- Register |
- Login |
- Premium Memberships |
- Audio & Video Chat |
- Top Leakers |
- Faq |
- Contact Us |
- Set As Homepage |
- Advanced Search
- Sections:
- All |
- News/Politics |
- Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran..) |
- Entertainment |
- Celebrity |
- Education |
- Citizen Journalism
Steyn @ CPAC 2008
Even more Steyn goodness!
Liveleak requires flash. If you see this message, make sure you have the latest flash player installed. To install the latest version, click HERE
Added: Feb 18 2008 In: citizen_journalism
By: skye820 
- Views: 2233 |
- Votes: 3 |
- Recommendations: 0 |
- Comments: 26
- |
- Send to Friends |
Comments - sort by newest to oldest
Great bit about global warming! The furor that the panic mongers have whipped up is astounding. We need more guys like this layin' down the truth.
Posted Feb-19-2008 by "christophobe" (R)
Uh, uh, uh it's Cooling, no warming, no cooling.... In other words WE need government cash to support our lifestyles...
Newsweek
By Peter Gwynne
28 April 1975
There are ominous signs that the Earth%u2019s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production %u2014 with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas %u2014 parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia %u2014 where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.
During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree %u2014 a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars%u2019 worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world%u2019s weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.
%u201CA major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,%u201D warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, %u201Cbecause the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.%u201D
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth%u2019s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras %u2014 and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.
Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the %u201Clittle ice age%u201D conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 %u2014 years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. %u201COur knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,%u201D concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. %u201CNot only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.%u201D
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases %u2014 all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.
%u201CThe world%u2019s food-producing system,%u201D warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA%u2019s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, %u201Cis much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.%u201D
Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.
They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
Lest we forget just how wrong the climate experts can be.
It%u2019s funny isn%u2019t it?
Everyone complains about the weather, but only liberals try to legislate it.
Posted Feb-19-2008 by "Mitch_A" (R)
The curious thing, to a scientist, is the discrepency between what is often written in the popular press and what is happening in the world of research. The article posted by Mitch is a case in point.
Back in the late 60s and early 70s, there was some hypothesising, among climatoligists, about the likely cooling effect of atmospheric particulates as well as the warming effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, but there was very little research to support either hypothesis (and scientific publications of the time said as much). However, amongst the popular press, no such caveats were included and most of them picked up the global cooling idea and ran with it.
Since then, a lot of empirical and theoretical research has been conducted, and it has become clear that greenhouse gasses are a far more significant driver of climate than particulates or aerosols. Indered, we have reached a point where the basic premise (if not the fine detail) of global warming is almost beyond doubt. Again the popular press does not (for the most part) reflect this.
I can understand why this is. If you have two different opinions, then it is tempting to offer them equal weight in the interest of 'fairness'. However, this is a dangerous mistake; not all opinions are equal (the gentleman in the video being a good example of this).
Posted Feb-19-2008 by "mel80" (R)
may want to tone down the fanaticism if you really want to help.
Posted Feb-19-2008 by "email468" (R)
Lest we forget just how wrong the climate experts
can be.
Most 'experts' in the early middle ages believed the Sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was indeed, flat.
Most experts don't make blanket statement based on shoddy or ill defined evidence. The truth is - scientist do not know enough about global tempature dynamics - next decade or two we might be in imminent danger of no change...
Posted Feb-19-2008 by "skye820" (R)
may want to tone down the fanaticism if you really want to help.
Tell me, with all your expert knowledge, what repeated study precisely pinpoints CO2 of human origin as the sole cause of this 'warming'?
Also, how is it that 'experts' have the answer to 'fix' the global climate, yet the same 'experts' cannot put forth the answer to sealing US borders?
Posted Feb-19-2008 by "skye820" (R)
can be.
Most 'experts' in the early middle ages believed the Sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was indeed, flat.
Most experts don't make blanket statement based on shoddy or ill defined evidence. The truth is - scientist do not know enough about global tempature dynamics - next decade or two we might be in imminent danger of no change...
Looks like you need a little primer on logic, as well as climatology! It does not follow that simply because "experts" cannot do A, then neither can they do B (your climate/ borders argument). This is known as a non sequitur.
As to your other point: you misunderstand how science works. No scientific theory is 'absolute truth' it simply represents the best model we have for the universe at the time it was formulated. The value of such a theory value lies in its predictive power. As you point out, at one point in time this was the pre-Copernican view but we have improved a bit since then.
With regards to global warming: Of course we don't understand enough about how global climate works but we know a hell of a lot more than we did 20 years ago. Neither does this mean that predictions based on current theories are worthless (simply that we must attatch appropriate confidence values to them).
Nobody has suggested that CO2 is "the sole cause of this warming" (quite the opposite in fact), but it has repeatedly been shown to be a strong driver. Giving you one reference to sum up all this evidence is a pretty tall order, but a reasonable place to start is the 2007 IPCC report. Simply make a note of some of the major references contained in that volume, read them, and then read the articles that these papers reference. Repeat the process a few times and in pretty short order (say 3 or 4 years), you'll have a basic understanding of the current state of play regarding climate research.
Posted Feb-19-2008 by "mel80" (R)
"Looks like you need a little primer on logic, as
well as climatology"
Both of which I will not get from you.
Posted Feb-19-2008 by "skye820" (R)
"Of course we don't understand enough about how global climate works but we know a hell of a lot more than we did 20 years ago. Neither does this mean that
predictions based on current theories are
worthless "
They are worthless, as all are based on computer models.
Twenty years of research is no where near enough. Come back to me when you've got 15,000 years worth of data to back up your claim.
Posted Feb-19-2008 by "skye820" (R)
but a reasonable place to start is the 2007 IPCC report.
The 2007 IPCC does NOT prove a human link to global climate change. Hey, at least they got rid of the hockey puck graph.
Posted Feb-19-2008 by "skye820" (R)
"Simply make a note of some of the major
references contained in that volume, read them,
and then read the articles that these papers
reference. Repeat the process a few times and in
pretty short order (say 3 or 4 years), you'll have
a basic understanding of the current state of play
regarding climate research. "
Reading CO2 News is better way to understand the REAL reseach being done to understand global climate change.
If I want a laugh, I'll pick up the IPCC.
Posted Feb-19-2008 by "skye820" (R)
"....but it has repeatedly been shown to be a
strong driver."
Not really, the sun is a far larger player in global climate change:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
Posted Feb-19-2008 by "skye820" (R)
This is a must read about CO2:
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/garnaut-submission.pdf
Posted Feb-19-2008 by "skye820" (R)
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/garnaut-submission.pdf
To see just how crazy this global warning crap gets, go to this URL: http://tinyurl.com/yrrjo7
Posted Feb-19-2008 by "snarfgibble" (R)
strong driver."
Not really, the sun is a far larger player in global climate change:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
The sun certainly has a large effect on the earths climate, but it is important to recognise that this does not exclude anthropogenic factors. Indeed, it turns out that solar variation is insufficient to explain current climate trends (see Lockwood and Froehlich (2007) Proc. R. Soc. A. 463 2247-2460).
Incidently, if you're going to put in links, could you make sure that they link to properly presented (i.e peer-reviewd studies). Both of the organisations that you link to are funded mainly by fossil fuel companies. I don't have a problem with commercially funded research, but in such cases, it is twice as important that the research is properly presented. There is a good reason why such puplication rules are used in science, and where they are bypassed you can bet your bottom dollar that it is because the paper will not stand up to close scruitiny.
Posted Feb-20-2008 by "mel80" (R)