16. Global warming is a trojan horse for the lefty Statists who would give more and more control to an ever-expanding and centralized government. Self-righteous ignorance bolstered by some celebrities and doctrinaire (socialist) academics is what is really endangering all of us.

ellen moss at 9:31AM on Aug 31st 2007

17. Stanford needs to disassociate itself from this clown, or maybe start recruiting teachers from Cal State Fresno, or maybe look to the east coast: perhaps Miami U Dade County campus?? Or maybe Clown College.

This guy is a joke. For a pseudo-"intellectual", he is divisive, thinks only in absolutes, jumps to erroneous conclusions based on undocumented and often outright wrong facts, and twists his research findings to fit into his models.....SO HE CAN SELL BOOKS.

A man who comes from a country with a caste system, and he thinks he is an expert on race relations in this country???? 'nuff said.

stuart joshua at 9:48AM on Aug 31st 2007

18. In my reading on the subject, there does seem to be a consensus among scientists that the earth is experiencing a warming trend. The debate centers on causation and the extent and duration of the change. I don't think we should let politicians dictate policies that will affect the world economy and quality of life until that debate is settled by the scientific community. That said, I am all for the developement of alternative forms of energy. I would especially love the idea of personally disconnecting from the grid. This year I will puchase a new vehicle and it will be a hybrid. These are personal decisions and I would be mad as hell if the government dictated them.

Joe Edgington at 10:12AM on Aug 31st 2007

19. Keep in mind that "hottest year on record" is only taking into consideration those years in which man has kept temperature records... roughly since the mid 1850's. It really makes people think that the globe is hotter than it has ever been.

Not the case, because it has been much much hotter, and much much colder in the past.

The globe is warming, but it's also warming at roughly the same pace as it was in the first centuries AD... so anyone that thinks that we're in an age of infernos and extinction, you really need to think again.

Tony Messinger at 10:14AM on Aug 31st 2007

20. Hey all you libs, get this. We don't control the climate. God does! The thermostat has been locked up, so all the little kids can't play with it. Oh, I forgot, you don't believe he exsists. [By the way, he created you too.]
_________________________________________

Wow, way to make broad generatlizations.....
I am a Christian who just so happens to have liberal leanings. If you want to talk about GOD, then why don't you bother to pay attention to the fact that the earth is His creation and should be cared for as such, not used up and destroyed selfishly like we own it. Read the book of Genesis; God told Adam he was to care for the earth and its creatures. Sorry, but tearing down forest after forest so you can have the nicest, biggest house on the block, using endless amount of electricity so you can watch your precious television and consuming endless amounts of oil so you can drive the nicest new SUV doesn't seem to fit into GOD's plan, now does it? Why don't you people that want to shove God down the throats of environmentalists need to pick up your Bible and read it; particularly Genesis (God commands us to take care of the earth, God told Adam he gave us all the seeds and greens of the Earth to eat; He did not allow us to consume meat until AFTER the flood so vegetarianism isn't WRONG) and then the Gospels (to see what Jesus has to say about money and greed). Stop preaching from your little boxes until you pick up a Bible and read it ALL, not just what you want to pick and choose from it.

Jeanie at 10:15AM on Aug 31st 2007

21. Global warming facts might be skewed but it's not getting any cooler. Ask Europeans what it was like there over the last three summers or so...they'll tell you what it's like to live with forest fires, water problems and deaths.

But in actuality, the issues at hand are many. It's climate change, pollution, the need to change energy models, and ambivalent attitudes towards the bigger picture.......

Theresa at 10:27AM on Aug 31st 2007

22. you know, maybe some of the people making comments should look at the TRUE facts of global warming, instead of what Al Gore has said. Contrary to what he has said, global warming is not caused by rising CO2 emissions. CO2 rises when it GETS WARMER. Al Gore had twisted the truth around to fit his needs. Besides, how many of you have heard of the "Little Ice Age"? It happened in the Middle Ages and the Rennaisance period. It didn't end until the mid 1800's. We DON'T KNOW what is causing the warming, and saying that human beings are the cause of it is being a bit egotistical. Mother Nature has a way of balancing everything out, and despite what we think, we HAVEN'T been here LONG ENOUGH to cause such a drastic change.

Danielle at 10:22AM on Aug 31st 2007

23. One thing about this earth, she ISN'T going to last forever...Revelation chapter 21 reveals that God will remake the earth with no oceans or sun! Interesting! The present earth will experience Armaggedon, this is of course, AFTER the 1000 years of peace reign here on the earth under Jesus Christ!(The Millenial Reign of Christ) Revelation chapter 20. Earth as we know it today, will take much abuse from the coming catastrophies of a war yet to be fought! And no doubt need repair by the Creator's hands once again!

Bridget at 10:34AM on Aug 31st 2007

24. Traditional environmentalism does not need a face lift or a make over, nor does conservation.

Putting a layer of hype and hysteria (i.e. the recent Global Warming "movement") and asset re-distribution schemes like carbon credit trading over well-known environmental problems like smog and polluted land and water only detracts from very needed efforts to clean up air and water pollution. We really need to steer clear of radical politics and focus our time, money and efforts on cleaning up the environment and conservation.

Instead of worrying and arguing about whether we poor flawed humans have the power to change the weather, I think we will be miles ahead if we simply keep our focus on cleaning up the environment (air, water and land), conserving energy and other resources (water, wildlife, etc), and on directing a concerted effort toward developing better fuels and cleaner energy sources.

All this starts at home. Clean up you own corner of this world; don't throw trash out of your car, and if you change your car's oil, don't just dump the old motor oil in your back yard. Plant a tree. When you go to the park or to the beach, pick up the trash in the area before you leave (even if you did not drop it there); leave the place nicer and cleaner than you found it. When possible, use lemons and vinegar and/or salt and baking soda to clean things around the house instead of more harsh chemicals (example; wash windows with vinegar and water, and dry them with old newspapers). Use your head, do not let the good be the enemy of the best, and do not be afraid to put a little elbow grease into being greener, and stop bawling and babbling about whose fault pollution is; truly, there is enough blame to go around. Get off your high horses and off your butts, and clean up your own corner of the world and teach your kids to do the same.

Environmentalism is not just talk and blab and carbon credit trading schemes or feel-good rock concerts. Pick up the trash and put it away properly and do not be a slob. Show a little pride in yourself, your family, and your country, and have some respect for God's green earth which by the way, is only "on-loan" to us for this short while. Everyone wants to save the world, but nobody wants to help Mom wash the dishes.

Ken Berg at 10:38AM on Aug 31st 2007

25. Academics
About Hillsdale
Student Life
Seminars & Programs
Support Hillsdale
Athletics
Home > News & Events > Imprimis
Imprimis
August 2007


S. Fred Singer
Professor Emeritus, Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia


Printable PDF


S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, a distinguished research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He performed his undergraduate studies at Ohio State University and earned his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University. He was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, the founding director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served for five years as vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. Dr. Singer has written or edited over a dozen books and mono-graphs, including, most recently, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.


The following is adapted from a lecture delivered on the Hillsdale College campus on June 30, 2007, during a seminar entitled “Economics and the Environment,” sponsored by the Charles R. and Kathleen K. Hoogland Center for Teacher Excellence.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?



IN THE PAST few years there has been increasing concern about global climate change on the part of the media, politicians, and the public. It has been stimulated by the idea that human activities may influence global climate adversely and that therefore corrective action is required on the part of governments. Recent evidence suggests that this concern is misplaced. Human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way. Climate will continue to change, as it always has in the past, warming and cooling on different time scales and for different reasons, regardless of human action. I would also argue that—should it occur—a modest warming would be on the whole beneficial.



This is not to say that we don’t face a serious problem. But the problem is political. Because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations. Thus it could well lead to increased social tensions within nations and conflict between them.



If not for this economic and political damage, one might consider the present concern about climate change nothing more than just another environmentalist fad, like the Alar apple scare or the global cooling fears of the 1970s. Given that so much is at stake, however, it is essential that people better understand the issue.



Man-Made Warming?

The most fundamental question is scientific: Is the observed warming of the past 30 years due to natural causes or are human activities a main or even a contributing factor?



At first glance, it is quite plausible that humans could be responsible for warming the climate. After all, the burning of fossil fuels to generate energy releases large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The CO2 level has been increasing steadily since the beginning of the industrial revolution and is now 35 percent higher than it was 200 years ago. Also, we know from direct measurements that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” which strongly absorbs infrared (heat) radiation. So the idea that burning fossil fuels causes an enhanced “greenhouse effect” needs to be taken seriously.



But in seeking to understand recent warming, we also have to consider the natural factors that have regularly warmed the climate prior to the industrial revolution and, indeed, prior to any human presence on the earth. After all, the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years.



In identifying the burning of fossil fuels as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called “scientific consensus.” There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely touted “consensus” of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC’s report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report’s “Summary for Policymakers.”



Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board voted on the “consensus statement” on climate change by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made global warming are well over 50 percent.



The second reason not to rely on a “scientific consensus” in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority view—or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.



But aren’t glaciers melting? Isn’t sea ice shrinking? Yes, but that’s not proof for human-caused warming. Any kind of warming, whether natural or human-caused, will melt ice. To assert that melting glaciers prove human causation is just bad logic.



What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time temperatures are rising? That’s an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation. During much of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising. And we should note that the climate has not warmed in the past eight years, even though greenhouse gas levels have increased rapidly.



What about the fact—as cited by, among others, those who produced the IPCC report—that every major greenhouse computer model (there are two dozen or so) shows a large temperature increase due to human burning of fossil fuels? Fortunately, there is a scientific way of testing these models to see whether current warming is due to a man-made greenhouse effect. It involves comparing the actual or observed pattern of warming with the warming pattern predicted by or calculated from the models. Essentially, we try to see if the “fingerprints” match—“fingerprints” meaning the rates of warming at different latitudes and altitudes.



For instance, theoretically, greenhouse warming in the tropics should register at increasingly high rates as one moves from the surface of the earth up into the atmosphere, peaking at about six miles above the earth’s surface. At that point, the level should be greater than at the surface by about a factor of three and quite pronounced, according to all the computer models. In reality, however, there is no increase at all. In fact, the data from balloon-borne radiosondes show the very opposite: a slight decrease in warming over the equator.



The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming don’t match indicates that the man-made greenhouse contribution to current temperature change is insignificant. This fact emerges from data and graphs collected in the Climate Change Science Program Report 1.1, published by the federal government in April 2006 (see www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm). It is remarkable and puzzling that few have noticed this disparity between observed and predicted patterns of warming and drawn the obvious scientific conclusion.



What explains why greenhouse computer models predict temperature trends that are so much larger than those observed? The answer lies in the proper evaluation of feedback within the models. Remember that in addition to carbon dioxide, the real atmosphere contains water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas. Every one of the climate models calculates a significant positive feedback from water vapor—i.e., a feedback that amplifies the warming effect of the CO2 increase by an average factor of two or three. But it is quite possible that the water vapor feedback is negative rather than positive and thereby reduces the effect of increased CO2.



There are several ways this might occur. For example, when increased CO2 produces a warming of the ocean, a higher rate of evaporation might lead to more humidity and cloudiness (provided the atmosphere contains a sufficient number of cloud condensation nuclei). These low clouds reflect incoming solar radiation back into space and thereby cool the earth. Climate researchers have discovered other possible feedbacks and are busy evaluating which ones enhance and which diminish the effect of increasing CO2.


Natural Causes of Warming

A quite different question, but scientifically interesting, has to do with the natural factors influencing climate. This is a big topic about which much has been written. Natural factors include continental drift and mountain-building, changes in the Earth’s orbit, volcanic eruptions, and solar variability. Different factors operate on different time scales. But on a time scale important for human experience—a scale of decades, let’s say—solar variability may be the most important.



Solar influence can manifest itself in different ways: fluctuations of solar irradiance (total energy), which has been measured in satellites and related to the sunspot cycle; variability of the ultraviolet portion of the solar spectrum, which in turn affects the amount of ozone in the stratosphere; and variations in the solar wind that modulate the intensity of cosmic rays (which, upon impact into the earth’s atmosphere, produce cloud condensation nuclei, affecting cloudiness and thus climate).



Scientists have been able to trace the impact of the sun on past climate using proxy data (since thermometers are relatively modern). A conventional proxy for temperature is the ratio of the heavy isotope of oxygen, Oxygen-18, to the most common form, Oxygen-16.



A paper published in Nature in 2001 describes the Oxygen-18 data (reflecting temperature) from a stalagmite in a cave in Oman, covering a period of over 3,000 years. It also shows corresponding Carbon-14 data, which are directly related to the intensity of cosmic rays striking the earth’s atmosphere. One sees there a remarkably detailed correlation, almost on a year-by-year basis. While such research cannot establish the detailed mechanism of climate change, the causal connection is quite clear: Since the stalagmite temperature cannot affect the sun, it is the sun that affects climate.



Policy Consequences



If this line of reasoning is correct, human-caused increases in the CO2 level are quite insignificant to climate change. Natural causes of climate change, for their part, cannot be controlled by man. They are unstoppable. Several policy consequences would follow from this simple fact:

> Regulation of CO2 emissions is pointless and even counterproductive, in that no matter what kind of mitigation scheme is used, such regulation is hugely expensive.

> The development of non-fossil fuel energy sources, like ethanol and hydrogen, might be counterproductive, given that they have to be manufactured, often with the investment of great amounts of ordinary energy. Nor do they offer much reduction in oil imports.

> Wind power and solar power become less attractive, being uneconomic and requiring huge subsidies.

> Substituting natural gas for coal in electricity generation makes less sense for the same reasons.



None of this is intended to argue against energy conservation. On the contrary, conserving energy reduces waste, saves money, and lowers energy prices—irrespective of what one may believe about global warming.



Science vs. Hysteria



You will note that this has been a rational discussion. We asked the important question of whether there is appreciable man-made warming today. We presented evidence that indicates there is not, thereby suggesting that attempts by governments to control greenhouse-gas emissions are pointless and unwise. Nevertheless, we have state governors calling for CO2 emissions limits on cars; we have city mayors calling for mandatory CO2 controls; we have the Supreme Court declaring CO2 a pollutant that may have to be regulated; we have every industrialized nation (with the exception of the U.S. and Australia) signed on to the Kyoto Protocol; and we have ongoing international demands for even more stringent controls when Kyoto expires in 2012. What’s going on here?



To begin, perhaps even some of the advocates of these anti-warming policies are not so serious about them, as seen in a feature of the Kyoto Protocol called the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows a CO2 emitter—i.e., an energy user—to support a fanciful CO2 reduction scheme in developing nations in exchange for the right to keep on emitting CO2 unabated. “Emission trading” among those countries that have ratified Kyoto allows for the sale of certificates of unused emission quotas. In many cases, the initial quota was simply given away by governments to power companies and other entities, which in turn collect a windfall fee from consumers. All of this has become a huge financial racket that could someday make the UN’s “Oil for Food” scandal in Iraq seem minor by comparison. Even more fraudulent, these schemes do not reduce total CO2 emissions—not even in theory.



It is also worth noting that tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the global warming scare—at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams. In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest. Of course, there are also many sincere believers in an impending global warming catastrophe, spurred on in their fears by the growing number of one-sided books, movies, and media coverage.



The irony is that a slightly warmer climate with more carbon dioxide is in many ways beneficial rather than damaging. Economic studies have demonstrated that a modest warming and higher CO2 levels will increase GNP and raise standards of living, primarily by improving agriculture and forestry. It’s a well-known fact that CO2 is plant food and essential to the growth of crops and trees—and ultimately to the well-being of animals and humans.



You wouldn’t know it from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, but there are many upsides to global warming: Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Canadian farmers could harvest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand.
Mongolia could become an economic superpower. This is all speculative, even a little facetious. But still, might there be a silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia? “It’s not that there won’t be bad things happening in those countries,” economics professor Robert O. Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies says. “But the idea is that they will get such large gains, especially in agriculture, that they will be bigger than the losses.” Mendelsohn has looked at how gross domestic product around the world would be affected under different warming scenarios through 2100. Canada and Russia tend to come out as clear gainers, as does much of northern Europe and Mongolia, largely because of projected increases in agricultural production.



To repeat a point made at the beginning: Climate has been changing cyclically for at least a million years and has shown huge variations over geological time. Human beings have adapted well, and will continue to do so.



* * *



The nations of the world face many difficult problems. Many have societal problems like poverty, disease, lack of sanitation, and shortage of clean water. There are grave security problems arising from global terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Any of these problems are vastly more important than the imaginary problem of man-made global warming. It is a great shame that so many of our resources are being diverted from real problems to this non-problem. Perhaps in ten or 20 years this will become apparent to everyone, particularly if the climate should stop warming (as it has for eight years now) or even begin to cool.



We can only trust that reason will prevail in the face of an onslaught of propaganda like Al Gore’s movie and despite the incessant misinformation generated by the media. Today, the imposed costs are still modest, and mostly hidden in taxes and in charges for electricity and motor fuels. If the scaremongers have their way, these costs will become enormous. But I believe that sound science and good sense will prevail in the face of irrational and scientifically baseless climate fears.

Bill Thompson at 10:59AM on Aug 31st 2007

26. I think that the main problem is that a scientific determination has been politicized. There are many aspects of global warming that must be addressed. First, is there global warming going on? The answer seems to be yes by the overwhelming scientific opinions based on solid evidence. Second, what is causing global warming? This is a more complex question but there is also solid evidence that at least some of the process is caused by human activity. Whether the suggestions being promulgated by global warming activists are tenable in actually reducing the human input into global warming isn't yet known. However it should be pointed out that singling out the US as the main culprit isn't a a valid position. Even if we did everything that environmentalist suggested, China has now taken over as the biggest polluter in the world and they aren't going to do anything. Nor will India or Russia etc. Reducing your carbon footprint advocated by Al Gore who owns three large energy wasting homes and who is seen in his silly movie going from place to place in a chauffer driven limo instead of using public transit is symptomatic of the foolishness of blindly adhering to positions taken by celebrities about complex issues.

eric at 11:06AM on Aug 31st 2007

27. A most informative read on this subject is the book, "STATE OF FEAR" by Michel Crichton, the author who wrote "Jurrasic Park" among other books. He uses published data from a number of scientific journals to illustrate that the picture about warming is rather mixed. Some places show warming trends and others (Paris, Boulder , Colo.) show cooling, and the time period that is used for comparison is also very important. I recommend this book to all who are interested in getting a better picture of what is going on.

Russell Drew at 9:52PM on Aug 31st 2007

28. Ignoring the facts

Barbara Boxer’s alarmist calls for economy-killing laws against greenhouse gases aren’t supported by the latest research


Sen. Barbara Boxer returned from a helicopter and boat tour of Greenland to breathlessly announce that because of global warming, “this massive glacier that’s five miles wide and 500 miles long … (is) crashing into the sea … moving, and it’s melting and every single day, 24 hours a day, 20 million tons of ice comes off that glacier and streams into the ocean.”

Her remedy? Pass a half-dozen new laws in Congress to stem evil man-made, greenhouse gas emissions by imposing Draconian limits on all industries. “From this trip,” she intoned, “you get the sense of urgency.”

Alarmists like Ms. Boxer claim Greenland glaciers are melting because of man-made carbon dioxide, which they say is warming the atmosphere at a dangerous rate. Some facts are called for.

No sign of human-induced global warming

“The problem for global warming alarmists,” writes James M. Taylor, senior fellow for environmental policy at the Heartland Institute, “is that the poles currently show no sign of human-induced global warming.” Antarctica is in a prolonged cold spell, gaining ice, not losing it. Despite Ms. Boxer’s wide-eyed fervor, even Arctic temperatures have been relatively stable since the 1970s, Mr. Taylor said.

Worse yet (for Ms. Boxer and her co-alarmists), Greenland just had its two coldest decades since the 1910s, and “recent temperature readings indicate the cold spell is continuing,” Mr. Taylor says. While Greenland is losing ice at lower elevations, it’s gaining ice inland, more than offsetting the losses.

Ms. Boxer and her contingent of equally alarmed congressional tourists were presented with an illustration of what “could” happen “if” Greenland’s glaciers melted completely away, raising sea levels 20 feet. The problem, again, is that even the global warming proponents at the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have dramatically revised downward the scary prediction of 20-foot increases to a yawn-inspiring seven inches or so over the next 50 years, hardly enough to raise Ms. Boxer’s tour boat.

Not really a forecast

The Penn State University professor who developed an “illustration” of a 20-foot rise in sea level for the touring congressional delegation’s edification admitted it’s not really a forecast or a prediction. What it is, however, is merely another worse-case scenario employed to scare the public and their representatives into Draconian laws limiting liberty and wreaking economic havoc.

Before climbing aboard Ms. Boxer’s global warming tour bus, consider that the latest global warming research goes against alarmism. In the “most comprehensive ever” study on Greenland glacier movements, Danish researchers found in 2006 that “Greenland’s glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming,” let alone by recent man-made CO2 increases.

A 2006 study from Los Alamos National Laboratory, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences found Greenland’s warming rate in 1920-30 to be 50 percent higher than in 1995-2005, suggesting carbon dioxide “could not be the cause.” The study also concluded “[W]e find no direct evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.”

Science fiction

Physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, former director of University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Geophysical Institute and International Arctic Research Center, told a congressional hearing in 2006 that highly publicized climate models that predict a disappearing Arctic are nothing more than “science fiction.”

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former CEO of the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, had this to say about climate models that predict future global warming doom: “I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are, in fact, software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified, to sell their products to society. In all regular engineering professions, there exists a licensing authority. If such an authority existed in climate research, I contend, the vast majority of climate modelers would vainly attempt certification. Also, they would be unable to obtain insurance against professional liability.”

And, in July, Dr. Nigel Calder, co-author of “The Chilling Stars: A New Theory on Climate Change,” said flatly: “In reality, global temperatures have stopped rising. Data for both the surface and the lower air show no warming since 1999.” Meanwhile, CO2 has increased during that period, completely undermining alarmists’ call for Draconian measures to curb greenhouse gases.

INSIDE SLIDE at 11:23AM on Aug 31st 2007

29. The fact that you could so callously suggest that we have noting to worry about shows that you could give a hang about your kids, your grand kids, your great grand kids, and so on.

Isn't it bad enough that we leaving them a legacy of worldwide terror, deteriorating international ties, child molestation that grows at the rate of up to 12% per year?? Do we really have to leave them a bigger armpit??

It is called FORESIGHT. If we know something is bad, perhaps changing it NOW is a good thing.

Moronic stances like yours will leave the future bleak for those living in those times. Add to that the fact that so many in this country do not teach their children accountability and responsibility from birth, it doesn't seem as if we are gearing our kids up to handle the crisis which we are planning on plopping in their laps.

Home Grown American at 11:22AM on Aug 31st 2007

30. Stanford should get as far away from you as possible. You should join the shock jock circuit. You have an agenda that suits an media manipulator, not a Fellow at Stanford.

What do you think happens to the accumulation of all the pollution, heat, etc.? There is no such thing as "away".

sg at 11:40AM on Aug 31st 2007