevitable? Why bother if it can't be changed?

I think our many billions of people can live better, safer, and more prosperous lives by embracing capitalism, economic and industrial development, western-style liberal democracy, and free golabl trade. You, on the other hand, want them to live in grass huts to be carbon neutral, and die of malaria so we don't expose them to the non-existent horrors of DDT. Environmentalists kill people by keeping them in disease and poverty for the sake of maintaining their "noble savage" myth. You're ridiculous.

All I'm saying is that while insulated perpetual adolescents such as yourself wring their hands about non-existent environmental catastrophes, cultures who would behead you for your beliefs are growing and expanding world wide. If tht makes me biggoted, fine. I happen to like American culture and think it's superior to all others on the planet, not least cultures dominated by the inherently unequal, oppressive, and racist sharia law. Your proposed environmental and foreign policies would ensure the demise of the freest and most prosperous society in the history of the world, and would deny that freedom and prosperity to billions more. That's why I despise Al Gore and his ilk, and while I am all for sensible pollution controls for the sake of our health, I reject the socialist bizzaro-world you inhabit.

Forgive me for not taking your moral admonshments seriously. I'll take my own chances with Jesus, thank you very much.

Posted by: Orrin Johnson on February 27, 2007 01:31 PM
108. Hello Orrin,

> Wake us up to what? The inevitable? Why bother if it can't be changed?

You need not wake up, Orrin. You cannot wake up. You are suffering from a capitalism-induced coma.

> I think our many billions of people can live better, safer, and more prosperous lives by embracing capitalism, economic and industrial development, western-style liberal democracy, and free golabl trade. You, on the other hand, want them to live in grass huts to be carbon neutral, and die of malaria so we don't expose them to the non-existent horrors of DDT. Environmentalists kill people by keeping them in disease and poverty for the sake of maintaining their "noble savage" myth. You're ridiculous.

Do you know what would happen if these impoverished people became wealthy and began living like obese Americans? They wouldn't have any resources left over to export to the U.S. of A. America would become very poor very quickly if these imports ceased.

And, yes, I do believe that the oil exporters should cease exporting oil. Immediately.

And I am certain that they will when the opportunity arises.

> All I'm saying is that while insulated perpetual adolescents such as yourself wring their hands about non-existent environmental catastrophes, cultures who would behead you for your beliefs are growing and expanding world wide. If tht makes me biggoted, fine. I happen to like American culture and think it's superior to all others on the planet, not least cultures dominated by the inherently unequal, oppressive, and racist sharia law. Your proposed environmental and foreign policies would ensure the demise of the freest and most prosperous society in the history of the world, and would deny that freedom and prosperity to billions more. That's why I despise Al Gore and his ilk, and while I am all for sensible pollution controls for the sake of our health, I reject the socialist bizzaro-world you inhabit.

America is a free country only because it has enslaved and exploited the impoverished people of the world for over a century. America's freedoms are diminishing fast, though, because this administration doesn't care too much for the constitution.

George W. Bush is destroying the United States more effectively that the environmentalists.

> Forgive me for not taking your moral admonshments seriously. I'll take my own chances with Jesus, thank you very much.

Don't you want to spend eternity in Heaven with George W. Bush and the fundamentalists?

Posted by: David Mathews on February 27, 2007 02:39 PM
109. David says:

America's obesity and gluttony are national problems in need of national solutions. Individual sacrifices are not enough to solve this problem. Under the great mass of Americans begin changing their habits there is no hope whatsoever for Americans.

This is where you are wrong, David. If the people who supposedly believe in this impending catastrophy actually did something about it, it would radically change the country. But when you tell us to do what you yourself will NOT do, you lose all moral authority and thus no one will willing step into line. The ability to change the world requires courage, David, not lectures of "do as I say not as I do". And if 80 degrees requires you to use your air conditioner, you are truely part of the problem. You condemn yourself with your own words saying how rotton to the core American gluttony is. You appear to be a far worse than I based on your own admissions yet you presume to lecture me about conservation and sacrifice.

To lead others, one must first trod the path oneself. When you have trod that path, you may endeavor to suggest others do the same. Until then, you and all the other hypocritcal GWs will be spitting into the wind.

Tell me when you have the courage of your convictions, I will be asking...

Posted by: Eyago on February 27, 2007 04:58 PM