Global Warming 7: Lies, Madness and a little Truth

Junk science. Fascists, Holocaust Deniers, Heads-In-The-Sanders (HITS) , Liberal Kooks, Neo Con Kooks, Faggots, Rednecks, Right wing Maniacs, Religious Nuts, Anti Christs, Axes-to-Grind Snobs, Know-it-All New-Agers (KIANAs), Superior-Nose Socialists, Junk Scientists, Fashion Marxists, Politicized Scientists, Conspirator One-Siders, Self-Interest Activists, World-Is-Flat Sensationalists (WIFs) and Delusional Straight-Jackets. Flat Earthers, Control Freaks, Population Cullers, Global Warming Charlatans.

A recent journalist panel at an American Bar Association meeting declared Global Warming to be the hottest story of our time. It will get even bigger as the obvious effects become more visible. “We live in a country [the US] where more people care about the death of Anna Nicole Smith than the death of a planet; journalists must help explain the evolving story in terms that readers can understand, by showing them how the impacts will affect their lives”, the panel solemnly declared.

No kidding. Never in the history of mankind has so much junk about one single issue been printed, newscast, talk showed, spammed, copied, blogged, spoken, podcast, voice mailed, downloaded, uploaded, emailed, serialized, YouTubed, water cooled, chat roomed, Ann Coulter faggotized, eHarmonized, pdf’d, pirated, multi mediated, Flickr’d, socially networked, Bluetoothed, SMS’d, invented by Al Gore or shared in any other of the thousands of ways humans miscommunicate these days. Everyone is getting into the act, often disregarding decency, morals, ethics, truth, facts, responsibility or brains.

Self-appointed Cultural Kingpins, Do-Gooders, Commie Saboteurs, Vile Propagandistic Personality Attackers (VPPAs), Force Feeding Dogmatists, Grant Seeking Automatons, Doomsayers, Brainwashing Repeaters, Fear Mongers, Spayed Intellectually Cheerleaders (SICs), Whiners and Whimperers, Lunatic Lefties and Wing Nuts, Bush-Haters (aka, sore losers), Tree-hugging Maniacs, Loony Liberal Leftists, Liberal Environmentalist Whackos, Parallel Universe Frolickers (PUFs), Crusading Alarmists, Hysteria Scientists, Liars and Propagandists (LAPs).

Pretty much, folks are in one of three camps. The biggest bloc contains those who don’t give a damn – hand me a beer and turn on the TV. Then we have the Deniers or Skeptics as they like to be called, thriving off the shrieks from the Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs supported by a few thousand roaring storm troops. Finally you have the Noble Armies of those who have seen the Truth and Know What Is Best – the Believers. I’d guess perhaps we have a 75%, 5% and 20% split, or publicity wise, a 0%, 65%, 35% split? What do you think?

If you check the list of insults spread around our marvelous communication systems, it is sometimes hard to figure out which insult belongs to what camp. Some are easy: anything Anti-Christ, Leftist or Liberal stands for the Believers. Religious, Presidential and Patriotic stuff belongs to the Skeptics. But then there is this grey area of Attackers, Flat Earthers, Charlatans, Whackos, Frolickers and so on where it is hard to tell which camp is referred to.

This Global Warming post deals with opinions. It may not be the most productive subject but consider the current chaos of misinformation and plain stupidity. Let’s understand why so much effort is wasted. Part of this post repeats content from my other posts. I wanted to collect most “opinions” in one place.

TOC

The Vocals of Skeptics

Here is an interesting little set of statistics. In line with the previous section, let’s assume that people truly believing Global Warming is a serious issue that needs action represent 20% of the total. Maybe 5% are true Skeptics and the remaining 75% may or may not take Global Warming seriously but do not really care one way or another. This is extrapolating available poll data a bit but it seems to be a reasonable assumption.

Here is the first odd thing. Tracking the various views expressed in newspapers, magazines and blogs, it turns out that about 50% of the published views are coming from Skeptics expressing their very obvious and repeated biases. About 45% of the entries report the news straight-on while 5% of the writings come from the Believers.

That means that the publicity levels of Skeptics out weight their fair share by a factor of ten while Believers are underrepresented by a factor of four. Add the fact that many of the Skeptics arguments are almost identical article to article, in substance and even wording. How come the Skeptics are so dominant in publicity and so coordinated in their views? You tell me.

Then we have the second odd item. In recent polls, about 35% of Republicans believe Global Warming is a serious issue. Yet, based on statements and voting records, only 1% of Republican lawmakers share that opinion. 99% do not. So why do Republican lawmakers not reflect the grass root views of their constituents? You tell me.

Skeptics receive a lot of publicity. Republican lawmakers support Skeptic views far beyond what you’d expect from a level playing field. Why? Maybe there is a conspiracy; many vocal but secretive right wing organizations routinely debunk Global Warming. They pressure followers to do the same. George W. Bush does his part by deceiving both Congress and the American people. The James Dobsons and Ralph Reeds of the world merrily follow their Texan leader, providing similar (coordinated?) misinformation.

Strangely, I do not see quite the same publicity skewness in the opinions on the Iraq War, where Bush faces increasing pressure from many that were supporters in the past. The same goes for other policy topics such as the tactics of the “war on terror”, minimum wages and deficit spending. Perhaps border security reflects an imbalance similar to Global Warming.

The polarization is getting worse, not better. The Believers, originally polite about it, start to fight back. The credibility of the Skeptics is increasingly challenged directly instead of conducting a meek debate of the merits of views. The Denier views have been thoroughly debunked so many times it is hardly necessary to do it again. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Senator James InTheHole, R. Okla., have zero credibility but the fight is not over.

Al Gore and Wrath of the Right

It is unavoidable given that this post discusses opinions and biases: We must deal with the phenomena of Al Gore. Al Gore, his The Inconvenient Truth and the attitude of the right make a powerful mix that is a symbol of the credibility of Global Warming. Conservatives and no doubt many others do not care for Al Gore as a person, perhaps because he won the 2000 election. There is insufficient consolidation to neo cons and other right minded individuals that he lost the Presidency.

Then Mr. Gore went on to a new career of exploring Global Warming, a subject close to him for 25 years, long before it became a world wide issue. Mr. Gore became a symbol for climate change and since he is deplorable, then Global Warming is deplorable and a liberal hoax. He created an Oscars winning documentary, is nominated for the Nobel Peace Price and travels the world with his PowerPoint presentation under his arm. He is receiving world wide attention. According to the Skeptics, all of this clearly proves Global Warming is a hoax.

Those with fewer biases might take issue with that idea. First, Al Gore does not present his own Global Warming research. He presents the work of others, in fact thousands of others. Second, Global Warming is about greenhouse gases and temperatures and a long series of issues caused by these two elements being out of control. That has nothing to do with Al Gore or, for that matter, any old PowerPoint pitch. Third, the real issue is not who is clueless about what, it is what we as the human race do about a looming disaster. Every one with a brain knows what needs to be done. All Al Gore does is acting as a spoke person for the solutions worked out by others.

Perhaps it is unfortunate that Al Gore became a symbol in the eyes of many for an issue that is not his at all. It’s possible Global Warming might be much more approachable to 1) Americans, 2) Conservatives and 3) the World in general if Al Gore was not as involved as he is. All the attention given to Al Gore hatred in all kinds of media certainly is a waste of time and effort. It takes away from dealing with solutions. It makes it harder to understand the real issues.

Al Gore is no doubt as amazed as others that he has been so wildly successful in the publicity game. Some even expect him to be the 2008 Presidential candidate wild card as a result. Be that as it may.

Perhaps he wonders as I do if he is part of the problem or part of the solution. The point, though, is Al Gore is not the main issue. Actually, he is not an issue at all in the real world. He did not cause Global Warming and he will not solve the problem of Global Warming. By now, it is irrelevant who caused the problem. The big question is who will solve the problem and if it will happen in time.

It is hard not to wonder about the sanity of the right wingers adding their hot opinions to the “debate”. Here is a sampler of what they say about Mr. Earnest Cardboard Gore: “Chubby nutcase Al Gore.” (Ann Coulter), “Al Gore – total fag.” (Ann Coulter), “It looks as if Al Gore has gone off his lithium again.” (Charles Krauthammer, FOX), “I think he’s lost his mind. … I think he’s gone daft because he’s a sad little man now.” (Dennis Miller, CNBC), “He’s a mental patient. … He should go back to the dayroom he came out of.” (Mark R. Levin on FOX).

More on Mr. Gore’s mental state: “Albert Gore Jr., desperately needs help. I think he needs medication, and I think that if he is already on medication, his doctors need to adjust it or change it entirely.” (John Podhoretz, New York Post), “Gore, in our view, has cracked under a crushing burden of guilt.” (James Taranto, Wall Street Journal) and “….It says a lot about Gore. It says he’s perverse,” (Rush Limbaugh).

The above was before the Global Warming controversy. On Global Warming: “Al Gore gave a speech on global warming ….the philosophy of a madman” (Ann Coulter), “Gore-Bal Warming alarmism is getting so over-the-top that it practically qualifies as a mental disorder” (Right Wing News), “Inhofe also compared An Inconvenient Truth to Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf” (James Inhofe), “Al Gore was full of crap,” (James Inhofe), “A heartbreak loser turned Oscar boasting Nobel hopeful globe-trotting multimillionaire pop culture eminence” (New York Times) and “The man could make playing a kazoo look like meditation,” (Time)”.

Finally, here is more from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (my comments in italics):

• “Gore’s proposals would create a breathtaking expansion of government power over the lives of everyday Americans citizens and put the U.S. economy in a deep freeze.” Strangely, the Europeans are not in a deep freeze – in fact they seem to prosper. I suppose they are just that much smarter than Americans are.
• “The former Vice President has had to rely on alarmist predictions which mislead his audiences and distort the relevant science.” The shoe is on the wrong foot here. Consult the House hearings on George W. Bush misleading the country and distorting the truth of Global Warming.
• “Mr. Gore envisions a federal takeover of nearly every aspect of the economy and restrictions on people’s individual choices.” Consult the records of controlling sulphur emissions in the 1970s and the reductions in ozone-destroying agents in the 1980-90s – I don’t recall any restrictions on my freedom. But emissions went down beautifully.
• “Socialism failed because it claimed control over the economy in the name of the people, but the people realized they could run the economy better on their own.” I assume the “failure of socialism” refers to the downfall of the USSR? The Soviets never claimed control in the name of the people. They claimed control in the name of the state. The Soviet people never realized they could do a better job on the economy. They still don’t. “The people” has not run the economy of any country in a thousand years. That includes the US for the past hundreds of years.

I do wish these “think tanks” weren’t so clueless about their subjects. The Institute above really used the wrong list of platitudes. It may be time to simply get mad about this politicized, moronic “Al the Maniac” and all the other equally silly head-in-the-sand junk:

TOC

Scene from a Classic

“I don’t have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat. It’s like everything everywhere is going crazy. I don’t want you to protest. I don’t want you to riot. I want you to get mad! You’ve gotta say, “I’m a human being, goddamn it! My life has value.” I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window, open it, and stick your head out and yell,”

“I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this any more!”

Try it on; it may save your life or even your sanity. Perhaps a Skeptic will listen.

TOC

Tables of Contents and Other Stuff

The complete Global Warming essay is split up in several individual posts. The following introduction simplifies navigation through the mass of material. If you have been following the series, you may (or not) want to skip right to the main content to avoid repetition, although this introduction is constantly updated. If so, hit the “Bypass” below.

If you are new to the series, you may want to 1) start at the beginning of the series using this link: “Culprits, Scoundrels and Villains” or 2) check out the table of content and other explanations of what this is all about – just read on. The TOC button brings you to the essay’s Table of Contents.

TOC
ByPass

About the Essay and Its Nine Main Parts

The essay is split into nine main posts due to its size. Click here for more details on each post.

• The first main post examines the basic reasons why we ended up in this dreadful mess.
• The second main post covers the political and UN scene.
• The third main post deals with rising temperatures.
• The “Sauerkraut” post dives into Europe and its mysteries.
• The fourth main post bares dark secrets about the forecasting business.
• The “Ann Coulter” post made some fun out of America’s favorite fascist.
• The “Bleakest Outlook Yet” previews the April 2007 UN IPCC Report
• The “Quick News” #1 issue of 3-14-2007 updates you on British, EU and other news.
• The fifth main post explains the issues caused by rising populations.
• The sixth main post probes the polarized attitudes to Global Warming.
• The “Quick News” #2 adds to the discussion why Global Warming is so hard to accept.
• The present seventh main post discloses opinions on Global Warming
• The eight main post looks at the very real effects of Global Warming already present.
• The ninth main post explores possible outcomes: cure or disaster?

Additionally to the nine main posts, a few other posts cover special subjects, comments and news. The “Sauerkraut” post looks at Europe and its peculiar history of early tribes, wars and more wars, deceit, Fuehrers, Generalissimos, Emperors, Kings and Queens, imperialism, strange food, democracy and greed, finally ending up as the world’s largest market. The post looks at how all of that, more or less, relates to issue of and attitudes to Global Warming. The post also evaluates, in detail, the recent EU proposal to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020.

I couldn’t resist doing a piece on Ann Coulter. She makes a splendid living out of out-chock-jocking Howard Stern, Bill O’Reilly, Geraldo, Moammar al-Ghadafi, Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Pat Robinson, Hugo Chavez, Baghdad Bob, Joseph Goebbels and Dick Cheney all at once. You gotta admire her ignorant persistence and ambition. Doing anything for a buck, she certainly managed to become America’s favorite fascist. Why not?

The “Bleakest Outlook Yet” is precisely that. There is nothing fun about this preview of the next UN IPCC report “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability”. These reports are getting more and more alarming which by itself is truly scary. All prior reports have underestimated the impact of climate change.

The “Quick News” features may become a regular service to keep us all up to date on recent news and to call the BS floating around. Currently, two posts are available.

TOC
ByPass

Table of Contents

An elaborate link and TOC (Table of Content) system helps you get around the mass of material in this essay of nine main posts. Use it to find what is of your most immediate interest. Just above, there is a TOC button that brings you to the navigation system. Enjoy.

Blog Home	Home Site	Portfolios

• GlobalWarming:1 – Culprits, Scoundrels and Villains
• GlobalWarming:2 – Politics, Scandals, Mass Committees
• GlobalWarming:3 – Few Like It Hot
• GlobalWarming:Europe – Sauerkraut, Bourgogne, Bangers
• GlobalWarming:4 – Disastrous Disaster Forecasts
• GlobalWarming:Coulter – To Ann Coulter
• GlobalWarming:UN – The Bleakest Outlook Yet
• GlobalWarming:News – Quick News #1
• GlobalWarming:5 – Just Too Many Of You
• GlobalWarming:6 – Terror, War, Fear and Paralysis
• GlobalWarming:News – Quick News #2 – The Deafening Silence of Democrats
• This Post:GlobalWarming:7 – Lies, Madness and Some Truth
  • The Vocals of Skeptics
  • Al Gore and Wrath of the Right
  • Scene From a Classic
  • To All You Skeptics
    • I Ain’t Seein’ Nuttin’ Strut
    • Foxtrot of The Alarmists
  • Opinions of the Ignorant – Mostly
    • The Cacophony of a President
    • The Swindle of the “Great Global Warming Swindle”
    • The Madness of the Religious Right
    • Leno, Letterman, Conan, Colbert and the Joke Machine
    • Anthem of Ann Coulter
    • Endorsement of the Stern Report
    • Critique of the Stern Report
    • Public opinions in the US
  • Next and Previous
• GlobalWarming:8 – Terrifying Evidence
• GlobalWarming:9 – Cataclysmic Apocalypse?

TOC

ByPass

Odes, Ballads, Songs and Arias

This essay contains real life mini stories. They describe usually small, even insignificant, effects of Global Warming. The aim is to make you consider reality, survival, pain and your own future. I cite simple stories about how some of us (humans, animals, plants, oceans and everything else) are already in, or cause, deep trouble. Here are links to the various little puzzle pieces:

• Allegro to “There Ain’t No Global Warming”
• Adagio to the Krill
• Mountain Top Chorale
• Tiger in Your Tank Two Step
• I Ain’t Seein’ Nuttin’ Strut
• Farming Greenland Fiesta
• Ballad of the Lemmings
• Carol to Failures
• Ode to an Ancient Past
• Chant for the Confused
• Aria for the Polar Bear
• Foxtrot of The Alarmists
• Cacophony of a President
• Tale of the River
• Northeast Song
• Hymn to the North
• Parchment Míddjarn
• Eulogy for the Oceans

TOC
ByPass

Images in this essay

The images in this post differ from those in all the others, except Post 6: “Terror, Wars, Fears and Paralysis”, which follows the same format as this post. All images are paintings rather than photographs, with the exception of a few photos of sculptures, the Howard Beale photo and the Al Gore images. The motif is pain, sorrow and compassion. The theme invokes awareness of the devastating future we may be facing. There may well be a lot of human suffering in our or our kids’ life time due to this ugly thing called Global Warming.

All of this art work is associated with another era of great suffering. The Holocaust. The paintings are by individuals close to that genocide. Some artists were in and survived the camps. Others are children of former camp inmates. Yet others have a different link to the camps. I believe the suffering endured in the camps may, in some sense, be repeated in the future of Global Warming. We won’t see a Dr. Mengele or Himmler, nor gas chambers or death trains. But the suffering from Global Warming may well exceed that of the Holocaust many times over.

I did not choose the images from a strictly artistic point of view. Not all paintings are masterpieces. Some are downright ugly. I choose them because of their emotional content and their impact, at least on me. I believe Earth will suffer major tragedies as it has in the past. Global Warming is one likely cause of such suffering, but probably not the only one factor. Of course, Global Warming is already harvesting its first victims. It would be fantasy to think there is not a lot more to come.

Using the Holocaust for this post is not politically motivated. Almost none of the artwork directly addresses the camps themselves or isolates the Jewish experience. The choice of the motif has nothing to do with the cheap shots recently fired about so called Holocaust Deniers, a phrase I find repulsive in the context of Global Warming.

This blog, its design, text content (except quotes from others) and my own images and graphs are copyright © Leading Design, Inc 2006-2007. All Rights Reserved. I make absolutely no claims on images or quotes originating in other sources.

TOC

To All You Skeptics

With George Bush of the US, Hu Jintao of China, Manmohan Singh of India and John Howard of Australia leading the way, the skeptics have their day in the spot light of the Internet and in newspapers on the right side of the fence. While most of it is just silly polemic and neocon rhetoric, here are their key arguments with my Italic comments:

Thousands of independent scientists and thinkers doubt Global Warming exists. That is probably true. There are also thousands of scientists and thinkers that deny the Holocaust and others debunk Evolution. Millions of people still believe there are WMD in Iraq. Every one has a right to an opinion. Credibility taking appropriate policy action is a different matter.

Climate change (warming and cooling) has been happening for millions of years. Absolutely true, but in the last few millions of years, no extreme warming ever occurred as seen in the last fifty years or so. The rise in temperatures is certain to continue, breaking new records. The cooling cycles of the past are somewhat comparable in magnitude and resulted in ice ages. Ice ages drastically changed the fundamentals of life. There are other examples of extreme climate changes in pre-historic times – all had devastating impacts.

There is no catastrophic warming taking place. Wrong. The catastrophic effects of warming are occurring right now and are well documented. Most of us humans are not yet impacted because we live in areas far away from the immediate impact clearly seen in oceans, tundra, Alpine and Polar areas. Check the facts, please. These events are not secret.

Humans are not big players in global carbon cycle. Wrong. There is too much evidence that 1) man made emissions of carbon rose dramatically to levels never seen, starting in 1750, 2) atmospheric concentrations of carbon gases rose in a similar manner as easily explained by pure physics laws and 3) temperatures followed according in a clear cause-effect manner. The world isn’t flat, either.

Scientists claimed we were heading towards an ice age just 30 years ago. That is somewhat true but remarkably effective pollution legislation broke that trend, perhaps too well. It would be nice if the same legislation, the Clean Air Act in the US, would be enacted on carbon emissions as it legally should. That would ease the dangers significantly. Mr. Bush disagrees.

Climate change must be seen as the norm not the exception. Absolutely true, eventually Earth will cool down and probably enter another ice age, perhaps in a thousand years or so. The very real question is if mankind and most other species of today will be around to face that particular issue.

We don’t have the tools to model climate accurately. I agree. Climate models are not a magic bullet and are in many cases grossly overrated. They handle masses of data well. They can display the impact of certain assumptions as scenarios. They cannot forecast the future accurately. There is a big distinction between “forecasts” and “scenarios”. But climate models per se have nothing to do with Global Warming. They are just tools.

No doubt this discussion will continue and not end till there is only one human left. There is nothing wrong with that except to some of us the rhetoric is getting a bit old. The challenge is to not let these differences delay urgently needed actions till it is too late. Not only is the problem made by man, the solution must be man made too. Even if by chance the problem is not made by man, we still have an obligation to rectify a deadly trend. Blaming the sun and then going to sleep is not a rational response.

Propaganda or not?

The opinions of many Skeptics follow a pattern. It’s the same arguments, often the same words and never a shred of evidence and in many cases repeated in several media and channels. I keep wondering about this carpet bombing pattern. The arguments and conclusions seem designed to be misleading, based on fallacies and knowingly invalid, all hallmarks of propaganda. Are these guys simply plagiarizing each other? Do they use a blue print from some one? So let’s look at the definition of propaganda and then you decide. Of course, if this is propaganda, then who is behind it? Here is the definition of propaganda per Wikipedia:

Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid.

Propaganda techniques include: patriotic flag-waving, glittering generalities, intentional vagueness, oversimplification of complex issues, rationalization, introducing unrelated red herring issues, using appealing, simple slogans, stereotyping, testimonials from authority figures or celebrities, unstated assumptions, and encouraging readers or viewers to “jump on the bandwagon” of a particular point of view.

Patriotic flag waving, misleading oversimplification, logical fallacies, vague stereotyping, partial information, unstated assumptions, red herrings are often referred to as items in a Bush policy. Skeptics tend to use the same mold. What about it? Please check out the below.

TOC

Two Odes and Ballads for the Skeptics

The first of these ballads is a reprint from an earlier post. It is reprinted so this post contains a fairly complete set of opinions from the Ignorant and Those That Seen The Light.

TOC

I Ain’t Seein’ Nuttin’ Strut

Here is yet another mini drama: This item reaches out to the Skeptics although they do not seem interested in returning the favor. Here goes the Strut:

The Northern Hemisphere is in deep winter at the moment. The February 2007 IPCC Global Warming Report is out, predicting dire consequences of the hot weather. Some people have a tough time seeing warmer climate as their butts freeze off. Others think cool weather means there is no Global Warming. A few still have fun denouncing science. Let’s listen to the views of the doubters in the “I Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Strut”. Quotes are from all over the media:

• “Hey, Al Gore: this global warming is killing me. It’s practically 10 degrees, and dropping.”; “Gee…must be global warming! My water pipes frozen for the first time in 22 years where I live in California, gee…must be global warming!”
• “Man made global warming is junk science propounded by anti capitalists/ socialists and Marxists with the sole purpose of attacking big businesses — that’s ALL it is. There is no substantive proof to support their claim, there never has been and there isn’t any now. It is plain old fear mongering.”
• “Where has Global Warming been hiding this week? Certainly he is not at the bottom of my woodpile because I have burned so much fuel I can almost see down to bare ground. I worried that Global Warming was stuck somewhere in a Buffalo, N.Y., blizzard, but saw no sign of him on the news clips from that snowbound part of the country.”
• “Global Warming is a delusion that requires nothing less than rehab. The media have almost completely lost contact with reality. They don’t even know that they are embarrassing themselves by passing off New Age drivel as science.”
• “These [pro Global Warming] political guys have axes to grind in the weather thing and what some say will be needed to avoid climate catastrophe. Among them are official folks who seek mainly to choke down the productivity of the United States. Folks like the Chinese, the Indians, and other relatively poorer countries have huge stakes in getting bigger pieces of the world economic pie.”
• “That [Global Warming] is garbage. Brave, knowledgeable voices are raised in dissent, but the scientific snobs and know-it-alls in the media ignore them. With their superior noses raised in the air, they deny what common sense tells us all every day — that the world is flat. But get this: A bunch of kooks in white jackets recently released another report [IPCC 2007] that said our flat Earth is the subject of “global warming,” which, of course, is nonsense”
• [Global Warming] is not a coordinated conspiracy but a fashion, in which self-interest and ideology combine and green activists, politicians and journalists help each other to get more funding, more sensational stories and more enemies to blame.
• “Czech president Vaclav Klaus criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis. ‘These are politicized scientists who arrive there with one-sided opinion and assignment,’ he told interviewers. ‘Each serious person and scientist says that global warming is a myth’.”
• “To many, the dire implication of last summer’s blistering high temperatures seemed irrefutable, at least until the record setting lows of this winter. The inarguably “conclusive” proof offered by those who claim the planet is getting steadily warmer has borne little or no repeatable evidence of a scientifically established pattern.”

The “Ain’t Seein’ Nuttin’ Strut” explains the errors of the Axes-to-Grind Snobs, Liberal Kooks, Know-it-All New-Agers, Superior-Nose Socialists, Junk Scientists, Fashion Marxists, Politicized Scientists, Conspirator One-Siders, Self-Interest Activists, World-Is-Flat Sensationalists and Delusional Straight-Jackets. Let’s keep going with a few other characteristics of Global Warming scientists and believers: Flat Earthers, Control Freaks, and Population Cullers.

On it goes: Global Warming Charlatans, Fascists, Self-appointed Cultural Kingpins, Do-Gooders, Vile Propagandistic Personality Attackers, Force Feeding Dogmatists, Grant Seeking Automatons, Doomsayers, Brainwashing Repeaters, Fear mongers, Intellectually Spayed Cheerleaders, Whiners and Whimperers, Lunatic Lefties and Wing Nuts, Bush-Haters (aka, sore losers), Tree-hugging Maniacs, Loony Liberal Leftists, Liberal Environmentalist Whackos, Parallel Universe Frolickers, Crusading Alarmists, Hysteria Scientists, Liars and Propagandists. Quite a mouthful isn’t it.

One has to admire the innovative control of the English language by these quite expressive Skeptics. It would be nice if they spent a bit of time on actual analysis proving their opinions rather than reinventing the English language.

The cooling climate concerns of the 1960s and 1970s provide favorite arguments for the Skeptics. The looming Ice Age did not happen, proving Global Warming is a hoax. Reality check: The massive sulphur dioxide emissions, causing cooling and acid rain were sufficiently reduced through huge industry investments in scrubbers and other equipment. The 1970 Clean Air Acts mandated, in the US, such investment. Within a few years, a 70% reduction in sulphur dioxide pollution broke the cooling trend. Incidentally, the President signing the bill was the Tree-Hugging Maniac and Loony Leftist Mr. Richard Nixon.

According to the law, the EPA should enforce similar measures to curb GHGs. The Clean Air Acts are simple, logical, existing frameworks for solving the whole damn Global Warming problem. It is not a legal issue whether the Acts can be applied to GHG emissions. They can be pursued right now. EPA is not enforcing the Acts on orders from Mr. President George W. Bush of the Texas Oil Industry and/or Mr. VP Dick Cheney of Halliburton, about to be headquartered in Dubai. Heck, it is just another useless law, easily broken and bypassed. Go for it.

The White House Duo just undermine the ability of Earth to support life as we sentimentally know it. No big deal.

TOC

Odes and Ballads – Foxtrot of The Alarmists

I like to insert little life stories about Global Warming as we all work through this massive set of facts, evidence, graphs, photographs, controversy and opinions. That might make this mess more palatable. I choose recent little articles that may not individually mean all that much to most people. The little pieces should add up to a reality based picture in your mind.

Since this is going to be a long story about how bad this Global Warming thing is, why not highlight a few less well known facts as seen by Alarmists. Maybe the Alarmists aren’t the ones you expected. Here is the Foxtrot, gathered from various sources:

• “It is amazing that so many people believe global warming is real and is caused by humans. This myth has been largely promoted by the major media that gives much attention to those who support it and very little to those who debunk it. For example, in December, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma chaired a “Climate Change and the Media” meeting. He said that global warming is a hoax. The meeting received almost no major media attention.”
• “An increase in CO2 would increase oxygen production by plants which each one of us breathes. Therefore, there is no global warming due to CO2 gas. If there is global warming it is because the sun is putting out more radiant energy and has been observed to vary in intensity over time.”
• “With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrate on the American people?”
• “A multibillion-dollar worldwide industry: created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists; supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding; and propped up by complicit politicians and the media”
• “The need to come up with an enemy after the end of the Cold War, and the desire among scientists, government leaders and environmentalists to find a political cause that would enable them to “organize, propagandize, force conformity and exercise political influence. Big world government could best lead (and control) us to a better world!”
• “The global warming hoax is not about the Earth’s climate. It is about an attack on the economies of those nations that produce much of the world’s wealth”; “The industrialized nations of the world are the target of the environmentalists, as is the entire population of the world. By every means possible, they have sought to undermine economic growth and to enhance the reduction of human life on this planet.
• The whole (global warming) thing is created to destroy America’s free enterprise system and our economic stability.” “Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that ‘liberals’ will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly.”
• “The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.”
• “It looks like this whole mess is another plan designed by international bankers to steal more wealth for them.” “No society in its right mind is going to willfully do to itself what the environmentalist industry, at its core, desperately seeks: massive diminution of individual liberties.”
• “Rather, it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development and redistribute the world’s wealth. They use the philosophical base of Karl Marx, the tactics of Adolph Hitler and the rhetoric of the Sierra Club. The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid environmentalists.”
• This is the reason behind the global warming “threat”: The world’s elite cabal has enslaved the world in perpetual debt. It’s through debt enslavement and imaginary global threats (such as opinions on global warming) that they wield their power. We’ve put together a debt termination process that works in legally eliminating debt. We urge you to join our efforts in peacefully fighting back against this type of tyranny. Our process will free you financially while reducing the amount of money available to the corrupt cabal.

That’s the Foxtrot of the Alarmists. These quotes are not from some backwards place in a dusty far away country. They are current views of allegedly grown up people in the U.S. of A. Amazingly, some of these Alarmists hold positions of power in the most powerful country on earth. Senator Inhofe, for instance.

So here is the truth about this climate hoax: We better defend ourselves against the joint conspiracy of Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler and the Sierra Club; prevent the destruction of America’s enterprises, private property and individual liberties; stop the new Communism and root out the international bankers stealing or paychecks unashamedly and then demolish this terrifying cabal which is charging our credit cards when we don’t look out. Something along those lines. It should go OK as long as the bad guys don’t lay their dirty hands on any kryptonite.

Next, you’ll see Hitler redistribute our wealth by tearing down nuclear power plants while Karl Marx is busy controlling the world economies and feeding polar bears, all in the name of Global Warming. Expect the unexpected.

Sure it is easy to dismiss junk like this. But take a time trip back to the 1930s when Nazism, Soviet style Communism and Fascism bloomed. Many of the arguments of the Foxtrot were in high fashion at the time as theorized by Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. Few countries avoided totalitarian influences, including the US and Britain. Check out the political leanings of Joe Kennedy (father of John, Ted and Robert Kennedy) or Charles Lindbergh? King Edward VIII of the UK, later the Duke of Windsor, of England was “pro Germany”. The Pope was a Nazi. Never dismiss the dangers of extremism. It sure can happen again. Rove is working on it.

TOC

Opinions Of the Ignorant (Mostly)

Here is another very mixed bag of opinions, endorsements, jokes, critiques and insults from a great many sources and beliefs. Some opinions are valid, some credible, others reasonable but most are none of that. The main reason to put this in the essay is to illustrate how vastly divided the universe has become. I’ll start with yet another ode and ballad in the mini stories series.

TOC

Odes and Ballads – The Cacophony of a President

It had to happen. It just isn’t possible not to do it. So here are selected Bush quotes, telling the saga of leadership, clarity and insights. Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States:

• “First, we would not accept a [Kyoto Protocol] treaty that would not have been ratified, nor a treaty that I thought made sense for the country.”; “The Kyoto Protocol was fatally flawed in fundamental ways.”
• “The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants.” “Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods.”
• “Natural gas needs to move in our hemisphere. It needs to move easily across our borders to find markets, to be able to ease the pressures of reduced supply all around the country.”
• “We need an energy bill that encourages consumption.”; “Don’t buy gas if you don’t need it.”; “We don’t need to be breaching no dams that are producing electricity.”; “Technology is going to change the way we live for the good for the environment. That’s why I proposed a … hydrogen-generated automobile”.
• “Well, I think if you say you’re going to do something and don’t do it, that’s trustworthiness.”; “One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise above that which is expected.”; “I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don’t always agree with them.”
• “This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. It’s what you do when you run for president. You gotta preserve.”; “John Thune has got a common-sense vision for good forest policy. I look forward to working with him in the United Nations Senate to preserve these national heritages.”
• “It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas.”; “I’ve been talking to Vicente Fox, the new president of Mexico… I know him… to have gas and oil sent to U.S….. so we’ll not depend on foreign oil.”; “The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country”.
• “We want to reduce greenhouse gases. Ours is a large economy. We used to generate more wealth than we are today. And as a result, we do contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.”; “It isn’t pollution that’s harming the environment. It’s the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.”
• “I know that the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.”; “We need to thin our forests in America.”; “Not everybody agrees with thinning, there will objections. But we want those objections to be heard; of course every citizen needs to hear a voice.”

That’s the “Cacophony of a President”, clarifying the White House energy, environmental, climate change and Global Warming policies. With such insights from the Big Decider, who needs questions?

TOC

The Swindle of the “Great Global Warming Swindle”

This British TV show aired on March 8th, 2007 on BBC Channel 4 aiming at killing off Global Warming alarmism once and for all. It turned out to be a fraud which did not stop the Skeptics’ love of this junket. Here is what happened:

Two days later, on March 10th 2007, journalists and others proved beyond any doubt that the show knowingly presented false data. That included using data sources decenniums out of date, then falsifying “updates” to make it look like the data was up-to-date. Of course, these fantasy (to use a kind word) “updates” were tailored to support the show’s claims. Actual and correct data was easily available but would not support the show’s conclusions, thus ignored by the producers in favor of their own famously fraudulent version. The producers have admitted falsifying data.

If you read nothing else, please check this link to the original exposure of this ridiculous show: it’s the original Independent article. If you want to watch the show, here is a link.

By March 10th 2007, Sir John Houghton, the former head of the Met Office who chairs the Scientific Assessment Working Group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said: “Last Thursday’s programme purported to debunk the science of Global Warming describing it as ‘lies’ and an invention of hundreds of scientists around the world, who have conspired to mislead governments, and the general public. The material presented was a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming as presented by the main world community of climate scientists and by the IPCC.” Sir John continues to thoroughly expose the show’s false claims.

After March 10th, a vast number of right wing Skeptics have triumphantly hailed this thoroughly debunked and fraudulent show as the Gospel of Climate Gods proving Global Warming is a Swindle. They completely ignore the evidence the show is largely a scam. As I write, this is March 29th – the Skeptics are still pouring out statements claiming Global Warming is a swindle based on this fraud of a TV show. Earlier I mentioned propaganda – this surely is plain old propaganda.

Here are just a few of many examples of inaccuracies and misinformation. Other lists show hundreds of inaccuracies. It is inconceivable that the Skeptics aren’t aware of these issues as they write their commentaries – do they really need to grab at straws such as this sinking disaster?

• The show claims that volcanoes emit more carbon dioxide than humans do. There is no correlation between total emissions and volcanic eruptions. Typically, volcanoes emit less than 1/250th of man made emissions. Volcanoes can impact climates on a temporary basis mostly because of the masses of dust and particles thrown into the atmosphere at major eruptions. But their emissions of greenhouse gases pale compared to those of humans.
• The show claims that natural causes such as sun irradiance cause more temperature effects than humans do. Research shows manmade emissions outpace such natural emissions by a factor of 10.
• The show claims that a cooling trend between 1940 and 1970 proves global warming is a hoax. The cooling trend mentioned is well researched and linked to sulphur emissions. There is no link to Global Warming.

Carl Wunch, a scientist participating in the show, threatened to sue the producers for knowingly misrepresenting his arguments. Here is a link to parts of his statement. The producers admit they used fabricated data and various other means to “simplify” the story, such as doctoring interviews.

Here is a partial list of those knowingly publishing what amounts to complete scam if not fraud: BBC Channel 4, Life Style Extra, A Digg blog, Fox News, Washington Times, New York Post, The Conservative Voice, GOPUSA, Human Events, WorldNetDaily, Contra Costa Times, TownSquare Forum, Global Research, the Jerusalem Post, Inverstors.com, American Chronicle, ADB, NewsBusters, VCrisis, Edmonton Sun, iAfrica, Cool Hunting, Daelnet, American Thinker (playing both ends), Stop the ACLU and CBNNews.

Here are some of those calling the bluff: the Independent, the Guardian Unlimited, the Times, the Times (again), Globalization and the Environment, Crooked Timber, Outlook India, Atlantic Free Press, American Thinker (playing both ends) and Ask Ethan (Spiked).

I got tired of tracking down more of this nonsense. I’m sure the lists could be expanded ten fold but it really is a waste of time pursuing this idiotic show any more. It’s a waste of time shaming the fools swallowing the story.

This fairly random sample of pros and cons yielded 26 Skeptics versus 10 Believers. I’ve long believed that the Skeptics, while being a minority by far, are over represented in publicity by a rate of 10 or so (see, for instance, Top Of This Post). The unscientific sample above confirms Skeptics are in fact getting far more exposure than warranted by their numbers. Go figure. Is it Karl Rove slipping into covert action, diabolically pulling strings in his windowless office on the second floor of the West Wing?

The Madness of the Religious Right

Here is one section to which you better pay attention. The beliefs and acts of the Religious Right are very scary and may be one of the biggest impendence to solving Global Warming issues. Please note the Religious Right is not just an annoyance of American reactionaries or religious nuts, they are powerful throughout the world in both Western and Islam areas:

• This is it: “When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale; the sky vanished like a scroll that is rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place“. Revelation 6:12-14
• Many Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is irrelevant, because it has no future. They believe we are living in the End Time, when the son of God will return, the righteous will enter heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire.
• The Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth was to have been shown at a school science class in Federal Way, Wash., a Seattle suburb, until one of the children’ s fathers angrily attacked the idea and got its showing temporarily scrubbed for the entire district. Frosty E. Hardiman, father of seven and an evangelical Christian, objected to the film because it blamed the United States for global warming. He believes the change in climates to be one of the signs of Jesus’ imminent return.
• They may also believe, along with millions of other Christian fundamentalists, that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed — even hastened — as a sign of the coming Apocalypse. Do not expect support for environmental issues, however basic and obvious, from this gang.
• Other hot buttons include gay rights, marriage and life style, gay marriage, stem cell research and abortion. They like meddling in every one’s sex life. They will unquestionably support George W. Bush as long as he marches in sync. If he doesn’t, then his last support group is gone and he literally is out in the cold.
• Zell Miller of Georgia, who earlier this year quoted from the Book of Amos on the Senate floor: “The days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land. Not a famine of bread or of thirst for water, but of hearing the word of the Lord!”)
• [Supportive] politicians include some of the most powerful figures in the U.S. government, as well as key environmental decision makers: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Republican Conference Chair Rick Santorum (R-Penn.), Senate Republican Policy Chair Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, and quite possibly President Bush.
• Forty-five senators and 186 representatives in 2003 earned 80- to 100-percent approval ratings from the nation’s three most influential Christian right advocacy groups — the Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, and Family Resource Council. This is 40% of lawmakers.
• And those politicians are just the powerful tip of the iceberg. A 2002 Time/CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the Book of Revelation are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks.
• Last year, Inhofe invited a stacked-deck of fossil fuel-funded climate-change skeptics to testify at a Senate hearing that climaxed with him calling global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” James Inhofe might be an environmentalist’s worst nightmare. The Oklahoma senator makes major policy decisions based on heavy corporate and theological influences, flawed science, and probably an apocalyptic world view — and he chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
• Inhofe’s staff defends his backward scientific positions, no matter how at odds they are with mainstream scientists. “How do you define ‘mainstream’?” asked a miffed staffer. “[Is it] scientists who accept the so-called consensus about global warming? Galileo was not [a] mainstream [person].”

Many of the politicians, 100% Republicans as you notice except for retired Zell Miller, are gone, some disgraced by scandals, others fired or voted out and some less powerful as the Democrats took over both houses. The Religious Right allegedly is in decline. Ted Haggard (sex scandal), Jerry Falwell (hate), Ralph Reed (corruption), Ted Haggard (sex scandal) and Pat Robertson (lunacy, hatred, bigotry, you name it) all have gone South, literally. Those of us with a memory might recall Jim Bakker with wife Tammy Faye (fraud) and Jimmy Swaggart (sex scandal). But never underestimate these people. A majority of Americans support or have supported at least some views of the Religious Right.

The Religious Right believes in and welcomes Armageddon. Here is a large and immensely powerful block totally against any kind of action on Global Warming on, of all things, religious grounds. Now you know why George W. Bush ducks the issue: not only would it hurt his corporate sponsors, it’s against his late found religion.

If the Armageddon people (whether from the Religious Right or from overly enthusiastic Climate Researchers) are right, it doesn’t matter what I say or what any one does or not. Armageddon it is. In the case of the Religious Right, extinction is apparently a blessing of us all. I don’t think I agree. I don’t fancy eternal heavenly bliss in the company of Tom DeLay, Ann Coulter and James Inhofe. Nor would I like eternal hell with the Clintons and Al Gore next to me.

The other extremes, the Ignorant-Skeptic-Deniers, have their heads too far down in the sand to really worry about. Besides, if they by chance are right, it still doesn’t matter what I say – there was no problem in the first place and no action was needed.

You may have heard about the Evangelicals jumping on the Global Warming band wagon which certainly is a good thing. Evangelicals are not the same thing as the conservative Religious Right and both fight for control of the religious masses.

The Religious Right is a formidable opponent to action on Global Warming. There is no obvious way to neutralize these people except outnumber them. They will continue to venomously resist investing in emission control, caps or green energy. How do you fight for human survival against a block of 100 million born again “Christians” that want nothing but death so “they” can triumphantly march into “their” heaven?

TOC

Leno, Letterman, Conan, Colbert and the Joke Machine

Being an Equal Opinion Blog (EOB), I give up space to even the most useless of opinions. This segment is living proof thereof. None of the views expressed below mean anything at all. But who can tell in this time of mystery push and pull forces acting on our meek minds? Here is the Late Show Host And Comedian take on Global Warming:

• “According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. This is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet” “According to a survey in this week’s Time magazine, 85% of Americans think global warming is happening. The other 15% work for the White House.” — Jay Leno
• “President Bush has a plan. He says that if we need to, we can lower the temperature dramatically just by switching from Fahrenheit to Celsius” — Jimmy Kimmel
• “Governor Schwarzenegger spoke about the dangers of global warming. Schwarzenegger’s exact words were: fire, hot, bad.” “Yesterday, a group of scientists warned that because of global warming, sea levels will rise so much that parts of New Jersey will be under water. The bad news: parts of New Jersey won’t be under water.” — Conan O’Brien
• “NASA just released their new report on global warming or, as President Bush, calls it — Spring.” “President Bush is taking more liberal positions. For example global warming: he used to be against it. Now it’s the Republican plan for heating homes this winter.” “They say if the warming trend continues, by 2015 Hillary Clinton might actually thaw out.” — Jay Leno
• David Letterman’s Top Ten Signs There’s Global Warming, featuring Tom Hanks:
• • 10 -I just bought ocean front property in Topeka, Kansas.
  • 9 – Glaciers are receding faster than Letterman’s hairline.
  • 8 – ‘Cool Ranch’ Burritos Are Really ‘Lukewarm Ranch’ Burritos.
  • 7 – No Matter What You Teach Them, Parrots Only Say: ‘I’m Sweating My Nuts Off’.
  • 6 – Ed Sullivan Theater Is Now A Balmy 48 Degrees.
  • 5 – Paris Hilton Saying ‘That’s Hot’ Even About Stuff That Is So Not.
  • 4 – No Shirt, No Shoes? You Still Get Service.
  • 3 – ONE Degree Over The Last 100 Years – That’s What This Is All About??
  • 2 – Ted Williams’ Head Just Woke Up Asking For Iced Tea.
  • 1 – I’m So Disoriented, I Agreed To Do A Lame Top Ten List.
• “Al Gore has a hit movie called ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ I have an inconvenient truth for him: you’re still not the president.” “Global warming: It is time we did something, namely resign ourselves to doing nothing [on screen: Follow Congress’ Lead].” “For instance, when sea levels rise, we’ll just build levees [on screen: Worked for New Orleans]” — Stephen Colbert
• “The Federal Trade Commission has ruled that oil companies are not gouging customers. They say, technically, they’re screwing customers.” “One very dramatic scene in the Al Gore global warming movie is when a glacier melts and they find more Al Gore ballots from the election.” “Experts say this global warming is serious, and they are predicting now that by the year 2050, we will be out of party ice.” — David Letterman
• “A lot of people think global warming is causing these terrible hurricanes. See I think to stop global warming we should move in the other direction. We should move towards a second ice age. Follow me, if the glaciers are coming towards us at like an inch a year, then the government would have time to respond.” — Jay Leno
• David Letterman’s Top Ten George W. Bush Solutions For Global Warming:
• • 10. NASA mission to turn down the sun’s thermostat.
  • 9. Federal subsidies to boost production of Cool Ranch Doritos.
  • 8. Fast track Rumsfeld’s “Colonize Neptune” proposal.
  • 7. Convene Blue-Ribbon Committee to explore ways of ignoring the problem.
  • 6. Let Hillary worry about it when she takes over.
  • 5. I dunno—tax cuts for the rich?
  • 4. Give the boys at Halliburton 90-billion dollar contract to patch hole in ozone.
  • 3. Switch to Celsius so scorching 98 becomes frosty 37.
  • 2. Keep plenty of Bud on ice.
  • 1. Invade Antarctica.
• “President Bush told reporters he won’t see Al Gore’s documentary about the threat of global warming. On the other hand, Dick Cheney said he’s seen the global warming film five times, and it still cracks him up.” “Governor Schwarzenegger spoke about the dangers of global warming. Schwarzenegger’s exact words were: fire, hot, bad.” — Conan O’Brien
• ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ is described as a detailed scientific view of global warming. President Bush said he just saw a film about global warming, ‘Ice Age 2; The Meltdown.’ He said, ‘It’s so much better than that boring Al Gore movie.'” “Al Gore said over the weekend that global warming is more serious than terrorism. Unless the terrorist is on your plane, then that extra half a degree doesn’t bother you so much.” — Jay Leno

Heck, don’t blame me. I didn’t say any of it. Now let’s move on to Ann Coulter, heroine fascist.

TOC

Anthem of Ann Coulter

Ann, your brave, hold-no-barrels offensive dedicated to the true American fascist values cannot but move every red blooded American Christian almost to tears. To help spread the message, I decided to dedicate one of my ballads to you personally. It’s important to grasp the full picture of the fascist movement of America. After all, this is the policy of the future, as envisioned by so many.

Here is The Anthem of Ann Coulter, also dedicated to that American hero, Joe McCarthy, a man of great vision and unswerving dedication, sadly lacking monuments. I know most of it has nothing to do with Global Warming. Actually, none of it really has anything to do with anything. But let’s do it anyway:

Anne Coulter On Anne Coulter herself

“I’m here, I’m not queer, and I’m not going away; Let’s say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I’m not married; Originally, I was the only female with long blonde hair; now, they all have long blonde hair; I am emboldened by my looks to say things Republican men wouldn’t; I’m so pleased with my gender – we are not too bright; You want to be careful not to become just a blowhard.”

“Christianity fuels everything I write. Being a Christian means that I am called upon to do battle against lies, injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy—you know, all the virtues in the church of liberalism; I’m a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don’t you ever forget it.”

Anne Coulter On Clinton et al

“[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks; Clinton is in love with the erect penis.; Bill Clinton “was a very good rapist”; It’s enough [to be impeached] for the president to be a pervert; If you don’t hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don’t love your country; We’re now at the point that it’s beyond whether or not this guy is a horny hick. I really think it’s a question of his mental stability. He really could be a lunatic. I think it is a rational question for Americans to ask whether their president is insane.”

“[Clinton] had crack pipes on the White House Christmas tree; is a celebrated felon, a known felon, a pervert, liar and a felon, a criminal, a flimflam artist, a prominent criminal.”

“I don’t know if [former U.S. President Bill Clinton is] gay. But [former U.S. Vice President] Al Gore – is a total fag. I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edward, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word “faggot”, so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards; C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

Anne Coulter On JFK and the rest

“JFK was — in theory — as ferocious an anti-communist as the great Joe McCarthy. But Kennedy was a Democrat and thus an utter incompetent when it came to execution. Johnson is not your strongest case. He had all of JFK’s incompetence without the good heart.”

“This is as we have come to expect from a [Kennedy] family of heroin addicts, statutory rapists, convicted and un convicted female-killers, cheaters, bootleggers and dissolute drunks known as “Camelot.” Why would anyone want such people as their “good friends”?”

Anne Coulter On Dick Cheney

“Cheney is my ideal man. Because he’s solid and he’s funny. He’s very handsome. He was a football player. People don’t think about him as the glamour type because he’s a serious person, he wears glasses and he’s lost his hair. But he’s a very handsome man. And you cannot imagine him losing his temper, which I find extremely sexy. Men who get upset and lose their tempers and claim to be sensitive males: talk about girly boys. No, there’s a reason hurricanes are named after women and homosexual men, it’s one of our little methods of social control. We’re supposed to fly off the handle.”

Anne Coulter On Joe McCarthy

“I know he [McCarthy] got a bad rap because there are no monuments to Joe McCarthy. Liberals had to destroy McCarthy because he exposed the entire liberal establishment as having sheltered Soviet spies; If the internet, talk radio and Fox News had been around in McCarthy’s day, my book wouldn’t be the first time most people would be hearing the truth about McCarthyism.”

“The portrayal of Senator Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism. Liberals weren’t cowering in fear during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nation’s ability to defend itself while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy’s name. Everything you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie. Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis.”

“McCarthyism’ means pointing out positions taken by liberals that are unpopular with the American people. As former President Bush said, ‘Liberals do not like me talking about liberals.’ The reason they sob about the dark night of fascism under McCarthy is to prevent Americans from ever noticing that liberals consistently attack their own country.”

Anne Coulter On Earth

“The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man’s dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet — it’s yours; God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees.”

“God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours. That’s our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Take big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars — that’s the Biblical view.”

Anne Coulter On Global Warming

“Even right-wingers who know that “global warming” is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation. There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending “global warming”.”

“When are liberals going to break the news to their friends in Darfur that they all have to starve to death to save the planet? But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off “useless eaters.” If we have to live in a pure “natural” environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellahs — 299 million of you are going to have to go.”

“Liberals are already comfortably ensconced in their beachfront estates, which they expect to be unaffected by their negative growth prescriptions for the rest of us. Liberals haven’t the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs.”

“In fact, most scientists whose field is climatology and not, say, the mating habits of the zebra, do not believe we are in the midst of global warming. No matter what the weather does, it is invariably described as further evidence proving the authenticity of “global warming.” Climatologist Jane Fonda explained on her husband’s cable station a few years ago that the “invisible threat” of global warming includes the threat of an increased incidence of blizzards.”

Anne Coulter On War on Terror

“Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims; We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war.”

“I’m getting a little fed up with hearing about, oh, civilian casualties, I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning. I just think it would be fun to nuke them.”

“When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker [Taliban American] is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors.”

“Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.”

“The only subject fewer authentic Americans cared about than the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo was World Cup Soccer. America is an epic global battle with ruthless savages who seek our destruction, and liberals are feeling sorry for the terrorists.”

“As millions of lunatic Muslims plot to murder Americans, some Americans — we call them “Soccer Moms” — will cast a vote to save Michael J. Fox this year. In the process, they will put all Americans at risk by voting for a frivolous, dying party.”

Anne Coulter On Liberals

“Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents and they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do. They don’t have the energy. If they had that much energy, they’d have indoor plumbing by now; Liberals have absolutely no contact with the society they decry from their Park Avenue redoubts.”

“Liberals refuse to condemn what societies have condemned for thousands of years – e.g., promiscuity, divorce, illegitimacy, homosexuality; Liberals always get a lot of credit for suffering, while never actually being made to suffer; Liberals are always wrapping their comically irrelevant charges in a haze of lies; Liberals love America like O. J. loved Nicole.”

“Since liberals can’t just say that they hate democracy because democracy requires persuasion and compromise rather than brute political force, they accuse any potential “strict constructionists” of being closet slavery supporters. Ludicrous ad hominem attacks on conservative nominees are then used as a basis for the respectable press to refer to the nominee as “divisive.” You are “divisive” if you have been the victim of McCarthy slanders from the left.”

“Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America’s self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant.”

“Usually it’s impossible to have the satisfaction of winning an argument with liberals because they are genetically programmed to pout and chant slogans rather than to engage in logical argument.”

Anne Coulter On Democrats

“In the history of the nation, there has never been a political party as ridiculous as today’s Democrats. It’s as if all the brain-damaged people in America got together and formed a voting bloc; Like the Democrats, Playboy just wants to liberate women to behave like pigs, have sex without consequences, prance about naked, and abort children; Taxes are like abortion, and not just because both are grotesque procedures supported by Democrats.”

“After repeatedly accusing John Ashcroft of essentially belonging to the Klan and harboring a secret desire to take away women’s right to vote and to murder them personally in back-alley abortions, the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee made it clear that there would be no more Mr. Nice Guy when President Bush sends up his first Supreme Court nominee.”

“This from a candidate [John Edwards] (I almost said a “man”) whose campaign falsely accused the president of stealing an election, barring a million black voters from the polls, and sending a thousand American soldiers to their deaths just for oil.”

Anne Coulter On Fascism

“My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that’s because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism; The presumption of innocence only means you don’t go right to jail.”

Anne Coulter On Swing Voters

“The swing voters—I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don’t have set philosophical principles. You’re either a liberal or you’re a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster.”

Anne Coulter On Ethics

“Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.”

Anne Coulter On New York Times

“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building. Of course I regret it. I should have added ‘after everyone had left the building except the editors and the reporters’; The only standard journalists respect is: Will this story promote the left-wing agenda”

“The Times was rushing to assure its readers that ‘prominent Islamic scholars and theologians in the West say unequivocally that nothing in Islam countenances the Sept. 11 actions.’ Keep excluding the New York Times from all exclusive press briefings.”

“I think, on the basis of the recent Supreme Court ruling that we can’t execute the retarded, American journalists commit mass murder without facing the ultimate penalty. I think they are retarded. I’m trying to communicate to the American people and I have to work through a retarded person!”

“The New York Times editorial page is like an Ouija board that has only three answers, no matter what the question. The answers are: higher taxes, more restrictions on political speech and stricter gun control.”

Anne Coulter On Women

“I think [women] should be armed but should not vote. Women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it It’s always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.”

“It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 – except Goldwater in ‘64 – the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.”

“These [9/11 widows] broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis… These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them… I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.”

Anne Coulter On Welfare

“Then there are the 22 million Americans on food stamps. And of course there are the 39 million greedy geezers collecting Social Security. The greatest generation rewarded itself with a pretty big meal; The “backbone of the Democratic Party” is a “typical fat, implacable welfare recipient; To a disabled Vietnam vet: “People like you caused us to lose that war”.”

Anne Coulter On Schooling

“[A] cruise missile is more important than Head Start; I have to say I’m all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with is the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the ‘hood to be flogged publicly. Few failures have been more spectacular.”

“Illiterate students knifing one another between acts of sodomy in the stairwell is just one of the many eggs that had to be broken to make the left’s omelet of transferring power from states to the federal government; If those kids had been carrying guns they would have gunned down this one [child] gunman. Don’t pray. Learn to use guns.”

Anne Coulter On Foreigners

“I’d build a wall. In fact, I’d hire illegal immigrants to build the wall. And throw out the illegal that are here. […] It’s cheap labor; When we were fighting communism, OK, they had mass murderers and gulags, but they were white men and they were sane. Now we’re up against absolutely insane savages;”

“They’re never very high in anyone’s caste system, are they? Poor little Pakis; Perhaps we could put aside our national, ongoing, post-9/11 Muslim butt-kissing contest and get on with the business at hand: Bombing Syria back to the stone age and then permanently disarming Iran.”

Anne Coulter On Canada

“Canada has become trouble recently; It’s always the worst Americans who go there; We could have taken them over so easy. But I only want the western part, with the ski areas, the cowboys, and the right wingers. They’re the only good parts of Canada; Because they speak French; [Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.”

Now that the Canadians finally know the score, it is time to end the Anthem to Ann Coulter, famous author, conservative, philosopher and commentator. And a fascist.

TOC

Endorsement of the Stern Report

I discussed the British Stern Report in my post Politics, Scandals, Mass Committees. Here are a few evaluations of the Stern Report by prominent scientists and leaders. These glowing statements differ a bit from my views. I sure know how to pick people to disagree with:

“If the world is waiting for a calm, reasonable, carefully argued approach to climate change, Nick Stern and his team have produced one. They outline a feasible adjustment policy at tolerable cost beginning now. Sooner is much better.” Robert M. Solow Nobel Prize economist 1987

“The Stern report shows us, with utmost clarity, while allowing fully for all the uncertainties, what Global Warming is going to mean; and what can and should be done to reduce it. It provides numbers for the economic impact, and for the necessary economic policies. It deserves the widest circulation. I wish it the greatest possible impact. Governments have a clear and immediate duty to accept the challenge it represents.” James Mirrlees Nobel Prize economist 1996

“The stark prospects of climate change and its mounting economic and human costs are clearly brought out in this searching investigation. What is particularly striking is the identification of ways and means of sharply minimizing these penalties through acting right now, rather than waiting for our lives to be overrun by rapidly advancing adversities. The world would be foolish to neglect this strong but strictly time-bound practical message.” Amartya Sen Nobel Prize economist 1998

“The Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change provides the most thorough and rigorous analysis to date of the costs and risks of climate change, and the costs and risks of reducing emissions. It makes clear that the question is not whether we can afford to act, but whether we can afford not to act. To be sure, there are uncertainties, but what it makes clear is that the downside uncertainties—aggravated by the complex dynamics of long delays, complex interactions, and strong nonlinearly—make a compelling case for action. And it provides a comprehensive agenda—one which is economically and politically feasible—behind which the entire world can unite in addressing this most important threat to our future well being.” Joseph Stiglitz Nobel Prize economist 2001

“The [World] Bank is committed to addressing the dangers of climate change and has made substantial progress in developing an Investment Framework for Clean Energy And Development. I very much welcome the Stern Review which provides a much needed critical economic analysis of the issues associated with climate change, and complements the recent IEA technology assessment and the World Bank’s Clean Energy Investment Framework paper. The Bank is today working closely with its clients and partners to turn our analysis into practice, and will seek to substantially increase its own investment flows and those of the private sector. A crucial next step is to involve the private sector in the EIF. I am therefore pleased to support a partnership between the World Bank and the World Economic Forum and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development to stimulate private sector investment through the Energy Investment Framework. Chancellor Gordon Brown and I will co-host a conference early next year to launch the partnership.” Paul Wolfowitz President of the World Bank

“The Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change is a vital step forward in securing an effective global policy on climate change. Led by one of the world’s top economists, the Stern Review shows convincingly that the benefits of early global action to mitigate climate change will be far lower than the costs. The report establishes realistic guidelines for action (based on long-term stabilization ceilings for GHGs), core elements of an effective global policy (carbon pricing, technology policy, and removing barriers to change), and a framework for international cooperation that must include all regions of the world, both developed and developing. The Stern Review will play an important role in helping the world to agree on a sensible post-Kyoto policy.” Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University Special Advisor to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan

“The Economics of Climate Change sends a very important and timely message: that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs. That conclusion is one that the International Energy Agency fully endorses – notably in its World Energy Outlook 2006 to be published next week. Congratulations to Sir Nick Stern and his team for producing a landmark review which I have no doubt will strengthen the political will to change of governments around the world.” Claude Mandil Executive Director of the International Energy Agency

“Climate change can impose enormous costs on mankind and particularly on the innocent poor people. The uncertainty that is used as an excuse not to act works both ways. If the impact is larger than expected it could be catastrophic. Sir Nick Sterns report is valuable as it shows the need to act now and that the costs of action are modest. One hopes it will spur to action those who are responsible for creating this threat.” Kirit Parikh Member, Planning Commission, Government of India

“The scientific evidence of Global Warming is overwhelming but some commentators and lobby groups have continued to oppose offsetting actions on economic and competitiveness grounds. This comprehensive and authoritative report demolishes their arguments, explaining clearly the complex economics of climate change. It makes plain that we can cut emissions radically at a cost to the economy far less than the economic and human welfare costs which climate change could impose.” Adair Turner Former Director of UK Confederation of British Industry and Economic Advisor to Sustainable Development Commission

“When the history of the world’s response to climate change is written, the Stern Review will be recognized as a turning point. Sir Nicholas and his team have provided important intellectual leadership as humanity engages with its greatest challenge. While the details will be debated, the main thrust of the report is clear and compelling — the expected benefits of tackling climate change far outweigh the expected costs.” Cameron Hepburn Oxford University

“I support the Stern Review’s conclusion that there is a strong economic case for taking early, effective action to reduce GHG emissions. This clearly has important implications for transport policy, which my own study is taking into account – sustainable economic growth cannot be achieved in any sector without tackling the effects of our actions on the environment”. Sir Rod Eddington Adviser to the UK Government on the long term links between transport and economic growth, and former Chief Executive of British Airways

Surely this is an impressive collection of very distinguished, famous and extremely smart people with more credentials than just about any collection of mortals. I have to admit my Masters degree pales considerably. In the presence of Gods….. run like hell?

I don’t think so. Read the comments. Beyond generic and very enthusiastic praise, where is the meat? Do you see any significant additions of intelligence or knowledge to the value of the Report? I sure don’t. I’d expect this distinguished audience to provide a contribution rather than back slapping. In fact, the comments have everything in common with the author to author nonsense reviews you find in supermarket paperbacks.

TOC

Critique of the Stern Report

There are growing amounts of negative views. Here is one by Christopher Monckton as published by the UK’s Telegraph news paper. His main point, apart from all the polemic stuff, is that we are 1) running out of conventional energy and 2) existing energy plants are getting old (except in China). His solution: build lots of nuclear power plants starting now. Here is the polemic:

• “Undervalued the sun’s effects on historical and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated the past century’s temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect.”
• “The atrocious economic, political and environmental cost of the high-tax, zero-freedom, bureaucratic centralism implicit in Stern’s report; I’ll compare the global-warming scare with previous sci-fi alarums; and I’ll show how the environmentalists’ “precautionary principle” (get the state to interfere now, just in case) is killing people.”
• “Why haven’t air or sea temperatures turned out as the UN’s models predicted? Because the science is bad, the “consensus” is wrong.”

Here is more from the same author. Although he provides no explanation to some of the points below, he does address others in great detail. His material is worth reading: the source document is 40 pages of considered analysis. Here he trashes Global Warming theories big time by claiming:

1. That the debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed. False.
2. That temperature rose above millennial variability and is exceptional. Very unlikely.
3. That a change in solar irradiance is an insignificant forcing mechanism. False.
4. That the last century’s increases in temperature are correctly measured. Unlikely.
5. That greenhouse-gas is the main forcing agent of temperature. Not proven.
6. That temperature will rise far enough to do more harm than good. Very unlikely.
7. That continuing greenhouse-gas emission will be very harmful to life. Unlikely.
8. That a carbon-emission limit would make a definite difference. Very unlikely.
9. That the environmental remediation will be cost-effective. Very unlikely.
10. That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course. False.

The views above received, as you might expect, quite a critical response. Here is the response to the responses. I agree with the response below, but not with the opinions above:

• The sheer vitriol is the most striking thing. Reputable scientists, who raise questions about climate change, backing their doubts with data, are howled down as heretics. The UN-Stern-Kyoto thesis is considered to be above criticism.
• Simply to point out that there are few hard facts to go on, and that we are all necessarily engaging in a degree of guesswork, is to open yourself to the charge of being in the pay of the oil corporations. This allegation, when you think about it, is daft. No one would condemn his grandchildren to extinction simply to suck up to Exxon-Mobil.

Read on – here is another negative view based on comments by Bjorn Lomborg, perhaps the most influential opponent to the theories of Global Warming. He is a Danish Business School Professor and the controversial author of the book “The Skeptical Environmentalist”. Many scientists are skeptical of Lomberg’s scientific integrity:

• Unfortunately, this claim [the cost of inaction far exceeds what is need to fix the problem] falls apart when one actually reads the 700-page tome. Despite using many good references, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is selective and its conclusion flawed. Its fear-mongering arguments have been sensationalized, which is ultimately only likely to make the world worse off.
• The review correctly points out that climate change is a real problem, and that it is caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions. Little else is right, however, and the report seems hastily put-together, with many sloppy errors. As an example, the cost of hurricanes in the U.S. is said to be both 0.13% of U.S. GDP and 10 times that figure.
• With clever marketing and sensationalist headlines, the Stern review is about to edge its way into our collective consciousness. The suggestion that flooding will overwhelm us has already been picked up by commentators, yet going back to the background reports properly shows declining costs from flooding and fewer people at risk. The media is now quoting Mr. Stern’s suggestion that climate change will wreak financial devastation that will wipe 20% off GDP; explicitly evoking memories of past financial catastrophes such as the Great Depression or World War II; yet the review clearly tells us that costs will be 0% now and just 3% in 2100.
• …. Asked 24 U.N. ambassadors – from nations including China, India and the U.S.–to prioritize the best solutions for the world’s greatest challenges, in a project known as Copenhagen Consensus. They looked at what spending money to combat climate change and other major problems could achieve. They found that the world should prioritize the need for better health, nutrition, water, sanitation and education, long before we turn our attention to the costly mitigation of global warning.

A curious view on the US reaction to the report:

• Kristen Hellmer, spokeswoman at the Council on Environmental Quality, which advises the White House as saying: “The president has long recognized that climate change is a serious issue, and he has committed the US to advancing and investing in new technologies to help address this problem. The US government has produced an abundance of economic analysis on the issue of climate change. The Stern report is another contribution to that effort.” And that was it. The mighty FT could apparently find no other quote from anyone more senior.
• We could find no reference to the Stern report on the CNN Money, or CBS market watch, or Business Week sites. The Voice of America publication published the news of the report all right, but its headline read: “Environmental Skeptic Questions British Climate Report”

These reviews are not coming from crack pots – except perhaps the last “US reactions”. The authors of the top two opinions do present valid critique. The first critique cites flawed analysis because of false historical temperature data. The second opinion makes an economic argument that the Stern report uses flawed assumptions in its cost/benefit analysis. There is no real way to tell who is right. Neither argument really has anything to do with Global Warming and its dangers. It’s just a matter of nit-picking.

The US reaction to the Stern Report is interesting because there hardly was an immediate reaction. The White House as well as Congress ignored the whole thing. News agencies buried the report, at least initially. Most publicity was dominantly negative. The White House claims to have an abundance of its own reports, none of which they act on and none of which seem available to any one. Classified, are they? Or perhaps they do not actually exist. Allegedly, George W. Bush spent $8 billion on climate research. Where on Earth did he put it? In Cheney’s office?

On Nov. 30 2006, I made a simple search on Goggle’s news page for “Stern Report”. Of the top 100 responses, NOT ONE was from a major US news organization. Not one. Nor was there anything from the US scientific world. Nothing – then for the fun of it, I changed the search to “Howard Stern”. Guess what, the results turned upside down – no shortage of US views at all. Then I searched the White House site for the Stern Report (not Howard) – nothing. Then I checked EPA’s site – nothing. Searching the Senate site did return two references: both simple reprints of news articles, including the critical Lomborg opinion above. TWO returns in essentially all of the US.

Ignoring international opinion, the US GHG emissions are increasing at a record setting pace. The US industry largely disregards the “voluntary” measures invented by George W. Bush. Democrats have been too focused on winning an election by having no opinions on anything. What will change the world’s by far largest polluter? It is clear the Stern Report will have zero impact.

In the UK, both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown strongly endorse the report. Well, first, it is a British government report. Second, Tony Blair very much would like to see his tarnished record end on an upswing. Third, Gordon Brown has a political future to consider. Whatever the reasons, it is nice to see someone attempting leadership.

TOC

Public opinions in the US

The public US response to the Stern report is almost non existent. The report was recently published in the US but is also available as a download. I doubt many have plowed through it or the full online version. The hardcover version’s sales rank on Amazon is 102,381, not exactly a best seller. There are zero reviews. In Britain, Amazon’s local store lists the Report with a rank of 5,604, better but still not a best seller.

By contrast, Al Gore’s book “An Inconvenient Truth” ranks at 312, a whole lot better. The Gore DVD ranks at an astonishing 16 in DVDs. There are hundreds of reviews of the Gore book and DVD. Below is a sample of these reviews.

I’ve deliberately chosen the negative views although the positive reviews outnumber the negative ones by at least 10 to 1. I believe the negative views count for more since they are what US politicians want to hear:

• It’s beyond crying “wolf” – he has been yelling “wolf” at the top of his crazed lungs for years. This book gives almost no quarter to the legions of scientists who disagree with him. It is a sad requiem on a politician whose day has come and gone. And he is the only one that doesn’t know it.
• Oh please… what scientific background does this guy have???? What a joke! The stuff in this book is more sophomoric than a prom. This is a political treatise with no scientific value at all. What is my degree in? Well, I have 3: BS chemistry, MS environmental science and a JD (Law).
• For the lunatic Lefties and Wing nuts, this is a “Bible”. From someone who lost an election, whined and whimpered until told to “shut up” by the USSC, we get this garbage dumped on the fools who would believe it. The $$$ spent on this book could go far elsewhere, like stopping the hot air deluge from the Bush-Haters (aka, sore losers)
• 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources; mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Unless someone has a plan to “curb” these natural sources, it is very clear that we, as a world-population, have very, very little to do with the changes our plant may or may not be undergoing.
• There are billions of dollars in grant money being thrown around to study Global Warming, which is why scientists need to keep the lie alive. The basis of their argument is flawed and actually quite arrogant. This planet has been in existence for hundreds of millions of years.
• We will look back a few years from now and see that ‘Global Warming’ is nothing but a hoax. Then we will spend a lot of time trying to figure out why so many people got taken by it. We will also spend a lot of time trying to figure out why some people (hint, hint) who are totally unequipped to deal with scientific data are the most virulent advocates of ‘Global Warming’ and of the economically-destructive steps needed to revert an imaginary catastrophe.
• This self-serving political tract is nothing but an obvious attempt to revive All Gore’s career. Gore first callously uses the auto accident that nearly killed his son to make us believe that he’s not as shallow as he looks. Then, he misuses information from the liberal media to falsely conclude that Global Warming is an established truth, when in fact it is a theory with as many holes in it as sourdough bread.
• Al Gore, your an tree-hugging maniac that beats this drum for two reasons: money and to stir the crazy pot for support. Maybe your next book should be the biography of the uni-bomber. After all, you and he have a lot of common thoughts. Of course, he lived in a shack and practiced his anti-industry beliefs. You on the other hand fly all over the world, travel in limos and SUVs and then whine about people like me who own a 2 cycle mower, blower and weed eater.
• I have read the book and it is all a butch of hogwash yes it is true that the world is getting warmer but the earth goes through cycles like say the ice age. Some scientists believe that we will have an ice age soon because back in the 1300’s when they had a mini ice age their weather had been warmer than average before the ice age. The ethanol will not change our reliance on foreign oil if we used all the corn grown in the US we would only get 13% of the fuel that we use in our cars. Maybe Al gore should get a brain, a personality, and stop trying to be a scientist.
• This piece of fiction is so full of distortions and outright lies that it boggles the mind. The Aral Sea, Mount Kilimanjaro examples used by Gore are pure fiction. If he believes his examples and truly does not know the scientific and easily obtained truth, then he is just ignorant, if he knows the truth about these examples, then he is just a bald faced liar.
• Has the temperature of the earth kicked up a bit? Yes, about 1/2 degree F since 1900. Is it going to drop again (as part of the foundational knowledge about earth science any high schooled should know. Yes. The current temperature increase peaked 1998-99. The temp will now drop for a few dozen years, and then increase again. Is it magic? No. Is it because we have too many internal combustion engines? No. Is it because we cut too many trees? No. Is it the hot air coming from Al Gore and his radical socialist handlers? No. The root cause of the increasing and decreasing temperature of the earth’s waters, mean temperatures etc is….THE SUN! We have data. We have correlations. We have darned good scientists who spend their lives working in this area. We don’t have yet have a complete understanding of why the sun warms and cools, but we will someday. And you can bet it won’t be because the Republicans are in power. Another scientist who KNOWS Gore’s conclusions are a crock.
• The ‘facts’ that Gore are dated, discredited and in some cases, downright fraudulent. Do your own research and you will see that this is the case. An overwhelming number of scientists that DO NOT have a federal grant or research dollars at risk do not agree with the conclusion of this film (I just can’t force myself to call it a documentary…) Don’t waste your time with this propaganda and attempt to get you to agree to even MORE taxes!!
• There are countless scientists who give no credence whatsoever to the notion of a man-made climate change. The whole notion of “global warming” was based upon an incorrect computer model that could in no way take all parameters and data into account. In this movie we are lectured to by a boring idiot whose only recourse to changing the political world is through environmental scare tactics.
• Humanity may indeed be causing Global Warming and such a warming may indeed have consequences for human convenience, but to imply the planet is threatened with destruction is fear mongering. The planet has seen far more severe climate changes than what we might experience and such changes have neither destroyed the planet nor the life upon it.
• Humanity has a tremendous capacity to adapt and any climate changes will happen slowly enough that we can adapt to them. So we have to move beach houses or plant crops in new areas, does any thinking person really believe that we can’t handle such changes and that humanity will drown because we are too stupid to avoid seas that rise by a few centimeters per year? Give me a break. The real agenda behind Gore’s tirade is to create fear. Liberals love to create fear; it is one of their power bases.
• Just listen to NPR, one fear story after another. Oh woe is us! The planet is dying! It’s all our fault! It’s all Bush’s fault! All this hand wringing is simple political maneuvering. The liberals want to create fear and then use that fear to obtain votes. You can read the other reviews to see how successful they have been in brainwashing their supporters.
• Al Gore and company need to get their facts straight before setting image to celluloid, but that’s never stopped them before. “An Inconvenient Truth” is junk science promoted by the loony liberal left and is just another scare tactic that they will embrace as their cause du jour.
• The predictions of Global Warming are based on computer models done by some scientists who have made a great living out of scaring the bejesus out of the rest of us. Those are the same type of models who told us in the 70’s to prepare for global cooling and the return of the Ice Age. Just as figures don’t lie and liars can figure, a computer model can be made to produce any desired outcome that the programmer wants. And the Gore crowd wants doom, gloom and disaster. Coming right up!!
• Al Gore is at it again with his liberal environmentalist whacko issues of the so-called Global Warming. We cannot say it’s the truth, and it should only be based on theory. Global Warming is only used by liberals as a scare tactic. Al Gore spent too much time growing up as a city slicker in Washington when his segregationist daddy, Al Sr., was in the Senate. Gore only relies on data released by these so-called environmentalists.
• How inconvenient that news this week reports that Global Warming on a scale we can’t even imagine happened millions of years ago. Evidence of tropical temps in polar sea beds says that that this isn’t the first time we have had global climate change. Al Gore is convincing and passionate. To bad he only used half the facts he needs for a complete presentation. In the 1970’s there was a big uproar about global COOLING, what happened to the science behind that? Just because we get a well made argument, and a terrific film made, does not make it true.
• Having seen this movie at a preview, I can say that Gore is every bit the equal of Michael Moore. This is to say, he’s a liar and a propagandist. Another reviewer summed up the truth nicely – there is in fact a Global Warming trend, and it may cause problems. But there is NO evidence that this trend is due to human causes or influences, and in fact, all evidence points to the contrary. Unless you’re making up your facts, that is. Inconvenient indeed.
• This movie stands next to Triumph of the Will as one of the greatest propaganda films of all time. It’s amazing how Al Gore spins together made-up “facts” and half-truths to make a case that wouldn’t even convince a Green Peace member. Al Gore can not get around the indisputable fact that there is zero evidence of human-caused Global Warming. Sorry Al, we aren’t falling for your doom and gloom lies and innuendo.

In line with other parts of this post, many confuse the issue of Global Warming with their dislike of Gore personally and sinister liberals in general. It is, again, abundantly clear how politicized this issue is. Conservatives discount the risks of Global Warming. Democrats endorse the necessity to combat the ill effects. And Bush will veto anything referring to Global Warming.

TOC

Next and Previous

Here is a summary of the nine main posts in the essay. Navigation links are located just below the summary.

GlobalWarming:1 discusses why Global Warming happened, who and what causes it, ending up with a list of villains. It did not go into the consequences of Global Warming. There was no discussion of impacts on the oceans, the Arctic, Greenland, El Nino, ecosystems, the weather, tundra and ice packs. The Kyoto Protocol or the Stern reports or other Global Warming topics were not covered. That is yet to come.

GlobalWarming:2 covers two main subjects. The UN provides a real mixed bag of positive and negative influences on the fight against Global Warming. The positive is that they try, have some credibility and many resources. The negative is that they fail. The current versions of the Kyoto Protocol and its associated reports do not reduce emissions. The CER system causes more harm than good. Solutions exist but are not acted on. Industrial strategies and national policies do little to reduce Global Warming – in fact, the opposite is often true in spite of rhetorical lip service.

Global Warming:3 examines the basic root cause of our problem: rising temperatures. Is the increase real and does it matter? Is it natural or caused by man? Are the temperatures unusual compared to history? Do GHGs actually cause the increase? What can past temperature variations tell us about what we face today? Can you even trust the basic data and analysis of temperatures? The post answers those and other questions in exuberant detail.

GlobalWarming:4 notes that Global Warming is not the first disaster forecast ever done, published and hyped. There were many in the past and as a rule they failed. The disaster in question simply did not happen because extending some historical trend into the future does not work – trends change. So the question is – why is this particular doom and gloom outlook right? What is different this time? As you will see, plenty is different.

GlobalWarming:5 reviews the role and issues of population growth. This is a vital issue for future emissions as shown in GlobalWarming:1. Historically over the past 250 years, the explosive growth in populations explains two thirds of the increase in GHG emissions. The rise in personal carbon use must be reversed as must other issues related to unbalanced growth in populations.

GlobalWarming:6 probes why Global Warming turned into a polarizing mess. History plays a role. Emotions such as fear impacts judgments. Lack of perspective is limiting true understanding. Lack of knowledge and clouded judgments don’t help. Many agendas are hidden from view. Rarely in human history have so many ignored so simple requirements for no good reason.

The current GlobalWarming:7 summarizes some important and a few not so important opinions on Global Warming. Global Warming is a battle ground, galvanizing the left against the right, neo conservatists against liberals, the sane against those not quite sane, the Religious Right against evangelists, politicians against constituents, reactionaries against activists, bloggers against bloggers, late show hosts against ratings, journalists against circulations, spokespersons against skeptics and, not least, scientists against scientists. This post contains a small sample of the rare truth, accusations, biases, opinions and propaganda thrown left and right, up and down.

GlobalWarming:8 is perhaps the meat of this series. It gets into the details of what is happening right now in the some 25 different real life areas. The true impacts of Global Warming range from ocean bottoms to mountain tops, from oil fields to highways, from tundra to tropics and from farm fields to smoke stacks. These items are not forecasts, assumptions or opinions but verifiable hard facts. The picture is indicative of your, and my, future. The earthly signs get worse by the day.

GlobalWarming:9 paints three scenarios (not forecasts) of what might happen in the future. There are pessimistic, optimistic and middle of the road pictures. The three scenarios use simple, common sense assumptions, very different from the elaborate, multi million $ systems enjoyed by the UN, the Stern Report, EPA and others. The big systems rely on myriads of assumptions as input, many of which aren’t really known and/or subject to lots of complexity. I favor the KISS approach.

I’m by no means competing with the “big” studies or the smart people putting them together. I used to be a forecasting guru working for the UN, the World Bank, FAO, OECD, the EU and many Fortune 500 companies. I guess I have a right to an opinion. No one is required to consider my views.

I am completely nonaffiliated. No political party enjoys (or wants) my support. I have no axe to grind. I receive no monetary compensations, grants or sponsorships. There are no PayPal buttons on these pages. I have no obligations to fulfill. Office politics do not thrive around here. I promote no agendas except my own – the survival of us all. Occasionally, I put up some of the photos from my portfolios and my photo business.

GlobalWarming:8-9 will follow together with other commentaries and follow ups. Hang in there. The links below help you navigate this monster essay. It’s all quite important to your health.

GW:1	GW:2	GW:3	GW:4	GW:5	GW:6	GW:7	GW:8	GW:9

TOC

 

 

A Temporary Link Target

 

---

Sorry, the next releases are not quite ready yet. They will be online shortly. Subscribe to my RSS feed to get automatic notification or check back soon. Please try a different topic or return (use the back button) to the previous subject.

---

TOC