Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Friday, July 28, 2006

Peter Doran: My Antarctic temperature study has been misused as "evidence" against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear and by Ann Coulter in her latest book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Search my name on the Web, and you will find pages of links to everything from climate discussion groups to Senate policy committee documents -- all citing my 2002 study as reason to doubt that the earth is warming. I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who dispute global warming.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

"In the meantime, I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who dispute global warming. I know my coauthors would as well."

We've seen what the wingnuts do with this and other inconvenient facts. So you can be sure that they will simply act like the above was never said.

Why are Americans so susceptible to propaganda? (It's the hours of TV stupid).

There is no such thing as Global Warming or the female orgasm.
Sincerely,
Al Gore

If there is agreement the world is warming what should America do about it?

Posted by OohRah at 2006-07-28 08:31 AM |

www.ucsusa.org

This guy should take it easy.... no sane person takes Crichton or Coulter seriously. Chill out! No pun intended.

This guy should take it easy.... no sane person takes Crichton or Coulter seriously.
True, but then again we are talking about the rightwingers, so "sane" is not a word to consider.
After all, they believe Flintstone's was reality TV.

"no sane person takes Crichton ... seriously"

Well that explains why Bush called Mike up to congratulate him on his work of fiction and why it was read into the Congressional Record.

Anybody see this last night?

science.discovery.com

Anybody see this last night?

Not the shrub, he was watching reruns of Wren and Stimpy.

I like Wren and Stimpy.

Flip flopper!! How can anyone listen to this guy? Time to Swift Boat him!!

www.opinionjournal.com

Funny post, Joe.
In the mean time the ice is melting.

www.nature.com

"Between 1979 and 2005, the minimum extent of Arctic sea ice shrank by about 20%."

I don't deny that ice is melting. The question is why. Some people try to blame humans, particularly american ones, while others blame nature. I do know that CO2 is only one of many greenhouse gases, that humans contribute a tiny amount of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, and that water vapor (which humans have no control over) is by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas.

"So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming."


Every statement in this paragraph lacks "factual context".

"that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940"

According to whom, and even if this is true the guestion remains, is he referring to an anomolistic single year or was that part of an overal trend, what? The year 1940 being warm, as a single piece of information by itself means absolutely nothing.

"that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average."

LOL. "the evidence so far suggests" Oh yeah, what evidence is that. He doesn't bother to tell me so I guess I'll just take his word for it, even though that statement is contradicted by satalite images.

"A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country"

Huh? is this just his theory or based on some scientific research or what. I guess stating that the pressure from flowing glaciers causes Iceburgs to break off the edges is pretty much scientifically unassailable but that doesn't mean anything one way or the other in relationship to a general warming trend.

DOGMAN

"that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average."

That is an outright lie.

"Although satellite measurements of Greenland's interior suggest that snow has recently been accumulating there, the margins are receding. Laser measurements taken from planes suggest that this coastal melting is probably enough to outweigh the build-up of snow inland. Also, Greenland's glaciers seem to have been speeding up. A few months ago, Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena and Pannir Kanagaratnam of the University of Kansas, Lawrence, published satellite evidence that between 1996 and 2000, Greenland's more southerly glaciers had begun to accelerate, and that by 2005 the northerly ones had followed suit. They estimate that over the past decade this lurching has more than doubled Greenland's annual loss of ice, from 90 to 220 cubic kilometres per year."

www.nature.com

From above...

"I don't deny that ice is melting. The question is why."

Actually there is little question left as to why...

Here, let me make it easy for you...

1st Equation: (the Current Equation)

6.5 billion humans + a billion vehicles all emiting CO2 + a few thousand power plants emiting CO2 - a few million trees per year = Global Warming...

2nd Equation: (One Possible Future)

6.5 billion humans x's exponential
population growth + Global Warming + near zero level regulation of Greenhouse Gases
= Collapse of Food Chains = mass hysteria
= worldwide panic, wars, and famine
= much suffering and population reduction = quite probable human extinction...

3rd Equation: (Better Possible Future)

6.5 billion humans x's voluntary -1% growth rate (i.e. 2 child world) + self regulatory measures on Greenhouse Gas emission + rapid investment in Green Energy technologies = less pressure on environment = gradual reduction of
humanity on the planet = more sustainable ecosystems = better life for all...

the 2nd or 3rd equation is our Near Future...this is not Calculus...I have
no Ph.D...if I can figure this out...why can't our leaders? Feel free to email these simple equations to others...

Okay. What about my post? Once again, I'm not denying that the earth is warming. The question is why. Al Gore blames humans, specifically americans, because our CO2 emissions supposedly are warming the Earth.

Humans produce only a small portion of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. On top of that, CO2 is only a tiny portion of total greenhouse gases, water vapor is the main greenhouse gas and is completely beyond human control. If greenhouse gases are indeed warming the earth, it has little to do with human activity. Water vapor makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases. We do not control water vapor. It occurs naturally.

www.clearlight.com

"6.5 billion humans + a billion vehicles all emiting CO2 + a few thousand power plants emiting CO2 - a few million trees per year = Global Warming..."

That's what you like to think. Even the amount of CO2 all humans emit doesn't come close to the amount of greenhouse gases occurring naturally. If it's greenhouse gases that are warming the earth, then it isn't our fault, no matter how much you want to think that it is.

www.globalwarming.org

Since only a slight increase in temperature worldwide has disastroud consequences then even a tiny amount of additional greenhouse gas, like you claim humans are accountable for, would be a dangerous change to the ecological system. Probably the earth's natural amounts of gases evolved over millions of years and even a small disturbance spells disaster.

If you ask anyone who lives in the northern latitudes, a increase of 1 or 2 degrees average temperature over the next 100 years may be welcome.

Ya want some southern Fried Crow Joe??

Data...

I've heard on good authority that the planet's orbits are moving closer to the sun, and that solar flare activity has increased, hence part of our warming equation. Are you privvy to info in this area?

"Since only a slight increase in temperature worldwide has disastroud consequences then even a tiny amount of additional greenhouse gas, like you claim humans are accountable for, would be a dangerous change to the ecological system."

Wrong. A slight increase worldwide is harmful, and a slight increase is what we have right now. The problem for you is that this slight increase was caused by all of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere combined. CO2 is less than 5% of the total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Humans account for a miniscule portion of that 5%.

"Ya want some southern Fried Crow Joe??"

I don't get it. Have I been proven wrong about anything?

Funny thing is that Doran's report to the National Science Foundation says that the warming trend ended about 1978.

I guess he's going public with this now because his grant is up for renewal. Nothing like uncertainty to keep the money flowing.

Astronomers think that the Sun will become a red giant star in 5 billion years and will become sufficiently large to engulf the current orbit of Earth.

What's Al Gore doing about this? :)

The consensus among climate scientists is that global warming is occuring and humans are a contributing factor.

Those nutty scientists, what the hell do they know? Just ask people on this blog or CEO's of oil producers, they are the ones in the know!

The denial here is hilarious.

There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than in the last 600,000 years.

The Dutch have been keeping temperature records since 1710. It's the hottest it's been in 300 years.

Here are more data:

www.cru.uea.ac.uk

And the ice keeps melting.
ROTFLMAO

We'll make changes to our way of life more likely from a national security standpoint instead of a gradual warming standpoint. There has to be a catchy phrase like the "war on warming" or something like that, eh?

Posted by OohRah at 2006-07-28 01:13 PM


And we'll give that president "war time" powers, so he can inspect all the emails I send.

What to do about Global warming though? Might want to buy some land in Canada, and be friendlier with them.

"There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than in the last 600,000 years."

But CO2 makes up less than 5% of total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Furthermore, only 0.117% of CO2 in the air is man-made. What does it matter if these gases are warming the earth when man's impact on those gases is completely negligible?

"The Dutch have been keeping temperature records since 1710. It's the hottest it's been in 300 years"

Does that matter when according to the information and links that I've posted, there's nothing we can do about it? Do you or Al Gore have a plan to stop water from evaporating and warming the earth?

www.clearlight.com

www.globalwarming.org

Once again, data on warming is useless when the warming is not because of humans.

The Dutch have been keeping temperature records since 1710. It's the hottest it's been in 300 years.

And the ice keeps melting.
ROTFLMAO

Posted by DATA at 2006-07-28 02:03 PM | Reply

And 1,000 years ago Vikings found an island so pleasant and lush with vegetation that they named it Greenland, and established a colony there. 500 years ago the colony disappeared because it got too cold.

Why did the Vikings hate our environment?

This is not an assessment on the debate over the reality of the causes of global warming, rather a comment on political aspect of the issue.

As most of you know, a great deal of political power can often be gained by exploiting fear.

The Republicans have been doing this since 9/11. A political cynic would say that Al Gore is borrowing a page from that well worn and known playbook in a bid for the presidency.

Some interesting observations about the two issues 9/11 and global warming and their politicizing:

Both have indirect causes in oil an oil consumption.

The choice of fear to be exploited falls in neatly with perceived assumptions and stereotypes of liberals and conservatives.

Conservatives believe that our greatest threats originate from the outside. Liberals believe our greatest threats originate from within.

My judgment from a purely political point of view is that the conservatives have the position that will win them greater power. People would rather believe that their problems come from outside of themselves. "Other people need to change, not me."

Also, while global warming could produce some horrific and history altering catastrophes, it is much more difficult (as this thread attests to) to assign cause. It is a threat that is huge but significantly unlike terrorism.

* 9/11 was unprecedented in American history; it had human agents with real anti-American motivations.

* Hurricanes, heat waves, fires, droughts and the like have all happened before. We have learned to expect them as an indifferent and general forces of nature that is terrible for humanity but is not necessarily caused by humanity.

* It is much easier to create a boogie man from a select ethnic, religious group and individuals within fairly a known geography, than to give it to every person who ever operated a motor vehicle.

* Unfortunately, for Gore, global warming does not leak a video every six months threatening us.

The ironic truth, of course, is that they are both serious problems that would go a long way in being solved if we eliminated fossil fuels as a primary energy source.

Cheers

And 1,000 years ago Vikings found an island so pleasant and lush with vegetation that they named it Greenland, and established a colony there. 500 years ago the colony disappeared because it got too cold.

Although the Greenland settlement was doomed by climate changed, Greenland when populated by Europeans was hardly a garden spot. In fact Lief Erickson named in Greenland as a way to entice people to come and settle. It was a marketing strategy.

* Unfortunately, for Gore, global warming does not leak a video every six months threatening us.


Posted by Grendel at 2006-07-28 03:19 PM


Nice post Grendel.

Maybe global warming could leak a video every 6 months, you just gave me an idea! lol

"they are both serious problems that would go a long way in being solved if we eliminated fossil fuels as a primary energy source."

Not true. The information I have posted today proves that CO2 is a tiny amount of total greenhouse gases, and the human-created amount of that CO2 is even tinier.

Total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.
www.clearlight.com

Not true. The information I have posted today proves that CO2 is a tiny amount of total greenhouse gases, and the human-created amount of that CO2 is even tinier.

I am not a scientist and I do not know the reliability of the information posted on the web site that you give. I do know that there are respectable scientists on both sides of the issue.

Ultimately, I do not know what the agenda is for those who do not believe global warming is happening as a result of human activity. Do you want greater license to pollute? Do you want the same license to pollute? (When is a good time to quit smoking? Today or fifty years from now? Is cutting down from 25 cigarettes a day to 20 really going to change anything? Are you really any less addicted? Will you feel any real affect? How about cutting down from 25 to 12 or 10? Isn't that real progress? With noticable results?



Even if global warming is not related to human activity, it is hard to imagine that the dumping of millions of tons of pollutants and toxins into an atmosphere is responsible behavior or ethical. The truth is that we don't know the extent this activity may have on human and animal life.

A elderly person may not die from obesity per se and being obese at 20 may not be a major health risk, but is it wise to maintain such an unhealthy figure and lifestyle any age or any point, especially when the bottom line for maintaining current obesity is laziness, and the inability to sacrifice an indolent lifestyle is for the express purpose of maintaining an indolent lifestyle--not some greater good.

Moreover,

Water vapor makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases. We do not control water vapor. It occurs naturally.

How do you know that increased CO2 emissions have not altered the atmosphere so as to increase ocean evaporation and thus greater water vapor?

It might need only a small start to get the cycle going. A simple spark from the starter, gets the engine moving.

The major problem with this debate is the refusal to meet somewhere in the middle.

If you think that temperature changes are only caused by human activity then you are wrong and it would serve this discussion if you would please STFU/

Conversely,

If you think that removing millions of tons of carbon fuel from the anals of the earth and burning it has zero effect on the earth's atmosphere, please follow the lead of the person above.

Does the earth go through cycles of climate change. Absolutelty, and we are in a warming trend currently. Have been since Jesus pulled the thorn out of the brontasaurus' paw. "And Peter said,' look at the big fucking lizard Lord!'"

Does human activity add to the warming of the planet? Only a person in complete denial could suggest that it doesn't.

So you are both right, and you are both wrong. Is there anything that we can do to slow the warming of the earth? Maybe, but the natural warming will continue despit our efforts.

But the good news, we will not and cannot hurt the Great Mother Earth. She will rid herself of the human race and cure herself just fine. So stop crying about 'the Earth, the Earth' and realize it is your own human ass that you are interested in saving, cause the Earth, she will be just fine at the end of the day, once we have all killed ourselves though our own actions.

"Ultimately, I do not know what the agenda is for those who do not believe global warming is happening as a result of human activity. Do you want greater license to pollute? Do you want the same license to pollute?"

Accepting the fact that global warming is all our fault costs our country millions upon millions of dollars in new unnecessary programs. I don't want license to polllute, but I also don't want Al Gore running around spouting misinformation when it simply isn't true.

"I am not a scientist and I do not know the reliability of the information posted on the web site that you give."

Look elsewhere then. Anywhere you look, you will find that water vapor is by far the most prominent greenhouse gas, and that we have no control over it.

"Even if global warming is not related to human activity, it is hard to imagine that the dumping of millions of tons of pollutants and toxins into an atmosphere is responsible behavior or ethical."

I never said that it was. But to say that what we are doing today is not enough, and that humans need to make "drastic changes" to avoid some sort of environmental armageddon is absurd when confronted with the information I have provided today.

Average composition of the atmosphere up to an altitude of 25 km.

Gas Name Percent
Nitrogen N2 78.08%
Oxygen O2 20.95%
*Water H2O 0 to 4%
Argon Ar 0.93%
*Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0360%
Neon Ne 0.0018%
Helium He 0.0005%
*Methane CH4 0.00017%
Hydrogen H2 0.00005%
*Nitrous Oxide N2O 0.00003%
*Ozone O3 0.000004%

* variable

The climatic effects of water vapour

"While increases in carbon dioxide may be the source of an enhanced greenhouse effect, and therefore global warming, the role of the most vital molecule in our atmosphere - water - is rarely discussed. Indeed, water barely rates a mention in the hundreds of pages of the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

physicsweb.org

And the main thing you make by burning stuff is:

Wait a minute.

Think now.







WATER!!

You liberals can't prove that man , or Americans caused global warming , your facts are all based on your ideological lies . To say America caused this global warming , America caused this and that has become no more relevent than the boy who cried wolf , you lib clowns have been crying to long , always part of the problem , never part of the solution , you pass the buck , just like this middle east cluster f%@k left over from the clinton years of placating and appeasement . You whine about these issues , when you were in power , you irritated them , due to your cowardice , polls , and lack of original thoughts or ideas . You always fall back on the same old worn out liberal commie play book , that continues to fail .Prove that America is causing global warming , all your looney scientists with degrees in sociology , all through the Discovery Channels Special on the subject I heard too damn many " might , maybe , possibly ,potential " , they were not sure of anything they were saying , and could'nt back up a single statement with any facts or evidence . This is just about getting into the wallets of Americans . " Fooled 'em today , what can we come up with tomorrow ? "
Always resorting to the favorite weapons of the left "LIES/Polls,SPIN,TWIST, and Mutilate .

"Increasing amounts of human-made greenhouse gases would lead to an increase in the globally averaged surface temperature. However, as the temperature increases, other aspects of the climate will alter, including the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere."

The above is from:
www.gcrio.org

If it is, indeed, water vapor as the major culprit then there seems to be some evidence suggesting a link between increased water vapor and pollutants.

BTW, I know very little about the hydrogen fuel cell, but if every car in the world had a hydrogen fuel cell instead of the internal combustion engine, would it lead to a large increase of water vapor in our atmosphere. Perhaps the hydrogen fuel cell is not the way to go.

Grendel
For given power output the IC and fuel cell both make just as much water.
But with the fuel cell you started with water.
With the IC engine, the hydrogen for the water came from fuel.

"and could'nt(sic) back up a single statement with any facts or evidence "

uh huh
sure

So where DID the glaciers go?

CO2 at Moana Loa:

"Atmospheric Carbon dioxide concentration curve from 1950 - 2002 (Keeling and Whorf 2004). The curve illustrates two phenomenon: the continuing increase in carbon dioxide concentration, and the seasonal fluctuations in CO2 concentration."

www.u.arizona.edu

"So where DID the glaciers go?"

Area 51!

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable