Lie Back and Enjoy It
AIM Column | By Malcolm A. Kline | May 19, 2008
The IPCC is the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose modeling most public officials swear by.
If
you think that the globe is not getting warmer, you could be closer to
the inconvenient truth than most academic and media elites. “Bruce Hall
[2007] has reviewed climate data for the 50 US states; his chart of the
number of record-high temperatures by year goes back to 1884,” the Science and Environmental Policy Project reports. “The chart shows 25 extreme high temperature records set in
1934 and 29 in 1936, but none in 2001, 2003, 2004, or 2005.”
“There is no evidence from U. S. records that extreme high temperatures
are on the increase.” The SEPP was founded by climatologist S. Fred Singer, the first director of the National Weather Service.
Even when temperatures have risen in world history, Dr. Singer and
associates point out, man-made gases are probably not the reason. "The
climate cooled from 1940-1975 while CO2 was rising rapidly," Dr. Singer
and company note. "Moreover, there has been no warming trend apparent,
especially in global data from satellites, since about 2001, despite a
continuous rapid rise in CO2 emissions."
"The UK Met Office issued a 10-year forecast in August 2007 in which
they predict further warming is unlikely before 2009." The UK Met
Office is the British equivalent of our own weather service.
What happens is that the doomsday predictions are based on U.N.
calculations of what the temperatures might become. The scientists
affiliated with the SEPP compared these projections to actual
temperatures.
"While all GH [Greenhouse] models show an increasing warming trend with
altitude, peaking at around 10 km [kilometers] at roughly two times the
surface value, the temperature data from balloons give the opposite
result: no increasing warming but rather a slight cooling with altitude
in the tropical zone," the SEPP reports. The SEPP report, Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate, came out in March.
The balloons that they write of measure temperature change. Speaking of
Sea Levels, the SEPP offers a take on them that differs radically from
that of Al Gore.
“At one of the allegedly most endangered sites, the Maldives, condemned
to disappear soon into the sea, both satellite altimetry and tide-gauge
records have not registered any significant SL rise,” the SEPP informs
us. “Contrary of IPCC expectations, sea level there fell by 20 to 30 cm
[centimeters] in the past 30 years (Mormer 2004).”
The IPCC is the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose modeling most public officials swear by. Sen. John McCain,
R-Ariz., the closest thing to a global warming naysayer among the
leading presidential candidates this year, wants to aggressively combat
the supposed effects of global warming with aggressive government
action.
“If we are wrong, we give our children a greener planet,” Sen. McCain
has said. “If we are right, we save generations and generations.”
Actually, the only green will be in the hands of government regulators
and manufacturers of environmental equipment. Said regulation, the
Heritage Foundation estimates, could cost as much as a trillion
dollars.
Conversely, being correct about the advent of global warming and doing
nothing about it could benefit the country. “Economist Thomas Gale
Moore (1998) also found that earlier estimates exaggerated the costs of
warming,” the SEPP reports. “Moore used historical data to calculate
that if temperatures were 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer in the U. S.,
41,000 fewer people would die each year from respirator and circulation
diseases.”
“The annual benefits of global warming to the U. S., he estimates,
would exceed costs by $104.8 billion in 1990 dollars.” Moreover,
although Moore’s benefits would be universal, McCain’s costs, and he is
the most parsimonious of the viable candidates, would primarily be
borne by working families, either directly through taxes and regulation
or indirectly through the tax and regulatory costs industries pass on
to consumers.
Malcolm A. Kline is the Executive Director of Accuracy in Academia. If you would like to comment on this article, please e-mail .
16 Comments | Post a Comment
All of the MSM have bought global warming naturally because it’s originated from the dhimmicrat party. Forget about propaganda correction.
I’ve always thought the people have the power but we’re either preoccupied or nonchalant.
I guess I’m waiting for the boiling point, if I live to see it.
Just my opinion:
It is ludicrous of us to think that there are not changes in our environment because of population, industry, etc., etc. Whether that is global warming or not, I don’t know.
We have many problems in this country, and the world today, due to pollution of one kind or another. Air quality is not good, fresh water is becoming scarce in the western part of the country. These are things that are going to bite us in the very, very near future if not addressed. No one is talking about them - they are all talking about this ‘sometime in the future’ danger of global warming.
Global warming is serving as a very good smokescreen, or diversion from the very real, very present dangers. If we don’t get a handle on those, global warming won’t be a problem many present human beings will have to face.
We need to direct as many people as we can to http://www.petitionproject.org and get this information out. Global Warming IS a hoax, and the science is NOT complete and decided upon.
What was the name of the Swedish “Global Warming” expert (he had a doctorate degree as I recall) that set out to PROVE GW was a scientific fact, only to do extensive research and reach the opposite conclusion?
He was, of course, immediately deemed persona non grata by those whose desperate desire for something to whine about (and get the taxpayers clobbered!) and protest get the better of them and make them look moronic.
The info about the ethanol and GW hoaxes was out there long before America was duped into buying into it. But you have to get online to get the truth because the MSM simply aren’t going to tell you the truth. Neither is the gov’t, but the MSM makes the gov’t look utterly saintly in comparison.
We could spend every cent we had to fight “climate change” (formerly GW, but it got cold as hell, especially up North, this past winter) and one volcano would undo it all.
You can’t fool Mother Nature!
The American public get fooled every time they watch network news. The Media Research Center (MRC) has a daily email exposing the blatant bias, censorship of essential information, and what McCain said AFTER he found a 50-100 year stay in Iraq acceptable (as long as no Americans were being hurt or killed, basically).
This allows you to follow what the average (totally uninformed) American gets for “news”...if they make any effort at all to do so. Of course, they may be resting up for American Idol.
At least the spineless slugs (republicans) came up with a credible, if not wonderful, candidate, where the pinkos (dems) are choosing which pile of dog doo to jump in...as if it makes a difference: the choice is between two pathological liars driven by blind ambition who couldn’t “command” a burger joint, much less the strongest military force on the face of the planet.
The Media Research Center looks like a very interesting site.
I’m always amazed that people can call the media ‘liberal-biased’, though.
This media has covered up and refused to print the truth about this administration, this war, etc., for all these years. How can that be a ‘liberal-biased’ media??
Why didn’t we get the truth about the lies leading us into war? Some in the media knew. Yes, many of the media people are nothing more than empty headed celebrities that are pretty good actors, but some knew. Certainly the heads of the networks knew.
Why weren’t we given the facts on ethanol, on senior drug bill, on illegal immigration, on one-sided trade deals, the truth about farm subsidies, about subsidies to oil companies - and on and on and on.
Because the media is not liberal, or conservatively biased. It is corporate biased. It will bring forth the stories, the attitudes, the articles that further the cause of corporations, and globalization.
Yes, they are Obama’s cheerleader. Obama was annointed the night he made the speech at the Democratic Convention and will be elected, I think - I pray not. The media has been so very obviously bent on getting him elected. This was done by having no or almost no, negative things said about the man until his opponents fell by the wayside and no one was left to oppose him - but Hillary.
Liberal biased - I don’t get that.
LadyTexan
>>Why didn’t we get the truth about the lies leading us into war?
We did. Check out the work of the guy who interviewed Saddam (for 7 months as I recall). Turns out, Saddam enjoyed baby wipes to clean off apples before eating them. The interviewer used baby wipes as a “carrot” to get info out of Saddam.
Saddam admitted that he was more concerned with Iran than the US, but felt that Iran wouldn’t find him credible in claiming to have WMD… but would be more inclined to believe the US claiming that Iraq had WMD.
So, Saddam basically convinced the US that Iraq had WMD as a “work-around” to convince Iran of same.
As for liberal bias in the media? You’re in the minority. Note that when dems get in trouble, they are rarely identified as dems, but republicans ALWAYS get identified as republicans when THEY screw the pooch.
One particular incident sticks with me because most people have seen it: the false charge that McCain supports 50 years of troops in Iraq [a reporter called out, “How about 100 years?"] okay 100 years in Iraq. In his next statement, he said, As long as American troops aren’t being killed or harmed.
This is called “taking something out of context.” Obama does this. And as far as Rev Wrong is concerned, in exactly WHAT context would “Not God Bless America, but GOD D--- AMERICA!” be acceptable?
Chris Rock: Whatever happened to “CRAZY”?
You’re a liberal, aren’t you? [A liberal getting his/her “news” from the MSM would be likely to believe that their reporting sounds about right...because it backs up his/her lib opinions.] Check out the MRC and see if you can find any errors. You may have noted how they are biased against Hillary, too! Obama has received such preferential treatment that Saturday Night Live has done some hilarious skits lampooning this special treatment. You can google them up if you like.
BTW, I have only slightly less contempt for the republicans than I do the democrats, which is why I am a “lesser of two evils” republican: I don’t FOR republicans, but AGAINST democrats. (You may have noticed that I usually identify republicans as “spineless slugs,” so...)
An example of media bias (from MRC):
>>CBS anchor Katie Couric used news, that Senator Ted Kennedy is suffering from a brain tumor, as the hook for a lengthy story in which she railed against reduced federal funding for cancer research, though her own numbers and official numbers contradict her premise of any significant
reductions. Noting how “nearly one in two men, and more than one in three women, in this country will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime,”
Couric regretted: “Yet since 2004 federal funding for research into the four most common kinds of cancer—lung, colon, breast and prostate—
has been cut by more than $100 million.” In fact, National Cancer Institute numbers show a 4.4 percent overall budget increase since 2003,
not enough to match inflation but hardly a huge cut, while spending on “brain & central nervous system” (Kennedy’s plight) grew by 33 percent and
spending on pancreatic cancer, which killed Couric’s sister, rose 75 percent.
First off, why make assumptions about someone being liberal or conservative just because they see the bad in both instances and see the media as it is??
But to clear it up - I am a 60 something, 3rd generation, TExas Republican and conservative. Not of the ilk of those running the country today. They are neither Republicans nor conservative - the President isn’t Texan.
So Saddam convinced the US he had WMD and they used that as a basis for going to war?? I will have to admit that’s the first time I’ve heard that one. This man whom they say, and I believe, was a dastardly dictator, a butcher, a cruel and despicable creature, was whose word they took to wage war?
They knew what kind of man he was as he had been our very own junkyard dog in the ME for some years - and they took his word?
Either that is not the fact or our government is made up of the most gullible people on the planet - I don’t think it’s the latter. You don’t wage war based on something as iffy as that.
I tried to find ‘the rest of the story’ on John McCain’s statement, but didn’t find it. What exactly does that mean ‘as long as American troops aren’t being killed or harmed’? Did he mean that we will occupy that country for that long even after peace reigns? I don’t know what he meant.
The fact is, I don’t see any difference in the two parties at this point in time. The rhetoric is different and they both have their little parts - but they are both performing the same charade. Sure, there is some family fighting going on and some want to be top dog. When the dust settles, they all go to work to do their job. The job of dismantling this country and making freedom here a thing of the past.
Yes, we do have to vote for the lesser of two evils and have for a very long time. The problem comes when we actually champion one of those evils and don’t see them for what they are.
Truly, as the man said, ‘are these three people the best America has to offer?’ - or they the ones that are going to be presented to us so we can make our choice. As to what will happen to this country, it will make little difference. We are on a destructive path and unless and until we clean up our government (that’s means putting all of them out), we are not going to stop the slide.
Of course, the media jumps on things like cancer research, etc. Corporations, pharmaceutical companies, would certainly like for American taxpayers to fund more of their research so they can, in turn, charge us exorbitant prices for their products. That’s corporate - not liberal.
Many times the media and the fact they champion so called liberal causes, is simply another way to get the masses upset and the government can then come in and pass laws like the ‘hate crimes’ law, gun control laws, etc. What seems like a liberal cause, turns into a government overreaching cause and this administration has been the ultimate in that department.
No, if we had a ‘liberal’ press, I don’t think we would be in Iraq today, we wouldn’t have the Patriotic Act.
Although the media seems to love illegal aliens, they are the water boys for corporations who want to hire them and for politicians who want to force us to support them.
When you see a media story before labelling it ‘liberal’, think about what exactly they seem to want done and just who would benefit from it.
Follow the money - it’s not liberalism - it’s corporatism.
ladyTexan
>>What exactly does that mean ‘as long as American troops aren’t being killed or harmed’? Did he mean that we will occupy that country for that long even after peace reigns? I don’t know what he meant.
Uh, we’ve had a military presence in both Germany since WW II and Korea since the Korean War. (This is in the video link below.)
Are you having senior moments? Every intelligence agency in the free world thought Saddam had WMD, especially given that he had used some on his OWN people, the Kurds, when the elder Bush promised support, then withdrew it, much like his “read my lips” pledge when dems promised (but lied) to cut spending.
Please brush up on your history. I won’t do your homework for you anymore.
YouTube has it at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
It took me about a minute to google it up.
Please don’t address me again. I don’t take you seriously. What you understand or don’t are of no consequence to me.
Bye
Sorry, I thought we were just two adults having a discussion - guess not.
For ladytexan,
I have watch ed in my lifetime as industries and businesses have been directed to clean up the results of their operations. I live in Las Vegas, and have seen in the early 1970’s a cadmium plant shut down that has resulted in clean air over the valley where once a rancid yellow cloud huge for decades. I have watched as we in America have cleaned waterways and such. WE ARE GOOD STEWARDS OF OUR WORLD. The 3rd world invaders continue to display their lack of care for our environment. Their habits, like those of other 3rd world nations are atrocious. America has led the way for the last 40 years in environmental policies. It is tie for the world to stop looking to us for the money they want for this hoax. Wake up and wise up, and stop bowing to those who’s intent it is to destroy my country. Stand tall like Americans should. Be proud of your country, instead of allowing ignorant thieves to tell you otherwise.
ladytexan,
I cannot believe how ignorant liberals will take a discussion on the fallacies of global warming and turn it into a display of their colossal ignorance of world history.
FACT: On May 17, 1987, Iraq attacked the US by firing 2 French Exocet missile through the side of the USS Stark, killing 37 of my shipmates, a run up to his invasion of Kuwait in which he ignited thousands of oil wells, an environmental disaster which the earth weathered rather well.
FACT: Iraq was getting WMD technologies through Russia, France, Germany. This we know through the corrupt UN ‘oil for food’ scam, in which billions of US dollars were used to pay for these technologies, funneled to Iraq, with oil trades to the nations mentioned above hidden from the US.
FACT: For 2 years prior to our freeing 50 million from Sadaams death machine, the UN sent a German to oversee Iraq’s nuclear program. His name is Hans Bliks (check spelling). He would not allow an American near Iraq for 2 YEARS. It was during this time Sadaam funneled his spoils to Syria and other Islamic strongholds. This we know from the head of his Air Force, who told us the flights and destinations when he came to us after our glorious VICTORY.
FACT: A liberal America hating apologist has no knowledge of facts, and exhibits the thought and behavioral traits of pre-adolescent children for their arguments.
The World despises the success and wealth of America, because, like you, they despise hard work that leads to individual success. Stop apologizing for America, and stand tall. Being weak and shallow is easy. Try standing for a worthy cause instead of following the unintelligent to your death.
I have no reason to apologize for this country - I am ashamed of the politicians and corporations who are running it however and some of the things they have done in our name. I am ashamed and frightened that some people are unwilling to think for themselves.
I’m not sure how we got onto the Iraqi war in this discussion, either. What is so interesting is that some people are always saying things about the ‘liberal media’ - yet the very things they use to support or try to justify this war - was the constant mantra of this ‘liberal media’. Has anyone forgotten we were bombarded with this stuff for months on end - 24/7? I haven’t.
Some parts of this country seem to be pretty clean. A trip to the NE was surprising to me. There is a lot of water in that part of the country, relative to Texas and parts west, and it looks pretty clean. Some of the cleanup is partly due to actions by enviromental groups, etc. Certainly, though, part of it is due to the fact that manufacturing and industry, in great amounts, have left that part of the country and moved overseas.
If you live in Las Vegas, you have seen the past water levels in the lake and what they are today. WE are running out of fresh water in the western part of this country. That isn’t my opinion, it’s a fact. It is a fact acknowledged by a lot of people. Some politicians have suggested that the next ‘war’ will be over water in this country. Don’t be surprised if you wake up and find that your state government has declared that all underground water belongs to the state and not the individual. It has been discussed.
We may have slowed the increase in pollution, but we haven’t done anywhere near what is needed.
We shouldn’t make it easy on ourselves and just assume that anyone who doesn’t agree that everything is wonderful and everything our government does is great - is a liberal. That’s too easy.
We are not good stewards of the world. Just because we have moved the manufacture of our consumer goods to a country overseas, doesn’t make us good stewards. We are a wasteful society. Just spend some time in a Wal Mart and watch the junk, pure junk, people are buying. That is junk that is polluting the world, trashing the world, and isn’t necessary.
Spend some time riding around a city and drive by the garage sales. There will be tables and tables full of useless geegaws and junk, and clothing piled 3 foot high. Look around at the amount of storage facilities in this country.
We may have cleaned up our country by shifting the ‘dirty’ part of our over-consuming society to another part of the world, but we are just as guilty as ever.
China is one of the big polluters - we need to ask ourselves why? Where are all the products going they manufacture?
Shorter ladytexan:
The perfect is the enemy of the good. We ain’t good until we’re perfect!
Just saying things are great, doesn’t make it so. If one wants to delude oneself, that’s fine. The problem is when too many are deluded.
We are causing more goods, many totally unnecessary, to be created in the world than when we had factories spewing it in our own country.
Just because our pollution that is caused by our overconsumption of Chinese trash, is in China, means nothing. Some of it is already drifting into the NW. We, and our future generations, will be breathing that.
The fact is - we aren’t even good - no matter how many times one clicks their heels together and repeats it.
May 20 at 2:41 pm | #1 | Link
What can be done io correct this propaganda
When the Media And much of Acadamia are party to the Hoax.This scam will cost billions and ruin our economy. Is John Mcain this stupid,stubborn,or
purposefull like Al Gore.
Where is the outrage---This is as seriouse as War.