Is Satan the author of the Global Warming lie?

[_Coggins7]

Here's a couple things for consideration. Just a couple of points to demonstrate the possibilities within this subject area.

Sea Level: Is It Rising as a Result of the Melting of Land-Based Glacial Ice?

Reference
Carton, J.A., Giese, B.S. and Grodsky, S.A. 2005. Sea level rise and the warming of the oceans in the Simple Ocean Data Assimilation (SODA) ocean reanalysis. Journal of Geophysical Research 110: 10.1029/2004JC002817.

Background

The authors recount that "recent altimeter observations indicate an increase in the rate of sea level rise during the past decade to 3.2 mm/year, well above the centennial estimate of 1.5-2 mm/year," noting that "this apparent increase could have resulted from enhanced melting of continental ice," as climate alarmists often suggest, "or from decadal changes in thermosteric and halosteric effects."

What was done

Carton et al. explore this question "using the new eddy-permitting Simple Ocean Data Assimilation version 1.2 (SODA 1.2) reanalysis of global temperature, salinity, and sea level spanning the period 1968-2001."

What was learned

With respect to the halosteric effect, the three oceanographers report that "the effect on global sea level rise of changing salinity is small except in subpolar regions." However, they found that warming-induced steric effects "are enough to explain much of the observed rate of increase in the rate of sea level rise in the last decade of the 20th century without need to invoke acceleration of melting of continental ice."

What it means

In harmony with the findings of Levitus et al. (2005) and Volkov and van Aken (2005), this team of scientists also finds no need to invoke the melting of land-based glacial ice to explain the observed increase in global sea-level rise of the past decade. In addition, the studies of Johannessen et al. (2005) and Chinn et al. (2005) suggest there may not even have been a net melting of continental ice over this period. Hence, there is no solid evidence for the climate-alarmist claim that the earth is on the verge of an unprecedented increase in global sea level as a result of what they contend is an unprecedented increase in global air temperature.

References

Chinn, T., Winkler, S., Salinger, M.J. and Haakensen, N. 2005. Recent glacier advances in Norway and New Zealand: A comparison of their glaciological and meteorological causes. Geografiska Annaler 87 A: 141-157.

Johannessen, O.M., Khvorostovsky, K., Miles, M.W. and Bobylev, L.P. 2005. Recent ice-sheet growth in the interior of Greenland. Sciencexpress / www.sciencexpress.org / 20 October 2005.

Levitus, S., Antonov, J.I., Boyer, T.P., Garcia, H.E. and Locarnini, R.A. 2005. EOF analysis of upper ocean heat content, 1956-2003. Geophysical Research Letters 32: 10.1029/2005GL023606/.

Volkov, D.L. and van Aken, H.M. 2005. Climate-related change of sea level in the extratropical North Atlantic and North Pacific in 1993-2003. Geophysical Research Letters 32: 10.1029/2005GL023097.


Millennial-Scale Climate Change in New Jersey USA

Reference

Li, Y.-X., Yu, Z., Kodama, K.P. and Moeller, R.E. 2006. A 14,000-year environmental change history revealed by mineral magnetic data from White Lake, New Jersey, USA. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 246: 27-40.

What was done

The authors "recovered a 14,000-year mineral-magnetic record from White Lake, a hardwater lake containing organic-rich sediments in northwestern New Jersey, USA," which is located at approximately 41°N, 75°W.

What was learned

Li et al. report that "comparison of the White Lake data with climate records from the North Atlantic sediments shows that low lake levels at ~1.3, 3.0, 4.4, and 6.1 ka [1000 years before present] in White Lake occurred almost concurrently with the cold events at ~1.5, 3.0, 4.5, and 6.0 ka in the North Atlantic Ocean (Bond et al., 2001)," and that "these cold events are associated with the 1500-year warm/cold cycles in the North Atlantic during the Holocene" that have "been interpreted to result from solar forcing (Bond et al., 2001)."

What it means

The four researchers conclude that "the close correlation between White Lake and the North Atlantic suggests that, in response to the decreased temperatures, the White Lake area climate [is] expressed as periods of reduced moisture abundance," and, therefore, that "the Holocene 1500-year lake level fluctuations of White Lake probably represent responses to the broad-scale climate variability in the continental North Atlantic region." Consequently, it is clear that broad-scale periods of warmth (in both space and time) have occurred over and over again throughout the Holocene - and beyond (Oppo et al., 1998; Raymo et al., 1998) - forced solely by variable solar activity, which suggests that the Current Warm Period was also instigated by this same recurring phenomenon and not the CO2 output of the Industrial Revolution.

References

Bond, G., Kromer, B., Beer, J., Muscheler, R., Evans, M.N., Showers, W., Hoffmann, S., Lotti-Bond, R., Hajdas, I. and Bonani, G. 2001. Persistent solar influence on North Atlantic climate during the Holocene. Science 294: 2130-2136.

Oppo, D.W., McManus, J.F. and Cullen, J.L. 1998. Abrupt climate events 500,000 to 340,000 years ago: Evidence from subpolar North Atlantic sediments. Science 279: 1335-1338.

Raymo, M.E., Ganley, K., Carter, S., Oppo, D.W. and McManus, J. 1998. Millennial-scale climate instability during the early Pleistocene epoch. Nature 392: 699-702.

[_Coggins7]

And an update on this important document:

THE LEIPZIG DECLARATION ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE (2005, revised)

As independent scientists researching atmospheric and climate problems, we -- along with many of our fellow citizens -– are apprehensive about the Climate Treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. This gathering of politicians from some 160 signatory nations aims to impose -- on citizens of the industrialized nations, but not on others -- a system of global environmental regulations that include quotas and punitive taxes on energy fuels.

Fossil fuels provide today's principal energy source, and energy is essential for all economic growth. Stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide -- the announced goal of the Climate Treaty -- would require that fuel use be cut by as much as 60 to 80 percent -- worldwide!

In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. We understand the motivation to eliminate what are perceived to be the driving forces behind a potential climate change; but we believe the emerging Kyoto protocol -- to curtail carbon dioxide emissions from only part of the world community -- is dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive to jobs and standards-of-living.

More to the point, we consider the scientific basis of the 1992 Global Climate Treaty to be flawed and its goal to be unrealistic. The policies to implement the Treaty are, as of now, based solely on unproven scientific theories, imperfect computer models -- and the unsupported assumptions that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree. We believe that the dire predictions of a future warming have not been validated by the existing climate record. These predictions are based on nothing more than theoretical models and cannot be relied on.

As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that –- contrary to the conventional wisdom -- there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, many climate specialists now agree that actual observations from weather satellites show no global warming whatsoever--in direct contradiction to computer model results.

Historically, climate has always been a factor in human affairs -– with warmer periods, such as the medieval "climate optimum," playing an important role in economic expansion and in the welfare of nations that depend primarily on agriculture. Colder periods have caused crop failures, and led to famines, disease, and other documented human misery. We must, therefore, remain sensitive to any and all human activities that could affect future climate.

However, based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions. For this reason, we consider the drastic emission control policies likely to be endorsed by the Kyoto conference -- lacking credible support from the underlying science -- to be ill-advised and premature.


Dr. John Apel, oceanographer, Global Oceans Associates, formerly with Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.
Dr. David Aubrey, Senior Scientist, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts
Dr. Duwayne M. Anderson,Professor, Texas A&M University
Dr. Robert Balling, Professor and Director of the Office of Climatology, Arizona State University; more than 80 research articles published in scientific journals; author of The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions vs. Climate Reality (1992); coauthor, Interactions of Desertifications and Climate, a report for the UN Environmental Program and the World Meteorological Organization; contributor/reviewer, IPCC.
Dr. Jack Barrett, Imperial College, London, UK
Dr. Warren Berning, atmospheric physicist, New Mexico State University
Dr. Jiri Blumel, Institute Sozialokon. Forschg. Usti nad Labem, Czech Republic
Bruce Boe, atmospheric scientist and Director of the North Dakota Atmospheric Resources Board; member, American Meteorological Society; former chairman, AMS Committee on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification.
Dr. C.J.F. Böttcher, Chairman of the Board, The Global Institute for the Study of Natural Resources, The Hague, The Netherlands; Professor Emeritus of physical chemistry, Leiden University; past President of the Science Policy Council of The Netherlands; former member, Scientific Council for Government Policy; former head of the Netherlands Delegation to the OECD Committee for Science and Technology; author, The Science and Fiction of the Greenhouse Effect and Carbon Dioxide; founding member of The Club of Rome.
Dr. Arthur Bourne, Professor, University of London, UK
Larry H. Brace, physicist, former director of the Planetary Atmospheres Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; recipient NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.
Dr. Norman M.D. Brown, FRSC, Professor, University of Ulster.
Dr. R.A.D. Byron-Scott, meteorologist, formerly senior lecturer in meteorology, Flinders Institute for Atmospheric and Marine Science, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
Dr. Joseph Cain, Professor of planetary physics and geophysics, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Institute, Florida State University; elected Fellow, American Geophysical Union; formerly with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (scientific satellites) and the U.S. Geological Survey.
Dr. Gabriel T. Csanady, meteorologist, Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia.
Robert Cunningham, consulting meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
Dr. Fred W. Decker, Professor of meteorology, Oregon State University, Corvalis, Oregon; elected Fellow, AAAS; member, RMS, NWA, AWA, AMS.
Lee W. Eddington, meteorologist, Naval Air Warfare Center
Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser, atmospheric scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1963-1986); Participating Guest Scientist, Lawrence Livermore Natl. Lab. (1986-1996), more than 40 refereed research papers and major reports in the scientific literature.
Dr. John Emsley, Imperial College, London, UK
Dr. Otto Franzle, Professor, University of Kiel, Germany
Dr. C.R. de Freitas, climate scientist, University of Auckland, New Zealand, Editor of the international journal Climate Research
Dr. John E. Gaynor, Senior Meteorologist, Environmental Technology Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado
Dr. Tor Ragnar Gerholm, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Stockholm, member of Nobel Prize selection committee for physics; member, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences, author of several books on science and technology.
Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, Professor, Technical University of Braunschweig.
Dr. Thomas Gold, Professor of astrophysics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
Dr. H.G. Goodell, Professor, University of Virginia, Charlottesville
James D. Goodridge, climatologist, formerly with California Dept. of Water Resources.
Dr. Adrian Gordon, meteorologist, University of South Australia.
Prof. Dr. Eckhard Grimmel, Professor, University Hamburg, Germany.
Dr. Nathaniel B. Guttman, Research Physical Scientist, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina; former Professor of atmospheric sciences/climatology; former Chairman, AMS Committee on Applied Climatology.
Dr. Paul Handler, Professor of chemistry, University of Illinois.
Dr. Vern Harnapp, Professor, University of Akron, Ohio
Dr. Howard C. Hayden, Professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr. Michael J. Higatsberger, Professor and former Director, Institute for Experimental Physics, University of Vienna, Austria; former Director, Seibersdorf Research Center of the Austrian Atomic Energy Agency; former President, Austrian Physical Society.
Dr. Austin W. Hogan, meteorologist, co-editor of the journal Atmospheric Research.
Dr. William Hubbard, Professor, University of Arizona, Dept. of Planetary Sciences; elected Fellow of the American Geophysical Union.
Dr. Heinz Hug, lecturer, Wiesbaden, Germany
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworski, University of Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Kelvin Kemm, nuclear physicist, Director, Technology Strategy Consultants, Pretoria, South Africa; columnist, Engineering News; author, Techtrack: A Winding Path of South African Development.
Dr. Robert L. Kovach, Professor of geophysics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
Dr. David R. Legates, Professor of meteorology, University of Oklahoma
Dr. Heinz H. Lettau, geophysicist, Increase A. Lapham Professor Emeritus, University of Wisconsin
Dr. Henry R. Linden, Max McGraw Professor of Energy and Power Engineering and Management, Director, Energy and Power Center, Illinois Institute of Technology; elected Fellow, American Institute of Chemical Engineers; former member, Energy Engineering Board of the National Research Council; member, Green Technology Committee, National Academy of Engineering.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Sloane Professor of Meteorology, Center for Meteorology and Physical Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Dr. J. P. Lodge, atmospheric chemist, Boulder, Colorado
Dr. Anthony R. Lupo, atmospheric scientist, Professor, University of Missouri at Columbia, reviewer/contributing author, IPCC.
Dr. George E. McVehil, meteorologist, Englewood, Colorado
Dr. Helmut Metzner, Professor, Tubingen, Germany
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Professor and Director of the State Office of Climatology, University of Virginia; more than 50 research articles published in scientific journals; past President, American Association of State Climatologists; author, Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming (1992); reviewer/contributing author, IPCC.
Sir William Mitchell, physicist, University of Oxford, U.K.
Dr. Asmunn Moene, former chief of Meteorology, Oslo, Norway.
Laim Nagle, energy/engineering specialist, Cornfield University, UK
Robert A. Neff, former U.S. Air Force meteorologist: member, AMS, AAAS.
Dr. William A. Nierenberg, Director Emeritus, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, California; Professor Emeritus of oceanography, University of California at San Diego; former member, Council of the U.S. National Academy of Science; former Chairman, National Research Council's Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee; former member, U.S. EPA Global Climate Change Committee; former Assistant Secretary General of NATO for scientific affairs; former Chairman, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres.
Dr. William Porch, atmospheric physicist, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico.
Dr. Harry Priem, Professor of geology, University of Utrecht
Dr. William E. Reifsnyder, Professor Emeritus of biometeorology, Yale University; elected Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; former Chairman, National Academy of Science/National Research Council Committee on Climatology; AMS Award for Outstanding Achievement in Biometeorology.
Dr. Alexander Robertson, meteorologist, Adjunct Professor, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada; author of more than 200 scientific and technical publications in biometeorology and climatology, forestry, forest ecology, urban environmental forestry, and engineering technology.
Dr. Thomas Schmidlin, CCM, Professor of meteorology/climatology, Kent State University, Ohio; editor, Ohio Journal of Science, elected Fellow, Ohio Academy of Science; member, AMS.
Dr. Frederick Seitz, physicist, former President, Rockefeller University, former President, U.S. National Academy of Sciences; former member, President's Science Advisory Committee; recipient, U.S. National Medal of Science.
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Executive Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study and the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Integrated Ocean Sciences; contributed to the initial development of the Climate Change Program of the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration; investigated climate-related resource variabilities, sustainable development, and basic environmental climatology for the UN, World Bank, and USAID.
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist; President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project; former Director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service; Professor Emeritus of environmental science, University of Virginia; former Chairman, federal panel investigating effects of the SST on stratospheric ozone; author or editor of 16 books, including Global Climate Change (1989) and Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate (1997).
Dr. A. F. Smith, chemical engineer (ret.), Jacksonville, Florida
Dr. Fred J. Starheim, Professor, Kent State University
Dr. Chauncey Starr, President Emeritus, Electric Power Research Institute, winner 1992 National Medal of Engineering
Dr. Robert E. Stevenson, Secretary General Emeritus, International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Oceans, and a leading world authority on space oceanography; more than 100 research articles published in scientific journals; author of seven books; advisor to NASA, NATO, U.S. National Academy of Science, and the European Geophysical Society.
Dr. George Stroke, Professor, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Munich, Germany
Dr. Heinz Sundermann, University of Vienna, Austria
Dr. George H. Sutton, Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii
Dr. Arlen Super, meteorologist, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lakewood, Colorado
Dr. Vladimir Svidersky, Professor, Sechenoc Institute, Moscow, Russia
Dr. M. Talwani, geophysicist, Rice University, Houston, Texas.
Dr. W. F. Tanner, Professor, Florida State University
Peter Arnold Toynbee, chemical engineer, F. Institute of Energy, London, England.
Dr. Christiaan Van Sumere, Professor, University of Gent, Belgium
Dr. Robin Vaugh, physicist, University of Dundee, UK
Dr. Robert C. Wentworth, geophysicist, Oakland, California, formerly with Lochheed Reseach Laboratory.
Dr. Robert C. Whitten, physicist, formerly with NASA.
Dr. Klaus Wyrtki, Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii Sea Level Center

TELEVISION NEWS METEOROLOGISTS
(affiliation for identification purposes only)

Elliot Abrams, meteorologist, Senior Vice President, Accuweather, Inc.
Richard Apuzzo, meteorologist, WXIX-TV (FOX), Cincinnati, Ohio; member, AMS, NWA, SKYWARN; recipient of "Best Weathercast" awards from Associated Press and United Press International.
Andre Bernier, meteorologist, WJW-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio
Sallie Bernier, meteorologist, WJW-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio
Bob Breck, meteorologist, WVUE-TV (ABC), New Orleans, Louisiana
Matthew Bye, meteorologist, KPIX-TV (CBS) San Francisco, California
A.J. Colby, meteorologist, WICU-TV (NBC), Erie, Pennsylvania
Dr. Neil L. Frank, meteorologist, HOU-TV (CBS), Houston, Texas, former Director, National Hurricane Center.
Dick Gance, meteorologist, Weather Forecasting, Inc., Concord, Ohio
Dick Goddard, meteorologist, WJW-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio
Shane Hollett, meteorologist, WJW-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio
Mark Johnson, meteorologist, WEWS-TV (ABC), Cleveland, Ohio
Roy Leep, meteorologist, WTVT-TV (CBS), recently retired; Director, Gillette Weather Data Services, Tampa, Florida; elected Fellow, American Meteorological Society; former member, AMS Executive Council; among the group of TV meteorologists invited to the White House for a briefing on global warming.
Mark Koontz, meteorologist, WJW-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio
Jon Loufman, meteorologist, WKYC-TV (NBC), Cleveland, Ohio
Dan Maly, meteorologist, WOIO-TV (FOX), Cleveland, Ohio
Ryan McPike, atmospheric scientist, WICU-TV (NBC), Erie, Pennsylvania
James T. Moore, meteorologist, KSWO-TV (ABC) Lawton, Oklahoma
Scott R. Sabol, meteorologist, WBOY-TV (NBC), Clarksburg, West Virginia
Dr. Joseph Sobel, meteorologist, Pennsylvania Public Television Network; Senior Vice President, Accu-Weather, Inc., State College, Pennsylvania; co-author, Changing Weather: Facts and Fallacies About Climate Change and Weather Extremes.
Brad Sussman, meteorologist, WEWS-TV (ABC), Cleveland, Ohio, AMS, NWA, Broadcast Seal Committee Chair NWA.
Brian Sussman, meteorologist, KPIX-TV (CBS) San Francisco, California; member, American Meteorological Society (served on AMS Education Committee), 12-time recipient of the "Best Weathercast" award from the Radio and Television News Directors Association and Associated Press.
Anthony Watts, meteorologist, KHSL-TV (CBS), Chico, California
Don Webster, meteorologist, WEWS-TV 9 (ABC), Cleveland, Ohio
Brian Westfall, meteorologist, Weather Forecasting, Inc., Akron, Ohio

[_Coggins7]

Another referenced report from scholars at CEI, in this case, Ian Murray.


Global Warming FAQ

Overview. Alarm over the prospect of the Earth warming is not warranted by the agreed
science or economics of the issue. Global warming is happening and man is responsible
for at least some of it. Yet this does not mean that global warming will cause enough
damage to the Earth and humanity to require drastic cuts in energy use, a policy that
would have damaging consequences of its own. Moreover, science cannot answer
questions that are at heart economic or political, such as whether the Kyoto Protocol is
worthwhile

1. The Science

Isn’t there a scientific consensus that global warming is real and bad for us?

• There is no “scientific consensus” that global warming will cause damaging
climate change. Claims that there is mischaracterize the scientific research of
bodies like the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

What do scientists agree on?

• Scientists do agree that: (1) global average temperature is about 0.6°Celsius—or
just over 1°Fahrenheit—higher than it was a century ago; (2) atmospheric levels
of carbon dioxide (CO2) have risen by about 30 percent over past 200 years; and
(3) carbon dioxide, like water vapor, is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely
to warm the Earth’s atmosphere.1

What don’t scientists know yet?

• Scientists do not agree on whether: (1) we know enough to ascribe past
temperature changes to carbon dioxide levels; (2) we have enough data to
confidently predict future temperature levels; and (3) at what level temperature
change might be more damaging than beneficial to life on Earth.

Didn’t the National Academy of Science say greenhouse gases cause global warming?

• The NAS reported in 2001 that, “Because of the large and still uncertain level of
natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time
histories of the various forcing agents…a causal linkage between the buildup of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the
20th century cannot be unequivocally established.” It also noted that 20 years’
worth of data is not long enough to estimate long-term trends. 2

Hasn’t the Earth warmed alarmingly over the past 100 years?

• The temperature rise of 0.6°C over the last century is at the bottom end of what
climate models suggest should have happened. This suggests that either the
climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought or that some
unknown factor is depressing the temperature.3

Don’t climate models warn of alarming future warming?

• Predictions of 6°C temperature rises over the next 100 years are at the extreme
end of the IPCC range, and are the result of faulty economic modeling, not
science (see economics section below).

What are the realistic current estimates of future warming?

• Both James Hansen of NASA (the father of greenhouse theory) and Richard
Lindzen of MIT (the most renowned climatologist in the world) agree that, even if
nothing is done to restrict greenhouse gases, the world will only see a global
temperature increase of about 1°C in the next 50-100 years. Hansen and his
colleagues “predict additional warming in the next 50 years of 0.5 ± 0.2°C, a
warming rate of 0.1 ± 0.04°C per decade.”4

What about satellite temperature measurements?

• Evidence from satellite and weather balloon soundings suggests that the
atmosphere has warmed considerably less than greenhouse theory suggests.5
There is a disparity between the surface temperature measurements, which cover
only a small fraction of the Earth but show sustained warming, and these
measurements, which cover the whole atmosphere and show only a very slight
warming.

Hasn’t the disagreement between satellite and surface temperatures been resolved?

• No. There is still substantial disagreement between the mid-range of the satellite
measurements and the mid-range of the surface measurements. This is a problem
for climate models.

Are there other man-made factors besides greenhouse gases that influence temperature?

• New research also suggests that the role of greenhouse gases in warming has been
overestimated, as factors like atmospheric soot,6 land use change,7 and solar
variation8 all appear to have played significant parts in recent warming.
Specific Scare Stories

Is the world in danger of plunging into a new ice age, as in The Day After Tomorrow?

• No. The scenario presented in The Day After Tomorrow is physically impossible.
While research does suggest that the Gulf Stream has switched on and off in the
past, causing temperature drops in Europe, oceanographers are convinced that
global warming does not present any such danger.9

Is the world in severe danger from sea level rise?

• No. Research from Nils-Axel Mörner of Stockholm University demonstrates that
current sea levels are within the range of sea level oscillation over the past 300
years, while the satellite data show virtually no rise over the past decade.10 The
IPCC foresees sea-level rise of between 0.1 and 0.9m by 2100. The Earth
experienced a sea-level rise of 0.2m over the past century with no noticeable ill
effects.

• Update 1/1/06: Another study relevant to this controversy is Zwally et al.
(2005), which examined changes in ice mass "from elevation changes derived
from 10.5 years (Greenland) and 9 years (Antarctica) of satellite radar altimetry
data from the European Remote-sensing Satellites ERS-1 and -2." The researchers
report a net contribution of the three ice sheets to sea level of +0.05 ± 0.03 mm
per year. CO2Science.Org puts this in perspective:
“At the current sea-level-equivalent ice-loss rate of 0.05 millimeters per year, it
would take a full millennium to raise global sea level by just 5 cm, and it would
take fully 20,000 years to raise it a single meter.”

Weren’t recent extreme weather events caused by global warming?

• There is no provable link to global warming. For example, research by German
scientists has demonstrated that the devastating floods in central Europe in 2002
were perfectly normal when compared against the historical record.11 Allegations
that extreme weather has been more damaging recently do not take into account
the fact that mankind is now living and investing resources in more dangerous
areas. The World Meteorological Organization has acknowledged that increases
in the recorded number of extreme weather events may well be due to better
observation and reporting.12 A top expert from the IPCC resigned in January
2005 in protest that IPCC science was being misrepresented by claims that last
year’s hurricane season was exacerbated by global warming. Most hurricane
scientists agree that there is no way that Hurricane Katrina can be blamed on
global warming.
• Update 6/1/06: Recent published research casts extreme doubt on the influence of
warming on hurricanes. Kotzbach13 finds “The data indicate a large increasing
trend in tropical cyclone intensity and longevity for the North Atlantic basin and a
considerable decreasing trend for the Northeast Pacific. All other basins showed
small trends, and there has been no significant change in global net tropical
cyclone activity. There has been a small increase in global Category 4–5
hurricanes from the period 1986–1995 to the period 1996–2005. Most of this
increase is likely due to improved observational technology. These findings
indicate that other important factors govern intensity and frequency of tropical
cyclones besides SSTs [sea surface temperatures].”

Update 1/1/06: Aren’t the snows of Kilimanjaro disappearing because of global
warming?


• That’s not the verdict of scientists who study Mount Kilimanjaro most closely. In
“Modern Glacier Retreat on Kilimanjaro as Evidence of Climate Change:
Observations and Facts14,” Kaser et al. “develop a new concept for investigating
the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, based on the physical understanding of
glacier–climate interactions.” They say, “The concept considers the peculiarities
of the mountain and implies that climatological processes other than air
temperature control the ice recession in a direct manner. A drastic drop in
atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climatic
conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro.”

Won’t global warming lead to the spread of malaria?

• Climate is not a significant factor in the recent growth of vector-borne diseases
such as malaria. Most experts on this subject agree that other factors are much
more important in predicting future spread of these diseases.15

Didn’t the Pentagon conclude global warming poses a national security threat?

• The Pentagon is not convinced that global warming represents a major security
threat to the United States. The “secret paper” that garnered much publicity in
Europe was a self-admitted speculative exercise that went beyond the bounds of
measured research and had been released to the press long before the
sensationalist stories surfaced in Europe. Nor did the paper recommend
“immediate action” beyond better climate modeling.16

Haven’t recent climate models found that global warming will be much worse than
previously thought?

• The news that Oxford University has found that temperatures may increase by up
to 11°C severely misrepresents the scientific findings. According to the actual
scientific paper,17 the frequency distribution of the results suggests that the lower
end of temperature rises, in the 2°C to 4°C range, is the most likely.

Haven’t the National Academies of all the major countries agreed that global warming is
a serious threat?


• Claims that the scientific consensus is represented by a statement drafted by the
Royal Society of London and signed by the national scientific academies of the
G8 countries plus India, Brazil and China ignore the politicized nature of the
statement. The climate change committee of the Russian Academy of Sciences
says its president should not have signed the statement, while the use to which it
was put was condemned by the outgoing president of the U.S. National Academy
of Sciences, Bruce Alberts, who called the Royal Society’s presentation of the
statement “quite misleading.”18

Aren’t polar bears drowning because of melting ice?

• These claims are overblown. A leading Canadian polar bear biologist wrote
recently, “Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of
polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar
bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going
extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.”19

Update 1/1/06: Isn’t there a scientific consensus such that one researcher found no
disagreement about global warming in the literature?

• The research by Naomi Orsekes published in Science in December 2004 was
flawed. She studied about 1000 scientific abstracts, but admitted to a sympathetic
journalist that she made a major mistake in her search terms. In fact, she should
have reviewed about 12,000 abstracts. Even taking her sample, another
researcher who tried to replicate her study came to quite different conclusions20.

• In addition, the most recent survey of climate scientists, following the same
methodology as a published study from 1996, found that while there had been a
move towards acceptance of anthropogenic global warming, found that only 9.4%
of respondents “strongly agree” that climate change is mostly the result of
anthropogenic sources. A similar proportion “strongly disagree.” Furthermore,
only 22.8% of respondents “strongly agree” that the IPCC reports accurately
reflect a consensus within climate science21.

So what is the state of play with global warming science?

There is scientific agreement that the world has warmed and that man is at least partly
responsible for the warming—though there is no consensus on the precise extent of
man’s effect on the climate. There is ongoing scientific debate over the parameters
used by the computer models that project future climatic conditions. We cannot be
certain whether the world will warm significantly and we do not know how
damaging—if at all—even significant warming will be.

2. The Economics

Why is economics important to the study of global warming?

• Predictions of global warming catastrophe are based on models that rely on
economics as much as on science. If the science of greenhouse theory is right,
then we can only assess its consequences by estimating future production of
greenhouse gases from estimates of economic activity.

Is there anything wrong with the economics underlying warming projections?

• The economic modeling by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) is badly flawed (The Economist called it “dangerously incompetent”),
relying on economic forecasts that show much faster growth rates for developing
countries than is justified.22 The IPCC economic scenarios show significantly
greater economic development globally than other recognized, comparable
scenarios.

What will the Kyoto Protocol do to reduce warming?

• The Kyoto Protocol, most observers agree, will have virtually no effect on
temperature increase, as it imposes no restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions
upon major developing nations like China and India. These nations have publicly
refused to accept any restrictions now or in the future.23

Can’t we reduce emissions without affecting the economy?

• Greenhouse gas emissions derive from energy use which in turn derives from
economic growth. Therefore, nations that restrict emissions are almost certain to
reduce their rate of economic growth.

Update 1/1/06: Isn’t global warming all cost and no benefit?

• Even substantial global warming is likely to be of benefit to the United States. As
eminent Yale professor Robert Mendehlson testified to the Senate in 200024,
“Climate change is likely to result in small net benefits for the United States over
the next century. The primary sector that will benefit is agriculture. The large
gains in this sector will more than compensate for damages expected in the
coastal, energy, and water sectors, unless warming is unexpectedly severe.
Forestry is also expected to enjoy small gains. Added together, the United States
will likely enjoy small benefits of between $14 and $23 billion a year and will
only suffer damages in the neighborhood of $13 billion if warming reaches 5C
over the next century. Recent predictions of warming by 2100 suggest
temperature increases of between 1.5 and 4C, suggesting that impacts are likely to
be beneficial in the US.”

Haven’t economic models predicted no effect of reducing emissions on growth?

• European models of the effect of greenhouse gas emission restrictions (such as
PRIMES) are sectoral models that look at the effects on only one economic sector
and therefore badly underestimate the negative effects of emission restrictions on
other economic sectors. General equilibrium models, which take into account the
effects of emissions restrictions on other economic sectors, show much greater
negative economic effects than sectoral models.25

What do the better economic models say Kyoto will do?

• Recent research from general equilibrium models suggests strongly negative
impacts on European economies from adopting Kyoto targets (or going beyond
the targets, as in the case of the United Kingdom). One model shows the
economic effects by 2010 of adopting Kyoto targets as follows (remember that the
Protocol achieves virtually nothing in reducing global temperature):26
Germany -5.2% GDP -1,800,000 jobs
Spain -5.0% GDP -1,000,000 jobs
United Kingdom -4.5% GDP -1,000,000 jobs
Netherlands -3.8% GDP -240,000 jobs

Isn’t Europe on track to meet its Kyoto targets?

• Kyoto targets are unrealistic. Regardless of announced targets, 11 of the 15 preenlargement
EU countries are on course to increase their greenhouse gas
emissions well beyond their individual Kyoto targets.27
Specific Economic Issues

Isn’t President Bush to blame for holding up Kyoto?

• It is not the case that President Bush has unilaterally held up ratification of the
Kyoto treaty. The United States Senate must ratify any treaty signed by a
President. In 1997, during Bill Clinton’s presidency, the Senate (including recent
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry) voted 95-0 not to accept any
Kyoto-style treaty that would significantly harm the U. S. economy and did not
include participation by major developing countries.28 The U.S. President has no
power to impose Kyoto, or any other treaty, on an unwilling Senate.29

Doesn’t Russia’s participation demonstrate the appeal of Kyoto?

• Russia agreed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol only after being pressured by the
European Union, which held out the prospect of endorsing Russia’s entry into the
World Trade Organization. Both the Russian Academy of Sciences and several
Duma committees reported that Kyoto has no scientific substantiation and may
harm Russia’s economy.

Isn’t global warming a worse threat than terrorism?

• The charge that global warming is worse than terrorism in terms of damage to the
world is hyperbole. The implausible and unsubstantiable claim of many deaths
each year—the figure is often put at 150,000—owing to global warming ignores
the fact that most of those alleged deaths are due to diseases such as malaria,
which have historically existed even in cold climates and could easily be
controlled if the environmental lobby dropped its opposition to the use of DDT.30
Moreover, that number is itself dwarfed by the number killed by poverty, which
will be increased if the world decides to suppress the use of energy.

Can’t we replace fossil fuels cheaply and effectively with renewable energy?

• Alternative sources of energy such as renewables are not yet cost-effective and
come with environmental costs of their own (the veteran British environmentalist
David Bellamy is leading opposition to wind farms).31 The only currently costeffective
alternative to fossil fuel use is nuclear power, which environmental
activists continue to oppose in direct contradiction to their assertions that global
warming is the gravest danger the planet faces.

Aren’t market-based solutions the way to reduce emissions?

• “Cap and Trade” schemes that allow firms and governments to trade the right to
emit greenhouse gases up to certain limits are not economically efficient. By
creating rent-seeking opportunities, they promote the development of a carbon
cartel seeking to exploit the system to make profits. A simple carbon tax would
be much more economically efficient, although likely to prove unattractive to
voters in democracies.32 The recent collapse of the carbon market in Europe
shows how dependent such markets are on political considerations.

Summary

Europe and the world face severe economic consequences from currently proposed
strategies to deal with global warming. These approaches will produce job losses and
consume scarce resources that could be better spent on handling other world problems
such as AIDS or access to water.33 The economic consequences of global warming
mitigation strategies currently proposed will probably be worse than the effects of global
warming itself. Therefore, adaptive and resiliency strategies should be considered as a
more cost-effective alternative. In addition, “no regrets” strategies that will provide
benefits from greater economic growth whether global warming proves to be a problem
or not should be adopted at once.34

Notes

1 Professor Richard Lindzen, testimony to the United States Senate, May 1, 2001.
2 Committee on the Science of Climate Change [Cicerone et al.], Climate Change Science: An Analysis of
Some Key Questions, National Research Council, Washington D.C., 2001.
3 See testimony of Prof. Richard Lindzen to UK House of Lords Committee on Economic Affairs, January
21, 2005. Available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... n2501p.pdf.
4 Sun, S., and J.E. Hansen 2003. Climate simulations for 1951-2050 with a coupled atmosphere-ocean
model. J. Climate 16, 2807-2826.
5 Christy, J.R., and R.W. Spencer, Global Temperature Report: April 2003, UAH Earth System Science
Center, May 9, 2003, Vol. 12, No. 12.
6 Sato, M. et al., 2003: “Global Atmospheric Black Carbon inferred from AERONET,” Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, vol. 100, no. 11: 6319-6324.
7 Pielke et al. 2002, “The Influence of Land-use Change and Landscape Dynamics on the Climate System:
Relevance to Climate-change Policy beyond the Radiative Effect of Greenhouse Gases,” Phil. Trans. R.
Soc. Lond. A (2002) 360, 1705-1719.
8 Friis-Christensen, E. & Lassen, K. 1991. “Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity
Closely Associated with Climate,” Science 254, 698-700; Thejil, P. and Lassen, K. 1999, SolarFforcing of
the Northern Hemisphere Land AirTtemperature: New Data, DMI-report #99-9, Danish Meteorological
Institute, Copenhagen 1999.
9 Weaver, A.J., and Hillaire-Marcel, C. 2004, “Global Warming and the Next Ice Age,” Science, Vol 304,
Issue 5669, 400-402; Wunsch, C. 2004, “Gulf Stream Safe if Wind Blows and Earth turns,” Nature 428,
601.
10 Mörner, N.-A. 2003. “Estimating Future Sea Level Changes from Past Records,” Global and Planetary
Change 40: 49-54.
11 Mudelsee, M., et al., 2003. No upward trends in the occurrence of extreme floods in central Europe.
Nature, 425, 166-169.
12 The Director of the World Climate Program for the WMO, Ken Davidson, replied to a questioner in
Geneva in 2003, “You are correct that the scientific evidence (statistical and empirical) are (sic) not present
to conclusively state that the number of events have (sic) increased. However, the number of extreme
events that are being reported and are truly extreme events has increased both through the meteorological
services and through the aid agencies as well as through the disaster reporting agencies and corporations.
So, this could be because of improved monitoring and reporting,” quoted at
http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-03b.htm .
13 Klotzbach, P. J. (2006), Trends in global tropical cyclone activity over the past twenty years (1986–
2005), Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L10805, doi:10.1029/2006GL025881.
14 International Journal of Climatology (24; 329-339)
15 Reiter, P. et al, “Global Warming and Malaria, A Call for Accuracy,” Lancet Infectious Diseases 2004
Jun; 4(6):323-4.
16 Schwartz, P. and Randall, 2003, An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United
States National Security, paper submitted to Pentagon October 2003. Available at
http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_cli ... tml#report.
17 Stainforth, D. et al., “Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse
gases,” Nature, 433, 403-406.
18 Sam Knight, “Anti-Bush gibe by Royal Society sparks climate change row,” Times Online, July 5, 2005,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 45,00.html
19 Dr Mitchell Taylor, Dept. of the Environment, Government of Nunavut, in The Toronto Star, May 1,
2006.
20 http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm
21 http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.h ... ience2.pdf
22 Ian Castles, “Greenhouse Emissions Calculations Quite Wrong,” Canberra Times, August 29, 2002,
available in Castles, I. & Henderson, D. 2003: “The IPCC Emission Scenarios: An Economic-Statistical
Critique,” Energy & Environment, Nos. 2 & 3: 166-168.
23 Cooler Heads Newsletter, Nov. 12, 2003. See http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=233.
24 http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:ct ... /~commerce
25 Canes, M., Economic Modeling of Climate Change Policy, International Council for Capital Formation,
October 2002.
26 Thorning, M., Kyoto Protocol and Beyond: Economic Impacts on EU Countries, International Council
for Capital Formation, October 2002.
27 Press Release, EU15 greenhouse gas emissions decline after two years of increases, European
Environment Agency, 15 July 2004.
28 S.98 Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a
signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations, 1997.
29 U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.
30 Reiter et al.
31 Schleede, G. 2004, Facing up to the True Costs and Benefits of Wind Energy, paper presented to he
owners and members of Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc., at the 2004 Annual Meeting in St. Louis,
Missouri. Available at http://www.globalwarming.org/aecifa.pdf.
32 McKitrick, R. 2001, What’s Wrong With Regulating Carbon Dioxide Emissions?, Briefing at the United
States Congress, October 11, 2001. Available at http://www.cei.org/gencon/014,02191.cfm.
33 See the work of the Copenhagen Consensus: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com.
34 See, for example, Adler et al., Greenhouse Policy Without Regrets; A Free Market Approach to the
Uncertain Risks of Climate Change, Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2000.

[_Coggins7]

Another interesting point to ponder is discussed here:


http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=904

and a critique of Gore's film and presentation here:


http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response-book.cfm#CHAPTERS

[_Fortigurn]

Then you'll be waiting a very long time indeed.

So in other words, you are refusing to give me any understanding of the process by which you have evaluated the evidence on both sides, and arrived at your conclusions. Why is that?

'm not going to do your homework for you.

It is not my homework to look on the internet and try and discover the process by which you have evaluated the evidence on both sides, and arrived at your conclusions. It is your task to explain that.

I've already done my homework, which is to evaluate the evidence on both sides and arrive at my conclusions. I have yet to see any evidence that you have done this. I'm still waiting.

The first op-ed piece I posted mentioned 25 points detailing empirical objections to AGW theory.

How do you know they're 'empirical objections to AGW'?

Now, if you realy believe I'm going, as a non-specialist in climate science, to take an hour long drive to USC and spend an entire day looking up references in obscure professional journals...

No I do not. Clearly you are not reading my posts. Please do so.

If you want to have a debate on AGW here, for whatever reason, then fine. Make a move.

You've attempted to open the debate by making a list of claims. I am still waiting for you to present the process by which you have evaluated the evidence on both sides, and arrived at your conclusions. Is that really too much to ask?

[_guy sajer]

Then you'll be waiting a very long time indeed.

So in other words, you are refusing to give me any understanding of the process by which you have evaluated the evidence on both sides, and arrived at your conclusions. Why is that?

'm not going to do your homework for you.

It is not my homework to look on the internet and try and discover the process by which you have evaluated the evidence on both sides, and arrived at your conclusions. It is your task to explain that.

I've already done my homework, which is to evaluate the evidence on both sides and arrive at my conclusions. I have yet to see any evidence that you have done this. I'm still waiting.

The first op-ed piece I posted mentioned 25 points detailing empirical objections to AGW theory.

How do you know they're 'empirical objections to AGW'?

Now, if you realy believe I'm going, as a non-specialist in climate science, to take an hour long drive to USC and spend an entire day looking up references in obscure professional journals...

No I do not. Clearly you are not reading my posts. Please do so.

If you want to have a debate on AGW here, for whatever reason, then fine. Make a move.

You've attempted to open the debate by making a list of claims. I am still waiting for you to present the process by which you have evaluated the evidence on both sides, and arrived at your conclusions. Is that really too much to ask?

Years back when I was a rabid right-winger (much like, it appears, Coggins7), I would have cited many of the same or same types of sources as has Coggins here. In my case (and I suspect for Coggins, though I do not know) my ideological orientation led me to believe, ex ante, that global warming was a fraud, and I cherry picked my evidence to support this pre-determined conclusion. Extrapolating from myself to Coggins, I strongly suspect that he is doing the same.

Years later after having read more on the subject, I have reached a different conclusion. I am now persuaded that the preponderance of evidence points to a man-made global warming trend.

There are always disagreements, and it is notoriously difficult for laypersons, like most of us, to evaluate the claims and counter-claims in technical areas in which we have no training or expertise. This is why I prefer the "preponderance of evidence" standard, as quite often "smoking guns" do not exist (this is particularly true where it comes to "softer" topics, such as politics, economics, society, etc.). My understanding is that, while there is honest disagreement among legitimate experts, the general scientific consensus is that there is a long-term trend in rising world temperatures, and this trend is, to a (unknown) degree, caused by human activity.

For every person Coggins cites who share his view, it would be little trouble for others to cite others "experts" who contradict it. That one can find people who disagree with a general conclusion is hardly surprising, nor is it necessarily evidence (and this applies to everyone and all sides). Just as there are those who debunk global warming, so there are those who debunk the holocaust or evolution. And many of these have Ph.D.'s besides their names or otherwise impressive sounding qualifications.

In an issue that is so important such as global warming, I would hope that people would not prejudge the issue in line with political or other ideology but attempt to objectively weigh the evidence. Alas, that is not happening, and many on the right believe it is a fraud, not because they’ve seriously considered the issue, but because their political ideology predisposes them to their conclusions. (The same is equally true of many on the left.) I strongly suspect this is true as well of our friend Coggins7.

I recently finished the book “Collapse” by Jared Diamond. This book opened my eyes to the importance of environmental stewardship. I found that many of my preconceptions were wrong. I will never look at environmental issues the same again. I wholeheartedly recommend this book to all of you.

[_Tarski]

the consequences of global warming may be something we'll have to live with, like another generation of American soldiers in Iraq.

All that needs to happen there is for the left to stop lying about and politicizing the war and it will end tomorrow in victory.

I haven't seen Al Gore's movie although I probably should.

Seems to be a general scientific consensus that his movie is not scientifically sound.

Get your science from Rush Limbaugh?
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps ... /703080356

The truth is inconvenient for "big oil" and conservatives in general. It's clear what the motivation for denial is but what do you imagine that academic earth scientists have to gain? Attention? No. Going against the consensus is a better bet for that.
How about the idea that the science tells a rather clear story and getting one's science right is better for the reputation?

Last month, the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - which brings together almost all the world's leading scientists in the field and all its governments - published the first instalment of its latest massive "assessment report", concluding that it was 90 per cent certain that human activities are heating up the planet. The conclusion was all the more authoritative as the IPCC is a cautious body that acts by consensus; all governments, including the United States, have to agree its conclusions.

[_bcspace]

From...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

.

And no one ever has.

[_asbestosman]

I recently finished the book “Collapse” by Jared Diamond. This book opened my eyes to the importance of environmental stewardship. I found that many of my preconceptions were wrong. I will never look at environmental issues the same again. I wholeheartedly recommend this book to all of you.

Sounds interesting. Would you share a brief summary of some of the things you got from "Collapse"?

As for myself, I'm not sure either way about global warming, but I am fairly certain that we should be doing better with regards to efficient use of resources. What worries me is that the time will come when oil will not be a cheap source of energy. The time may come when fresh water is hard to find.

[_Mister Scratch]

Another interesting point to ponder is discussed here:


http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=904

and a critique of Gore's film and presentation here:


http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response-book.cfm#CHAPTERS

Loran, I have a question. Do you object to Global Warming "alarmism" because you feel that it is incorrect? Or do you object to it because you see it as being aligned with "The Left"? I only ask because one of your sources notes that scientists appear to disagree about which temperature will permanently and detrimentally affect the earth, in which case I have to wonder why it wouldn't be best to take a "preventative measures" sort of approach... I mean, I'm sure the jury is still out on some of the health benefits which are to be derived from smoking tobacco, so does that mean you should postpone quitting?