Browse By

Global Warming, The Real Crisis, Surges Forward

While Congress has been busy creating political theater with what increasingly appears to be a manufactured crisis, the Global Carbon Project reminds us what a real crisis looks like. With the project’s facilitation, a group of scientists from the USA, UK, France and Australia came together to estimate the carbon dioxide emissions from 2007.

Their results have just been released, and they reveal that emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and the production of cement have increased far beyond what the scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change thought possible. The GCP report states,

“The actual emissions growth rate for 2000-2007 exceeded the highest forecast growth rates for the decade 2000-2010 in the emissions scenarios of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (IPCC-SRES). This makes current trends in emissions higher than the worst case IPCC-SRES scenario.”

That 700 billion dollars headed to Wall Street would be better spent creating a sustainable, clean energy infrastructure manufactured right here in the USA. That effort would create huge numbers of jobs, and restore our nation’s manufacturing capabilities – and could help our economy recover from the failures of the marketeers in the big investment firms.

Which team do you think ought to be entrusted with the effort to bring our emissions down? The ticket with the vice presidential candidate who only realized two weeks ago that human beings have anything to do with climate change?

8 thoughts on “Global Warming, The Real Crisis, Surges Forward”

  1. Tom says:

    It’s sure lookin’ more and more like we ain’t gettin’ out of this mess. The most dire predictions of the scientists who completed the intergovernmental panel on climate change report are being surpassed by REALITY (ie. actual measurable effects)right now. All the window dressing and pretty talk about changing things is not helping and the earth doesn’t care what we do anyway – nature will adjust as it has must (due to physical laws).

    So be prepared for much more erratic and unpredictable weather, an increase in violent storms, too much rain where it isn’t needed and decades long drought in other areas, an increase in disease, lack of potable water, and on and on. It doesn’t bode well for future generations.

  2. Handrock says:

    From Senator James Inhoffe web site::::

    “Such efforts fly in the face of compelling new scientific evidence that makes a mockery of these lawsuits. By now, most everyone familiar with the climate change debate knows about the hockey stick graph, constructed by Dr. Michael Mann and colleagues, which shows that temperature in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th Century. The hockey-stick graph was featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, published in 2001. The conclusion inferred from the hockey stick is that industrialization, which spawned widespread use of fossil fuels, is causing the planet to warm. I spent considerable time examining this work in my 2003 speech. Because Mann effectively erased the well-known phenomena of the Medieval Warming Period-when, by the way, it was warmer than it is today-and the Little Ice Age, I didn’t find it very credible. I find it even less credible now.

    But don’t take my word for it. Just ask Dr. Hans von Storch, a noted German climate researcher, who, along with colleagues, published a devastating finding in the Sept. 30, 2004 issue of the journal Science. As the authors wrote: “We were able to show in a publication in Science that this [hockey stick] graph contains assumptions that are not permissible. Methodologically it is wrong: Rubbish.”

    Dr. von Storch and colleagues discovered that the Mann hockey stick had severely underestimated past climate variability. In a commentary on Dr. von Storch’s paper, T. J. Osborn and K. R. Briffa, prominent paleo-climatologists from the University of East Anglia, stressed the importance of the findings. As they wrote, “The message of the study by von Storch et al. is that existing reconstructions of the NH [northern hemisphere] temperature of recent centuries may systematically underestimate the true centennial variability of climate” and, “If the true natural variability of NH [northern hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than is currently accepted, the extent to which recent warming can be viewed as ‘unusual’ would need to be reassessed.” In other words, in obliterating the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, Mann’s hockey stick just doesn’t pass muster.

    Dr. von Storch is one of many critics of Michael Mann’s hockey stick. To recount just one example, three geophysicists from the University of Utah, in the April 7, 2004 edition of Geophysical Research Letters, concluded that Mann’s methods used to create his temperature reconstruction were deeply flawed. In fact, their judgment is harsher than that. As they wrote, Mann’s results are “based on using end points in computing changes in an oscillating series” and are ” just bad science.” I repeat: “just bad science.”


    These findings come alongside a spate of new reports that, at least in the eyes of the media, supposedly confirm the “consensus” on global warming. “The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment,” released last fall, perfectly fits that mold. “Arctic Perils Seen in Warming,” blared a headline in the New York Times. As the Times wrote, “The findings support the broad but politically controversial scientific consensus that global warming is caused mainly by rising atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, and that the Arctic is the first region to feel its effects.”

    What do we really know about temperatures in the Arctic? Let’s take a closer look. As Oregon State University climatologist George Taylor has shown, Arctic temperatures are actually slightly cooler today than they were in the 1930s. [Chart #1] As Dr. Taylor has explained, it’s all relative-in other words, it depends on the specific time period chosen in making temperature comparisons. “The [Arctic Climate Impact Assessment],” Dr. Taylor wrote, “appears to be guilty of selective use of data. Many of the trends described in the document begin in the 1960s or 1970s-cool decades in much of the world-and end in the warmer 1990s or early 2000s. So, for example, temperatures have warmed in the last 40 years, and the implication, ‘if present trends continue,’ is that massive warming will occur in the next century.”

    Dr. Taylor concluded: “Yet data are readily available for the 1930s and early 1940s, when temperatures were comparable to (and probably higher than) those observed today. Why not start the trend there? Because there is no net warming over the last 65 years?”This is pretty convincing stuff. But, one might say, this is only one scientist, while nearly 300 scientists from several countries, including the United States, signed onto the Arctic report. Mr. President, I want to submit for the record a list of scientists, compiled by the Center for Science and Public Policy, from several countries, including the United States, whose published work shows current Arctic temperature is no higher than temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s. For example, according to a group of 7 scientists in a 2003 issue of the Journal of Climate: “In contrast to the global and hemispheric temperature, the maritime Arctic temperature was higher in the late 1930s through the early 1940s than in the 1990s.” Or how about this excerpt from the 2000 International Journal of Climatology, by Dr. Rajmund Przybylak, of Nicholas Copernicus University, in Torun, Poland: “The highest temperatures since the beginning of instrumental observation occurred clearly in the 1930s and can be attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation.”
    The world’s climate has changed from the beginning of time, that is why we have had ice ages and dinosuars. The sun has changed in intensity and continues to change. Palin point was not that man hasn’t contributed to the change, but that he is not a major factor. But Charles Gibson didn’t want to hear the the Emperor has no clothes. So Palin softened the message. But the fact is the fear factor is working greatly just look at Al Gores income last year, and the rise of energy consumption at his home. Do you think if he was worried about global warming he would use the power equivalent of 20 households?

    “Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
    Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

    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, 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 the 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.” creidt Tennessee Center for Policy Research

  3. Pinkerton says:

    Cut and pasted from another ranting idiot:

    By Derek • October 24, 2005

    Smoking DOES NOT cause cancer! I’m getting so tired of having to explain this to the brainless anti-smokers who write to me in anger. Another person wrote to me yesterday and said: “How can you defend a product that is known to cause cancer?” I’m getting very weary of having to explain this to people over and over again.

    Smoking is one of many risk factors for cancer, but it does not cause cancer. If you are one of the people that are so certain that it does, then the fact that you are so sure is a perfect illustration of just how successfully the anti-smoking propaganda machine has been in brainwashing you, and the average person.

    Think about it for a second. Employ a little critical thinking and use your brain: Would you think it a reasonable statement to say that automobiles cause drunk driving? Of course not! The notion that automobiles are the cause of drunk driving is patently ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that drunk people cause drunk driving, not automobiles, right? And, if I were to suggest any different, then you would likely think that I’m some kind of imbecile. After all, the majority of automobiles on the road will never see any intoxicated person sit behind the wheel and attempt to operate the vehicle. But, every time an intoxicated person does attempt to operate a vehicle, drunk driving is the result. So, why should I not think that you were some kind of imbecile if you were to say to me: “Smoking causes cancer!”???

    Think about it: If your claim is that smoking does indeed cause cancer, you also, more than likely, agree that automobiles are not the cause of drunk driving. Yet, if we were to somehow eliminate every automobile from the face of the planet tomorrow, we would also completely eliminate drunk driving. Even though this is true, it is still absurd to think that automobiles cause drunk driving. However, if we were to somehow eliminate smoking tomorrow, there would still be an awful lot of cancer in the world! So, how could you then look at me with a straight face and say that smoking causes cancer, while at the same time agreeing that automobiles are not the cause of drunk driving, AND believe, even in the slightest way, that you haven’t been brainwashed by the propaganda?

    The FACT of the matter is: SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER! Smoking may, in some cases, improve the ability of the actual cause of cancer to take hold. But, it DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER. There is a huge difference there! Certain health professionals, certain people who claim to be an authority on such matters, and members of the anti-smoking crusades are fond of throwing around the phrase “smoking causes cancer” because the phrase carries more weight than saying: “Smoking is one of many risk factors associated with the onset of cancer.” And, they feel that it is much easier for the average person to digest. But in all actuality, they are either liars, or grossly misinformed.


  4. Handrock says:

    Again. Pull you head out and use facts.

  5. Handrock says:

    You are a god in your own mind! And an ignorant fool in mine!

  6. Pinkerton says:

    Cut and pasted from yet another utter dumbass:

    Bill Kaysing was a librarian/writer of technical publications and advanced research at Rocketdyne Systems from 1956 to 1963. He states that it was estimated in 1959 that there was a .0014 chance of landing man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth. This took into account the effects of radiation, solar flares and micro meteorites. He could not believe in 1959 that man could go to the Moon.

    However, only 2 years later, American President John F. Kennedy set a goal in May 1961, when he made the following famous speech. ‘I believe that this nation should commit itself. To achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind or more important for the long range exploration of Space.’ It was just eight years later in 1969, that man finally left Earth and set foot on the Moon… Or so we have been led to believe.

    I would like to show you some astonishing evidence that shows glaring mistakes or anomalies on the ‘official record’ of NASA film footage and still photographs. I have included the actual official Apollo film footage on this page to illustrate and also possibly educate you, the reader, of the anomalies and to let you see with your own eyes what has become one of the biggest cover-ups in the history of Mankind. I will also explain why the US Government has tried to keep this a secret for over 30 years.

    I would like to suggest that if Man did go to the Moon during the missions, the Apollo films that we were told were filmed on the Moon are bogus and not the real footage. Evidence suggests that Man could not travel to the Moon’s surface, but instead they had to stay in near Earth orbit within the safety of the Earth’s magnetic field that would have protected them from the radiation that is emitted by the Van Allen radiation belt!!!

  7. Handrock says:

    Your example are as patently stupid as you are..We are not talking about one lone descanter. Rather thousands of notable scientist around the world. But for you ignorance is bliss.

  8. Pinkerton says:

    No, we aren’t talking about one lone descanter, but rather thousands of shills funded with oil company dollars, echoed by millions of morons like yourself.

    The science is in, the vested interests are working overtime whipping up bullshit to muddy the waters, and the press, the regulators, the government, and most of the people are sitting around like dazed toddlers saying “Wha’ happen’?”

    Just like leaded paint, just like asbestos, just like tobacco. We can’t afford to sit around and let CO2 do damage decades after we know how dangerous it is like we did with that other crap. But we will, because of stupid people like you who don’t know science from industry propaganda.

    But by all means, cut and paste away, you dittohead tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist idiot!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!