Sinking ‘climate change’
Three modern myths have been sold to the American people: the promise of a transparent administration (President Obama); the promise of a more ethical Congress (Speaker Pelosi); and the myth of “global warming,” or “climate change.”
The first two are daily proving suspect and now the third is sinking with greater force than melting icebergs, if they were melting, which many believe they are not.
After spending years promoting “global warming,” the media are beginning to turn in the face of growing evidence that they have been wrong. The Times of London recently reported: “Britain’s premier scientific institution is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures.”
It gets worse, or better, depending on your perspective. Newsweek magazine, which more than 30 years ago promoted global cooling and a new ice age—and more recently has been drinking the global warming Kool-Aid—headlined a story, “Uncertain Science: Bickering and Defensive, Climate Researchers Have Lost the Public’s Trust.” Newsweek does its best to cling to its increasingly discredited doctrine, but the growing body of contrary evidence only adds to the public’s disbelief.
In Canada, the polar bear—which has been used by global warming promoters to put a cuddly face on the issue—is in danger of not being endangered any longer. CBC News reported that the polar bear’s designation as a “species of special concern” has been suspended “while the government reviews the polar bear’s status and decides whether to renew the classification or change it.”
The New York Times recently lamented “global warmism’s loss of credibility” in a story about hundreds of “environmental activists who met to ponder this question: “if the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet?” The “consensus” never was a consensus. Most of us may not have gotten an “A” in science, but we can sense when we are being bamboozled.
The German online news magazine Focus recently carried a story, “Warm Times Will Soon Be Over!” Commenting on the “new NASA high temperature record,” which may be set, the magazine blames it on El Nino. Meteorologists, like Joe D’Aleo of The Weather Channel, are publicly distancing themselves from the false doctrine of global warming. D’Aleo says, “We’ll have La Nina conditions before the summer is over, and it will intensify further through the fall and winter. Thus we’ll have cooler temperatures for the next couple of years.”
Remember the scare ignited in 2007 by supposed melting Arctic ice caps? The Star in Canada says a new analysis shows that the apparent change was the result of “shifting winds,” while an expedition last year to the North Pole discovered the ice “100 percent thicker than expected.”
Much of this information—and more—is available at the useful website Climate Depot.
It is a given that America needs new sources of energy. Environmentalists have inhibited efforts at exploration by supporting policies that have forced some domestic exploration too far offshore (thus increasing chances of an ecological disaster as is occurring in the Gulf of Mexico).
Instead of trying to sell us a dubious doctrine at an estimated cost of $100 billion a year worldwide (so far), environmentalists would have done themselves and the world more good had they chosen a different strategy, such as not sending oil money to countries that want to destroy us. This would have increased our patriotic spirit and had the additional benefit of not only diversifying our energy supply, but also depriving our enemies of money they use to underwrite terrorism.
Watch for the hardcore “global warming” cultists to continue clinging to their beliefs; but also watch increasing numbers of scientists and eventually politicians to abandon this once “certain” faith and to look for other ways to control our lives. In that pursuit, the left never quits. Rather than acknowledge their error, they will go on to make new mistakes, knowing they will never be held accountable.
© 2010 Tribune Media Services Inc.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top36 Comments to “Sinking ‘climate change’”
It will be incredibly difficult to slow or stop this overweight train of global warming ideology. The momentum for global warming alarmist is enormous. Tack onto that governments which are intent on reaping huge tax revenue from cap and tax and you’ll be hard pressed to stem the tide. You will see the same full court press on global warming from this administration that you saw in Obamacare.
Report comment to moderator
Copenhagen really shined a lot of light on the issue from my perspective. It really had very little to do with seriously considering ways to combat the stated enemy of “climate change”. Instead, it was a forum for dictators to call for the end of capitalism and an unprecidented transfer of wealth to the “poor nations” that those dictators controlled (and kept poor by their redistributionist policies).
Until there is honesty on this issue (”green jobs” to combat unemployment? Do you think we are that stupid?), there is no way it can maintain the public’s support and belief.
Report comment to moderator
Face it folks, this is just one more “crisis” that has been hatched to allow the liberal faction to bamboozle their way into our everyday lives – for purposes of control of course!!!
There;s always something; DDT, ALAR, GW, G Cooling, Climate Change, Swine Flu, etc, etc, ad infinitum!!!!
Report comment to moderator
This article reports about global science denial as if it were science.
WRONG!
1.Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that warms earth
2.We are emitting HUGE amounts of it
3.The earth is warming because of it
Where is your SCIENTIFIC evidence that these 3 things are NOT TRUE?
Report comment to moderator
Of course it is science. What about it is not science?
1. CO2 has not been proven to warm the earth. It has been shown that CO2 levels follow the warming, they do not precede it. Take a REAL close look at Al Gore’s data in is indoctrination video “An Inconvenient Truth.”
2. We are emitting CO2, but CO2 is still considered a trace element in the atmosphere. It is still far outweighed by Nitrogen and Oxygen.
3. We don’t know that the earth is warming because of it. That has not been proven. See #1.
Let me also add that the Most of the North Pole ice is floating. When ice floats, it displaces water the water so that it may float. When the ice melts, it will NOT cause the water level to rise. You can prove this by doing a simple experiment with a glass of water with an ice cube floating in it. Before the ice melts, mark the level of the water. Cover the glass to prevent evaporation. When the ice melts, observe that the level is exactly where it was at the start of the test. Also, if the ice at the poles is disappearing, then why did they build South Pole Station on telescoping footings (poles) so that they can raise it when the ice level rises… and it is rising.
My daughter came home with so called science from her school work that actually said that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Anyone that knows anything about control loops knows that a statement such as this is absurd. Water vapor acts as a thermostat to stabilize the temperature. If it were a greenhouse gas, the earth would either be frozen over, or burning up…. for the same reason that if you were in the shower and switched the hot and cold feeds, and were not smart enough to figure it out… you would freeze yourself or burn yourself.
Report comment to moderator
We are emitting HUGE amounts of it.
Tell me, you seem like an informed person, what percentage of CO2 do humans produce as opposed to the total emitted?
Report comment to moderator
By the way, truth is not determined by consensus… no matter how many people agree. Did you forget that most of the free world celebrated the new millennium a year early?
Report comment to moderator
The earth is warming because of it.
Because of what? “It” is rather vague….
Because of the “huge” amounts of CO2 that humans produce? There’s no proof that Global Warming and anthropomorphic CO2 production are linked.
In fact, climatologists don’t really know how the climate mechanism works. They’re just guessing…
You wanna talk about HUGE factors in environmental changes then let’s talk about that nuclear furnace that is the single largest factor contributing to warmth on the earth – the sun.
Report comment to moderator
“Copenhagen really shined a lot of light on the issue from my perspective. It really had very little to do with seriously considering ways to combat the stated enemy of “climate change”.”
Oh no. You’ve really burst my bubble here… You mean to tell me that scientists aren’t really objective, and might just have an agenda?
I’m just devastated…
NOT.
Report comment to moderator
This is a number I have not measured, nor do I have a ticker running on my screen showing this value. It is a value that you can look up. There are likely many different estimates out there as well… so who’s will you believe? That said, the number by itself is meaningless. It has to be placed into context. No matter what the number is, the “scientists” on the global warming bandwagon have not proven that the CO2 that we are producing is the cause of the warming. BTW, at the same time, the ice caps on Mars are melting too. Maybe CO2 from NASA vehicles?
Report comment to moderator
“Oh no. You’ve really burst my bubble here… You mean to tell me that scientists aren’t really objective, and might just have an agenda?
I’m just devastated…
NOT.”
hahahahahahahahahahaha… thanks for the laugh.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and the “Debate is Over”, but only because those on the global warming bandwagon are afraid to debate.
Report comment to moderator
Rick, wasn’t a Supreme Court suit by some states involved in ordering the EPA to arbitrarily classifiy CO2 as dangerous?
Report comment to moderator
The Argument that increased domestic drilling will reduce our dependence on foreign oil is misleading. US refineries buy crude oil from whatever source is cheapest. Similarly, American oil companies will happily sell our domestic oil to foreign refineries if they can get a better price for it. There is one world oil market, and both American and foreign oil companies wouldn’t want the United States to withdraw from that market. The Argument is a rhetorical trick to influence those that don’t understand the world oil market into supporting American oil companies.
Despite the misleading claims in articles like the one above, reality intrudes once again. This March, 2010, has seen the lowest extent of Arctic Sea Ice ever observed in March.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
So while the fiddling Nero’s fiddle away, global warming continues to get worse. 2010 is on pace to be the warmest year ever recorded.
Report comment to moderator
Truthteller:
The truth is that a chart that looks all the way back to 1979 is not a very useful gauge for the “lowest extent of Arctic Sea ice ever observed in March.” The 1930s experienced a warm decade but there were no satelites to measure the ice coverage. A northwest passage was once navigable by ships in historical memory. And that took place prior to the Industrail Revolution with lower concentrations of CO2 than we have now.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza, since every proposed solution to the three assumptions you make in #4 requires us to shut down our industry and send it to China and India. And will cause electric bills to skyrocket (Obama’s words), it is incumbent on you to prove that those things are true.
It has been shown that all the data concerning global warming has been manhandled in some way.
There is not a single honest study out there that shows that CO2 does anything but make plants grow.
That can be demonstrated. Melting icebergs can’t.
Report comment to moderator
This means taxes must be hiked upward to appoint commissions to investigate such claims. …And commisions to investigate those commissions.
Report comment to moderator
It is my sincere hope that Cal Thomas lives long enough to either be completely vindicated, or forced to eat some serious crow.
Report comment to moderator
I think we need to be careful about denying global warming (or cooling) because the perfect earth, as God created it, is constantly doing one or the other. It never stays the same temperature from one day to the next.
The question is, does man control it or does God? Like many issues, this one comes down to the spiritual question of does God exist or do He not, and all of the usual suspects are going to line up on the side of the latter.
Report comment to moderator
I love all of the discussion. A member of my extended family has jumped on board the global warming/global change bandwagon and I find it funny that no matter what is happening with weather around the world she attributes it to either “warming” or “change”, whichever term fits the best, depending on if it is a high temp, wierd weather patterns, hurricanes or whatever. There is no logic or fact, just speculation.
Report comment to moderator
So here’s the stats, since Spinoza can’t be bothered to answer my question:
That’s from this website:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Now if I did the math right, that’s about 3.22% of all CO2 that’s produced per year.
First off that’s not, in comparison to the total, very much. Not like the implied HUGE amounts Spinoza mentions.
So, it’s not likely that our piddly little 3% is going to make much difference. Certainly not the huge difference that’s being claimed. It’s certainly not making the difference they are claiming because if it were really making a difference, we’d see a whole lot more difference between the warming before and after the CO2 production really “took off”.
Secondly, the climate scientists admittedly don’t really know how the climate mechanism works. Admittedly.
Thirdly, as Chas so brilliantly puts it, there’s not a study out there in which the data has not been seriously manhandled. (Love the way he put that.) So the link between mankinds production and CO2 is tenuous at best, and disengenuous at worst.
You would think, with this in mind, that Global Warming mongers would show some humility. The anthropomorphic link is weak, the science isn’t settled, the data’s been manhandled, the mechanism isn’t understood, yet the Global Warming mongers have the unmitigated arrogance to assure us that Global Warming is man made. ASSURE us. INSIST on it. RANT about it. BROWBEAT us into submission about it.
You Global Warming mongers go jump in a lake. Take a long walk off a short pier. Go play in the street. Go fly a kite. Get stuck in snowdrift along with Al Gore. But quit trying to pull this scam on me. I don’t wanna pay for your liberal Global Earth policies…
Report comment to moderator
And because they do stuff like this, when we really need people to be on board about cleaning up the water or some such thing, people don’t want to do it. They cry wolf about the wrong things.
Report comment to moderator
My brother always points out the high school science project where you open up a can of coke and put a balloon over the top. Put it outside in the sun and watch the balloon fill while the coke is being heated. Then watch it empty of CO2 as it cools in the evening.
The oceans are a great sink of CO2, so is it any wonder that with CO2 levels rise when the earth warms and lower when it cools?
Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.
Report comment to moderator
Rickford66,
Your water levels will stay the same if the ice is in the water. If ice melts that is on land, the levels might rise if this water runs off to the oceans instead of being absorbed in the soil.
The main problem with the global warming alarmists is that they have shown no evidence that people CAUSE any change global temperatures. We do know that nighttime temperatures are higher in cities than in the surrounding open areas, and urbanization has been shown to be the cause of most of the apparent warming over time by NOAA statistics since many of their thermometers are now compromised. But this warming has not apparently transferred to non urban settings, therefore questioning any global effect.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and as the air warms it will probably hold more water vapor as well, absorbing some of the melted water.
Report comment to moderator
Rickford66,
I believe that water vapor is called a greenhouse gas because it absorbs heat. When the humidity is low here in SW Arizona, 40+ degree day-to-night temperature change is common. When the humidity is high you will see 20 degree day-to-night temperature change or less. Water vapor absorbs so much heat that CO2 is really basically insignificant as a greenhouse gas.
Report comment to moderator
Mommy wrote; “I think we need to be careful about denying global warming (or cooling) because the perfect earth, as God created it, is constantly doing one or the other.”
Fine. But keep some facts in mind.
1. At the highest level of presumed academic prestige and aughority, the evidence remains that records and numbers were doctored and distorted to fit a political agenda, and to keep grant money coming in. Whether there is or isn’t global warming, the fact remains that the “experts” betrayed our trust.
2. The politicians who exploited this issue for political gain were alarmists trying to create hysteria over a crisis of their own making. They went so far as to arrogantly say that the debate was over. Their blatant DOGMATISM was unfounded.
And these people are often the harshest critics of alleged “dogmatic” attitudes on the right. Yet, because they are leftist dogmatists, they get away with it.
Report comment to moderator
An important question which is not being asked is “What do scientists not know?”
Scientists do not know …
1. whether the earth is warming or cooling. NOAA GISS data says the surface temperature has risen less than a degree in a century, but this is not based on raw data, but homogenized data from a computer model. 90% of the GISS surface stations fail their own quality standards due to maintenance and the heat island effect.
2. whether warming is bad or not. Scientists claim that the earth has gone through periods far warmer than today with no ill effects. So why is this a crisis? As a tiny planet in cold dark space, a little more heat is a good thing.
3. how much CO2 contributes to the temperature of the planet vs. other sources like the sun.
4. how much CO2 man produces vs. natural sources. Why is man’s presence so wrong?
5. how to control the weather. The idea that raising global taxes will control the global temperature is ludicrous. Neither scientists nor politicians can control the weather.
6. that going green will change the temperature. In order to generate enough green energy to replace fossil fuels, entire states would need to be blanketed with black heat absorbing solar panels. Would that make the earth cooler?
Climate alarmism is not based on science but economics. It’s purpose is to scare the world into adopting a green economy, which is about centralized control of the means of production. Copenhagen was an attempt to set up such a global governing body. Eventually it will happen.
Report comment to moderator
#18
It doesn’t matter if Mr Tomas lives long enough to see if he was right or not, though he probably won’t. But his grandkids will. They will be the pronouncers of vindication (blessing) or crow (curses).
Then, assuming the alarmists are wrong, but they get their way, what a terrible place the world would be once Mr Tomas has met our Lord face to face…..?
Report comment to moderator
#29: If the alarmists are wrong but get their way, then the world is potentially significantly poorer for having prematurely weaned itself off fossil fuels.
If the alarmists are right and don’t get their way, the world is potentially significantly less livable for having failed to slow down warming.
What I take consolation in is that there’s only a fixed amount of coal and petroleum products in the earth’s crust. Eventually extraction and processing will become expensive enough that cleaner alternatives become preferable from an economic point of view. At that point, use of carbon-emitting fuels should drop precipitously.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy,
Have you ever wondered that in 1992 the debate was declared over and if immediate action weren’t implemented then we’d all fry by the turn of the century? Yet we have been in a cooling trend since 1998/1999.
Did you ever wonder why the alarmists had to fake data and create the Mickey Mann “hokey stick”? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-UhykvGaD0 Why did he refuse to submit his data to the Senate when requested as his phoney hockey stick was funded by you and I?
Why is the Medival Warm Period and the Little Ice Age such an embarrassment for the alarmists?
Have you ever wondered why AGore’s sci-fi “Inconsistent Truth” has at least 35 significant factual errors? http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html‘
Have you ever wondered why legitamate debate has been squelched by the alarmists and the govt only funds pro-global warming research?
Have you ever wondered why global warming has become a religion? http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/59799
Do you think it might be for tax increases?
I agree with your third paragraph. Hopefully, the market forces rather than inept government policies will steer the dirction of energy usage.
Report comment to moderator
RWHawk, I read a lot of the “Inconvenient Truth” errors in that link. I’ve never watched or read Gore, and never have trusted him on a lot of levels (I truly think he’s a dangerous man, a man who thinks he can do anything because he’s better than the rest of us), but this really is damning. Why do so many idiots still repeat such well-refuted information?
Report comment to moderator
It is important to remember that the data which supports global warming comes primarily from software climate models which attempt to predict the future, not from actual observations. If the models are wrong, then so is IPCC’s claim that a little warming will cause the environment to spiral out of control.
Here is a fascinating two part lecture by Roy Spencer PhD University of Alabama (Part1) (Part2) which challenges the atmospheric sensitivity built into climate models, all of which show more warming than observational data. He submitted his papers to the IPCC and the IPCC scientists admitted that he was correct and that the climate models were wrong.
The bottom line is that the actual environment is far more robust and far less sensitive to CO2 than the climate models say it is. The natural precipitation cycles are easily able to regulate the earth’s temperature and a degree or two of difference is not going to hit a tipping point amplified by positive feedback loops like the models predict.
Report comment to moderator
Great article as raising awareness is a necessary key and duty.
http://www.thejettpak.com
Report comment to moderator
“….as his phoney hockey stick was funded by you and I?”
Ahem, grammar police: “… by you and ME.”
Report comment to moderator
“Climate change”?
Don’t you mean …
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!