January 15, 2004

Coordinated?

from - smijer

You gotta give it to the GOP. They coordinate their message.

This morning, Drudge opined:

GORE TO WARN OF 'GLOBAL WARMING' ON NEW YORK CITY'S COLDEST DAY IN DECADES!

In what political watchers are calling possibly the biggest gaffe in years, former Vice President Al Gore is set to give a speech tomorrow on the perils of global warming -- on what is expected to be the coldest day in New England in nearly half a century!

{found here}

Just a few minutes later, Neal Boortz piped up:

GORE'S BACK ON THAT GLOBAL WARMING NONSENSE AGAIN ...

.... and he picked the coldest day of the year in New York City to do it. The purpose of Al Gore's speech in NYC today is to slam Bush for his "inaction" on global warming. Gore isn't going to be deterred by the fact that the temperature in New York is supposed to be the coldest in ten years .. 1 degree above zero. In fact, he's reportedly going to make the case that this cold weather is actually caused by global warming which, of course, is caused by George Bush.


{located on Neal'z Nuze front page today, and in the archive after today}

Not long after, Roy Blunt (R- MO) joined the chorus:

"It is fitting that Gore chose one of the coldest days of the year to spread false information about the Bush Administration's record on global warming. Mother Nature didn't agree with his message and neither do I. Al, it's cold outside.

{Reported here, with hat-tip to scottesposito at kos}

Some observations.

1) These republicans are willing to make themselves look a little bit stupid to people who know the first thing about global warming in order to fleece those who don't. Either that, or they just are stupid. I'm betting on the former. In case there are people who don't know about global warming reading, I'm no expert, but I know that scientists consider it a cause for more severe weather in general: including colder winter storms.

2) These republicans have absolutely no respect for science.

3) They are either a gaggle of plagiarizers, or they are obnoxiously on-message. Where do they get the script? Is drudge their go-to man, or does he get the same memo as everyone else?

Bonus points to anyone who can provide transcripts from other right-wing talking heads spewing this same non-sense line.

::

Posted by smijer at January 15, 2004 07:00 PM
Comments

Boortz admits that one of the sources he gets for his program notes is Drudge. I was able to listen to most of his show today & he didn't spend much time on the issue at all, other than to mention it.

He's been very busy lately coming down on Wal-Mart for their imminent domain abuses.

univar.jpg Posted by Ricky on January 15, 2004 10:32 PM
Link to comment

"He's been very busy lately coming down on Wal-Mart for their imminent domain abuses."

Preachin' to the choir here.

Pertaining to global warming;

Neil (and Neil's advocates)....

READ MY GUEST BLOG! A COLDER NORTH ATLANTIC IS A SYMPTOM OF GLOBAL WARMING. I'M NOT SAYING THIS AGAIN!!!!

Thank You.

univar.jpg Posted by CJG on January 15, 2004 10:42 PM
Link to comment

It is "junk" science that republicans, nor any other clear minded individual, does not respect.
And as far as global warming, it may or may not be happening. There is no proof.

univar.jpg Posted by john t. harris on January 16, 2004 12:51 AM
Link to comment

john_t._harris;

You have clearly regurgatated the Republican talking point, but you have failed to provide any evidence or refute any of the points that I made in my guest posting.

If you have an arguement, make it.

univar.jpg Posted by CJG on January 16, 2004 02:05 AM
Link to comment

CJG,
I'm open to all info on global warming & think it very well is a probability, but the position that it's so cold right now is a symptom of global warming isn't one of the better arguments, since a warm winter right now would also be blamed on global warming. :)

univar.jpg Posted by Ricky on January 16, 2004 06:11 AM
Link to comment

CJG

My reaction to "global warming" is the same reaction you have when you hear "war on terror". My eyes roll back in my head and I immediately stop reading or listening. I just do not have that much faith in guys who cannot tell me with any reasonable certainty whether or not it is going to rain tomorrow much less what the average temperature of the Earth will be 50 or 500 years from now.

I feel sure that the entire argument is agenda driven and somewhere at the end of that rainbow there sits a pot of gold supplied by the taxpayers. Global Warming concerns me about as much as that rogue comet that is circling around out there somewhere just waiting for the opportunity to crash into Earth and kill all of us the way it killed the dinosaurs.

A butterfly flaps his wings in Japan and can be linked to a hurricane that ravages the coast of South Carolina.

Excuse me........my eyes are rolling back in my head.

univar.jpg Posted by boortzlistener on January 16, 2004 09:02 AM
Link to comment

I have to agree with Boortzlistener on this one. When I was a child, they predicted that there would be world wide starvation by the year 2,000. Anyone who owned as much as an acre of land would have to fight off neighbors who were living on 1/10of an acre or less and there would be deplorable living conditions. My personal belief is that the God who created the universes put a system in place that allows for mankind and all of his needs. Certainly we can make life better by becoming good stewards, but God does not expect us to become paranoid over issues that are too big for us to control.

univar.jpg Posted by Concerned on January 16, 2004 09:46 AM
Link to comment

"I just do not have that much faith..." (boortzlistener)

and "When I was a child, they predicted that there would be world wide starvation by the year 2,000" (Concerned)

boortzlistener: you must have missed my point about the weather. Do you NOT agree that the statement
"It will snow over Canada and the Northern U.S. a year from this date?"
is accurate, from a predictive standpoint?
For contrast, the following statement:
"It will snow over Fargo, ND next a year from this date."
is completely inaccurate. It has a finite probability of happening, which is not 100%.

Weather phenomena can be predicted, but there is a trade-off between the area scale (the size of the area for which we can make claims about the weather), and the time scale (of far in the future you wish to have a reliable prediction).

As far as the population thing is concerned, this provides a good example to back up my perspective. The world population DID increase, as they said it would (although not as much). Instead of gloom and doom, we recognized the situation and reacted to it with more efficient farming methods, more efficient crops, and globalizing the world economy (to make it more efficient), to name a few of the developments. We did not place a worldwide ban on reproduction (as the Chinese tried to do).

My belief is that the Kyoto treaty tries to turn back the clock - it is bad policy (like the "one child" law in China), which will prove to be largely uneffective.

However, pretending that the situation does not exist is even worse. Better that we recognize the situation, and react to it like good capitalists.

univar.jpg Posted by CJG on January 16, 2004 10:47 AM
Link to comment

"I have to agree with Boortzlistener on this one."

I hope that agreeing with me on that point did not hurt too bad my friend ;-) If two people talk long enough they will always find some areas of agreement.

"When I was a child, they predicted that there would be world wide starvation by the year 2000."

Exactly. When I was a freshman in High School I did a report on that very subject. Everybody was going to starve. The end was nearer than we thought. The government is going to have to DO SOMETHING! Of course back then I lapped it up. I like to think I have grown wiser through the years. Of course when you have lived through as many Y2K's and the sky is falling scenerios as I have you tend to grow a bit skeptical.

"It will snow over Canada and the Northern U.S. a year from this date?"

I have heard that there have been times in the past when the Earth actually tipped on its axis and the top became the bottom and the bottom became the top. If this were to happen there would probably be no snow in Canada or the Northern United States one year from now. Or if the comet hits things could get a little weird.

"Better that we recognize the situation, and react to it like good capitalists."

And your proposals are..........?


univar.jpg Posted by boortzlistener on January 16, 2004 02:04 PM
Link to comment

> I just do not have that much faith in guys who cannot tell me with any reasonable certainty whether or not it is going to rain tomorrow much less what the average temperature of the Earth will be 50 or 500 years from now.

This is an argument for the terminally stupid. Of course they can't predict with any degree of certainty whether or not it will rain tomorrow, but they can predict with a degree of certainty that the global temperature will rise over the next 50 years.

Look at it this way, you can't predict whether or not a coin toss will come up heads or tails with any degree of certainty, but you can predict that 10,000 coin tosses will render a result of 5,000 heads and 5,000 tails results with a degree of certainty.

univar.jpg Posted by Robert McClelland on January 16, 2004 03:08 PM
Link to comment

Mr. Listener:
If you want to impress anybody, you should make more coherent arguments.
I think you're referring to the switch of the magnetic poles, which I have read has happened more than once. The whole earth didn't do a summersault. That's just silly.
I don't know if you're aware of it, but even if the earth flipped upside down tomorrow, there sure as hell would be snow in Canada and the northern U.S. next year. ¿Have you ever heard of Tierra del Fuego? It's almost at the bottom of the world, and it gets damned cold down there. So does Antarctica.
Global warming, by the way, doesn't mean that we'll be sunbathing in Alaska in 10 years, by the way. It has to do (among other things) with a slow, but steady, warming over the earth that will slowly, but perceptibly, melt the Antarctic ice enough to flood low-lying land. Maybe that's no big deal to those in Denver, but on the coast of Honduras, where I am, a flood of 3 feet would wash out most of the town.

univar.jpg Posted by suspiro on January 16, 2004 03:18 PM
Link to comment

Tell you what - go watch the presentation Gore made. Agree with him, disagree with him - fine. But go watch and listen. Look at the core drilling samples, the glaciers, the ice caps, the heat charts, the Antarctic super-core drills.

Then tell me that the whole global warming phenomena is just an agenda-driven boondoggle. Ok? Please.

There is an enormous scientific consensus on this...far greater than the consensus developed around the ozone hole and CFC - and look at how much good was done by listening to real science then.

Drop the phony cynicsm. If you don't understand the science, fine. But don't pretend like it doesn't exist..that's just lame.

univar.jpg Posted by will6 on January 16, 2004 03:19 PM
Link to comment

"And your proposals are..........?"

My proposal is stop trying to "combat global warming," and instead, look carefully at the causal effects. Again, the Kyoto treaty is bad policy: It attempts to force the toothpaste back into the tube, so to speak.

"I have heard that there have been times in the past when the Earth actually tipped on its axis and the top became the bottom and the bottom became the top. "

No, the magnetic poles flip. (so the north ends of your compass points south rather than north). Flipping the geographic poles would be a crass violation of angular momentum. The only way our geographic poles could flip is if an external torque is applied.

To put this in perspective, the Earth would have to be hit by a planetiod of comparable mass to the moon, traveling a velocity of about 1000 mi/hr, at precisely the right point in the southern hemisphere, to flip the geographic poles.

univar.jpg Posted by CJG on January 16, 2004 04:11 PM
Link to comment

"if the earth flipped upside down tomorrow, there sure as hell would be snow in Canada and the northern U.S. next year"

Please bear with the terminally stupid but if the argument is that there will be snow exactly 365 days from now in Canada and the northern U.S. come hell, high water or comets I still have not been sold.

"To put this in perspective, the Earth would have to be hit by a planetiod of comparable mass to the moon, traveling a velocity of about 1000 mi/hr, at precisely the right point in the southern hemisphere, to flip the geographic poles."

It would not matter CJG. It is still going to snow in Canada at this time next year. Just ask Suspiro.

"It has to do (among other things) with a slow, but steady, warming over the earth that will slowly, but perceptibly, melt the Antarctic ice enough to flood low-lying land."

So I guess Suspiro that the prudent thing for you to do would be to tell your children to tell their grandchildren's great-grandchildren that there may come a day when they will have to move.

"they can predict with a degree of certainty that the global temperature will rise over the next 50 years."

Tell me Mr. McClelland, is this because the temperature has always risen and will always rise? Given our less than one century of keeping tabs on a star billions of years old the terminally stupid have a hard time accepting our supposed omniscience.

"Drop the phony cynicsm. If you don't understand the science, fine. But don't pretend like it doesn't exist..that's just lame."

My cynicism is never phony. It is always the real thing. Because for every scientist you bring in that says global warming is a man made problem I can bring in one who says it isn't. That tells me that I am not the only one who does not understand the "science".

Follow the money Will6. It will always answer more questions than it will leave unanswered.

Sorry guys. I do not subscribe to the "science says it, I believe it and that settles it" notion.

univar.jpg Posted by boortzlistener on January 16, 2004 04:58 PM
Link to comment

"Sorry guys. I do not subscribe to the "science says it, I believe it and that settles it" notion."

I don't necessarily believe scientists unconditionally either.

However, if they present me with data to support our claims, then I tend to believe them.

There is a fundamental difference between the approach that is taken by the anti-climate change people. Their strategy is to attack the model by thought experiments and case studies, yet they fail to say how the underlying model should be adjusted to account for these cases. They do not argue that the underlying chemistry and thermodynamics in the models is incorrect, or that the models need to take into account a certain effect which is being ignored. They just argue that science hasn't "proven" anything.

Well, propose a new model, which can realistically reproduce the global weather pattern, which takes into account these ignored phenomena. Yet they do not. A twenty minute discussion with a climate change modeler will convince you that all of the anti-climate change posturers are mistaken. The model does take into account solar flux. The slight change is insignificant.

More importantly, the models can reproduce the global temperature curve over the last fifty years. If it is flawed, tell the modelers so that they may correct it. I was once skeptical, but I have seen the data, and how well the models reproduce it. I have received satisfactory answers for all of the tired old talking points. I am now convinced that the models are way more correct thatn they are incorrect.

If you have a better model, publish it. I would be happy to review your findings.

univar.jpg Posted by CJG on January 16, 2004 05:24 PM
Link to comment

>Tell me Mr. McClelland, is this because the temperature has always risen and will always rise? Given our less than one century of keeping tabs on a star billions of years old the terminally stupid have a hard time accepting our supposed omniscience.


It has nothing to do with the sun.

Fact: Greenhouse gases trap heat in our atmosphere.

Fact: An increase in the level of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will result in a rise in the global temperature.

Fact: The level of greenhouse gases being released by us into our atmosphere is dramatically rising.

Fact: The global temperature of our planet will continue to rise (this has already been recorded over the past century).

These are facts, not suppositions and no scientists disputes these facts.

univar.jpg Posted by Robert McClelland on January 16, 2004 05:26 PM
Link to comment

>Well, propose a new model, which can realistically reproduce the global weather pattern, which takes into account these ignored phenomena.

The computer models that are now being attacked don't have anything to do with whether or not global warming is occurring. All they attempt to do is predict the effects on the global weather system if the temperature rises by n degrees.

univar.jpg Posted by Robert McClelland on January 16, 2004 05:30 PM
Link to comment

boortzlistener-

Boy, can I relate! I have the same reaction whenever somebody starts going on about this "Rain" stuff. Water! Coming out of the sky! I mean, that just doesn't make sense! After all, the stuff is heavy, you don't see rivers just start floating around in the air, do you! That's why I've spent the last 20 years steadfastly avoiding any kind of science whatsoever, so these crazy "scientists" with their "thinking" can't infect me with the crazy!

univar.jpg Posted by agrajag on January 16, 2004 07:57 PM
Link to comment

And don't even get me started on these "Earthquakes" that supposedly happen. Sounds like Weekly World News material to me!

univar.jpg Posted by agrajag on January 16, 2004 07:59 PM
Link to comment

Why hell, it seems even that whackjob George Bush thinks this global warming nonsense is real! Along with all those "Scientists" employed by the "Federal Government"!

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company The New York Times

June 3, 2002, Monday, Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section A; Page 1; Column 5; National Desk

LENGTH: 1259 words

HEADLINE: U.S. SEES PROBLEMS IN CLIMATE CHANGE

BYLINE: By ANDREW C. REVKIN

BODY:
In a stark shift for the Bush administration, the United States has sent a climate report to the United Nations detailing specific and far-reaching effects that it says global warming will inflict on the American environment.

In the report, the administration for the first time mostly blames human actions for recent global warming. It says the main culprit is the burning of fossil fuels that send heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

But while the report says the United States will be substantially changed in the next few decades -- "very likely" seeing the disruption of snow-fed water supplies, more stifling heat waves and the permanent disappearance of Rocky Mountain meadows and coastal marshes, for example -- it does not propose any major shift in the administration's policy on greenhouse gases.

It recommends adapting to inevitable changes. It does not recommend making rapid reductions in greenhouse gases to limit warming, the approach favored by many environmental groups and countries that have accepted the Kyoto Protocol, a climate treaty written in the Clinton administration that was rejected by Mr. Bush.

The new document, "U.S. Climate Action Report 2002," strongly concludes that no matter what is done to cut emissions in the future, nothing can be done about the environmental consequences of several decades' worth of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases already in the atmosphere.

Its emphasis on adapting to the inevitable fits in neatly with the climate plan Mr. Bush announced in February. He called for voluntary measures that would allow gas emissions to continue to rise, with the goal of slowing the rate of growth.

Yet the new report's predictions present a sharp contrast to previous statements on climate change by the administration, which has always spoken in generalities and emphasized the need for much more research to resolve scientific questions.

The report, in fact, puts a substantial distance between the administration and companies that produce or, like automakers, depend on fossil fuels. Many companies and trade groups have continued to run publicity and lobbying campaigns questioning the validity of the science pointing to damaging results of global warming.

The distancing could be an effort to rebuild Mr. Bush's environmental credentials after a bruising stretch of defeats on stances that favor energy production over conservation, notably the failure to win a Senate vote opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to exploratory oil drilling.

But the report has alienated environmentalists, too. Late last week, after it was posted on the Web site of the Environmental Protection Agency, private environmental groups pounced on it, saying it pointed to a jarring disconnect between the administration's findings on the climate problem and its proposed solutions.

"The Bush administration now admits that global warming will change America's most unique wild places and wildlife forever," said Mark Van Putten, the president of the National Wildlife Federation, a private environmental group. "How can it acknowledge global warming is a disaster in the making and then refuse to help solve the problem, especially when solutions are so clear?"

Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman, said, "It is important to move forward on the president's strategies for addressing the challenge of climate change, and that's what we're continuing to do."

Many companies and trade groups had sought last year to tone down parts of the report, the third prepared by the United States under the requirements of a 1992 climate treaty but the first under President Bush.

For the most part, the document does not reflect industry's wishes, which were conveyed in letters during a period of public comment on a draft last year.

The report emphasizes that global warming carries potential benefits for the nation, including increased agricultural and forest growth from longer growing seasons, and from more rainfall and carbon dioxide for photosynthesis.

But it says environmental havoc is coming as well. "Some of the goods and services lost through the disappearance or fragmentation of natural ecosystems are likely to be costly or impossible to replace," the report says.

The report also warns of the substantial disruption of snow-fed water supplies, the loss of coastal and mountain ecosystems and more frequent heat waves. "A few ecosystems, such as alpine meadows in the Rocky Mountains and some barrier islands, are likely to disappear entirely in some areas," it says. "Other ecosystems, such as Southeastern forests, are likely to experience major species shifts or break up into a mosaic of grasslands, woodlands and forests."

Despite arguments by oil industry groups that the evidence is not yet clear, the report unambiguously states that humans are the likely cause of most of the recent warming. Phrases were adopted wholesale from a National Academy of Sciences climate study, which was requested last spring by the White House and concluded that the warming was a serious problem.

A government official familiar with the new report said that it had been under review at the White House from January until mid-April, but that few substantive changes were made.

Without a news release or announcement, the new report was shipped last week to the United Nations offices that administer the treaty and posted on the Web (www.epa .gov/globalwarming/publications /car/).

A senior administration official involved in climate policy played down the significance of the report, explaining that policies on emissions or international treaties would not change as a result.

Global warming has become a significant, if second-tier, political issue recently, particularly since James M. Jeffords, the Vermont independent, became chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last year. Mr. Jeffords has criticized the president's policy.

The new report is the latest in a series on greenhouse gases, climate research, energy policies and related matters that are required of signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was signed by Mr. Bush's father and ratified by the Senate.

The convention lacks binding obligations to reduce gas emissions like those in the Kyoto Protocol.

Mr. Bush and administration officials had previously been careful to avoid specifics and couch their views on coming climate shifts with substantial caveats. The president and his aides often described climate change as a "serious issue," but rarely as a serious problem.

The report contains some caveats of its own, but states that the warming trend has been under way for several decades and is likely to continue.

"Because of the momentum in the climate system and natural climate variability, adapting to a changing climate is inevitable," the report says. "The question is whether we adapt poorly or well."

Several industry groups said the qualifications in parts of the report were welcome, but added that the overall message was still more dire than the facts justified and would confuse policy makers.

Dr. Russell O. Jones, a senior economist for the American Petroleum Institute who wrote a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency a year ago seeking to purge projections of specific environmental impacts from the report, said it was "frustrating" to see that they remained.

"Adding the caveats is useful, but the results are still as meaningless," Dr. Jones said.


univar.jpg Posted by agrajag on January 16, 2004 08:09 PM
Link to comment

"The computer models that are now being attacked don't have anything to do with whether or not global warming is occurring. All they attempt to do is predict the effects on the global weather system if the temperature rises by n degrees."

This is actually not completely true. Here is the website of a group at Oak Ridge that does simulations. The first step in any model is to test whether it reproduces known phenomena, namely the global climate behavior of the last fifty years. Then, they extrapolate the model into the future, with slightly varying initial conditions, and look for consistancies.

Again, take the time to contact these people. They will be more than happy to tell you about their work.

univar.jpg Posted by CJG on January 16, 2004 08:57 PM
Link to comment

Sorry, tags don't work in these comment postings. Here is the website:
http://www.csm.ornl.gov/cd.html

univar.jpg Posted by CJG on January 16, 2004 10:27 PM
Link to comment

Knowing that the sun has nothing to do with global warming helps me tremendously. CJG I promise that I will take time to read your blog on the subject.

I stand by my contention that all of this ballyhoo over global warming is driven more by a desire for continued and increased funding for a study of the phenomenon.

Not because anybody gives a damn about what the temperature of the Earth will be in 300 years but mainly because they have a mortgage payment due.

univar.jpg Posted by boortzlistener on January 16, 2004 10:34 PM
Link to comment

Well,

Think about this. All this "balleyhoo" has driven us to create, for instance, gasoline-electric hybrids, which get 75 miles to the gallon, with comperable performance to my Ford Focus, which gets 27 miles to the gallon.

When they come down in price (the price is inflated to make up for the R&D), the remaining car companies will be forced to compete, pushing gas efficiency up dramatically.

The average person puts 1000 miles on their car in one month. This amounts to an average savings of about 35 dollars a month (+ a tax benefit for using an "environmentally sound" vehicle).

All of which can be used to make that mortgage payment....

univar.jpg Posted by CJG on January 16, 2004 10:56 PM
Link to comment

An excellent point.

The only problem is that there will probably be more Hummers sold in this country next year than Hybrids.

Global warming as a scare tactic just does not do it for me. Hell, we will probably run out of oil long before Anarctica melts anyway ;-)

univar.jpg Posted by boortzlistener on January 17, 2004 01:04 AM
Link to comment

"Global warming as a scare tactic just does not do it for me. Hell, we will probably run out of oil long before Anarctica melts anyway ;-)"

You have really hit upon the real problem - fossil fuels are finite. This is a far more immediate problem than global warming.

It comes down to this: we can burn our fossil fuels, our we can use them to make plastic, medicine, etc.

You talk to energy people, and they really don't know how much petroleum we have left. Personally, I'd rather run nukes and fuel cells, and use the the petrol to make the cure for AIDS, or whatever.

univar.jpg Posted by CJG on January 17, 2004 01:30 AM
Link to comment

"You talk to energy people, and they really don't know how much petroleum we have left."

CJG,

I know you are probably familiar with the site www.dieoff.org aren't you?

Do you consider this site to be a conglomeration of bullshit or is their science acceptable to you?

univar.jpg Posted by boortzlistener on January 17, 2004 01:08 PM
Link to comment

Sorry guys. I did not mean to leave anybody out. I would like to know the opinions of anyone that has read the site as to whether or not they consider it valid stuff.

univar.jpg Posted by boortzlistener on January 17, 2004 01:11 PM
Link to comment

Aside from the valid point that fossil fuels are finite, and if they run out tomorrow, we're pretty much screwed, I agree with little of what they say.

I do have a friend in the industry (a consultant), who is more of the gloom and doon type, but I think that an energy shortage can be averted with improvements in efficiency (we are not even approching the theoretical maximum efficiency with fossil fuels).

Alternate energy sources warrent consideration. The main hope is fusion, although to date that has been a dismal failure. We will become more increasing dependent on fission to sustain out energy needs.

As energy gets more and more expensive, efficiency becomes a capitalist motive. Efficient fusion becomes a capitalistic motive as well. In order to make money off of fusion, the private sector needs to start working on it.

univar.jpg Posted by CJG on January 17, 2004 01:40 PM
Link to comment
Comments for this entry are closed. Please leave your notes on a more recent comment thread.