Our forums are currently in maintenance mode and the ability to post is disabled. We will be back up and running as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience!

General discussion


Top 10 'Global-Warming Myths; Just stirring things up with the tree huggers

By sleepin'dawg ·
Top 10 'Global-Warming' Myths
Compiled by Christopher Horner, author of "The Politically Incorrect
Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism" (Regnery -- a HUMAN
EVENTS sister company).

10. The U.S. is going it alone on Kyoto and global warming.

Nonsense. The U.S. rejects the Kyoto Protocol?s energy-rationing
scheme, along with 155 other countries, representing most of the
world?s population, economic activity and projected future growth.
Kyoto is a European treaty with one dozen others, none of whom is in
fact presently reducing its emissions. Similarly, claims that Bush
refused to sign Kyoto, and/or he withdrew, not only are mutually
exclusive but also false. We signed it, Nov. 11, 1998. The Senate
won?t vote on it. Ergo, the (Democratic) Senate is blocking Kyoto.

Don?t demand they behave otherwise, however. Since Kyoto was agreed,
Europe?s CO2 emissions are rising twice as fast as those of the
climate-criminal United States, a gap that is widening in more
recent years. So we should jump on a sinking ship?

Given Al Gore?s proclivity for invoking Winston Churchill in this
drama, it is only appropriate to summarize his claims as such: Never
in the field of political conflict has so much been asked by so few
of so many ... for so little.

9. Global-warming proposals are about the environment.

Only if this means that they would make things worse, given that
?wealthier is healthier and cleaner.? Even accepting every
underlying economic and alarmist environmentalist assumption, no one
dares say that the expensive Kyoto Protocol would detectably affect
climate. Imagine how expensive a pact must be -- in both financial
and human costs -- to so severely ration energy use as the greens
demand. Instead, proponents candidly admit desires to control
others? lifestyles, and supportive industries all hope to make
millions off the deal. Europe?s former environment commissioner
admitted that Kyoto is ?about leveling the playing field for big
businesses worldwide? (in other words, bailing them out).

8. Climate change is the greatest threat to the world's poor.

Climate -- or more accurately, weather -- remains one of the
greatest challenges facing the poor. Climate change adds nothing to
that calculus, however. Climate and weather patterns have always
changed, as they always will. Man has always best dealt with this
through wealth creation and technological advance -- a.k.a.
adaptation -- and most poorly through superstitious casting of
blame, such as burning ?witches.? The wealthiest societies have
always adapted best. One would prefer to face a similar storm in
Florida than Bangladesh. Institutions, infrastructure and affordable
energy are key to dealing with an ever-changing climate, not
rationing energy.

7. Global warming means more frequent, more severe storms.

Here again the alarmists cannot even turn to the wildly distorted
and politicized ?Summary for Policy Makers? of the UN?s IPCC to
support this favorite chestnut of the press.

6. Global warming has doomed the polar bears!

For some reason, Al Gore?s computerized polar bear can?t swim,
unlike the real kind, as one might expect of an animal named Ursa
Maritimus. On the whole, these bears are thriving, if a little less
well in those areas of the Arctic that are cooling (yes, cooling).
Their biggest threat seems to be computer models that air-brush them
from the future, the same models that tell us it is much warmer now
than it is. As usual in this context, you must answer the question:
Who are you going to believe -- me or your lying eyes?

5. Climate change is raising the sea levels.

Sea levels rise during interglacial periods such as that in which we
(happily) find ourselves. Even the distorted United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports refute the
hysteria, finding no statistically significant change in the rate of
increase over the past century of man?s greatest influence, despite
green claims of massive melting already occurring. Small island
nations seeking welfare and asylum for their citizens such as in
socially generous New Zealand and Australia have no sea-level rise
at all and in some cases see instead a drop. These societies? real
problem is typically that they have made a mess of their own
situation. One archipelago nation is even spending lavishly to lobby
the European Union for development money to build beachfront hotel
resorts, at the same time it shrieks about a watery and imminent
grave. So, which time are they lying?

4. The glaciers are melting!

As good fortune has it, frozen things do in fact melt or at least
recede after cooling periods mercifully end. The glacial retreat we
read about is selective, however. Glaciers are also advancing all
over, including lonely glaciers nearby their more popular retreating
neighbors. If retreating glaciers were proof of global warming, then
advancing glaciers are evidence of global cooling. They cannot both
be true, and in fact, neither is. Also, retreat often seems to be
unrelated to warming. For example, the snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro
is receding -- despite decades of cooling in Kenya -- due to
regional land use and atmospheric moisture.

3. Climate was stable until man came along.

Swallowing this whopper requires burning every basic history and
science text, just as ?witches? were burned in retaliation for
changing climates in ages (we had thought) long past. The ?hockey
stick? chart -- poster child for this concept -- has been disgraced
and airbrushed from the UN?s alarmist repertoire.

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.

Al Gore shows his audience a slide of CO2 concentrations, and a
slide of historical temperatures. But for very good reason he does
not combine them in one overlaid slide: Historically, atmospheric
CO2, as often as not, increases after warming. This is typical in
the campaign of claiming ?consensus? to avoid debate (consensus
about what being left unspoken or distorted).

What scientists do agree on is little and says nothing about
man-made global warming, to wit: (1) that global average temperature
is probably about 0.6 degree Celsius -- or 1 degree Fahrenheit --
higher than a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon
dioxide have risen by about 30% over the past 200 years; and (3)
that CO2 is one greenhouse gas, some level of an increase of which
presumably would warm the Earth?s atmosphere were all else equal,
which it demonstrably is not.

Until scientists are willing to save the U.S. taxpayer more than $5
billion per year thrown at researching climate, it is fair to
presume the science is not settled.

1. It?s hot in here!

In fact, ?It?s the baseline, stupid.? Claiming that present
temperatures are warm requires a starting point at, say, the 1970s,
or around the Little Ice Age (approximately 1200 A.D to the end of
the 19th Century), or thousands of years ago. Select many other
baselines, for example, compared o the 1930s, or 1000 A.D. -- or
1998 -- and it is presently cool. Cooling does paint a far more
frightening picture, given that another ice age would be truly
catastrophic, while throughout history, warming periods have always
ushered in prosperity. Maybe that?s why the greens tried ?global
cooling? first.

The claim that the 1990s were the hottest decade on record
specifically targets the intellectually lazy and easily frightened,
ignoring numerous obvious factors. ?On record? obviously means a
very short period, typically the past 100+ years, or since the end
of the Little Ice Age. The National Academies of Science debunked
this claim in 2006. Previously rural measuring stations register
warmer temps after decades of ?sprawl? (growth), cement being warmer
than a pasture.

Bet this sets off all the tree huggers and enviroidiots.

Dawg ]:)

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -


by qoolskip In reply to Top 10 'Global-Warming My ...

all lies for from the the big oil companies. they got the republicans in their back pockets and unfortunately you are buying into their lies

Collapse -

Why stop with global warming?

by Dr Dij In reply to Top 10 'Global-Warming My ...

when you can deny that we pollute the earth, that we spew out sulfuric acid and soot that kills people? It was kind of funny, on the Simpsons today, the school visited a 'Glacier' that was reduced to a small block of ice. And the ranger was denying the glacier was gone.

The Chinese Ministry of Truth would love you!
Especially since they run lots of coal fired plants and without much in the way of pollution controls. Dimming from pollution is blocking 20% of the sunlight there in some areas. And you can deny global dimming. Ok, it's not everywhere as bad but particularly where pollution is spewed out nearby.

While you're at it, deny that the Pacific is filling up with bits of plastic, that carbonic acid (CO2 dissolved in the ocean) is turning the Ocean into lemon juice. (at least acid enuf to dissolve many of the developing corals and diatoms that produce 70% of the earth's oxygen)

In the last non-human caused GW event millions of years ago, dimming by volcanoes killed plant life, reducing oxygen levels to about 10%, less than half of today's levels. Have fun breathing that!

Sea levels are rising; Not by a huge amount so far. But Bangladesh has lost a couple islands on the outer edges. I'm sure you don't give a Sudanese Pouch Rat's A$$, or a Bornean flying lizard's wings. Much of the water rise will be due to increased volume of the same amount of water as it heats up.

Sure a tiny percent of glaciers are increasing due to increased precipitation. But you'd better go climb Kilimanjaro now, as there won't be anymore snows on top soon.

And don't you realise, it really doesn't matter what you say. Nature isn't like the North Koreans or Iranians, endlessly jabbering without saying anything, with hopes of buying time. Nature doesn't listen to your words. the environment only listens to the masses of chemicals we exude into the atmosphere, the land and water.

Have fun eating sea creatures full of dioxins and not being able to reproduce (happening now in Washington state, inside an Orca preserve)

What you really need to do is separate out the act of GW in your mind and the socio-political reactions to it.

GW has incredibly strong evidence it is happening. our responses can be anything.

They don't have to include coercion in economic terms (taking our money for no reason). They probably will infringe on your right to poop your pollution in other people's air supply. And developing countries India and China will need to implement pollution controls on their cars and industries, as they are quickly overtaking us in pollution (China to surpass us in CO2 by 2009)

The best suggestions will wean us slowly away from heavy pollution. In the US, probably using market forces to large degree. You have worse problems than the GW proponents in the US: a govt that is out of control, taking us from a fake surplus under Clinton, to an additional 1.6 trillion $ in debt. An unemployment rate, that if measured way we did 30 years ago would be approaching 12%, and inflation rate that is really approaching 10% (govt has stopped publishing the money in circulation figures!), economic growth reduced to about 1% if we took out manipulations that show PC purchases as 10 times there cost in investments..

A NEGATIVE savings rate (not only are Americans NOT saving more money but they are withdrawing from existing savings, while other countries save 11%. A currency that has dropped 75% against other world currencies in the last 30 years.

So you're right, global warming isn't the worst of our problems. But it is likely to tip portions of the globe into conflict, will reek havoc with our infrastructure thru hurricanes, tornadoes, crop failures, etc simply because we have MORE infrastructure than most other countries.

And you're wrong about some other things. Hurricane seasons have been extending 5 days a decade for last 30 years, so is now two weeks longer, and they are definitely increasing in intensity.

If you can talk dispassionately about the actual effects of global warming separately from our response, maybe you'll stop denying it out of hand based on your perceived view of the global response.

Collapse -

We know where you sleep.

by deepsand In reply to Top 10 'Global-Warming My ...

You can run, but you can't hide.

Collapse -

Hey Deep..

by Dr Dij In reply to We know where you sleep.

I just realized I've made it UN-AMERICAN to deny global warming :)

And turned the current US admin into a bunch of socialists / commies, spending all our money and lying to us :)

Thank goodness for the freedom to criticise the govt. The only way to preserve our freedoms. Did you hear the Russian equivalent of Jon Stewart of the Daily Show was mysteriously assasinated, along with most of the other reporters who criticized the Putin regine..

Collapse -

I believe that it's what they consider to be "democratization."

by deepsand In reply to Hey Deep..

The sad fact is that, other than the manner and magnitude of such, it's not all that far removed from some of the practices of present and past U.S. administrations.

Collapse -


by israck In reply to Top 10 'Global-Warming My ...

come on 'dawg, you're killin me.

TO ALL, don't listen to 'dawg, he's confused, the sea levels are rising, rising i say!!! run for the hills (or the mid-west), very safe out there, no rising water, leave your exspensive beachfront property and save yourselves!!! i personally will make the sacrifice of staying behind to make sure your very nice beach homes are safe!! at no charge, can't get better than that.

'dawg, what right do you have to start slinging common sense like that around, all willy-nilly like?

Collapse -

Sorry, but I have to disagree

by puppybreath In reply to Top 10 'Global-Warming My ...

Everything you claim is in print and it is a known fact that printed material can be biased. The only real proof would be in watching TV or film since they are always true and factual. After all, "a picture says a thousand words". I would also suggest that you watch "An Inconvenient Truth" since that shows all of the facts without any bias. Just watching those poor polar bears should be enough for you to sell your SUV and buy a bicycle. Hug a tree, you'll feel better.

Collapse -

Hug a tree and all you'll get is splinters.

by sleepin'dawg In reply to Sorry, but I have to disa ...

Watch an Inconvenient Truth if you want to watch biased, BS junk science. Right now the globe is warmer than it has been but none of the garbage that the doomsayers are spewing is based on solid science. Besides, can you really trust AL Gore, sleaze bag Clinton's VP??? The man's a politician, a failed one at that. Ask youself why he is beating the environmental drum now?

You should not believe those who say we are in the midst of "Global Warming" nor should you believe those who say that what we are experiencing is only natural phenomena. The energy industry loves making that argument and once you get past the obvious bias, you will find there is almost as much in favour of their position as that of the doomsayers.

What nobody seems to realize is that the environmentalist position is now as much big business as Exxon, BP, Shell or any other business and the question nobody is asking is, What or who is driving it???!!!"

Has anyone yet noticed that the favoured new, clean, sustainable, technology are wrapped around things that may or may not be as envionmentally damaging as what we currently have??? Bio-diesel??? That's a What happens to the availability and cost of food when the arable land is being used to produce fuel instead of food stocks???

Nuclear Energy??? Actually that's one I like because the technology is available now;it's reasonably clean and the only problem is the nuclear waste. Mind you, I wouldn't want to be living within twenty five miles and downwind from a nuclear reactor.

Solar powar??? Inefficient at present since there are no effective long term, compact, means of storage avaiable at present.

Wind poower??? Again not very efficient and do you really want to blight the landscape with wind farms???

Hydro electric power is a good choice that unfortunately requires a sufficient number of rivers with enough drop in elevation to make them canadidates for damming and the setting up generating stations, which will be guaranteed to bring the nutball environmentalists out of the woodwork. There is another possibility for hydro-electic generation and that is tidal power but at present not enough development has been done at present. This mainly due to environmentalist protesting the potential damage to fish stocks and/or damage to the sea shore.

Coal and/or gas fired generated power??? Well this is the one that got it all started, isn't it??? Not much hope here.

Hydrogen power??? Fuel cell technology??? Still at least twenty years away from becoming a commercially viable energy sources.

So what do we do in the mean time. Well we can follow the advice of the environmentalists and shut down all industry, stop driving our cars and trucks and live in the clean bright atmosphere as we slowly watch our economies fall apart while we starve and freeze our asses off.

I don't mind constructive criticism but the environmentalists are not constructive. What they do is the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theatre after they've nailed all the exits but one shut. Then they'll want to charge you to get out.

Dawg ]:)

Collapse -


by sleepin'dawg In reply to Hug a tree and all you'll ...

Mon Feb 26 2007

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit
and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a
freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy
solutions, issued a press release late Monday:

Last night, Al Gore?s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient
Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the
Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a
gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore?s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle
Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than
the average American household uses in an entire year, according to
the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to
conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours
(kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore
devoured nearly 221,000 kWh?more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh?guzzling more than
twice the electricity in one month than an average American family
uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption,
Gore?s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore?s energy
consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in
2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore?s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill.
Natural gas bills for Gore?s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080
per month last year.

?As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore
has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it
comes to home energy use,? said Tennessee Center for Policy Research
President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and
natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

So much for the poster boy of the environmentalist lobby. Oh by the way in case your wondering, the souce for most of his energy consumption is from coal and/or gas fired generators. Sweet, ain't it???

Dawg ]:)

Collapse -

Gore's Company Says He's Not Profiting from 'Carbon Offsets'

by sleepin'dawg In reply to POWER: GORE MANSION USES ...

Yeah, right!!!

Can you really believe this guy???

Dawg ]:)

Related Discussions

Related Forums