Nixon, Obama, and Earth Day Offer a Study on Challenges of Being Green

Reply to Brad

Brad,

We don’t know if your friend the “biochemist with 30 years of experience in the environmental field” has valid scientific arguments to support your position, because you don’t articulate those arguments here. You seem unfamiliar with the arguments on either side. Do you really care about global warming? If you did, you would be prepared to make your case instead of continually citing your anonymous friend, and vague fears of rising sea levels and icebergs. Please read this peer-reviewed article from a journal of science and show understanding its arguments.

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

Unlike you, I have cited numerous sources, and providing the names of each scientist, who make their cases persuasively. I also summarized some of their arguments previously. But you have not indicated that you read or understood any of these scientific arguments. The public notices this repeated pattern here and everywhere. So man-made global warming hysteria looses its effectiveness, and fewer people worry about it, as previous readers have commented below. They feel that you have insulted their intelligence.

Artic ice is continually growing and breaking off, as part of a natural process predating Man. Using this fact to worry your readers only calls into question your actual motivation, especially when you don’t provide data quantifying the specifics, so that readers can independently evaluate your claims. Your 8-year time frame is kind of amusing also, as if ice started melting as an immediate result of a presidential election. I can assure you that the sun does not request permission from any federal agency before rising each day. Furthermore, you know Clinton never submitted the Kyoto Treaty to the Senate for ratification. He knew that the Senate had already voted 98-0 for a resolution to reject it.

Proponents of your man-made global warming theory (like your friend) began trying to spread this fear more than 30 years ago, as a means of attacking the free market. It gives them an excuse for government to further tax and regulate business. Since all of us are the customers and/or the employees of business, this is an indirect way of taxing and regulating us all. A firm only remains in business to the extent that it is able to pass on all costs to its customers, and make a profit beyond that. Therefore whatever the government does to a business, it is really doing to the customers of that business paying the entire cost of the taxes and the cost of complying with the regulations. Directly taxing and regulating these customers and employees on that scale by targeting their expenditures and paychecks would be far more difficult, as they would surely vote against such measures in self-defense.

Reply to Barry

I am happy you live on high ground but not everybody enjoys that luxury. You may not have read my aricle carefully but the expert I cited is a biochemist with 30 years of experience in the environmental field. It is also a fact that hundreds of thousands of acres of Artic ice have melted in the last 8 years while the Bush administration with its knee jerk right wing ideology stood idly by. Another big piece of the Artic ice mass broke off last week.

Reply to Brad of DC

Brad,

First I have to take issue with your reasoning as you repeatedly say:

"By the time, we have conclusive proof of global warming, the pacific Coast will be underwater, too. . .

Proof-by the time we have conclusive proof, the eastern seaboard will be underewater. . .

But a friend of mine who is a biochemist and environmentalist activist told me "by the time we have conclusive proof, the eastern seaboard will be under water."

We can't prove that the world won't be hit by a giant asteroid this afternoon. We can't prove that we won't be invaded and exterminated by aliens from outer space. We can prove that a deranged Russian madman won't get a hold of the nuclear codes and launch what remains of Russia’s whole arsenal at us. We can't prove that something like the bubonic plague won't return in a new form to wipe out our entire species.

Simply imagining an apocalyptic disaster scenario and not being able to conclusively prove it won't happen does not justify forcefully redirecting trillions of dollars of other people's money and resources. It is necessary to calmly contemplate the likelihood of such scenarios actually happening, and to not exaggerate their likelihood. That would be irresponsible.

In fact, an early proponent of the man-made global warming theory, Al Gore's mentor and former university professor, Roger Revelle concluded shortly before his untimely death by heart attack, “The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time,” He published that three month before he died:

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/msheppard_20060630.html

His co-author of that paper, S. Fred Singer, continues to make that case, and has recently published a book on the subject “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years”, in which he attributes observed variation in climate to natural causes:

http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-Years/dp/0742551172

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

Reply to Brad of DC

Brad,

I appreciate your concern for my home here in California. Rest assured that my house is about 400 feet above sea level. I've also noticed that Venice is still there every time I visit that beautiful city, in defiance of all the predictions that it would be underwater by now, and in spite of the fact that up until very recently it was sinking. In fact it has been there for well over a thousand years.

Your point on rising sea level is also moot as there is nothing we can do about it except to get out of the way. In the case of Venice, they've been adding new layers of stone to the floors and sidewalks, and have moved to the second floors of buildings when the ceilings get too low on the first floors. Life must always adapt to changing conditions, because we have only a very limited ability to change our conditions.

Had you followed the links I provided, to read the peer reviewed literature I previously referred you to, you would already have seen that the average rate of sea level rise hasn't increased in the last 150 years. The graph in figure 11 on page 3 of the following review article shows how the most recent rate of sea level rise has not been affected by the anthropogenic release of CO2, and therefore would obviously be unaffected by reducing our CO2 emissions. This would only create additional costs with no benefits. This is the most widely read peer reviewed article on the subject of climate change. After reading this article (or its previous version) included with a petition, 31,478 scientists agreed to oppose the man-made global warming theory. Perhaps you could read all twelve pages and continue to believe that you know better than so many scientists. Or you could open your mind when the essential facts are presented to you with solid reasoning.

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

Reply to Brad of DC

Brad,

I have referred you to this article, which you apparently failed to read, so I will quote part of it here:

"If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.

Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about."

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3116

So again I will ask you to please allow your scientific opinions to be informed by actual scientists, not politicians, journalists, or political activists posing as scientists. You have no reason to worry about seeing the eastern seaboard go under water. You’ve been told lies designed to create public hysteria for political reasons.

Reply to Barry of California

By the time, we have conclusive proof of global warming, the pacific Coast will be underwater, too.

Respnse to 'Respnse to comments'

Brad,

Please allow your scientific opinions to be informed by actual scientists, not politicians, journalists, or political activists posing as scientists. You have no reason to worry about seeing the eastern seaboard go under water. You’ve been told lies designed to create public hysteria for political reasons. A closer examination by actual scientists may calm your fears:

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3116

http://www.dailytech.com/Alaskan+Glaciers+Grow+for+First+Time+in+250+years/article13215.htm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/

If you are still worried about such doomsday scenarios, please consider the fact that they have always been wrong in the past, seeing how we are still here. If doomsday ever does arrive, the official sources will be the last ones to know about it. Even yesterday one of Obama’s 747s was buzzing the New York skyline and he claims that he didn’t know about it until after it happened. Eight years ago the official news media Mr. Know-It-Alls had no clue about 9/11.

Respnse to comments

Proof-by the time we have conclusive proof, the eastern seaboard will be underewater.

Jimmy Carter-I have a lot of repect for President Carter.While he was president, I wasn't in grade school.During Carter's presidency, I worked in the U.S.Dept of Health, Education and Welfare and for the Democratic National Committee.

Nixon-In my opinion, Nixon with the possible exceptions of James Buchanan and George W.Bush was our worst president. But give the devil his due, he had a good environmental record. Today's Republicans are in the stone age on environmental issues and they will lose a whole generation of young millienials if they don't clean up their act.

Nothing would be green without CO2

Twenty years ago James Hansen testified before congress trying to scare us about global warming. See his predictions in figure 3(a) & 3(b) on page 7 of this PDF from his published article (journal page 9347):

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

The most recent global satellite data published by the University of Alabama at Huntsville proves that this was wrong. This predicted warming never occurred:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN_AND_CONGRESS.jpg

As you can see, 2008 was even colder than 1988. Had he predicted what actually happened, no one would have seen the need to waste hundreds of billions of dollars. Now the politicians have stimulated much more of this wasteful spending, to be paid for by your grandchildren (ironic how they claim to be protecting the children from doomsday). Here is more background on this deliberate hoax perpetrated twenty years ago:

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/hansens_anniversary_testimony/

For a list of 31,478 scientists who signed a petition opposing the man-made global warming theory, as well as a peer reviewed journal article detailing the evidence that disproved the theory, please follow this link:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Al Gore knew his followers were gullible enough to believe that he created the Internet. Now he thinks they'll continue to fall for the same old recycled hoax about the climate AGAIN. We're still here because all previous doomsday predictions have failed. Doomsday predictions are not intended to be accurate; they are only intended to scare people for political reasons. That's why politicians love them. They know some people never will learn.

While there is no proven linkage between CO2 and global warming (or 'climate change'), there is definitely a linkage between environmental regulations and the collapse of our domestic automobile industry. CAFE standards played to the advantage of Japanese automakers by forcing the phase-out of the big American muscle cars everyone remembers so fondly. SUVs are not covered by these standards. Obviously Gore wouldn't mind impoverishing the rest of us to enrich himself with his ‘carbon trading’ scheme. With the size of his utility bills and the cost of jet fuel for his private jet flying him all over the world, he needs all the money he can get. If he was really worried about CO2, wouldn’t he act like he was worried about his own emissions, and energy consumption? Of course he is received like a hero in Hollywood; he makes hypocrisy fashionable.

If USN&WR was informing their readers like they're supposed to, I wouldn’t have to be the one to point out the difference between the global warming doomsday theory predictions of twenty years ago, and what actually happened.

Nixon, Obama, and Earth Day Offer a Study on Challenges of Being Green

H'mm. Nixon touted as a Green President for all he did right for the USA. He set the standard for all future Presidents.

However, he was rated as one of the worst Presidents? Respect for the enviroment, respect for the office in resigning and he became a Elder statesman of international respect.

Any one else see how the liberal media, and now USN&WR are being PC - and not fair reporters?