News

Man-made global warming 'bites the dust'

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

By Bob Stuart

Jackson Hole, Wyoming - With headlines blaring “Catastrophe is imminent,” many are convinced that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is fact and a crisis. We’re told the debate is over, there’s a scientific consensus, and the few remaining skeptics are “deniers.”            

Unfortunately for Gore and his minions, those “few” skeptics number in the hundreds if not thousands. A U.S. Senate report released on Dec. 20 details the objections of over 400 scientists who have disputed man-made global warming claims. They include Nobel Prize winners and many who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and Al Gore.

A progression of peer-reviewed studies appearing in publications like the Journal of Geophysical Research and the International Journal of Climatology prompted astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson to declare, “Anthropogenic global warming bites the dust.”

S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist and former founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, sums it up: “There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gasses by human activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400-1850 A.D.”

Critics say solar variability is the driving force of global warming and cooling. Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen, space physicist and director of the Danish National Space Center, said, “The sun is the source of energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.”

Singer concurs: “We cannot control the inconstant sun, the likely origin of most climate variability. None of the schemes for greenhouse gas reduction … will do any good; they are all irrelevant, useless, and wildly expensive.”

Many who were part of the IPCC condemn it. Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT and IPCC lead author says, “The truth is that we are not even asked.” IPCC author John Christy says that many scientists listed in agreement with the IPCC’s thesis are not in agreement or have resigned.
IPCC expert reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray bluntly states, “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense. All the science of the IPCC is unsound.”

Maybe the IPCC is wrong about global warming, but isn’t their agenda to drastically reduce CO2 emissions a noble one? No, say 100 scientists in an open letter to the United Nations: “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.”

Critics claim the IPCC agenda would hinder poor nations from developing, and energy restrictions envisioned by the IPCC would cause suffering. “My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short,” Christy said.

Denis G. Rancourt, professor of physics at the University of Ottawa opines: “I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels, backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth.”

We must resist the politicization of science. A split has occurred between politically driven “official” science and science that is “determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data,” says Dr. David Evans. It’s a dangerous time for science and politics, and while science historically wins these battles, grave harm occurs. We must learn to adapt to inevitable climate change, and reject the fear-mongering of power-driven elitists.
PERMALINK:
Man-made global warming 'bites the dust' | Planet JH News Article: General News

Reader Comments

are you a real siantest
justin

I am one of those deniers-nay sayers. There is enough info out there to dispute every item the glowbull warming alarmists have presented.There is no telling where this scam is going to lead us.Most likely just bust the budgets of most every country in the world. My question is- Where do we,the "deniers" go,and what court will here us,when we file a class action suit against the "alarmist" ? Mainly the governents,paid scientists,and big business that are makeing a profit from the scam. Money,taxes,cleanup costs--all paid for by the average man on the street--you and me. I dont think I can afford the extra add on expenses for foods and just about everything conected to a business that will charge for thier cost of compliance to a regulation to curb CO2 output, and the extra taxes tacked onto everything to pay the government ,who by the way,works for us,we pay thier salary. OH,,THAT'S RIGHT,YOU CANT SUE THE GOVERNMENT,OR MISGUIDED SCIENTISTS,NOR BUSINESSES,BIG BUSINESS WILL ONLY TACK THE COST OF THE SUIT ONTO THIER PRICE FOR SERVICES AND THE LOSS INCOME DUE TO THE LAWSUIT. AND GOVERNMENT HAS IMMUNITY FROM THE LAW. Forget it. I lose whether they are right or wrong. Long live free enterprise. I'm sure it's spelled glowBULL warming for a reason.
Thomas E. Harley,Sr.

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz
Dr Coles

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/1110 http://climateguy.blogspot.com/
Denis G. Rancourt

Thomas E. Harley should share his apparent talent for breathing in and surviving on CO2. Makes me wonder if he defecates and urinates in his own bed. Gawd forbid, Mr. Harley, that we put any restrictions on Free-Market Capitalism...what would dear, dead Miltie Friedman say? What this country needs is more Cheney style insanity like the article and response above. I have just one question for Misters Harley & Stuart...How long can your grandchildren tread water?
John R. Hall

Suck that libs!
Bob

The thing is that some of the scientists cited aren't climate specialists, and are basically just "deniers" like the article says. S. Fred Singer also doubts that second-hand smokle causes cancer and that UV can cause skin cancer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer I couldn't find any "Dr. Ian Wilson" who studies the climate, and Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen's quote doesn't rule out anthropogenic warming. Dr.'s Lindzan and Christy are actually climate scientists who dispute that we will get huge increases in temperature, but they both acknowledge that anthropogenic warming is occuring, and they are just two climate scientists out of thousands who think the changes will be greater. Vincent Gray is a 'Coal Chemist', Denis Rancourt is a physics professor and environmental science researcher. From the introduction to the dominion's article about him (http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/1110): "The Dominion has long published articles that accept the overwhelming international scientific consensus that climate change is a fact, and that human-generated carbon emissions play a significant role in that trend. The individual members of the Dominion’s editorial team that have looked at this interview still hold that view. But what we’ve realized in working on the following interview is that our understanding of climate change is based on what scientists tell us, not on knowledge that we can claim to possess. We’ve shown Rancourt’s comments to two scientists, including a climatologist who is an International Panel on Climate Change lead author; they viewed his scientific critique as lacking merit, and as such said they were not willing to engage in a spurious debate." For whatever reason there are some scientists who dispute human-caused warming, just as there were those who disputed any global warming 5-10 years ago. Many of them do not study carbon dioxide or global climate. Some do, but for each of them there are hundreds who disagree. If 98% of scientists studying a subject agree on something, I don't think we should ignore the other 2%, but I know which group I believe. And if global warming is a big threat, we can't afford to wait to do something, because the costs of inaction are huge.
Chris Valiante

I agre with Bob
Joe

reduce your carbon footprint, shoot a lib or better yet shoot 2
hippy

Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following: 1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability; 2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2; 3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels; 4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and 5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment. These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by: Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil) Royal Society of Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences Academié des Sciences (France) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) Indian National Science Academy Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) Science Council of Japan Russian Academy of Sciences Royal Society (United Kingdom) National Academy of Sciences (United States of America) Australian Academy of Sciences Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts Caribbean Academy of Sciences Indonesian Academy of Sciences Royal Irish Academy Academy of Sciences Malaysia Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions: NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Academy of Sciences (NAS) State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS) American Geophysical Union (AGU) American Institute of Physics (AIP) National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) American Meteorological Society (AMS) Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) These organizations also agree with the consensus: The Earth Institute at Columbia University Northwestern University University of Akureyri University of Iceland Iceland GeoSurvey National Centre for Atmospheric Science UK Climate Group Climate Institute Climate Trust Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy Royal Meteorological Society Community Research and Development Centre Nigeria Geological Society of London Geological Society of America UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment Pew Center on Global Climate Change American Association for the Advancement of Science National Research Council Juelich Research Centre US White House US Council on Environmental Quality US Office of Science Technology Policy US National Climatic Data Center US Department of Commerce US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service The National Academy of Engineering The Institute of Medicine UK Natural Environment Research Council Office of Science and Technology Policy Council on Environmental Quality National Economic Council Office of Management and Budget The National Academy of Engineering The Institute of Medicine UK Natural Environment Research Council Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology Engineers Australia American Chemical Society American Association of Blacks in Energy World Petroleum Council The Weather Channel National Geographic The following companies agree with the consensus: ABB Air France Alcan Alcoa Allian American Electric Power Aristeia Capital BASF Bayer BP America Inc. Calvert Group Canadian Electricity Association Caterpilliar Inc. Centrica Ceres Chevron China Renewable Citigroup ConocoPhillips Covanta Holding Corporation Deutsche Telekom Doosan Babcock Energy Limited Duke Energy DuPont EcoSecurities Electricity de France North America Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand Endesa Energettech Austraila Pty Ltd Energy East Corporation Energy Holding Romania Energy Industry Association Eni Eskorn ETG International Exelon Corporation ExxonMobil F&C Asset Management FPL Group General Electric German Electricity Association Glitnir Bank Global Energy Network Institute, Iberdrola ING Group Institute for Global Environmental Strategies Interface Inc. International Gas Union International Paper International Power Marsh & McLennan Companies Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company MEDIAS-France MissionPoint Capital Partners Munich Re National Grid National Power Company of Iceland NGEN mgt II, LLC NiSource NRG Energy PG&E Corporation PNM Resources Reykjavik Energy Ricoh Rio Tinto Energy Services Rockefeller Brothers Fund Rolls-Royce Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS Group) Stora Enso North America Stratus Consulting Sun Management Institute Swiss Re UCG Partnership US Geothermal Verde Venture Partners Volvo In addition, the scientific consensus is also endorsed by the CEO's of the following companies: A. O. Smith Corporation Abbott Laboratories Accenture Ltd. ACE Limited ADP Aetna Inc. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. AK Steel Corporation Alcatel-Lucent Allstate Insurance Company ALLTEL Corporation Altec Industries, Inc. American Electric Power Company, Inc. American Express Company American International Group, Inc. Ameriprise Financial AMR Corporation/American Airlines Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Apache Corporation Applera Corporation Arch Coal, Inc. Archer Daniels Midland Company ArvinMeritor, Inc. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP Avery Dennison Corporation Avis Budget Group, Inc. Bechtel Group, Inc. BNSF Railway Boeing Company Brink's Company CA Carlson Companies, Inc. Case New Holland Inc. Ceridian Corporation Chemtura Corporation Chubb Corporation CIGNA Corporation Coca-Cola Company Constellation Energy Group, Inc. Convergys Corporation Con-way Incorporated Corning Incorporated Crane Co. CSX Corporation Cummins Inc. Deere & Company Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Delphi Corporation Dow Chemical Company Eastman Chemical Company Eastman Kodak Company Eaton Corporation EDS Eli Lilly and Company EMC Corporation Ernst & Young, L.L.P. Fannie Mae FedEx Corporation Fluor Corporation FMC Corporation Freddie Mac General Mills, Inc. General Motors Corporation Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Goodrich Corporation Harman International Industries, Inc. Hartford Financial Services Group Home Depot, Inc., The Honeywell International, Inc. HSBC - North America Humana Inc. IBM Corporation Ingersoll-Rand Company International Textile Group ITT Corporation Johnson Controls, Inc. JP Morgan Chase & Co. KPMG LLP Liberty Mutual Group MassMutual MasterCard Incorporated McGraw-Hill Companies McKesson Corporation MeadWestvaco Corporation Medco Health Solutions, Inc. Merck & Co., Inc. Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc. MetLife, Inc. Morgan Stanley Motorola, Inc. Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. National Gypsum Company Nationwide Navistar International Corporation New York Life Insurance Company Norfolk Southern Corporation Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company Nucor Corporation NYSE Group, Inc. Office Depot, Inc. Owens Corning (Reorganized) Inc. Pactiv Corporation Peabody Energy Corporation Pfizer Inc PPG Industries, Inc. Praxair, Inc. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Principal Financial Group Procter & Gamble Company Prudential Financial Realogy Corporation Rockwell Automation, Inc. Ryder System, Inc. SAP America, Inc. Sara Lee Corporation SAS Institute Inc. Schering-Plough Corporation Schneider National, Inc. ServiceMaster Company Siemens Corporation Southern Company Springs Global US, Inc. Sprint Nextel St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. State Farm Insurance Companies Tenneco Texas Instruments Incorporated Textron Incorporated Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. TIAA-CREF Tyco Electronics Tyco International Ltd. Union Pacific Corporation Unisys Corporation United Technologies Corporation UnitedHealth Group Incorporated USG Corporation Verizon Communications W.W. Grainger, Inc. Western & Southern Financial Group Weyerhaeuser Company Whirlpool Corporation Williams Companies, Inc. Xerox Corporation YRC Worldwide Inc I'll take this "consensus" over the 400 "scientists" handpicked by Sen Inhofe for his minority skeptics report. Reply Forward
brewski

If I got a penny for every dollar that Al Gore stands to make with his fingers in the alternative energy market, then I’d be independently wealthy. Al Gore is a general partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers which has invested heavily in alternative energy start-up companies. Partners of KP typically carve up 30 percent of the profits if and when those alternative-energy start-ups that KP supports go public or are sold. This secretive deal will put Gore in line to collect tens of millions of dollars a year. Gore is at the helm of this “global warming" sham and obviously we can see that he is not an impartial scientist. He could become the richest ex-vice president in U.S. history. Gore says he plans to donate to charity his "guaranteed" KP "salary" (2 percent "management fee" that KP partners get on all investments) to Alliance for Climate Protection, a nonprofit he chairs. This “gift” is a sliver of the total compensation that he will receive and will not include the aforementioned profit-sharing deal.
Mike from Arizona

If you are interested so called "scientists" who are part of the IPCC, take a look at this link. The almost comical: http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/physician-heal-thyself.html
Bob Burk

Who let the Okies in?
Gasman

This article is ridiculous. Granted it is part of human nature to deny. But this is a joke. Global warming is here. The debate is over. The only ones that can't take the truth and "create" articles like this are the cowards, industry that is trying to manufacture doubt like the tobacco companies did by running a campaign nation wide of disinformation. They do his so they can continue to make money in the old way and trash the environment. There are a few people on t this comment board that refuse to become informed. These people I hold responsible for a crisis that is certain if we don't get off our asses.
Suzanne

Here is the truth about Al Gore. These are FACTS - Please Check them out for yourself. Gore wants to make as much money as possible for his company called Generation Investment Management(GIM). Gore is Chairman of GIM: http://www.generationim.com/philosophy/ GIM invests in companys that cause massive toxic waste and deadly air pollution. Here is their investment details from the SEC: http://www.secinfo.com/d13P5q.u1q.htm Note that Gore invests heavily in GE (a major player in the Military Industrial Complex) and Becton Dickinson (a champion of Toxic Waste) Learn more about Becton Dickinson's environmental scandals here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becton_Dickinson And here is a marvelous flying gattling gun that spreads depleted uranium (DU) all over the Middle East - thanks to GE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger It's pathetic that this guy got a Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe the interrogations staff at Guantanamo Bay will get the next one. The truth always prevails in the end. You can't fool people forever.
Norman G Smith

And here is the truth about those poor "stranded" polar bears - if you can handle the truth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw5WdmuGSfM
Norman G Smith

And here is the TRUTH ABOUT CO2: CO2 is natural and good: We all produce CO2 every time we exhale. Trees take in CO2 and produce oxygen from it. If we somehow removed all the CO2 from the atmosphere all plants would die the same day, and human extinction would follow. There really is not much CO2 in the air. CO2 is only 0.038 % of the atmosphere, and only about 5 % of that is man made.
Norman G Smith

Gore invests in green industry. Duh! This article is the eqivalent of throwing a brick into the grand canyon. The movement to change from old technology (oil and coal) and reduce chemical emissions that get into water and food has already begun, global warming or not. Deal.
Sean

All I can say to the people whoturn their back on global warming : I am sure that you will also insist that smoking is healthy. Gerd Untermann
Gerd Untermann

Man-made Global Warming is a fraud. So is the IPCC and so is Al Gore. They all have direct vested interests in perpetuating the fraud that pays them their substantial annual incomes and pays for their annual pilgrimages to far off exotic vacation spots like Bali and Kyoto. Al Gore is a failed politician and a wannabe religious leader and the IPCC are a bunch of computer modellers and political activists.
Terry

There are two worlds out there. One created by Exxon-Mobil and their friends and the other world that is based on extensive peer-reviewed science. Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following: 1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability; 2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2; 3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels; 4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and 5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment. These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by the following science organizations: Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil) Royal Society of Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences Academié des Sciences (France) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) Indian National Science Academy Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) Science Council of Japan Russian Academy of Sciences Royal Society (United Kingdom) National Academy of Sciences (United States of America) Australian Academy of Sciences Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts Caribbean Academy of Sciences Indonesian Academy of Sciences Royal Irish Academy Academy of Sciences Malaysia Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions: NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Academy of Sciences (NAS) State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS) American Geophysical Union (AGU) American Institute of Physics (AIP) National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) American Meteorological Society (AMS) Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
Ben Ayers

My problem here is that so many comments are completely ignorant of science or are along the lines of "shoot a liberal". Great. Such an fine American and God-fearing attitude. Your children, no doubt, are proud. For the most part, the nay-sayers really don't know about or understand the science behind what the NAS, IPCC, and even the Pentagon (go ahead and google "pentagon climate change") say about climate change. It's the same tired old rhetoric about Al Gore et al. Boring. Forget about Al Gore okay? He didn't invent global warming. he is not a scientist, and you don't need to listen to him about if you don't want to. You guys make it sound as if he is the preeminent authority on the subject, do the display of your own ignorance. And as far as people making a profitable business model out of solutions to a sustainable society, well, hello - you guys want to bitch and moan and belly-ache while there are people trying to move forward. You folks are the alarmists, and everyone knows it. Shout your ignorance to the world all you want. This is America, after all. But get out of the way and let people lead. You could leave the "shoot a liberal" crap to yourselves, but hey, go ahead and be a jerk if you want. I'm sure it makes people really want to listen to you "logical arguments".
Tom

As for Brewski and Ben Ayers' comments - they're exactly the same. Hmmm, looks like they just copied them off some website - brilliant! I'd love to see someone support the science of man-made global warming with some,ummm, science?
little saganaga

Profit is the great motivator. There is huge money to be made in the transition from carbon fuels controlled by dictators (see the Fauds, Chavez, Akmedinejad, Putin, etc.) to sustainable, non-dependent regional and local sources of energy. Even Chevron and BP recognize this... Exxon is a little late to the game. The Energy Bill just passed is woefully lacking in support for research and development on real solutions, but lavishes billions on corn-based ethanol, the least efficient alternative fuel in history. Even if you Bushies/Huckabees don't believe in Science or Evolution, believe this: change is coming and the world is demanding it, from Mumbai to Shanghai to LA to Berlin. People are tired of respiratory disease from the burning of carbon fuels. Invest in the future or sit on the sidelines as a bitter and ignorant idiot living in denial.
Hoback Hank

One more thing. For you real and sincere truth seekers: read Denis G. Rancourt's statement and carefully ponder the ramifications of what he's saying. And, it's not a matter of carbon fuels vs. alternative energies - we need alternative energies - it's a matter of freedom vs. world government - and the man-made global warming scare is a world government (U.N.) power grab. See what Chirac had to say about Kyoto.
little saganaga

My fear, little sagnaga, is that you wouldn't recognize a "power grab" if it hit you in the face.
tom

" A slew of peer-reviewed articles and scholarly studies in recent months has blown alleged man-made climate change right out of the water. Go here to read more:(http://magicstatistics.com/2007/10/11/anthropogenic-global-warming-bites-the-dust/). Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told IBD that it will take several years for the climate change scare to finally die, but "the death spiral will begin at some point, and it looks like the spinning will start in '08." (http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION02/390453931/1008) " Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment & Public Works committee, explained how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions. “In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one," Carter wrote on June 18, 2007. (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html ) [Note: The U.S. alone has spent $30 billion on federal programs directly or indirectly related to global warming in just the last six years, according to one estimate. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249598,00.html) ($5.79 billion in 2006 alone) Adding to this total is funding from the UN, foundations, universities, foreign governments, etc. Huge sums of money continue to flow toward addressing climate fears. In August, a State Treasurer in California "proposed a $5 billion bond measure to combat global warming," according to the Sacramento Bee. (http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/325922.html) Even if you factor in former Vice President Al Gore's unsubstantiated August 7, 2007 assertion that $10 million dollars a year from the fossil fuel industry flows into skeptical organizations, any funding comparison between skeptics and warming proponents utterly fails.(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/07/eagore107.xml) Gore has recently launched a $100 million a year multimedia global warming fear campaign. Gore alone will now be spending $90 million more per year than he alleges the entire fossil fuel industry spends, according to an August 26, 2007 article in Advertising Age. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/26/global-warming-ads-al-gore-coming-soon) Meteorologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, called the Newsweek article part of a “coordinated assault” on skeptics. “[Newsweek] alleges that a few scientists were offered $10,000 (!) by Big Oil to research and publish evidence against the theory of manmade global warming. Of course, the vast majority of mainstream climate researchers receive between $100,000 to $200,000 from the federal government to do the same, but in support of manmade global warming,” Spencer wrote in an August 15, 2007 blog post. (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=081307B) James Spann, a meteorologist certified by the American Meteorological Society, suggests scientific objectively is being compromised by the massive money flow to proponents of man-made climate fears. "Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story," Spann wrote on January 18, 2007. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3a9bc8a4-802a-23ad-4065-7dc37ec39adf) "Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab," Spann added. Atmospheric physicist Dr. Fred Singer, co-author of the book "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years," also detailed the extensive financing machine the proponents of man-made global warming enjoy. "Tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the global warming scare—at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams," Singer explained on June 30, 2007. (http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=08) "In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest. Of course, there are also many sincere believers in an impending global warming catastrophe, spurred on in their fears by the growing number of one-sided books, movies, and media coverage," Singer added. For a detailed breakdown of how much money flows to promoters of climate fear, see a Janaury 17, 2007 EPW blog post: (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32ABC0B0-802A-23AD-440A-88824BB8E528)
Mike in Arizona

Whaddya bet that Mike in Arizona also believes that his god created the world in 7 days, that evolution is a scam, that the War in Iraq is being waged to save the world from WMDs and to pay back Saddam for the 9-11 attacks, that guns don't kill people, that free-market capitalism will save the world from the bad people, that genetically altered food, atomic radiation, and aspartame are good for the body, and that Santa, The Easter Bunny, and The Tooth Fairy are just the greatest!!?? What the hell Mike in Az.?? Do you own an asbestos plant somewhere or just a lot of stock in notorious corporate polluters?? Your man President Jackass has turned over the former job of the EPA to the corporations themselves for self-regulation. I for one appreciate not breathing noxious fumes or listening to the noxious notions of Dumkopfs in denial. Put a lid or a catylitic converter on your poisonous gas!
John R. Hall

John R. Hall, you're right about some things, but you're an ideologue, and quite judgmental to boot. Have you checked out any of the info. Mike in Arizona suggested you should? I thought not.
little saganaga

I agree that comments like "shoot a liberal" are not called for. It is nice to see an issue tackled that is less than popular in a "green" community. Stuart did a great job and is likely correct. I think we all agree that there is a current warming trend, so yes, there is global warming. The point that has NOT been proven is if the warming is caused by man's 5% contribution, the oceans 95% contribution or is just another fluctuation... like we have had for millions of years. It is wise for us to question "popular thoughts" like man-caused global warming. Remember just a few years ago, the government endorsed recycling paper! Now we have learned that reusing is wise, but in the case of paper - recycling is not wise.
Shep

little saganaga...Even President Jackass has quit denying global warming. I've been called a lot worse than "ideologue and judgmental"...This isn't rocket science and we really don't need an army of scientists (real or government bankrolled) to understand that 6 billion people hooked on oil are poisoning the planet. And anyone who fights against putting limits on carbon emissions just pisses me off. I've got about as much time for the swill they pedel as I do for watching the corporate propaganda on FAUX NEWS. It is easy and natural for me to be judgmental since I'm right.
John R. Hall

To John R. Hall: Let's get at the real problem here. It's not the so-called "man-made global warming". The real problem is our dependence on foreign energy sources. Even the oil industry acknowledges this. And attempts to lump all “man-made global warming” skeptics as being paid mouthpieces of the oil industry are false and detract from the real issue of developing a viable, renewable energy source for our country. What I am saying is that we need to stop wasting billions (and in the coming years trillions) of dollars on an issue that is tantamount to playing God. We are wasting time, money, and energy on something we really cannot control. Nobody can dispute the devastating effects man has on the environment, but the issue of CO2 and the hypothesized effect it has on the climate is simply misguided, false and “constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.” (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/UN_open_letter.pdf) The effect of man’s contribution to any measured warming of the planet has been calculated to be so minuscule that it may not even me measurable (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport). To answer your other questions: I actually believe in evolution. We could have done without the war in Iraq. I actually favor gun control. NAFTA screwed us. Globalization damages America. I avoid aspartame whenever possible. I avoid atomic radiation at all costs. And genetically altered food sounds scary to me but I’m sure I’m eating it and don’t even know it. Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy were the greatest when I was 5 years old.
Mike in Arizona

HMM! Let's see, if those who believe in global warming are wrong, what will be the result? A cleaner, healthier planet! If those who do not believe in global warming are wrong, what will be the result? Extinction of the human species! It really is a no brainer!
Bill Krebs

For you half-wits that think this discussion is about whether or not we are experiencing global warming, do you always have so much trouble differentiating issues? The issue is if global-warming is man-made. There are arguable points on both sides of this story. Personally, I think global warming is primarily the result of cyclically increased solar radiation and terrestrial precession, among other things. I very much agree with some that our slight global warming may indeed be beneficial to the human condition, as found those Europeans who settle in Greenland around a millennium ago. What we may really have to worry about is global cooling after this warming cycle ends.
Rick Meron

To Rick Meron: Thanks for clarifying. These people need serious help.
Mike in Arizona

The issue Mister Moron is not whether global warming is man made...The issue is whether it's a good idea for all 6 billion of us who inhabit planet earth to be crapping in our own bed. Corporate Amerika left to regulate itself will continue to pump its poison into the sky, sea, and land. After all, corporations have no hearts, souls, or respiratory systems...only profit-hungry investors. Obviously you naysayers don't understand this, so you're not worth another minute of my time. Go ahead and have the last words of insanity.
John R. Hall

To John R. Hall: If you are so concerned about the health of the planet, then you need to get rid of your car and shut off your electricity and your gas to your home which should be a grass hut. Get rid of your computer. And don’t bother using any commercial airliner; instead, you should walk, ride a bike or row a boat to wherever you need to go which should be somewhere other than America (not Amerika). Cuba sounds like a good place for you to live. Their standard of living should suit you just fine.
Mike in Arizona

Read about how carbon taxing and cap and trade schemes will destroy the economy and our standard of living: http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/Brennan_global_warming/2007/11/13/49093.html
Mike in Arizona

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/11338421.html http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/11595211.html
Rick Meron

brewski Get a life and don't be so gullible We aren't affecting anything. That Sun - you know the one - it's BIG and it's HOT!
Geeman

From the state that brought us Dick Cheney I would expect nothing less than a denial of information. the article claims to have looked back 1 mya, but how about a full 6 bya to the initial stages of life on earth, then iceball earth, etc. Yes, there are many cyclical periods, but this is one of the most extreme that has occurred if someone actually looks at ice cores and micro-fossil records to record atmospheric chemical composition for various points in time.
J. Curry

Certain scientists will always only say what will help them land their next grant....
J Curry

J. Curry: "this is one of the most extreme..."? The Vikings settled Greenland around 1100 A.D. and grew crops there. And yes, 'certain scientists will only say what will help them land their next grant"...if you do some research, you will discover that the money being funneled into anthropogenic global warming research is vast, and GREATLY exceeds research money to skeptical scientists.
little saganaga

And besides, it's impossible to take anything you say seriously when you preface it with the idiotic notion that the information is suspect because the article originates in Wyoming.
little saganaga

Joe, I am the Dr. Ian Wilson who according to you does not study climate. I work in the Sun-Earth Climate Connection group at the University of Southern Queensland here in Asutralia. You might want to read my recent address on climate to a group of scientists and engineers in Melbourne which is posted at: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf Cheers, Dr. Ian Wilson
Ian Wilson

Good audio download about this topic! http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=author&ID=1124
SOH



Leave a Comment


Write a Letter to the Editor
Please limit your letter to 300 words, sign it and give us the name of your town.

Saturday, February 04
TODAY'S EVENTS
Music
Phil Round
6:30 PM to 9:30 PM
in the lobby of Amangani Resort.
Music
Tram Jam
11:00 AM to 2:00 PM
at the base of Bridger Gondola at Jackson Hole Mountain Resort.
Music
Holligans
3:00 PM
in the Trap Bar at Grand Targhee Resort.
Music
Chanman Roots Band
7:30 PM to 11:00 PM
at the Silver Dollar Bar.
Music
Revolver
9:00 PM
at the Virginian Saloon.
Music
Kinetix
9:30 PM
at the Mangy Moose in Teton Village.
Community
Volunteer Day at Habitat
9:00 AM to 4:30 PM
at Hall Avenue job site in east Jackson.
Dance
Gallim Dance Open Rehearsal
3:00 PM
at Dancers' Workshop, Studio 1, Center for the Arts.
Music
Vert-One
3:30 PM to 6:30 PM
in the Peak Restaurant of Four Seasons Resort.
Community
Ice Pond on the Square Community Event
4:00 PM
Jackson Hole Town Square
View All Events
planet polls
JH Weekly Poll
Who do you think should pay for the health care of Aaron Wallis?



Total of voters : 39