02.01.08
Still denying global warming?
Here’s the conference for you:
From March 2-4, right-wing climate-denier group The Heartland Institute will host what it calls a ‘Climate Skeptics’ Conference. Heartland President Joseph Blast boasted that his conference would feature climate change deniers: “This is their chance to speak out.” The online poster for the conference declares, “Global Warming is not a crisis!”
Heartland’s environmental stance is completely out of the mainstream. The debate over human contribution to global warming is long over. Even as all three top GOP presidential candidates recently endorsed California’s effort to reduce auto greenhouse gas emissions, Heartland ridiculed the idea, calling California and its allies “environmental extremists.”
Heartland’s extreme anti-environmentalism no doubt spawns from its supporters. Between 1998 and 2005, oil giant ExxonMobil gave nearly $800,000 to Heartland. The group’s Board of Directors also explains the group’s climate change denials:
– Thomas Walton is the Director of Economic Policy at General Motors.
–James L. Johnston is a former senior economist for oil company Amoco Corporation.
–Walter F. Buchholtz is a former member of Heartland’s board of directors and worked as ExxonMobil’s Senior Issues Advisor.
–James M. Taylor is editor of Heartland’s weekly Environment & Climate News and wrote an op-ed criticizing Gore’s “Assault On Reason” insisting that “global warming threats they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.”
RealClimate quips, “Normal scientific conferences have the goal of discussing ideas and data in order to advance scientific understanding. Not this one.”
Republican Fiction Project said,
1 February 2008 at 7:25 pm
Happy Groundhog day! A new meta analysis of famed groundhog, Punxsutawney Phil’s long winter/early spring predictions indicate that climate change is reversing since George W Bush got into office. Now that’s some good science. Check out the
data…http://republicanfiction.com
gorak said,
1 February 2008 at 9:08 pm
I still deny global warming. Temperatures have been flat since 1998 and the continent of Antarctica is cooling (which under the IPCC model would suggest the earth is cooling, oddly enough). We are also heading into a Maunder Minimum, suggesting cooling throughout the 21rst century. So yes, I deny global warming, and would deny it to Al Gore’s face if I could come face to face with him.
Rick G said,
2 February 2008 at 3:58 am
Can we draw the conclusion from your post that GOP presidential candidates are always correct? Do you normally side with most of their opinions?
And, do we really feel better with an opinion from a guy like Al Gore that is making piles of money from environmental alarmism versus Exxon Mobile?
Ever notice that Exxon Mobile actually provides goods and services that people enjoy and use to enhance their life? Al Gore and the rest of the environmentalist extremist provide hysteria, promises of higher taxes, limited speech, and increased pollution (concerts, private jets, large homes etc).
Do you drive a car?
Butch said,
2 February 2008 at 4:43 am
Ron Paul doesn’t agree that it’s caused by humans. He says there is science on both sides and he’s right. The debate still lives on.
The earth has only warmed .07 degrees in the last 9 years and not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation.
You’re forgetting the basic foundation that the theory says that if global warming is caused by greenhouse gases (which c02 from man is less than 1% of) then the troposphere (which greenhouses are in the middle of 10-12 kil up from surface) should warm more rapidly than the surface. John Christy, who won a NASA medal of Scientific Achievement in 1991, an award from the American Meteorology Society for advancing the ability to monitor climate, was a lead author on the UN’s Climate Change (IPCC) said there are two ways to take temperature. One from satellite and the other weather balloon. A weather balloon has proven this theory isn’t happening.
LeisureGuy said,
2 February 2008 at 8:35 am
@gorak: Al Gore is merely the messenger from the scientific community, not the author of the studies. He’s a reporter, in effect. Those who support global warming are the scientists who have studied the issue—along with anyone able to observe what is actually happening on the planet.
@Rick G: I’m surprised at your question about whether GOP presidential candidates are always correct. Are you serious? I do think when all three GOP presidential candidates endorse a position, we can take that position as representing the belief of a majority of the GOP—or at least the candidates’ hope that the position is something that the GOP base supports. In any event, their support of the California emissions issue is more likely to be on the legal merits—whether the state have the right to get a waiver, which undoubtedly it does, as the entire EPA legal and scientific staff agreed, only to have Johnson overrule them.
Whatever piles of money Al Gore may be making from global warming is a speck compared to the billions and billions of dollars of profit that Exxon/Mobil is making from selling petroleum. Or haven’t you noticed? Doesn’t it occur to you that, with all those billions in profits, Exxon/Mobil might not be a disinterested party?
The environmentalists I know are promoting a sustainable lifestyle (nothing about limiting speech—where did that come from?).
We drive a Prius, and we’re looking at an Aptera.
@Butch: sorry, the observations overwhelmingly support that global warming is happening. Do more research.
Rick G said,
2 February 2008 at 11:13 am
LeisureGuy….Of course most Republicans support state rights. It’s quite misleading to use that to pretend support for the global warming scam. Unfortunately in this instance California can effect the cost of cars in other states.
Al Gore is just getting started. His “speck” is going to make Exxon Mobil look like chump change.
Doesn’t it occur to you that, with all those billions in potential profits, Al Gore might not be a disinterested party?
Frankly though, I think its fair for them (Exxon) to want to support a counter view point to a political opinion from the likes of Al Gore. They are doing us a service. One thing is for certain, the debate is not over and there is no consensus.
When Al Gore says the science is settled, and we have a consensus, he is attempting to shut off debate. Thus the limiting of speech.
By the way a Prius puts CO2 in the atmosphere. And if you are really sincere start looking at the Prius. It is one of the most environmentally unfriendly cars ever built.
check it out…http://capoliticalnews.com/s/spip.php?article142
LeisureGuy said,
2 February 2008 at 11:19 am
I wasn’t pretending anything: I was simply quoting a story that would be, I thought, interesting to my readers.
Your statements about Al Gore are unfounded but also irrelevant. As I pointed out, he’s merely the messenger: the IPPC and the thousands of scientists (and observations) are those who have identified the problem, with more information coming out daily—recently I blogged about the decline in the Western US snowpack and the increase in hurricanes. And there is a consensus, though unfortunately it’s one unpalatable to you (and the oil and coal industry).
I don’t believe that Gore is trying to cut off debate in saying that the consensus of scientists, based on evidence, is that global warming is happening. He’s simply stating a fact—or, as you might say, his opinion. To try to keep him from stating that would, of course, be limiting speech, as I’m sure you’ll agree.
I know the Prius puts CO2 in the atmosphere: it’s a hybrid automobile. And, as I said, we’re looking at the Aptera. I was just answering your question. We did not know the information that you linked to at the time we bought the car—we were looking totally at gasoline use. Now that we know, we’re exploring other options (including the ZENN).
Do you have a car, BTW?
Rick G said,
3 February 2008 at 4:47 am
LeisureGuy…I’m just not sure why youself and others are not seeing the pattern of the source of the message and what appears to be (I admit, to me) an obvious attempt to mislead.
For example, your post above seems to indicate that you are suspicious of the anti-global warming message of a group that is funded by an oil company. Fair enough. They have an economic interest.
But, why are you not equally suspicious of the same message from the UN, an obviously corrupt organization that has been trying for years to enact a global tax and is now seeing their best chance ever? Again, an economic interest?
Why are you not suspicious of scientist whose living now depends on global warming through research grants? Again, an economic interest? Did you notice recently that when NASA had a mistake pointed out to them concerning their conclusions on the warmest year last century that a press conference was not held and the information was not treated the same as when they were reporting the opposite? Why is this?
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/did-nasa-cover-.html
Sure Al Gore is only the messenger as you say, as is Exxon, but why are you not suspicious of a guy that believes CO2 is ending life as we know it and yet recklessly produces the equivalent of hundreds of people each year. I have to tell you that I sure wouldn’t behave in that fashion.
Don’t you think it’s quite telling that the Toyota Prius is so damaging to the environment that NASA tests their lunar rover where the batteries are manufactured but this information is not widely published? People are even encouraged to buy into this disastrous misconception. Why?
Are you not suspicious that Al Gores main piece of evidence in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, are the two graphs showing planet temperature and CO2 content in the atmosphere, are shown separately? When they are laid on top of each other the CO2 content follows the rise in temperature. That’s an easy catch and never explained by Al Gore.
Have you noticed that the cure for global waring appears to higher taxes? This is not suspicious? Different from Exxon Mobil motives?
How do you explain the fact that just about 30 years ago there was a scientific consensus on global cooling? Did you know those scientific fools wanted to cover the Arctic ice with a black coating to encourage it to melt?
Last, but certainly not least, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of scientist that are not signing up to man made global waring.
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/Publications/pressrel/petition.html
LeisureGuy said,
3 February 2008 at 9:14 am
A correction: the Toyota Prius is not damaging the environment. The manufacturer of the batteries that the Prius uses is damaging the environment—thanks to Canada’s lax environmental protection laws. I think this manufacturer is clearly acting irresponsibly but (alas) doing what all businesses will do unless regulated and watched: externalizing costs. That business should be brought to heel. Fortunately, the problem is now getting some press.
Did you know that 30 years ago scientists did not know all sorts of things that they have discovered over the past 30 years? Isn’t that telling? It tells us that science is continuing to advance.
The scientists who support anthrogenic global warming are those who study the issue and know the facts.
Let’s discontinue the discussion. I’m happy to go to my grave not knowing what sort of car you drive or why you’re obsessed with Al Gore. Let’s just say that what is happening these days—and is reported in the papers—is consistent with global warming.
Thanks for commenting.
Johnnyb said,
3 February 2008 at 8:04 pm
There is no such thing as “Climate Change” deniers. Everone agrees that the Climate is in constant change. The entire warming experienced over the last 30 years can be explained by a shift in the ENSO cycle, where it used to favor la Ninas, now it favors El Ninos. Things might be about to change though, this year’s La Nina is the strongest that werhave seen in quite some time, and as evidenced by numerous snow events around the Globe is cooling the Earth.
How will the algore, World Government fascists continue to spin this lie when the World starts to cool off? Invent some nonsense, like trying to relabel Global Warming as Climate Change?
These people are exactly like Aztec priests of old, and its only a matter of time before they start to commit genocide to appease their global warming Gods. Make no mistake, Global Warming is a hoax, the trend stopped 10 years ago, and is now reversing itself. These people have the same goal of the Nazis in that they want to create Lebensraum by killing off a large amount of people.
They know that they are full of crap, which is why they will not debate the issue, and claim that “the debate is over.” The debate is anything but over, and out of all of the theories concerning Climate Change their’s is by far the weakest.
Please think carefully about this issue, before lending your support to an organization that is bent on World Nazi Government. Genocide is not cool.
LeisureGuy said,
3 February 2008 at 8:24 pm
Well, the people holding the conference called it a “Climate Skeptics” conference. I don’t suppose that meant it was for people who don’t believe in climate.
I’m afraid your data on global warming are incorrect, and numerous recent studies have found the trend is accelerating. You can read about these in your paper.
Your fantasies about genocide and Nazism seem strange indeed. Thanks for commenting though.
Sorghum Crow said,
6 February 2008 at 10:41 am
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored” –A. Huxley. “or vehemently denied” –me
Good grief, you have stirred up a hornets’ nest.
Leisureguy — It is sad that Global Warming has become a political issue. A lot of the detractors seem to think that scientists are somehow trying to create some kind of overriding government control and world governance. Even if controls are necessary, I, for one, am much more comfortable with a set of modest controls and changes now, rather than the Draconian measures that will be necessary when the stuff really hits the fan.
What will it take to make skeptics (not, denyers) recognize the truth of global warming?
Overwhelming scientific consensus — check (for every two scientists telling us to jump off a cliff, there are 200 telling us not to)
Experts at the Pentagon saying so — check (climate change is recognized as a global security threat)
Chairman of Exxon saying so — check (google tillerson + prudent to read his opinion)
If you haven’t, I recommend you check out the videos at
http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderingmind42
Start with “how it all ends”. The expansion pack goes into more detail.
Regards.
Keep up the good work.
Joey said,
6 February 2008 at 6:59 pm
Global Warming can scarcely be denied. All the evidence points to the fact that it is happening, and will continue to happen if we don’t drastically reduce CO2 levels immediately. I found a petition which is telling Congress to take action, and, as we gain signatures, money is donated to stop global warming.
http://www.petitionearth.com/viewpetition.php?id=76
Please, we need to speak out to save our planet.
Johnnyb said,
8 February 2008 at 10:05 am
Really Joey and Sorgum? Really?
Man Kind Produces about 2% of the total annual CO2, most of it comes from the oceans and decaying organic matter, forest fires, volcanos etc.
January was the 2nd coldest in 15 years, and the global Temperature is currently below average. According to the satelites.
The sun is a year over due to start solar cycle 24, and no, 1 spot does not make a new cycle.
The PDO has flipped its 30 year cycle just like it did in 1978, and will now favor a cool trend.
The conveyor belt on the sun has reached the slowest speed ever recorded. This means that solar cycle 25 is going to be cold, no doubt.
Russian and Chinese scientists have both published papers, stating that the earth is headed towards a cold phase. Based on larger solar cycles.
We are already over due for an Ice Age, and if increasing the CO2 can abate the effects of Global Cooling, then I think that we should try and pump up the CO2 as high as we can, but according to beers law, the function is logarithmic, and studies have confirmed that the first 20 ppm, causes more global warming than the entire sum of the Global warming efffect.
Even the IPCC, does not dispute that CO2 will only cause 1 degree of warming, but they come up with all of these feedbacks in their computer models to increase the results. Trouble is, during the past like the Jurassic Period, CO2 was up to 4,000ppm, yet the world did not come to an end.
Global Warming seems to be to be such obvious BS, I gotta stepback and ask who benefits? The Scientists might not know that they are working on a giant Eugenics/ populations reduction experiment, but then again maybe they do. Does not matter, because its possible to trace the orgin of this idea back to the “Population Bomb” scare of the 1960s, so you know their goals, and you can trace those people back to the Club of Rome. Many of the same people at the Club of Rome, were involved with the fascist movements of the 1930s including the Nazis.
Seriously, if some tells you the sky is falling you should be skeptical. Do not believe me. Do not believe anything that I say. Do your own homework. But look at our candidates for President this year, and ask yourself in all seriousness, if this is the best we can do.
The Pope said,
27 January 2009 at 2:54 pm
I work in a plant biology research lab that focuses on the genetic modification of plants so that they may become feed stocks for bio-fuels. Our grant funding is HEAVILY reliant on a belief in global warming.
There is certainly an economic interest at the lab I work in and in thousands of others throughout the world that do the same kind of research.
It would be in the best interest of all people throughout the world to continue researching the accuracy of global warming doomsday forecasts for the 21st century.