NASA gave a big boost to the global warming paranoia-mongers by declaring that most of the hottest years on record occurred between 1990 and 2007. Then a math major from Canada, Stephen MacIntyre, showed on his blog that NASA's calculations were wrong. NASA hemmed and hawed, but finally admitted that four of the hottest years on record were in the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938, and 1939. Turns out only three of the top 10 heat waves occurred in the last decade and a half: 1998, 2006 and 1999. Several years that had been given heat records by NASA, such as 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 fell way down the list.
Still, why should we let a few facts get in the way of today's Great Liberal Scare? Pied Piper Al Gore, not previously known for his climatological expertise, and his great following of Hollywood imbeciles, had such a simple and beautiful story to tell. It summarized American history over the past century in three words: "Cool, Warm, Hot." Unfortunately this Canadian fellow has completely spoiled the fairy tale. Now the U.S. temperatures must be read this way, "Hot, Cool, Warm." Somehow the urgency is gone when you put it that way.
All of which raises a question no one seems to have asked: why did people in the 1930s spend so little time worrying that they were suffering through the hottest temperatures on record? Ah, yes, there was a Great Depression, and most people had other things to fret about, like unemployment and home evictions and very little food on the table. Poor people almost never worry about remote warnings of Apocalypse, whether they come from Bible-toting fundamentalists or secular prophets of doom.
In the 1980s ordinary folk paid little attention to the frenzy over Nuclear Armageddon, nor were they spurred to anxiety and action by dire liberal predictions of Ozone Dissipation. In these cases the unconcern of the hoi polloi turned out to be fully warranted. So perhaps the common man today is equally right to ignore the prospect that the planet may be a few degrees warmer 50 years from now than it is today. First let the experts figure out how to accurately forecast the climate for next week; then we'll pay attention to their predictions for the year 2047. I wonder if global warming will one day be seen as one of those idle concerns that occupied people in rich countries with too much leisure; in short, much ado about nothing.
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 5)
31. There is a consensus among scientists that the earth is experiencing a warming trend No scientist will stand up and say it is not happening So people need to stop saying that environmentalist are making this up This is not myth it is fact and an undisputed fact!
I am a proud environmentalist all we are asking is to make small changes and decrease the burning of fossil fuels and make a difference
So instead of sitting her complaining that this is a fairy tale why not do your research find our we are right and be a part of the solution instead of complaining about some big conspiracy theory And so what if somehow someone proves us wrong in twenty years no harm done because all that we are trying to do is help the environment Why are people so against this we live on this earth we should take care of it so our children and grandchildren can enjoy all the many things we have How can that be bad?
Moria at 11:58AM on Aug 31st 2007
32. Pick your propaganda. You have a myriad of choices of propaganda to choose from whether it be the "war on terror" "the scare of socialized heathcare" or "global warming". We all choose what bullshit we want to believe. But given the choice I rather go with a positive choice which would undoubtedly improve the world we live in. Just look at the basic things associated with the so called "global warming paranoia-mongers" such as energy efficiency, less pollutants to the environment YOU live in; what would be the threat to this movement. Al Gore didn't invent Global Warming. Why did they kill the electric car anyway. The point is greed is infectious to the major beneficiuaries and man is weak. Some go as far as to justify atrocities they clearly see coming to protect their interest. Stick to the basics of right and wrong that even a 5th grader can figure out. Unless the oil industry is padding your pockets you would have to be a complete fool to be anti environment. Ask yourselves some intelligent questions like:
*What could be the purpose, strategy and benefit to making up global warming?
*What would liberals gain from this? Making right-wingers look bad?
*If we are so hell bent on the "war on terror" and NOT in the Middle East to gain position and oil why would we be against becoming less dependant on fossil fuels AND what is the purpose of Bush sleeping with the so called enemy (Saudis) while making sure we stay paranoid of them.
Jon Parham at 12:09PM on Aug 31st 2007
33. THE EARTH WARMS, THE EARTH COOLS, ALWAYS HAS ALWAYS WILL... ITS SO TYPICAL OF MAN TODAY TO THINK HE HAS THE "POWER" TO CHANGE THE EARTHS CYCLES AND ITS CLIMATE. IF WE ARE SO ALL POWERFUL THEN WHY CANT WE EVEN BUILD LEVEYS TO HOLD BACK LEVEL THREE HURRICANES? AND SOME ACTUALLY THINK WE CAN CONTROL THE WEATHER? THIS IS JUST THE RELIGION OF THE GODLESS, BECAUSE THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN THE REAL ONE.
Mary at 12:03PM on Aug 31st 2007
34. Dinesh,
You'll never be white. Stop trying so hard.
clarke at 12:39PM on Aug 31st 2007
35. Mr. D'Souza misleads his readers by not stating several key facts from the article he linked to: NASA's Goddard Institute said the temperature revisions "were so insignificant as to have no impact on the overall global-warming trend." That article also quoted David Parker of Britain's Met Office, which monitors temperatures in Britain. He said, "The figures have slight significance for U.S. temperatures, but the U.S. only covers 2 percent of the world's surface, so there is very little significance globally."
The temperature revision was a mere 0.15 degrees Celsius, or 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit. NASA's Dr. James Hansen said in a memo about the revision that "The 1934 and 1998 temperatures are practically the same, the difference being much smaller than the uncertainty." (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_LightUpstairs_70810.pdf) To cite NASA's data: 1934 was 1.25 degrees Celsius above the mean for the last 125 years, while 1998 was 1.23 degrees C above. Virtually the same. So we could say that 1998 is tied for the distinction of being the hottest year in the U.S.
A little online digging reveals that Stephen McIntyre, the Canadian blogger who found the data discrepancy, told the Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/global-warming-debate-overheats-with-bad-numbers-170/) that "The reaction in the right-wing blogosphere is overwrought," Mr. McIntyre said. "I certainly haven't said that this is some kind of magic bullet that disproves global warming."
Global warming has been proven. Some more facts for Mr. D'Souza: In February, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report on the physical science basis of climate change and said that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures." They said the total temperature increase from 1850 to 2005 has been 0.76 degrees C (1.3 degrees F). They also said that they have very high confidence -- are 90 percent sure -- that human activities since 1750 have caused this warming. The report was written by hundreds of climate scientists from around the world, citing published, peer-reviewed scientific papers. The report was then edited by representatives from 113 countries, including the United States. The IPCC has issued three reports this year; Mr. D'Souza should check them out at http://www.ipcc.ch/
So, global warming is happening and we are most likely causing it via greenhouse gas emissions. It is irresponsible to ignore these scientific findings and to mislead people about them. We can argue about what to do about global warming and what might happen 10, 100 or 1,000 years from now. But let's start with the basic facts.
Oh, and about the ozone thing Mr. D’Souza mentioned: Scientific observations over the last 20 years show that the ozone layer is recovering – thanks to the phaseout of ozone-depleting chemicals (like those formerly used in aerosol sprays). The ozone recovery is a global success story for both government and industry. President Reagan signed the U.S. on to the international ozone-protection treaty in 1987.
-- Dan Kulpinski, AOL Science and Reference Editor and author of the Down to Earth Blog
Dan Kulpinski at 12:37PM on Aug 31st 2007
36. For all you name-calling-head-in-the-sand conservatives, look at some simple facts: official energy statistics published by the US government indicated that worlwide consumption of refined pertoleum products in 2004 was approx. 82 million barrels per day. Each barrel of oil will produce approximately 5.8 million BTUs. That's a lot of heat to add to the system (our eco-system that is) and that does not include natural gas and coal consumption. The scientific community universally agrees that CO2 emissions are creating a greenhouse effect, trapping more heat from the sun in addition to the amount we are adding from our energy consumption. In the face of that, how can there NOT be global warming. We do not know what the consequences of that warming mihgt be, but we do know that they could be huge. Any rational risk analysis would say that in those cirucmctances, you should guard against those potentially dire consequences. On the other side, what freedom are you people talking about losing? What freedom will you lose if all the oil and gas reserves are depleted in 100 years and we don't have reasonable alternative methods of meeting our increasing energy needs? Oh, we don't care about the future of anything as long as we get ours today. That's the consrvative philosophy.
John Nestico at 12:37PM on Aug 31st 2007
37. One more thing - Are the ice caps melting at an
exponential rate or not. Are you concerned or is it more important for you to believe your own political rhetoric. For all the religious folk who think we are powerless against our own pollutants to the environment that we introduce to it - I hope you don't suscribe to that theory in your own house. I don't think it is in God's plan for us to be suicidal.
Jon Parham at 12:37PM on Aug 31st 2007
38. Here we go again, the Shrill Shill of Spin gives his predictable Talking Points, to the Tune of the Money hitting his Coffers paid by the Global Corporate Think Tanks. The self-aggrandizing, so-called 'intellectual' is a pathetic Corporate Whore, paid by the highest bidder. I pity the Fool!
AlohaTerry at 12:40PM on Aug 31st 2007
39. Back in the 70s there was a scientific concensus that we would be in a full blown ice age right now caused by "man made" pollution. People were hysterical imagining glaciers covering New York city and so on. On the first "earth day" in 1970 all the speeches were about the impending doom of the man made ice age complete with all kinds of statistical proof that the earth was rapidly cooling.
At that time it was claimed that EVERY scientist in the world agreed that a new ice age would be caused by CO2 being pumped into the air by man by the year 2000.
So what happened? How come all of a sudden CO2 doesn't cause ice ages anymore?
I've been asking this question ever since the global warming nuts starting whining that CO2 has magically morphed from an ice age causing gas to an industrial strength heating gas. None of the global warming nuts has an answer.
You young people who are being bombarded by global warming propaganda are just the next generation of suckers to these parasites.
The earth has been going through ice ages and warm ages for millions of years with no help from humans and that's not going to change no matter what we do.
Darkmanwp at 12:41PM on Aug 31st 2007
40. I am skeptical about the environmental alarmists.
First of all, many of these alarmists live off the public tit. They need taxpayer funding or donations from the concerned citizenry. Thus, their motives are suspect. I could not help notice a disclaimer in one of the latest reports. (paraphrasing) "It may be too late. Even if we do make the necessary behavior changes, climate change patterns are already in motion and we can not stop it." In other words, if we heed their alarms, reduce greenhouse impact, and the earth continues to warm, we can't accuse them of being wrong. They added a CYA disclaimer.
The experts claim we have been coming out of an "ice age" for the past 10,000 years. In other words, yeah, there has been global warming for 10,000 years. So what?! There have been a few cooling hiccups (2-3 year mini-ice age in early 19th century following a huge volcanic eruption near Indonesia). So, I think we can all agree that the earth is warming.
(P.S. - I have been told that the polar ice caps on Mars are also receding. These caps fluctuate back and forth as Mars orbits the sun. Can't find a reliable source that answers whether there is a "warming trend" overall.)
The important questions are:
(1) How is our behavior (consumption of fossil fuels) affecting this warming trend?
(2) What should our response be?
Personally, I find the whole argument a bit juvenile. Regardless of the truth, there are two bigger truths out there.
(1) We are consuming fossil fuels at a very fast pace. Existing suppliers may last only 200 years, maybe 400 years, maybe 1000 years. BUT – they are being depleted.
(2) Air pollution is rising. Many people live in absolutely horrible conditions. Sooner or later, the health care costs are going to hit us hard.
Response?
Even though I am skeptical about the claims from the environmental "Chicken Littles", for other reasons, we do need to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels and we need to do it NOW!
I get pissed off when I hear Gore and his cronies talk about investing billions of $ on new technology, new cars, etc. and that we can start to see the benefits in 5 – 10 years.
I'm pissed for two reasons:
(1) If a new scientific study shows that the alarmists are wrong, guess what is going to happen to the effort to reduce fossil fuel consumption? People will resume their gas guzzling habits.
(2) We can reduce our gas consumption by 10% TOMORROW by making a few simple lifestyle changes. We do not need to wait 5 – 10 years and spend billions. You know the litany of ideas.
Plan shopping trips and errands better.
Carpool. Walk. Bike.
Public transportation.
We need to be implementing these changes NOW, regardless of the truth about global warming.
There is one more change I would like to see: stop this insane practice of wearing coats and ties to work, especially in the summer. Trash the tie & coat, wear a short sleeve shirt, and even wear a nice pair of shorts. Got nasty legs with varicose veins? We'll get used to it. In the meantime, we can raise the thermostats even higher.
And if we do reduce our gas consumption by 10%, imagine the impact on gas prices, plus we will reduce funding going to regimes that do not like us. All the way around, reducing gas consumption should be a top priority regardless of the global warming debate.
And as far as I can tell, the alarmists are no more committed to making these lifestyle changes than their critics. (Again, makes me question their motives from the beginning.)
What about alternative fuels?
a) Ethanol consumes ~4 gallons of gas to produce 5 gallons of ethanol. And to make a significant dent in our fuel demands, we will have to cut down huge sections of our forests in order to plant the necessary acreage of corn.
b) Hydrogen fuel cells? We can not get the hydrogen out of the ground. There are no "hydrogen wells". We will have to make the hydrogen by splitting water, which is a fuel powered process. We might have some limited supplies of hydrogen from solar powered sources, but, not much.
(c) Biomass? The technology is still way off before this can make an appreciable difference.
It appears that nuclear fuel is our best option at this time. We have a better chance of developing new technologies for processing nuclear wastes than we have in developing new fuels.
ray at 12:50PM on Aug 31st 2007
41. RHONDALEE, SINCE YOU YOURSELF ADMIT "NOT BEING EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT" LET ME JUST CLUE YOU IN...ITS SUMMER, THATS WHY ITS HOT...AND HIGH HUMIDITY IN PHILLY? WELL, IMAGINE THAT... I "PREDICT" IN A FEW MONTHS YOU'LL HAVE SNOW UP TO YOUR KNEES TOO!!! EVEN THO THATS NEVER HAPPENED THERE BEFORE EITHER...
Erin at 1:00PM on Aug 31st 2007
42. how can it be "global" warming, when warming isnt global? also, if it gets to be 90 degrees in the middle of winter, when its suppose to be cold, then i will believe in this warming issue, but since we in colorado had three blizzards last winter and continue to have summers like we've always had, then this is a non issue as far as i'm concerned.
Anne at 1:09PM on Aug 31st 2007
43. Hmmm . . . must be nice to receive such huge grants from the Olin Foundation for your "research." The Olin Corporation, of course, benefits a great deal when the realities of global warming are kept in the realm of debate instead of the realm of fact.
On you comment about the "ozone layer." The depletion of the ozone layer became a non-issue because CFC use was banned. This is an example of a SUCCESFUL environmental policy, not an example of a "non-issue." The ozone layer has been largely restored because we as a world: (1) identified a problem (CFCs) and (2) solved the problem (eliminated the prolific use of CFCs)
Although much more complex, we are going to have to come up with a similar solution for global warming, coming up with a way to eliminate the majority of the gases that cause the green house effect.
Too bad your beloved funder, the Olin Foundation, doesn't throw a couple of million dollars in that direction instead of to you for disinformation.
Mark Davis at 1:12PM on Aug 31st 2007
44. There is not an issue that will matter if we dont stand up against radical islam. Period. That is the only issue at this moment in time and we had better get on the same page folks. Global warming, gay issues, health care, illegal immagration, tax cuts or hikes, school vouchers, the economy, republican this democrat that...all be damned.
Mike at 1:22PM on Aug 31st 2007
45. I'm not sure why DD-and-'em hate women's lib and environmentalism.
More workers in the market of any sex... must be good for business...
...environmentalism must be good for business... more efficient factoriew... govt. subsidies for 'clean' efficient production...
... why does business lose anything?
Come to think of it I don't understand why business doesn't benefit from soft socialism...
... people with more money to spend... money is no more good once you've got it as a number in the bank... it is only useful when it is circulating...
... seems DD-and-'em don't mind that as long as money is spiraling somewhere above the masses... where it does the least good.
... with their retro-attitude..aren't they cutting off their own noses to spite their face?
According to this post... making the masses as poor as possible has the 'up-side' of making them feel overwhelmed by day to day survival and not care about world-sized problems like Armageddon or Nuclear Holocaust or Global Warming(however spurious... the solution still lies in conservation of resources with zero market downside... 'cos companies get to charge more for the same bloody thing... right?)
But the bandwagon that DD is on.. is partly religious and their 'masters' have figured that poor uneducated people make the best flock... all the better for churchy indoctrination...
... a sad, despicable agenda for such a 'noble' institution, religion... which seems to be willing to break it's own rules... that the end never justifies the means.
Machiavellian religion... how the 'movers and shakers(and pundits)' have fallen... ptoo!
pboyfloyd at 1:38PM on Aug 31st 2007