The Associated Press on Thursday published an article that very much went counter to all the climate change alarmism so prevalent in the media since Hurricane Katrina made landfall in 2005.
Conceivably more shocking was the headline the Washington Post chose for the version published at its website: “Could Some Win With Global Warming?”
According to LexisNexis, AP’s headline on all its versions was “Global warming winners? Canada, Russia, U.S. Rust Belt might see benefit.”
Yet, the biggest surprises were in the body of the article, including a jab at the Global Warmingist-in-Chief himself, former Vice President Al Gore (emphasis added throughout):
It's not in Al Gore's PowerPoint presentation, but there are some upsides to global warming.
Are you kidding? An article actually extolling the benefits of global warming while in at the same time ribbing soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore? And in the opening sentence no less?
Somebody pinch me, and keep doing so:
Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Rust Belt cities might stop losing snowbirds to the South. Canadian farmers could harvest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand. Mongolia could see a go-go economy.
This is all speculative, even a little facetious, and any gains are not likely to make up for predicted frightening upheavals elsewhere. But still ... might there be a silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia?
I’ve thrice asked my secretary to verify that I wasn’t asleep. How ‘bout you?
"It's not that there won't be bad things happening in those countries. There will be _ things like you'll lose polar bears," said economic professor Robert O. Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. "But the idea is that they will get such large gains, especially in agriculture, that they will be bigger than the losses."
I don’t know about you, but it sounds like Miller time. Of course, it will be interesting to see how many print editions this ends up in tomorrow.
Stay tuned.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Irony
June 14, 2007 - 16:47 ET by LionKingIrony is such a b*tch when it slaps liberalism in the face.
Were they serious?
June 14, 2007 - 16:47 ET byWere they serious?
The gradual back-pedal has be
June 14, 2007 - 16:48 ET by mattmThe gradual back-pedal has begun. Pretty soon APGW will be a non-issue, but all its zealots will have retained their credibility by virtue of gradual backpedaling. The sheeple won't notice.
The backpedaling will begin i
June 14, 2007 - 16:53 ET by bassndudeThe backpedaling will begin immidately, and a new ice age is just around the corner. Dont wait!! Get your blankets now!!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I hope GW was worth it enough
June 14, 2007 - 20:47 ET by HypocriteHaterI hope GW was worth it enough for Laurie David to lose her marriage. Ouch! Didn't mean to go there.
South Park fan I see ... ever
June 14, 2007 - 23:57 ET by benjamingatesSouth Park fan I see ... everything anyone needs to know about global laming - I mean warming - is in "Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow" and "Manbearpig".
These 2 episodes should be required learning for every high school science class in America.
Um...Duh? The Earth has exp
June 14, 2007 - 16:49 ET by SoftRightUm...Duh? The Earth has experienced global warming/climate change for the last 10 thousand years (my apologies to Biblical literalists...), since the last Ice Age. Coincidentally, Mankind's advancements in agriculture, technology, social culture, etc. have all occurred during this time...hmmmmm..... coincidence? Maybe a warm planet is better for us than one covered in huge sheets of ice.......
Ultimately, the trend over the last several thousand years is extraordinarily clear to anyone with even a little Climatology experience, trying to stop Global Warming is like jousting against Continental Drift....go right ahead, enjoy yourselves, but I'm not about to try to stand in front of either of those planetary freight trains...
Congress: Do your Duty! Enforce Article 4 Sect 4 of the Constitution!
I am in complete shock....The
June 14, 2007 - 17:03 ET by bigtimerI am in complete shock....
The AP and WaPo....
Did I read this right?
If so...how deliciously delightful...this won't last much longer...must of been a mistake by someone...lol.
Now if we could just get them to report (meaning decipher and critique) with the same logic as seen in this blathering foolish article... we may make some progress in this country when it comes to reality...but I know that will never happen.
It'll be so deep in DIGG by t
June 14, 2007 - 17:23 ET by whatajoyIt'll be so deep in DIGG by tomorrow that no one (except us) will know this even existed.
btw...good catch Noel! You always find gems to report to us! Kudos!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Take it easy! We're not making a western here.
~ Uncle Junior
Umm, the polar bear in the pi
June 14, 2007 - 17:48 ET by Dave RUmm, the polar bear in the pic looks to be having a rollicking good time to me. :-)
I always felt there was a lit
June 14, 2007 - 18:00 ET by alamojbI always felt there was a little something wrong in the way many enviromentalist approached , well, the environment. I saw it best described a couple of years ago when someone pointed out that many enviros view nature as a house of cards. Upset one little thing and the whole thing falls down. The reality of nature is that when something changes, whether natural or manmade, the equilibrium is often adjusted to some species detriment, but to others benefit. It takes something very radical to bring it down for all species. One example of this is the relationship between deer and trees. Deer are "edge dwellers". They do best when there is a mixture of forest to hide in and grassy fields to eat in. The Eastern Half of the US, covered in old growth forest before Europeans came, was not as friendly to deer as the modern version with both forest and field. Obviously in areas where the cities have completely taken over the deer have problems, but outside those areas, in the farmers fields and cattlemans pastures, the deer can thrive if there are also sufficient forest nearby.
On a side note, I am almost convinced that squirrels are more numerous in old residential neighborhoods with mature trees than they are in the forested country side. It may have something to do with the lack of predators and irrigation of lawns.
"...The Democrats love chaos. The Republicans love order and discipline and waiting your turn." Chris Matthews on "Gregory Live" as reported by Scott Whitlock 16MAY2007 blog "Matthews Rips..."<
Alamo, you have it right. N
June 14, 2007 - 19:27 ET by MikeBAlamo, you have it right. Nature is never in equilibrium. Nature is as dynamic a process as you can have. It is constantly changing. Sometimes the change is small, sometimes large. And, no matter how it changes, one species benefits, and another does not. For example, the relationship of changing populations of predator and prey species. Think it through.
As for the claim in the article that polar bears will become extinct, I must claim "B***s**t!" Temperatures were warmer longer during the Medieval Optimum than they are now, yet the polar bears did not go extinct during that time period. What makes the panic-mongers think they'll go extinct now?
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Mike B, you and I are agreei
June 14, 2007 - 19:54 ET by alamojbMike B, you and I are agreeing in concept, just not in the definition of "equilibrium" . Think of Equilibrium as the balance of things. For example: Say you kill 90% of the coyotes in an area but leave all other things the same. For the next few years there may be more rabbits because there are less coyotes to eat them. We did not destroy the Equilibrium, instead we caused it to shift- Less coyotes, more rabbits. Of course we could also push some species to the point they are no longer part of the equilibrium- they become extinct. My point about the enviros is that some seem to see the thing as a house of cards. Change anything and it all falls apart- are at least mostly collapses. To be truthful, there are some species, because of their unique place in the equilibrium, have more effect than others if they are removed.
Once in his life, every true Texan and Tejano must make a pilgrimage to the Alamo. But you better hury, the Reconquistadores are taking it back.
It's perfectly reasonable t
June 15, 2007 - 00:27 ET by steve2007It's perfectly reasonable to expect some positive changes from global warming, although I think the general consensus, as mentioned in the article, is that overall the negative effects would outweigh the positive ones. For instance, low-lying cities would go below sea level, agriculture would become much worse in many places, ocean currents warming western Europe could shut down, etc. (see IPCC report for more examples).
As you say, alamojb, species often find a way to adjust to changing conditions, but that often involves moving to new areas (and disappearing from current habitats as they become uninhabitable). Applying this to humans under global warming, low-lying cities would have to be moved, costing billions of dollars, and people in Africa could starve as agriculture worsens.
On another note, the WP article says international tourism would jump by 174% in Russia by 2100. I wonder how a prediction like that could be made to three significant digits that far in advance when we are uncertain about how much warming will occur and of almost every other factor that will affect tourism. These numbers are very questionable.
The "general consensus&q
June 15, 2007 - 05:02 ET by UnsaneThe "general consensus"?
Since when did science make its decisions/determinations in parliaments?
MAKE WAY FOR THE SAN ANTONIO SPURS!!! THE 1999, 2003, 2005, AND 2007 NBA CHAMPIONS!!!!
Consensual Sects
June 15, 2007 - 05:17 ET by Cool ArrowGovernments jump in the sack with science on a regular basis?
The Church had a lock on all things scientific when they sent Galileo to hell.
The word 'consensus' is usually a dead giveaway that there is no real science.
No, Riled One. "Conse
June 15, 2007 - 14:48 ET by steve2007No, Riled One. "Consensus" means a general agreement between people. You have essentially stated that whenever a scientific consensus exists, your belief is that there is no "real science". In other words, whatever most scientists say, you will not believe it. Does this not seem bizarre to you?
In any case, the IPCC reports were co-authored by thousands of scientists. But if you still object to government involvement with the IPCC, how about the American Physical Society? As far back as 1996, the science of climate change was understood:
http://www.aps.org/p...
The American Institute of Physics has a web page explaining climate change as well (which is more up-to-date):
http://www.aip.org/h...
Correction, Steve
June 15, 2007 - 15:07 ET by Cool Arrowconsensus is a general agreement among (not between) people.
My point is that when the term consensus is used, it seldom represents scientists, but a layman's interpretation of what most scientists allegedly think.
When you say As far back as 1996, the science of climate change was understood, what do you really mean? Do you mean you know what factors cause it? Do you mean you know how to change it? Can you tell me how and when the Earth will be rendered unliveable? Will it be unliveable? Will climate change negatively or positively affect the Earth? Why have we had previous Ice Ages. What caused the Ice Age of the 1300's to recede? Did we burn a lot of fossil fuels to keep warm?
Science understands all this?
If GW is really happening, th
June 15, 2007 - 15:16 ET by SouthJersey1953If GW is really happening, then explain to me why, every night on the weather report, they tell me "the record high for this date was set in 193X" (it seems the 30's were much warmer than "normal." What caused that GW and how did they stop it? Why don't we just do the same thing now......HINT: They did NOTHING because they understood that variations occur and they had no control over it.
And if you still believe GW is caused by man, then why are Venus and Neptune heating up at the same rate as Earth?
No RINOs in '08 - Thompson/Hunter would be a good ticket; Thompson/Steele would be a great ticket
SouthJersey
June 15, 2007 - 15:20 ET by Cool ArrowPlease, don't question the consensus. It's all very scientific. we'd never understand.
You're right. How silly of me
June 15, 2007 - 15:24 ET by SouthJersey1953You're right. How silly of me to think that I could use logic as a basis for my argument. Thanks, Riled One. I temporarily forgot about the magic consensus.
No RINOs in '08 - Thompson/Hunter would be a good ticket; Thompson/Steele would be a great ticket
Again, "consensus"
June 16, 2007 - 07:24 ET by UnsaneAgain, "consensus" is the creature of parliaments, politics and government, not science. Either one is right or one is wrong.
I don't remember there being a vote to validate Principia Mathematica.
Or Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.
Or Einstein's Theories of Relativity (that is not the reason he got the Nobel, incidentally).
Or for that matter, anything else in science that I can pull off the top of my head.
I notice you use the term "climate change". Am I to take it that you are prepared to blame the United States, capitalism, and the First World, no matter what happens with the climate? Sounds a teensy bit like you are trying to hedge and cover all your bases to me. Anything to assuage your personal guilt, right?
MAKE WAY FOR THE SAN ANTONIO SPURS!!! THE 1999, 2003, 2005, AND 2007 NBA CHAMPIONS!!!!
Hmmm... Maybe...
June 14, 2007 - 18:05 ET by c5thenSome of the fanatics are actually starting to look at the data and seeing that there is really not so much "there" there. Perhaps the initial start of the backpedaling and distancing from Sir Professeur Doktor Gore?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Everything anyone needs to kn
June 15, 2007 - 00:10 ET by benjamingatesEverything anyone needs to know about global laming - I mean warming - is in South Park's "Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow" and "Manbearpig".
These 2 episodes should be required study ... a couple of homework lessons ... for every high school science class in America.
http://mrtwig.net/ep/908.html
http://www.southparkx.net/episodes/1006-manbearpig
WAPO warming to issues
June 15, 2007 - 04:35 ET by Cool ArrowIs it so surprising GW isn't going to be the holocaust worldwide that Ga Lore touts in his movie 'Incontinent Truth'
Wow, it rained all Spring here in West Texas. Think we're complaining?
Ga Lore needs to retreat back into his insignificant life, stop his insidious lies, abandon his inconclusive theories, forget his inbred political career, cease his incessant bansheeism, and just disappear.
But we wish to thank Ga Lore for outing the WAPO once again as the touchy feely puppet of the Hugo Chavez Left
This is all speculative, even
June 15, 2007 - 07:04 ET by dscottThis is all speculative, even a little facetious, and any gains are not likely to make up for predicted frightening upheavals elsewhere.
Ah, the caveats. Tomorrow, they will say it was all a joke, like Cheryl Crow and the one square of TP.
We need to put the study in their face about GW being good for planet earth, btw the polar bears made it through the Medieval Warming and prior warming events that were ... warmer than now. In fact, polar bear numbers are rising due to the abundance of seals, who wait for it, wait for it, ....... are benefiting from a ... choke, choke, choke .... warmer climate.
“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
Energy bill uses "global warming" as excuse for power grab!
June 15, 2007 - 09:00 ET by RJThe Energy bill that just passed committee uses "global warming" as an excuse for a power grab by the enviro extremists. This bill is as bad as the illegal alien amnesty bill!
According to this WSJ piece, it provides for "a rollback of any smarter use of public (or even private) lands for energy use. Gone are previous gains for more drilling, more refineries, more transmission lines. But the big prize was an unprecedented new power allowing green groups to micromanage U.S. lands. That section creates "a new national policy on wildlife and global warming." It would require the Secretary of the Interior to "assist" species in adapting to global warming, as well as "protect, acquire and restore habitat" that is "vulnerable" to climate change. This is the Endangered Species Act on steroids.
http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrasselpw/?id=110010213
Snail Darter Chowder
June 15, 2007 - 09:14 ET by Cool ArrowChief Dan George wins battle with Congress.
A mine is a wonderful thing to close.
Drill interns - not wells
Prosperity is unhealthy for beggars and other barely living things
If you hate Illegals, the next time you need drugs, call a cop.
Save the Whales. Bring back Rosie
Working to end Welfare is like Voting to end Corruption
I'm Eddie too, Eddie