Is Global Warming a Leftist Urban Legend?

[August1991]

There is an element of proselytizing in global warming believers. Even the term "global warming" has undergone the Leftist baptism to be renamed as "climate change".

Anyone who disputes the evidence is now called a "denier" - not like Peter - but rather like those who deny the Holocaust. Is this a reasonable way to conduct a scientific debate?

The National Post published a series of articles on the so-called "deniers" and the articles are worth a look. They're not behind a firewall.

Dr. Lindzen is one of the original deniers -- among the first to criticize the scientific bureaucracy, and scientists themselves, for claims about global warming that he views as unfounded and alarmist. While he does not welcome the role he's acquired, he also does not shrink from it. Dr. Lindzen takes his protests about the abuse of science to the public, to the press, and to government.

...

His detractors can't dismiss him as a crank from the fringe, however, much as they might wish. Dr. Lindzen is a critic from within, one of the most distinguished climate scientists in the world: a past professor at the University of Chicago and Harvard, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and a lead author in a landmark report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the very organization that established global warming as an issue of paramount importance.

Link

Or how about Mann's famous hockey stick?

"Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported," Wegman stated, adding that "The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable." When Wegman corrected Mann's statistical mistakes, the hockey stick disappeared.

Link

I found most devastating this article:

Climate modelling is the basis of forecasts of climate change. Yet this modelling, Tennekes believes, has little utility, and "there is no chance at all that the physical sciences can produce a universally accepted scientific basis for policy measures concerning climate change." Moreover, he states: "There exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies."

Not surprisingly, Tennekes abhors the dogma that he feels characterizes the climate-change establishment, and the untoward role of climate science in public-policy making. "We only understand 10% of the climate issue. That is not enough to wreck the world economy with Kyoto-like measures."

Link

The principle of global warming is perfectly sound. What is lacking is a clear understanding of how much human activities influence the atmosphere.

----

Rajendra Pachauri is the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC, working under a UN mandate, made the recent report in Paris that has attracted so much attention.

In 2005, Pachauri passed the Godwin point and compared Bjørn Lomborg to Adolf Hitler because Lomborg asks questions about global warming. Is this a way to conduct serious debate? I would expect such on this forum - but not from someone of such stature.

Pachauri's tactic is to insist that the United States and other highly developed nations make drastic reductions in their emissions of greenhouse gases before less developed nations (like his homeland of India) are forced to. That makes him hostile to market solutions in which U.S. companies upgrade inefficient plants overseas as an alternative to reducing carbon dioxide output in less-dirty plants in the United States.

Slate

Pachauri has an interesting background. He sits on the board of State-owned Indian Oil Corporation. He is not a climatologist but rather a resource economist and furthermore, the Left accused him of being the choice of Bush and ExxonMobil for the position of IPCC chairman.

And who is Bjørn Lomborg?

In The Skeptical Environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg challenges widely held beliefs that the global environment is progressively getting worse. Using statistical information from internationally recognized research institutes, Lomborg systematically examines a range of major environmental issues and documents that the global environment has actually improved. He supports his argument with over 2900 footnotes, allowing discerning readers to check his sources.

Link

[stignasty]

Is Global Warming a Leftist Urban Legend?

Are you kidding?

Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer: panel

Updated Thu. Feb. 1 2007 10:47 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Officials have approved a long-anticipated report that will say global warming is "very likely" caused by human activity, said delegates at the climate change conference in Paris, which Environment Minister John Baird is attending.

Dozens of scientists and bureaucrats are working behind closed doors to finalize the new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The IPCC will release the report, which must be unanimously approved, on Friday at a news conference in Paris.

Three participants told The Associated Press the group approved the term "very likely" in Thursday's sessions.

That term means they agree there is a 90 per cent chance that global warming is human-caused.

There had been speculation that the delegates might try to modify the wording to "virtually certain," which means a 99 per cent chance that the earth is getting warmed because of human activity.

The last report, in 2001, said global warming was "likely" caused by humans.

The report, which will serve as a summary for policymakers around the world, will also say that global warming has contributed to stronger hurricanes.

The panel approved wording saying man-made global warming can "more likely than not" be blamed for an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970, delegates reported.

In 2001, the same panel had said there was not enough proof to reach such a conclusion.

[Who's Doing What?]

Even now there are people who firmly believe evolution does not exist. So what if there are some scientists who say global warming is not occurring?

This is getting totally rediculous. Everytime there is someone who doesn't agree with global warming the "deniers" post a new thread and shout victory from the roof tops. Look around you... have you not noticed some weird and crazy weather over the past 15 years or so?

Hasn't it progressively gotten more and more unpredictable?

Do you deny your own experience?

[August1991]

Is Global Warming a Leftist Urban Legend?

Are you kidding?

Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper? (And did you have to copy the entire CTV article which is just old news anyway?)

Even now there are people who firmly believe evolution does not exist. So what if there are some scientists who say global warming is not occurring?

There are no reputable biologists disputing evolution or physicists gravity. They don't use terms like "very likely" to describe their belief that the earth is round.

Hasn't it progressively gotten more and more unpredictable?

Do you deny your own experience?

That is precisely not the way to do climate research. As BD oftens says, anecdote is not the plural of data.

Is it wrong to be skeptical?

[Who's Doing What?]

There are no reputable biologists disputing evolution or physicists gravity. They don't use terms like "very likely" to describe their belief that the earth is round.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/

That is precisely not the way to do climate research. As BD oftens says, anecdote is not the plural of data.

Just where do you think Scientific DATA comes from if not from a persons own experience and observations? The whole field of scientific study is fundamentally based upon observing things.

[jdobbin]

There are no reputable biologists disputing evolution or physicists gravity. They don't use terms like "very likely" to describe their belief that the earth is round.

They most likely wouldn't have put "very likely" in the document had it not been for governments trying to shade the wording, don't you think?

[B. Max]

Even now there are people who firmly believe evolution does not exist. So what if there are some scientists who say global warming is not occurring?

This is getting totally rediculous. Everytime there is someone who doesn't agree with global warming the "deniers" post a new thread and shout victory from the roof tops. Look around you... have you not noticed some weird and crazy weather over the past 15 years or so?

Hasn't it progressively gotten more and more unpredictable?

Do you deny your own experience?

Every scientist who has looked at the so called evidence has concluded the global warming alarmists are full of crap.

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...06fef8763c6&k=0

[Ricki Bobbi]

They most likely wouldn't have out that the had it not been for governments trying to shade the wording, don't you think?

What does this mean? Anybody? Bueller?

[margrace]

The horrified response to this headline whether it was seen here or not is interesting. I think whoever dreamed this up underestimates the general publics awareness of Climate change.

I heard it from several people as far away as BC

[madmax]

There is an element of proselytizing in global warming believers. Even the term "global warming" has undergone the Leftist baptism to be renamed as "climate change".

Yet another thread on Global Warming, Greenhouse Gas, Climate Change, Kyoto......

[BayLee]

There is an element of proselytizing in global warming believers. Even the term "global warming" has undergone the Leftist baptism to be renamed as "climate change".

Nothing has been changed.

The term climate change has been around as long as global warming has.

Climate change is a resuly of Global warming.

Why do right wingers hate the enviroment so much and why are they so eager to leave mess for future generations to try and fix and pay for? :angry:

[daniel]

Hey August, I see you're still digging up the old tactics once used to denigrate the anti-Iraq War/WMD activists. It's the same method used by the Creationists (who evolved into the Intelligence Designers). Get on with it. Some of your points have long been disputed.

Have you heard the latest news? Harper and Bush have both accepted the science that global warming is a fact attributable to human activity. Get on the band-wagon. You know, you people have always religiously backed Harper and Bush even when they were wrong and shown to be wrong.

Is Harper and Bush going to lose your political support now?

Or do you know something about their new-found position the rest of us don't? It can't be that Harper will say anything just to get elected now can it? Please tell us.

[Canuck E Stan]

There is an element of proselytizing in global warming believers. Even the term "global warming" has undergone the Leftist baptism to be renamed as "climate change".

Nothing has been changed.

The term climate change has been around as long as global warming has.

Climate change is a resuly of Global warming.

Why do right wingers hate the enviroment so much and why are they so eager to leave mess for future generations to try and fix and pay for? :angry:

Why do LEFT wingers hate the enviroment so much and why are they so eager to leave mess for future generations to try and fix and pay for that when they had the opportunity,they did't get it done

[daniel]

...

Why do LEFT wingers hate the enviroment so much and why are they so eager to leave mess for future generations to try and fix and pay for that when they had the opportunity,they did't get it done

Strawman in action.

[madmax]

Why do right wingers hate the enviroment so much and why are they so eager to leave mess for future generations to try and fix and pay for? :angry:

There are those whom believe in environmental initiatives and those whom do not. These people are not stagnat, depending on the environmental event. Many people simply cannot grasp the effect of man on Global Warming, and these people belong in all political spectrums. On top of that, those that may believe in an environmental problem, may not agree with the solution to that problem.

People whom shout "Right Wingers" or "Leftists" are generally incompetent Idealogs.

These "Right Wingers" whom dislike a certain environmental concern or solution, blame "leftists" in order to wallpaper over their lack of understanding or weakness in argument.

Those "Leftist" whom cannot understand reasonable arguments that question such environmental concerns or solutions shout "Right Winger" to the poster, without arguing their case effectively.

Why because the object of debate is complex and shouting and blaming is the easiest course of action.

If you want to be identified as "Right" or "Left" that is your choice.

I don't believe "right wingers" hate the environment. I don't believe anyone hates the environment.

For me, I can't believe a group of thousands of Climatology Scientists are all part of the Marxist-Lennonist Party.

This being the party of Groucho Marx and John Lennon.

[Canuck E Stan]

...

Why do LEFT wingers hate the enviroment so much and why are they so eager to leave mess for future generations to try and fix and pay for that when they had the opportunity,they did't get it done

Strawman in action.

One more on the Liberal environment bandwagon who didn't get it done.

[BayLee]

Why do LEFT wingers hate the enviroment so much and why are they so eager to leave mess for future generations to try and fix and pay for that when they had the opportunity,they did't get it done

Thankfully the LIBerals did pleanty.

Because with Alberta refusing to do anything,in fact Alberta was the single biggest contributor to greenhouse gases raising emissions 50%

If not for strong action by the LIBerals can you imagine how bad off Canada would be now.

Just saw an interesting poll.Asked if you would change your lifestyle to help with global warming,35% said no.

Right wing thinking people make up aprox 35% of Canadians.

Like I said,why do right wingers hate the enviroment so much?

[Catchme]

Ok, went back a month and counted 21 Environmental threads on global warming and climate change, with many of the same names starting them. That is nopt counting the ones that had party names involved. As soon, as those who try to discredit that it is happening are proven wrong, that it is happening, they wait until that thread is off of todays topis and start another one. They start it as if they were not proven wrong already.

Here below is a very good link of this happening right and it details the US Davis report of 2006 , and how it definitively states we humans are causing climate change. There is also the link to the UN report which details the same thing in a Harper thread.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....topic=7745&st=0

Here is a wiki link on the Stern report that has also been discussed here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review

[Canuck E Stan]

Like I said,why do right wingers hate the enviroment so much?

Sorry, but the only enviro-ment the right wing hate is the enviro-ment methane stench created by the left.

[madmax]

Thankfully the LIBerals did pleanty.

If not for strong action by the LIBerals can you imagine how bad off Canada would be now.

I just fell off my chair

Unwarranted attacks upon Alberta, and belief that the Liberals were addressing the environment in a pro-active way.

I don't have to imagine anything.

The Liberals signed and ratified a treaty, and then did very little to meet any prescribed targets. The only target I can see was a chequebook courtesy of the Taxpayers to the third world.

And then to suggest that "Right Wingers" make up 35% of the population, because 65% of the population is environmentally concious is ridiculous.

Lots of people won't "voluntarily" do things to lower greenhouse gasses. We just get dragged along anyways as the laws are changed.

I am not going to implement new Vehicle emission technology voluntarily. I may or may not pay more on my electric bill if I know it is being generated by wind vs coal.

But that doesn't determine my views in a right to left political spectrum.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Unwarranted attacks upon Alberta, and belief that the Liberals were addressing the environment in a pro-active way.

The Liberals signed and ratified a treaty, and then did very little to meet any prescribed targets. The only target I can see was a chequebook courtesy of the Taxpayers to the third world.

Turning it into an attack on *scary* *scary* *scary* is the only way the lefties can justify their lack of action.

The Liberals will try to turn this an unwarranted attack simply because misdirection is the only way they can justify their terrible record.

[Catchme]

...Why do LEFT wingers hate the enviroment so much and why are they so eager to leave mess for future generations to try and fix and pay for that when they had the opportunity,they did't get it done

Strawman in action.

One more on the Liberal environment bandwagon who didn't get it done.

It has only been those of the left who saw and who have been watching pollution destroy our planet, we are the only ones that HAVE BEEN getting it done, we are the only ones who have been fighting for the environment. We are the ones who have changed our lifestyles to leave as small of footprint as possible. To suggest that the CPC are somehow now magically greeen and getting it done is myth and spurious commentary.

If it was left up to the right, of today, we would now have DDT ridden aquifers and drinking water supples, acid lakes everywhere, and NO pollutions controls whatsoever.

[jdobbin]

The Liberals signed and ratified a treaty, and then did very little to meet any prescribed targets. The only target I can see was a chequebook courtesy of the Taxpayers to the third world.

You're quite right that the Liberals moved at a snail's pace as did all of the provinces.

Dion really wasn't that keen on Kyoto when it was agreed to. He thought it would be a hard sell to the provinces.

http://www.llnl.gov/pao/news/news_releases...R-05-12-04.html

Now, we see more provinces on board and higher awareness of the issue in the public.

If the Conservatives come out strong on this, they will take away an issue for the NDP and the Liberals as well as the Greens.

The NDP will try to take credit for the policy if it makes it through but most people forget about the guy who walked the bride down the aisle.

[Keepitsimple]

Finally - a balanced view on Kyoto. Left wing or Right wing - it doesn't matter as long as you deal with the facts - especially Alberta bashers. I have a newfound respect for the Globe & Mail seeing as this article comes from their Editorial section. If we can get the CBC and CTV to actually follow up on this story, perhaps we'll finally get somewhere on Climate Change, instead of all the yapping and politicking.

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

February 3, 2007

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ialComment/home

Edited February 6, 2007 by Greg

[Charles Anthony]

K.I.S.s.,

the article you posted is good but again, it seems like you are infringing upon copyright. Next time you quote a text, Keep It Short.

If it was left up to the right, of today, we would now have DDT ridden aquifers and drinking water supples, acid lakes everywhere, and NO pollutions controls whatsoever.

Most of the advances in international environmentalism has been pan-political and pan-commercial.

Why do right wingers hate the enviroment so much and why are they so eager to leave mess for future generations to try and fix and pay for? :angry:

Kyoto is the ultimate example of shirking environmental responsibilities. Poor countries being permitted to pollute and the rich countries pay for it.

There are those whom believe in environmental initiatives and those whom do not. These people are not stagnat, depending on the environmental event.

I do not think that is the problem at all. I believe there are people who take advantage of environmental issues as a vehicle for wealth redistribution. Kyoto is a perfect example.