For those unfamiliar, Christopher Horner is undoubtedly a rising star on the conservative political landscape. A Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the author of the new book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism,” he was a guest of the “Fox & Friends” crew Tuesday.
Given the subject matter, Horner had a lot of fun slamming Al Gore, Ellen Goodman, and the global warmingists (video available here). Goodman was Horner’s first target:
Well, let's say this Ellen Goodman a columnist just joined the parade of those who call people who deny climate change – that’s what they call it -- Holocaust deniers. Okay, now think about this. You decide which is being trivialized: a few tenths of a degree increase over a hundred and something years, or 20 million people dead on the basis of their religion or sexual preferences.
Horner then made an interesting historical climate observation that has conveniently eluded all the global warming alarmists and their devotees:
Obviously, they’re the ones overreacting because it’s very simple. We admit climate change, and that’s what they deny. Climate changes – it always has, it always will. The Vikings used to farm Greenland, and if we get two degrees Celsius warmer they may again.
Next, Horner went after Al Gore:
[G]laciers are melting all over the world. Glaciers are growing all over the world. The problem is…and also glaciers are receding by growing which is in Al Gore’s movie. When they grow too far – grow is the key word -- they break off. That's not melting he shows, that's called calving. But what happens is they say melting glaciers is proof of global warming. By that logic, for lack of a better word, receding glaciers is proof of global cooling. They can't both be true and in fact neither are.
*****Update: Ken Shepherd has alerted me that Horner's book references the Business & Media Institute's 2006 special report on global warming entitled "Fire and Ice."
What follows is a full transcript of this segment.
Brian Kilmeade: Hey, Al Gore's “An Inconvenient Truth” which we just saw a clip of just a bunch of wasted of energy or is it a warning to the people of the world?
Steve Doocy: Our next guest Chris Horner, Christopher Horner, is the author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism.” He joins us live in the studio. Good morning, Chris
Christopher Horner: Good morning
Steve: So, you must be a scientist or something?
Horner: I don't rise to the level of Keanu Reeves or Alanis Morissette, who’ve done some pretty compelling work on the issue, and the (?) of ice core samples. Selma Hayak was pretty good. I think it’s not a serious objection thanks to Al Gore taking that off the table. We wouldn't be subjected to him, any politician, hundreds of celebrities can't be wrong, that argument. But the scientific literature is to be written by scientists. It’s intended to be read by interested lay people.
Steve: And, the basic overview of your book is?
Horner: The basic overview -- climate changes, weather happens, always has, always will. Societies choose how to adapt to it. Do they create wealth? Become richer more technologically adept to deal with something that’s always there unpredictable in severe weather? Or do what Europe used to do and seems to be on the cusp of doing again now which is look for witches to burn?
Brian: Okay, fine, so you think we’re overreacting to something that's out of our control, that we are not responsible, that if the earth is, in fact, heating up?
Horner: Well, let's say this Ellen Goodman a columnist just joined the parade of those who call people who deny climate change – that’s what they call it -- Holocaust deniers. Okay, now think about this. You decide which is being trivialized: a few tenths of a degree increase over a hundred and something years, or 20 million people dead on the basis of their religion or sexual preferences. Obviously, they’re the ones overreacting because it’s very simple. We admit climate change, and that’s what they deny. Climate changes – it always has, it always will. The Vikings used to farm Greenland, and if we get two degrees Celsius warmer they may again.
Steve: Alright, Chris, put on answer man hat. Here’s some questions, and you’re going to answer them. Folks at home. True or false: the climate was stable until man came along.
Horner: False. In fact, we know this is false because this claim and a chart purporting to show stable climate was called the hockey stick and then the spike upward was the smoking gun from the last U.N. report six years ago. The new one that just came out that you heard distorted about 10 days ago. It wasn’t in there anywhere. No mention of it. Air brushed out. It was dropped, because they air brushed out the little ice age which we just left and the Medieval climate optimum or warming. It's been debunked by the National Academy.
Brian: The glaciers are melting. You saw Al Gore just talk about that.
Horner: Yes, glaciers are melting all over the world. Glaciers are growing all over the world. The problem is…and also glaciers are receding by growing which is in Al Gore’s movie. When they grow too far – grow is the key word -- they break off. That's not melting he shows, that's called calving. But what happens is they say melting glaciers is proof of global warming. By that logic, for lack of a better word, receding glaciers is proof of global cooling. They can't both be true and in fact neither are.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Noel
February 14, 2007 - 21:48 ET by balboaDid you see Horner on The Daily Show last night? It was good stuff.
B
February 14, 2007 - 21:52 ET by Noel SheppardNo.
It's on the Comedy Central Da
February 14, 2007 - 21:58 ET by balboaIt's on the Comedy Central Daily Show page.
I don't watch The Daily Show
February 14, 2007 - 21:53 ET by GalvanicI don't watch The Daily Show anymore. Did Horner make Jon Stewart at least acknowledge that the debate ain't over?
Yeah, Stewart's point IIRC wa
February 14, 2007 - 21:54 ET by balboaYeah, Stewart's point IIRC was that it's something worth looking into, with the stakes so high, and that he was sure Horner was going to beat him up. :-)
B
February 14, 2007 - 21:56 ET by Noel SheppardB,
This guy Horner is a rising star on the conservative landscape. Bright, photogenic, charming, funny, and -- dare I say -- articulate. :-) ns
He was good. It was a fun giv
February 14, 2007 - 21:59 ET by balboaHe was good. It was a fun give-and-take.
Daily Show
February 14, 2007 - 22:08 ET by Noel SheppardB,
Daily Show link: http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=82152. ns
That may be, Noel, but is he
February 14, 2007 - 22:26 ET by saw the lightThat may be, Noel, but is he "clean" as well?
"People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news." - A.J. Liebling
And clean.
February 14, 2007 - 22:35 ET by dahliatraversAnd clean.
I'm sure Horner will be Uberl
February 14, 2007 - 22:00 ET by MikeBI'm sure Horner will be Uberloon's "Worst Person" tomorrow. Imagine: denying the fact of global warming. D@m*! Would you look at that? They're shoveling record snowfalls in New York and Alaska. Say what? It did not get above freezing today in parts of Oklahoma? The news stations must be wrong! It's global warming, dammit! Who are you going to believe: Algore or your lying eyes?
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Ice storms where there are not supposed to be ice storms
February 14, 2007 - 22:24 ET by UnsaneAnd there was an ice storm in San Antonio last month!!! What part of "ice storms in San Antonio are a rarity" do the GW religionists NOT understand?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Question Authority
February 15, 2007 - 02:22 ET by mastersofdeceitSeriously, the motto of the left has always been "question or f authority". Wha happen? All of a sudden there's a cause that can't be questioned?
Any truth to possibility that
February 14, 2007 - 22:06 ET by ucAny truth to possibility that chiropractors have been trying to slam Al Gore with treatment possibilities for years to try to beat his so historically wooden (but nose still seems to grow) posture? Let's leave the truth doctors out of this, ok?
..there is a slim chance uc..
February 14, 2007 - 22:46 ET by bigtimer..there is a slim chance uc...slim, but still in the race...
This man is my new hero for
February 15, 2007 - 01:38 ET by KaleiThis man is my new hero for FINALLY bringing up the Little Ice Age in a Man-made Global Warming debate. Now if he would just mention the Maunder Minimum...
Looks like a good book.Dear
February 15, 2007 - 03:24 ET by ckc1227Looks like a good book.
Dear UN and Al Gore,
If you don't drop this global warming crap, we will invade your countries, kill your leaders, and convert you to Christianity.
Lawmakers Cancel Global Warmi
February 15, 2007 - 04:36 ET by jonathanandersonLawmakers Cancel Global Warming Hearing as Mammoth Snowstorm Heads East
FOX News
This is CLASSIC ...
"House lawmakers canceled a morning subcommittee meeting on global warming as the mammoth snowstorm that has caused chaos across the Midwest headed east."
"The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing entitled 'Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?' will be rescheduled at a later time [due to sub-zero temperatures and massive snowfall], the committee announced."
The hearing on global WARMING was cancelled because of FREEZING weather ... if that's not a wake-up call to the absurdity and insanity of the global warming myth I don't know what is.
__________
Let's go to our coverage in Juneau, Alaska ...
Tom, we understand global warming has taken a drastic turn for the worse where you are. Can you elaborate?
I sure can, Bill. Right now global warming devastation has affected the whole state ... we have record snowfall from the Aleutians to Anchorage to Point Barrow to Fairbanks all the way down south to us here in Juneau ... where the temperature is 70 DEGREES BELOW ZERO. Global warming is hitting us PARTICULARLY hard this year, Bill.
That's terrible news, Tom ... we're all going to have to work just a little bit harder to reduce our CO2 emissions ... we could all sure start breathing a whole lot less ... or we could double the carbon dioxide tax in the 5 states that haven't outlawed it - that'll bring some relief to you guys up there!
Maybe, maybe not, Bill ... what we really need is to triple the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. Hold on, Bill ... I have a developing situation here ... Bill, I'm going to have to sign off because my left big toe just froze solid and fell off. DAMN YOU GLOBAL WARMING!!!
Click on the URL below for the rest of this story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251845,00.html
Some of you might of heard
February 15, 2007 - 09:47 ET by steviep831Some of you might of heard yesterday a caller to Rush's show. The guy actually said that the pieces of glaciers falling into the ocean are migrating south and thus giving us the cold weather we are now experiencing. So global warming IS actually causing cooler temperatures!! I laughed so hard I almost drove off the road... The left's heads are spinning so fast trying to figure out what to do about this cold weather... I've always found God to be very very humorous! Just when our heads get big enough to think that we affect climate change, God pulls a stunt like ice storms in San Antonio! This is great stuff...
Well now the Global Warmers a
February 15, 2007 - 09:55 ET by dscottWell now the Global Warmers are adjusting their arguments (spin) on the Medieval Optimum and Little Ice age, they are starting to admit it (i.e. stop denying it) happened but claim during this current period the sun has not varied or that cosmic rays (affecting cloud formation) hitting the earth don't vary with the solar wind. So the next big fight at this point is documenting the variability of the solar output and cosmic rays striking the earth.
I also notice that they are deftly sidestepping the issue that since 1998, the global average temperature trend is downward while CO2 is trending upward in contradiction to the CO2 theory. Eight years folks is a trend!!!!
Keep up the heat folks, they're feeling it.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Keep up the heat folks, the
February 15, 2007 - 11:08 ET by Dave in TexasKeep up the heat folks, they're feeling it.
I agree. The fact that Christopher Horner was even allowed to come onto the Daily Show is pretty amazing. I think what's causing it is that the really extreme alarmists are getting too out there and some of the more moderate anthropogenic global warming guys are trying to dial it back a bit. In the extremist's eyes, being cautious is as bad as being a skeptic, so they attack them as well. They're making too many enemies and starting to marginalize themselves.
I just began reading this boo
February 15, 2007 - 10:09 ET by winston smithI just began reading Politically Incorrect Guide To Global Warming on Tuesday. I can proudly recommend it to all NB members. I'm just through the first 46 pages but I can tell you in addition to being a great guide on countering all of the cherished myths of GW, Horner enjoys punishing the left with facts and "inconvenient truths" that the media regularly leave out of their always one-sided stories. As is the case with all books that embrace doctrines and ideas that don't conform to the left orthodoxy the book was not prominently displayed anywhere in the Springfield, NJ Barnes & Nobel store where I get much of my reading materials. I, yet again, had to ask a store assistant for help in finding the book. As the assistant lead me down the aisles toward (inevitably) the back of the store, I immediately noticed all of the prominently displayed works on GW being written by "orthodox" authors with titles like "You Can Prevent Global Warming" and "Stop Global Warming Now: You Are The Solution!". We finally reached our destination where, in the back corner of the store, on the next to the last unit, on the very bottom shelf he handed me a copy of the book. Oh, and along side the P.I.G. to GW books were Patrick Michaels books, as you would expect, relegated to the same hard-to-find status. I'm sure Al Gore and the GW industry are grateful for institutions like B& N for doing their part to keep the truth about GW "hidden".
A little 'civil disobedience'
February 15, 2007 - 10:15 ET by dmntd1A little 'civil disobedience' would have been appropriate, Mr. Smith. Take all of those books and set them on the tables with the pro-GW books.... Then, sit and read the P.I.G on GW where you can see the confusion you created! It's all the entertainment one needs for a day!!!
Please make sure your train of thought carries freight.
Winston, B&N's prejudice against thought is well documented.
February 15, 2007 - 10:36 ET by acaiguanaWinston, B&N's prejudice against thought is well documented.
They'll sell the books but they won't do anything whatsoever to promote the books.
That's one reason why the Internet shopping on Amazon is successful. There isn't any reason to go to the trouble of a 'brick and morter' retail outlet that is deliberately supressing Conservative thoughts.
Thomas Jefferson said it best as incribed on his memorial.
"And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God,
eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of
man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too,
in their opinion." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800."
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Funny ... I was just about to
February 15, 2007 - 19:05 ET by saurusFunny ... I was just about to ask where he found the book, because my local Barnes and IGNoble doesn't have it:)
Wow, let's count the misinfor
February 15, 2007 - 10:51 ET byWow, let's count the misinformation!
"hundreds of celebrities can't be wrong, that argument. But the scientific literature is to be written by scientists."
Celebrities are irrelevant, and, according to Horner, so are the 2,500 scientists who worked on the AR4.
"climate changes, weather happens, always has, always will"
No one disputes this, and it is irrelevant to whether CO2 emissions are causing warming now.
"The Vikings used to farm Greenland,"
We've covered this one before. "farm" is a misleading term. You wouldn't suspect it means raising livestock and keeping them in enclosures for six to eight months of the year. That was how the Vikings "farmed." Incidentally, there is pletny of agriculture in Greenland today.
"we know this is false because this claim and a chart purporting to show stable climate was called the hockey stick and then the spike upward was the smoking gun from the last U.N. report six years ago. The new one that just came out that you heard distorted about 10 days ago. It wasn’t in there anywhere. No mention of it."
First, the new report has not been released in full. Second, the report contains more paleoclimate reconstructions than the last, enough for the IPCC to say: "Studies since the TAR draw increased confidence from additional data showing coherent behaviour across multiple indicators in different parts of the world." So Horner is outright lying here.
"The problem is…and also glaciers are receding by growing which is in Al Gore’s movie. When they grow too far – grow is the key word -- they break off."
Never heard this arguiment before. I think there's a reason: It's wacky. By his logic, glaciers could never expand, because growing causes them to fall apart. Oh, and BTW the world's glaciers are melting.
Something missing from the interview is the CEI's connection to Exxon/Mobil. You'd think a professional news outfit would mention this possible conflict of interest.
Something missing from the
February 15, 2007 - 10:58 ET by Jack BauerSomething missing from the interview is the CEI's connection to
Exxon/Mobil. You'd think a professional news outfit would mention this
possible conflict of interest.
Why? No one ever mentions the billions in taxpayers money poured into the manmade global warming trough for all the little piggies.
The massive vested interests living high on the hog on a non-science manmade global warming fraud.
Thanks. Now, please give me y
February 15, 2007 - 11:12 ET byThanks. Now, please give me your opinion on the moon landing, the Kennedy assaination, and Opus Dei.
Thanks . Now please give me
February 15, 2007 - 11:22 ET by Jack BauerThanks . Now please give me your opinion of the scientific method as described by Sir Karl Popper -- one of the foremost scientific philosophers of the 20th Century.
Moon landing- cool.Kennedy as
February 15, 2007 - 11:31 ET by BDMoon landing- cool.
Kennedy assasination - Single shooter = Lee Havey Oswald.
Opus Dei- No opinion.
Good enough?
I don't know about wobbler--
February 15, 2007 - 12:50 ET by misterbillI don't know about wobbler--but, it's good enough for me!
An ugly American is one who does not support his country.
On guilt and conspiracy theories
February 16, 2007 - 07:03 ET by Unsaneguiltwobbler, your intense hatred of capitalism (as you greedily suck its tit dry) is showing yet again.
I would like to hear YOUR opinion of said conspiracy theories, as ALL people who would like to subject GW to the scientific method you hold in such contempt are, by your posts and your logic, in hock to Hyper-Evil Big Oil. But oh, I forgot, every neuron in your brain is fervently dedicated to your religious belief in man-made GW, and your personal First World guilt, and thus, you have no opinions on anything else, as your output on NB demonstrates adequately.
Once again, I find it quite fascinating that you believe scientists cannot EVER have their biases questioned (or are even capable of having them, but then, understanding basic human nature has never been a strong point of yours), unless they as much as pump their own gas at a gas station owned by Hyper-Evil Big Oil. And if we do DARE question the biases of scientists you favor, you whine and throw a tantrum, and I dare say if you were in a position of power, you would have us shot for proposing we do such a thing.
I am still trying to gather a consensus on how many M&Ms I have left when I have two red ones and two green ones, so I might be out for awhile.
(By the way,in full disclosure, I am once again typing this e-mail from a city that you doubtless want to see completely destroyed, as it is a living monument to everything you hate - Houston. So I am sure that on that basis alone you have written off everything I have said, as I am obviously corrupted by the evil that lurks in that city.)
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
AH, the master of conspiracy
February 16, 2007 - 10:13 ET byAH, the master of conspiracy theories enlightens us.
I notice you dutifully dodge the substantive points I made in my rebuttal of Horner. I mean, why think and reason when you can say that I hate capitalism, I will murder people I disagree with, I want to destroy a city of millions, and I have first world guilt. I love how I feel guilty AND I want to kill millions of people. That's some mighty fine, Wingnuttery there, Lou.
If you'd care to argue the points, have at it. But we both know you're not quite bright enough.
To guiltwobbler
February 17, 2007 - 00:24 ET by UnsaneYour comment about how I am not bright enough is highly entertaining. Especially when one considers I do more critical thinking in a day - or even five minutes - than you have managed in a lifetime.
Perhaps that is why your posts in response to mine have gotten increasingly personal: you realize that you cannot even begin to swing a bat in the same league as I, much less play a game at my level (somewhere above the majors, if I may be so bold to claim), so your frustration drags you down further and further into the gutter.
You have yet to make any substantive points on NB; you merely preach your dogma, and are miffed, if not fully engulfed with rage, that we aren't all falling right in line behind you.
My accusations are accurate: you constantly whine "something has to be done" about global warming, yet you never dare say what should be done. The solution, the way I see it (unless we get serious about nuclear power), is to make the economy of the United States, whose tit you greedily suck dry even as your read this, come to a complete stop (after reading up on the Kyoto Protocol I became convinced this whole scam is all about the destruction of the First World and the United States economy: who else pays a price in that thing? Virtually no one else), and perhaps revert to the 18th Century or so. The tone of your posts suggests an extreme intolerance for anyone who disagrees even one syllable from your dogma; with such reasoning, what else am I supposed to believe, other than to see you in a position of power is to see oppression of contrary ideas on a massive and ugly scale?
Maybe you don't want to destroy a city of millions on the drop of a hat, but you hate the spirit that drives it. Houston was built on oil, capitalism, and extreme optimism for the future, and from the sum total of your posts I have read since May it is quite evident to me that you hate all three. So why on earth, based on that, would you find ANYTHING positive about the fourth largest city that embodies everything you hate?
And yes, you are imbued quite heavily with First World Guilt, and that is evidenced by your slavish apologizing for China (among others). I suppose I could call you a communist, but as I see nothing in your posts indicating you are one, I decided that such a comment would be going too far.
If you are really that bothered and upset by my analysis of you and your way of thinking, I am not the one to blame and cry to like a four-year-old. If anything, you should face your reflection in the mirror in the morning and begin a long, intensive process of personal soul-searching. Maybe after that you will begin to understand the post that you so responded to in such a whiny manner, and why I was so dead-on accurate.
Try to have a good day tomorrow. I will work very hard on increasing my "carbon footprint" all weekend...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Nice emotional rant there throatwobbler.
February 15, 2007 - 11:18 ET by acaiguanaNice emotional rant there throatwobbler.
"Celebrities are irrelevant, and, according to Horner, so are the 2,500 scientists who worked on the AR4."
I think nearly everyone would agree with your first statement part, that celebrities are irrelevant. Good work. Would that the entire MSM and Congress would agree with us. But sadly, that is not the case.
I wanted actually to address your 2,500 scientists comment. I have a problem with the 2,500 scientist thing.
A single mathematician changed the world with the Theory of Relativity. Would you not agree?
So, why is a collection of 2,500 scientists which is a statistically insignificant number of 'scientists' worldwide relevant? If I want to cherrypick 2,500 scientists, I could find them in New Jersey, for example, and still have a whole lot of 'scientists' feeling left out.
As far as the geographic distribution of these 'scientists', I have commented before on the lack of 'star' stature of many of them. A great number of this small insignificant number of so-called 'scientists' come from countries that do not have scientific communities of stature; do not have the research or education facilities to support research at any sterling level; are in fact dependent upon things like grants from the UN to perform even rudimentary research; and I contend further aren't even worthy of being in the same room as those scientists that come from highly developed, technologically advanced, and wealthy capitalistic countries powered by 'carbon littering' OIL.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Ball-envy
February 15, 2007 - 11:24 ET by acumen"Nice emotional rant there throatwobbler."
Must be Ball-envy AC........
Hey, don't go dragging NJ dow
February 15, 2007 - 12:23 ET by FastEdHey, don't go dragging NJ down with these scientists rant! - sadly, too true. Anyway, what is the make-up of these 2,500 scientists? I've looked at some of their credentials and wonder how a Water beaureacrat from Africa becomes an expert in climetology. Let us not forget that the last time we had a consensus, it was in support of eugenics.
And if you were to look closer, some of the folks on the Working Groups (1, 2, or 3) have predisposed ideas about GW and in any real scientific research, would have had to admit their bias, and/or disprove their ideas via scientific method. Not so with this great UN report.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Well...New Jersey came to mind. It's the Garden State.
February 15, 2007 - 12:40 ET by acaiguanaWell...New Jersey came to mind. It's the Garden State.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
I can understand - with all t
February 15, 2007 - 13:03 ET by FastEdI can understand - with all the fertilizer being spread by our politicos, our great Blue state will turn Green. (Historical note: NJ was once called the "Red Clay State") oh, to be Red again.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
"climate changes, weat
February 15, 2007 - 11:30 ET by Dave in Texas"climate changes, weather happens, always has, always will"
No one disputes this, and it is irrelevant to whether CO2 emissions are causing warming now.
Really? Seems pretty relevant to me. Let's say human beings quadruple the amount of CO2 we are introducing into the atmosphere over the next 50 years. This will cause the earth's average temperature to increase by 0.01 degree F over that 50 year period. However, during that same 50 years, natural variations in the earth's climate will cause the average temperature to increase an additional 2 degrees F.
Do we spend billions of dollars trying to keep our CO2 emissions down, all in the hopes of avoiding an insignificant increase in temperature, or do we spend those same billions of dollars creating technology and infrastructure that will allow us to adapt to a greater, and unavoidable increase in temperature?
Of course I just made those numbers up, but a full understanding of natural climate change vs. human induced climate change is necessary if we want to make the most intelligent decisions for our future.
But the bottom line here is t
February 15, 2007 - 12:21 ET by dscottBut the bottom line here is the Global Averg. Temp. trend from the 1998 high is downward for 8 years and that's a trend not reflected in the computer models. Count them: 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006. If CO2 were the prime driver and it was rising, then it follows the Global Averg. Temp. must trend up according to the theory, however the Global Averg. temp. trend is down, so the whole theory has just been demonstrated to be false. All reputable science is based on observation of the results, the results are in, the temp trend is down but the CO2 trend is up.
Back to farming in Greenland, we didn't quite finish that discussion on that thread, so I will finish it now by citing farming in Alaska at the same latitude as the old Viking settlements. We have been farming in the Fairbanks Alaska area for quite a while, you do remember those huge cabbages? btw-one of the viking crops documented on the mainland. Why are the cabbages huge even though there is such a short growing season? That would be 20 hours of sunlight. Secondly, during the Medieval Optimum when the Vikings were in Greenland, the ocean level was 18 inches higher than today. You can check this on Wiki if you like, they should be liberal enough for you. If you buy into ocean levels rising due to Global Climate Change then you have to accept that it was way warmer then than now otherwise current ocean levels would be higher now.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
You're right. Global wamring
February 16, 2007 - 10:27 ET byYou're right. Global wamring also stopped in 1983 and 1991. Whew!
Take a statistics class.
"when the Vikings were in Greenland, the ocean level was 18 inches higher than today."
Complete and utter BS. For the past 3,000 years sea levels have been almost constant, rising at .1 to .2 mm per year. Of course, now it's 15 times faster.
Just curious, what is your thought process when you completely make up a number. I mean, no one here at NB will probably check, so I guess you can get away with it. I just want a hint at the psychology. Did you know you were wrong by an order of magintude or did you honestly believe you had it right?
throaty, talking to you is a complete waste of time, I know.
February 16, 2007 - 10:43 ET by acaiguanathroaty, talking to you is a complete waste of time, I know. But you might want to read this article, quoted below.
"During the Medieval climatic optimum, sea level stood at least a half meter
higher in southern Florida than today from the first through tenth centuries."
And if you get bored with that, there's a bunch more.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
You have sloppy sources. Here
February 16, 2007 - 11:20 ET byYou have sloppy sources. Here's the website that your site references:
"In southern Florida, sea level was at least � m higher than now from the first through tenth centuries (Froede 2002)."
That's right--it has an actual question mark in front of the number of meters. Pathetic.
Check on me if you don't believe it:
http://academic.empo...
You mean this quote, throaty: 1/2 does not equal '?', right?
February 16, 2007 - 11:36 ET by acaiguanaYou mean this quote, throaty: 1/2 does not equal '?', right?
"In North America, pollen and charcoal in sediments from Chesapeake Bay record climatic changes over the last 1000 years (Brush 1991). During the Medieval climatic optimum, large influxes of charcoal, sediment, and metals indicate more frequent forest fires and higher rates of erosion in the surrounding basin. Forest in the Chesapeake basin recovered, and erosion diminished, during the following few centuries of cold climate. In southern Florida, sea level was at least ½ m higher than now from the first through tenth centuries (Froede 2002)."
I guess the background color was too tough, huh?
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
So when "sea levels&qu
February 16, 2007 - 11:39 ET by Jack BauerSo when "sea levels" rose 400 feet between 16000BC and 1000BC, what caused that?
So when "sea levels&qu
February 16, 2007 - 11:04 ET by Jack BauerSo when "sea levels" rose 400 feet between 16000BC and 1000BC, what caused that?
Just for future reference - H
February 15, 2007 - 12:26 ET by FastEdJust for future reference - How many glaciers are presently residing in California?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
FastEd
February 15, 2007 - 12:47 ET by Noel SheppardEd,
Probably more than you think. This likely will surprise a number of readers: http://glaciers.pdx.edu/gdb/maps/all.php?page=CaliforniaGlaciers.html. ns
Noel, the question was for th
February 15, 2007 - 13:23 ET by FastEdNoel, the question was for the troll who seems to think that there is a great surge in GW - my question was to gather a baseline of facts and/or misinformation to acknowledge or refute future postings. In fact, your info is more up-to-date to what I had. Since GW started, and my interest in it, the number of glaciers in CA has GROWN!
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Misleading The Misleaders
February 15, 2007 - 13:36 ET by emjem24Throatwobbler, you're just another troll, admit it. Second, you're misleading the "misleaders." I'm sure you think you're doing some kind of environmental informational service for Al Whore but then again many of the GW'ers will always claim they know best. BTW, the glaciers have been melting for 100's of years, something you fail to mention. You're not an expert and neither am I, nor do I pretend to be a scientist, but you think you have the science cred. Where is your science degree? Hmmm? I get very suspicious when trolls like you tend to force feed other NB'ers information that may not only be misleading but downright untrue and you know it. Please stop pretending you even are keeping an open mind on this issue because you're not.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
Emjem, your statement that th
February 15, 2007 - 14:31 ET by MikeBEmjem, your statement that the glaciers have been melting for hundreds of years is incorrect. The correct statement should be that the glaciers have been melting for over one hundred thousand years, since the end of the last ice age.
Right now, some glaciers are melting and are in retreat, while other glaciers are gaining mass and are extending their forward edges.
Don't worry about wobbly's effect on NBers, emjem. We have his number. And we knuckle dragging, beer drinking, gun toting, cousin marrying, Wal-Mart shopping, Republican voting, dumb as a box of rocks conservatives derive great enjoyment of b*tchslapping the wobbly one with facts and links debunking all of his/her ideas.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
"I get very suspicious when t
February 16, 2007 - 11:09 ET by"I get very suspicious when trolls like you tend to force feed other NB'ers information that may not only be misleading but downright untrue and you know it."
Not brave enough to point out what I say that might be untrue?
As for glacial retreat, it's debatable just how much glacier shave been melting for thousands of years. There has been much fluctuation. But it is absolutely certain that glacial retreat has increased in the last thirty years especially:
http://www.sciencema...
http://www.realclima...
http://www.wgms.ch/m...
And here's how a prominent skeptic, Fred Singer, deals with the glacier issue:
http://www.guardian....
He just makes stuff up!
guilt, source evaluation, and intellectual laziness
February 17, 2007 - 00:32 ET by Unsane1) The Guardian has to be one of the most Leftist newspapers printed in English.
2) Aren't you constantly whining to us about how we Rightists allegedly never quote scientific sources (woe to those of us who DARE to cite newspapers or magazines that aren't science journals YOU approve of!!!)? Must be fun to move them goalposts...
3) Your source evaluation skills are pathetic, to put it mildly. Seems to me that the only sources you like, or even bother reading, are the ones that agree with you. If that isn't intellectual dishonesty/laziness of the highest order, I don't know what is.
But then, this is a guiltwobbler post I am responding to...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Throatmobbler,The debate is o
February 17, 2007 - 00:38 ET by NeoConfirmedThroatmobbler,
The debate is over. Can't you see that?
You make some valid points, U
February 17, 2007 - 00:44 ET by NeoConfirmedYou make some valid points, Unsane makes more.
The day I see a conservative state the case for GW and a Lib do the opposite, I'll admit that this is more than partisan nonsense.
Bottom line, neither of you knows for sure.
There IS a slight difference.
February 17, 2007 - 01:03 ET by UnsaneThere IS a slight difference.
I am more than willing to say "I don't know". GW may or may not be happening, and if it is, it may or may not be happening due to the Industrial Revolution.
That's my whole take on it. As such, to me it is unwise to take a knife to the capitalist goose that lays the golden eggs upon which we ALL feast, on a hunch. The fact that people like guiltwobbler desperately want to gamble everything on a hunch and are convinced that man-made GW has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is what I react to. That, and guiltwobbler's (et al) insistence that scientific debate is over (can't happen unless science becomes dogmatic at which point it stops being science), and their refusal to acknowledge differing viewpoints (why are the sources of funding for GW skeptics get "open season" declared on them while we are never at any cost to question the pure 100% altruism of GW supporters, etc) is mildly disturbing, to say the least...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Unsane,I'm on your side of th
February 17, 2007 - 01:20 ET by NeoConfirmedUnsane,
I'm on your side of the slight difference. But...
You have to admit that if GW exists, we would be foolish to think that we played no part in that.
And, it would be OK if we were wrong.
However, you're debate partner falls into the category of thinking of which you describe. (Whew...let me rest). I'm ready again, I live in California but earlier this week had a business trip to Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska. Try telling those people that GW is a threat. High of 18 and low (with wind chill factor) of -2. It's all relative and doesn't impact our daily life. I saw Gore's movie and it's got all the weight of Moorenheit 911. Pure Propaganda.
You don't own this guy an explanation of common sense.
deleted double post
February 16, 2007 - 11:10 ET bydeleted double post
You are still dead wrong.
February 15, 2007 - 18:42 ET by NL207You are still dead wrong.
Irrelevent
February 15, 2007 - 19:13 ET by saurusquoteCelebrities are irrelevant, and, according to Horner, so are the 2,500 scientists who worked on the AR4. endquote
Quite so! Are celebrities imbued with some sort of extra credibility or scientific knowledge in your world?
You might also consider (pardon me for suggesting the obvious) the bonifides of those "2,500 scientists" Algore is fond of parading about. A good place to start might be "what is the discipline they studied the science of?" You will find, I'm sure, that next to none of them are specialists in climatology - unlike those who are on the other side of this issue. I would suspect that would be important, would it not?
I mean ... would you ask a plumber how to fix your car? Okay - that's flip, but really now ....
"what is the discipline they
February 16, 2007 - 10:50 ET by"what is the discipline they studied the science of?" You will find, I'm sure, that next to none of them are specialists in climatology - unlike those who are on the other side of this issue."
The fact that you could possibly believe this shows how effective the anti-environmental movement is--and how you need to do some fact checking.
Richard Alley, Terje Berntsen, Nathaniel L. Bindoff, Zhenlin Chen, Amnat Chidthaisong, Pierre Friedlingstein, Jonathan Gregory,
Gabriele Hegerl, Martin Heimann, Bruce Hewitson, Brian Hoskins, Fortunat Joos, Jean Jouzel, Vladimir Kattsov, Ulrike Lohmann,
Martin Manning, Taroh Matsuno, Mario Molina, Neville Nicholls, Jonathan Overpeck, Dahe Qin, Graciela Raga, Venkatachalam
Ramaswamy, Jiawen Ren, Matilde Rusticucci, Susan Solomon, Richard Somerville, Thomas F. Stocker, Peter Stott, Ronald J.
Stouffer, Penny Whetton, Richard A. Wood, David Wratt
These are just some of the scientists invloved in the AR4. Google them and see thier publications and research. Then look up the research of the skeptics--if they even conduct any. Then report back here.
Instead of demanding everyone
February 17, 2007 - 00:41 ET by UnsaneInstead of demanding everyone else do YOUR homework for you, perhaps you ought to do your own for a change. To wit: your use of the word "if" is most revealing.
Sounds like to me that, in your intellectual laziness and your unrelenting need to cede your critical thinking to others, you have never bothered to read what the "skeptics" have to say, or even check their research, or do any of the things needed to analyze what they have to say.
But what should I expect of one who pays lip service to the scientific method, especially when he clings to his dogma as fervently as a child does to a security blanket?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Oh, Well I'm A GW Denier Too
February 15, 2007 - 13:20 ET by emjem24You know, I just love how the observations around GW change when something like the Valentine's Day Blizzard Event comes along. I also love how the UN needs to put in their dimwitted sense on the issue. Al Gore is suddenly a rock star on this issue because the big, bad, rightwingers don't believe his doom and gloom facade? What if this all turns out to be just a natural pattern? How will the doom and gloomers spin it this time? I wish more common sense would be applied to this issue free of emotionialism and politicization. Unfortunately, Gore the Wh#$@ will never learn. The beat goes on with him
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
Lawmakers Cancel Global Warmi
February 15, 2007 - 15:14 ET by jonathanandersonLawmakers Cancel Global Warming Hearing as Mammoth Snowstorm Heads East
FOX News
This is CLASSIC ...
"House lawmakers canceled a morning subcommittee meeting on global warming as the mammoth snowstorm that has caused chaos across the Midwest headed east."
"The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing entitled 'Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?' will be rescheduled at a later time [due to sub-zero temperatures and massive snowfall], the committee announced."
The hearing on global WARMING was cancelled because of FREEZING weather ... if that's not a wake-up call to the absurdity and insanity of the global warming myth I don't know what is.
__________
Let's go to our coverage in Juneau, Alaska ...
Tom, we understand global warming has taken a drastic turn for the worse where you are. Can you elaborate?
I sure can, Bill. Right now global warming devastation has affected the whole state ... we have record snowfall from the Aleutians to Anchorage to Point Barrow to Fairbanks all the way down south to us here in Juneau ... where the temperature is 70 DEGREES BELOW ZERO. Global warming is hitting us particularly hard this year, Bill.
That's terrible news, Tom ... we're all going to have to work just a little bit harder to reduce our CO2 emissions ... we could all sure start breathing a whole lot less ... or we could double the carbon dioxide tax in the 5 states that haven't outlawed it - that'll bring some relief to you guys up there!
Maybe, maybe not, Bill ... what we really need is to triple the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. Hold on, Bill ... I have a developing situation here ... Bill, I'm going to have to sign off because my left big toe just froze solid and fell off. DAMN YOU GLOBAL WARMING!!!
Click on the URL below for the rest of this story:
http://www.foxnews.c...