"Weather Channel" foundercalls glogal warming hoax

[Mule]

I saw Glen Beck interview the founder of the weather channel. The guy is a long time & apparently esteemed meteorologist. He blew it up in short order. His opinion was that it is a concept that was adopted with religious fervor by the left and has little basis in fact.

[lendaddy]

He owns oil stocks I'm certain.

[RoninLB]

Calif/Arnold's CO2 clean air hoax is another one.

The only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to reduce the amount of gasoline consumed. If you increase mileage/gal by 50% you reduce CO2 by burning less gas. CO2/gal remains the same. Calif voters are supporting less powerful and smaller cars but Arnold hasn't told them that yet.

[sammyg2]

He is right. The weather channel guy, not arnold.

[CJFusco]

I'm still not sure what motivates people to deny global warming, other than a vested interest in fossil fuel futures. What would be the point of the "hoax", if it were indeed a hoax? Why would NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC devote huge amounts of time and effort to showing the effects that climate change has had on polar and sub-polar regions?

Just 2 months ago there was a story about how Malaria has spread to climates where it has never existed before. The reason? Mosquito nests are destroyed with the coming of each winter; because of this, malaria-carrying mosquitoes can only go so far north to breed. Since the temperature trends have been steadily upward, these mosquitoes are making it further and further every year. The systems of checks and balances in nature are breaking down.

I don't understand why many on the Right (not nearly as many as it used to be, though) persist on claiming that climate change is a hoax. What's their agenda? I am not an alarmist - I am a middle-of the road voter whose politics tend toward the liberal side (although I am conservative on many issues, including gun control and feel an attraction toward Barry Goldwater-type conservative tropes), but I am not a tree hugger, hippie, or ivory tower ivy-league elitist. To me it seems that those who claim that climate change is a clear and present danger have facts, figures, and scientific data to back it up. Those who claim that climate change is a hoax rely on the slightly Orwellian tactics of personal attack in order to discredit their opponents - nearly always without scientific data to back up their claims.

Of course, there are scientists on the Right's side. Two issues ago, OUTSIDE magazine ran an interview with a brilliant scientist named Juliet Elperin who has essentially become the touchstone for the Republican end of the climate change debate. But guess what, he isn't claiming that global warming isn't happening, a fact that Rush ignores. His claim is that humans aren't predominently to blame for climate change, that it's a natural process that the earth goes through.

Ok, fine. I disagree, but the claim doesn't sound unreasonable.

Anyone with a brain can see that climate change is happening. All you have to do is use logic: think about Carbon emissions. Human beings emit carbon dioxide, cars emit a lot of carbon dioxide. Plant life, however, through photosynthesis, takes in carbon dioxide and emits oxygen. Over the last 100 years, the population of the Earth has quadrupled. A LOT of these people have cars. At the same time, the simple fact of the matter is that there is a lot less plant life on Earth. The result is a hell of a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than oxygen. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Maybe the debate needs to move away from who/what is to blame for climate change, and toward what we can all do about it. Naturally, I love cars and don't necessarily want to see the internal combustion engine disappear (maybe we can find exemptions for sports cars? I know, this looks an awful lot like NIMBY syndrome).

[lendaddy]

I've never met anyone that claimed climate change is not occurring. The only argument is over the man made component and perhaps some manipulated data showing abnormal spikes in indicators.

[legion]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

I've never met anyone that claimed climate change is not occurring. The only argument is over the man made component and perhaps some manipulated data showing abnormal spikes in indicators.

It is occuring.

We just don't know in what direction or what is causing it, but but we should still do something about it. Think of the children.©

[CJFusco]

My personal opinion is that climate change IS a natural cycle that has been exponentially sped-up due to the human race's effects on the environment. A population spike of 100% every 25 years is not going to "leave no trace".

Long story short, these changes would have happened eventually - but we have to do something about it now instead of later. And I think it WILL happen. I'm an optimist - I think that once we have our backs against the wall, we can do amazing things (must be from watching the Red Sox these last few years).

[TerryBPP]

Fear is the greatest motivator. Real or not it is helping people change the way they live.

[Moses]

OK, I'll accept the notion that fossil fuels are wrecking the environment. It's obvious to me that the best chance for a clean large-scale shift away from fossil fuels is an energy policy base on nuclear energy. It's clean and safer than hydroelectric! Why do liberals have their heads so far up their asses about nuclear energy? I suspect it's because of the word "nuclear". Reminds them of bombs. And bombs are bad for children, flowers and small furry animals. Must be the same for nuclear energy. Morons.

[carnutzzz]

Originally Posted by CJFusco

I'm still not sure what motivates people to deny global warming, other than a vested interest in fossil fuel futures. What would be the point of the "hoax", if it were indeed a hoax? Why would NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC devote huge amounts of time and effort to showing the effects that climate change has had on polar and sub-polar regions?

Just 2 months ago there was a story about how Malaria has spread to climates where it has never existed before. The reason? Mosquito nests are destroyed with the coming of each winter; because of this, malaria-carrying mosquitoes can only go so far north to breed. Since the temperature trends have been steadily upward, these mosquitoes are making it further and further every year. The systems of checks and balances in nature are breaking down.

I don't understand why many on the Right (not nearly as many as it used to be, though) persist on claiming that climate change is a hoax. What's their agenda? I am not an alarmist - I am a middle-of the road voter whose politics tend toward the liberal side (although I am conservative on many issues, including gun control and feel an attraction toward Barry Goldwater-type conservative tropes), but I am not a tree hugger, hippie, or ivory tower ivy-league elitist. To me it seems that those who claim that climate change is a clear and present danger have facts, figures, and scientific data to back it up. Those who claim that climate change is a hoax rely on the slightly Orwellian tactics of personal attack in order to discredit their opponents - nearly always without scientific data to back up their claims.

Of course, there are scientists on the Right's side. Two issues ago, OUTSIDE magazine ran an interview with a brilliant scientist named Juliet Elperin who has essentially become the touchstone for the Republican end of the climate change debate. But guess what, he isn't claiming that global warming isn't happening, a fact that Rush ignores. His claim is that humans aren't predominently to blame for climate change, that it's a natural process that the earth goes through.

Ok, fine. I disagree, but the claim doesn't sound unreasonable.

Anyone with a brain can see that climate change is happening. All you have to do is use logic: think about Carbon emissions. Human beings emit carbon dioxide, cars emit a lot of carbon dioxide. Plant life, however, through photosynthesis, takes in carbon dioxide and emits oxygen. Over the last 100 years, the population of the Earth has quadrupled. A LOT of these people have cars. At the same time, the simple fact of the matter is that there is a lot less plant life on Earth. The result is a hell of a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than oxygen. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Maybe the debate needs to move away from who/what is to blame for climate change, and toward what we can all do about it. Naturally, I love cars and don't necessarily want to see the internal combustion engine disappear (maybe we can find exemptions for sports cars? I know, this looks an awful lot like NIMBY syndrome).

This wreaks of emotion and not scientific fact. How do you know there is less plant life now? Did you know that massive fires used to sweep across continents destroying millions and millions of acres at a time? When was the last time that happened?

Did you know that methane is 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas and that trees produce it? Should we cut down the trees to stop this harmful greenhouse gas?

You ask some basic questions that demonstrate your need for further research i.e. "what would be the point of a hoax?". The answer- it's a political platform used to gain election. Al Gore would rather say "If elected, I will save everyone from an untimely demise" than "I'm going to make the few people who actually pay taxes support the entire population that doesn't pay, and doesn't want to work."

Greed, money, power- those are the reasons for the hoax.

It's easily accepted by the masses because of our own hubris. "Certainly we're causing climate change! We're the center of the universe!!!"

People need to focus on the REAL threats to Western civilization- Islamic fundamentals. Anything else is noise and a distraction from the planet's real threat. Shame on politicians for not realizing this, and shame on you for letting it happen.

[Dan in Pasadena]

Originally Posted by carnutzzz

......and shame on you for letting it happen.

Shame on CJFusco for letting "Islamic fundamentals" happen???

Well, CJ DID post that, ..."those who claim that climate change is a hoax rely on the slightly Orwellian tactics of personal attack in order to discredit their opponents..." which would seem to be born out by your ludicrous claim against him here.

My feeling is that global warming IS a naturally occurring cycle AND that man has accelerated it by massive population growth and the Industrial Revolution and all that it brought...until (in geological terms) an "instant" ago we decided to try to somewhat clean up our act.

Look, can we afford to just keep on doing the "same old, same old" and wait to SEE if our global climate is permanently effed? Doesn't sound like a reasonable approach to me.

Oh and by the way, the world's problems don't stand in line by order of importance for resolution. Its not terrorism OR global warming. Its BOTH and dozens of others. True leaders know that there are multiple issues to address, THERE ALWAYS HAVE BEEN, and there always will be.

[CJFusco]

I perhaps should have overstated the idea that I'm not a scientist - I am a writer and a scholar, but my research has always been in literature and my studies of the natural sciences is sadly lacking. Like 100% of the human race, I can only understand foreign concepts through information that is handed down by experts. I have listened to both ends of this particular partisan debate, and it seems to me that one half supplies stats and figures and the other provides attacks on their enemies.

Maybe carnutzzz is correct... but I sincerely doubt that plant-produced methane gas has done more harm over the last century than human/technologically-produced carbon. Maybe I'm wrong. Like I said, I'm not a scientist. Moreover, I'm not here to debate what the cause of climate change might be, but rather that anyone who believes it isn't happening is in severe denial.

Oh, for the record, I am completely in favor of a transition to a nuclear-powered society - and I have been called a liberal - as long as someone can provide a solution to what should be done with the waste. Every solution has another problem to solve - the law of unexpected consequences - but nuclear power might be a solution worth exploring.

Originally Posted by carnutzzz

You ask some basic questions that demonstrate your need for further research i.e. "what would be the point of a hoax?". The answer- it's a political platform used to gain election. Al Gore would rather say "If elected, I will save everyone from an untimely demise" than "I'm going to make the few people who actually pay taxes support the entire population that doesn't pay, and doesn't want to work."

Greed, money, power- those are the reasons for the hoax..

I have to challenge you on this point, however. Whereas greed, money, and power can be blamed for many of civilization's foibles - Communism trying to pass itself off as Socialism comes to mind - I don't think that the Al Gore point is apt. He has repeatedly stated that he will very likely never again run for public office. I just read an interview with him about a week ago where he asserted this claim, even though many are clamoring to get him into the race. His motivations appear to be noble. If he ends up running for office in 08, I would retract this challenge (and still probably vote for Gore).

[Rearden]

"Cleaning up our act" (reducing pollution) is what got us into this mess. Back when the skies were hazy with smog, more of the sunlight was reflected away. Now we have clean air, but global warming. Who knows if it's anything other than a natural cycle. I'm enjoying the longer summers.

In any event, global warming is the latest greatest secular religion.

[cashflyer]

I believe in global warming, but I don't believe in global warming.

[CJFusco]

Originally Posted by Rearden

"Cleaning up our act" (reducing pollution) is what got us into this mess. Back when the skies were hazy with smog, more of the sunlight was reflected away. Now we have clean air, but global warming. Who knows if it's anything other than a natural cycle. I'm enjoying the longer summers.

In any event, global warming is the latest greatest secular religion.

Not quite accurate. Many UV rays were reflected away from smoggy regions like LA and Hong Kong, but the smog also insulated heat that was already there. Moreover, there is no smog over Greenland or the polar ice caps. As the glaciers melt, more rays are absorbed into the ocean, which keeps heat longer and doesn't reflect back as many rays as the icecaps. This, in turn, causes the icecaps to melt faster. It's a self-perpetuating process.

I'm not sure how much we'll be enjoying the longer summers as extreme weather patterns like hurricanes and tornadoes continue to worsen, and tropical diseases begin to spread north...

[kstar]

Sure are a lot of "feelings" and "opinions" being expressed here.

Oh boy . . .

Best,

Kurt

[Rick Lee]

Fine, so Gore isn't running for anything. It doesn't mean he doesn't want his ilk taking more control of everyone's lives. The whole global warming thing, while a true issue to those who believe it's man-made and that it can be slowed or reversed, is far more a political tactic for those who want to enhance government control over people's lives. Some try it through guilting us. Others try it through scare tactics. Either way, they want control. And either way, it's the height of human arrogance to think what we do makes an iota of difference in the vast history of the Earth. All of human history is less than a blink of an eye in the Earth's history and future. Most people even think our planet is something special in the universe when we're less than a grain of sand in all the Earth's deserts and beaches.

[Scooter]

How many of you realize that the vast majority of CO2 emissions is not from cars burning gas, but from coal burning for electricity? Cars do contribute quite a bit, but if we just cleaned up our electricity source, C02 levels would be way down. Too much focus is on cars in my opinion. Below is a study done in 1999 that you may find interesting. The coal numbers are worse today than they were in 1999.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#electric

[Palum6o]

Originally Posted by Scooter

How many of you realize that the vast majority of CO2 emissions is not from cars burning gas, but from coal burning for electricity? Cars do contribute quite a bit, but if we just cleaned up our electricity source, C02 levels would be way down. Too much focus is on cars in my opinion. Below is a study done in 1999 that you may find interesting. The coal numbers are worse today than they were in 1999.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#electric

Did they mention China in that at all? Speaking of coal, we're in for a treat in 2010.