UK paper: “Global Warming Swindle” riddled with errors
posted at 9:19 pm on March 13, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Lots of shenanigans going on with the graphs used in the movie, apparently, most of all involving a key data set about temperatures over the last 120 years that was inaccurately sourced, allegedly outdated, and then manipulated to make it seem as though it was current. “There was a fluff there,” said the producer when questioned about it.
And that ain’t all:
If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument…
The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of “global cooling” between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention.
Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument. Mr Durkin also used a schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16 years old, which gave the impression that today’s temperatures are cooler than during the medieval warm period. If he had used a more recent, and widely available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed the past 1,000 years.
Really? I seem to recall reading recently that current temperatures don’t exceed those of the past 1,000 years, no matter how much Al Gore wishes it were true. Which right-wing rag did that come from again?
Ah yes. Yesterday’s New York Times:
[A] report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period…
“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.”
In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”
Exit question: Does it matter anymore?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Of course it was a “fluff.” In other words, a LIE. Typical.
hillbillyjim on March 13, 2007 at 9:26 PM
You know that “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is a movie that attempts to debunk global warming, right? In other words, the guy who’s trying to debunk it lied.
Allahpundit on March 13, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Now that global warming has become institutionalized? No.
But back to the rebuttal. I thought the most damning thing in that program was the evidence that in the polar ice core samples, elevated CO2 levels followed elevated temperatures, implying that global warming causes elevated CO2 levels, not the other way around.
The rebuttal doesn’t speak to that at all.
flipflop on March 13, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Didn’t follow the links–no good texting and commenting at the same time. Oops. Just so used to the Goracle’s “augmentation” of the truth…
hillbillyjim on March 13, 2007 at 9:34 PM
I tend to believe the debunking of global warming as a whole.
And if I’m wrong and the oceans do rise, then I got prime realty with a nice ocean view. Either way I win, until the carbon police come for me.
Kini on March 13, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Also remember the deep oceans are slow to change temps over long periods of time. It’s natures radiator.
Kini on March 13, 2007 at 9:40 PM
It’s a bit rich of The Independent to accuse anybody else of “distortions and errors” over global warming…
jic on March 13, 2007 at 9:41 PM
Flipflop, that is the question - has one of the central themes of this movie, that CO2 follows warming spells, been debunked? Mr. Durkin may have screded up or screwed with his facts, but the scientists he interviewed seemed to say what they mean and mean what they say.
There’s that “scientists” thing again. Which scientists? All scientists? Did Mr. Durkin cut that portion of his expert’s testimony, or would his experts disagree with that assertion being presented as fact? If the latter, an opinion held only by global warming proponents, then why include it at all?
Clearly, the third world is having it’s opportunity to modernize swindled by politicians from other continents who’s own combined CO2 emissions will always be multiples of the developing world’s output. That is the swindle of which Durkin speaks.
shuzilla on March 13, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Global warming is caused by daylight savings time. If the congress hadn’t've given us all this extra sun time, it would be cooler now.
- The Cat
MirCat on March 13, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Well then…there’s your solution to counter global warming.
In all seriousness, if the sulphate pollutants caused that much global cooling, even with the warming factor that was also contributing to the equation at that time added against ( subtracted from ) it, then just adding a tiny fraction of that past output of sulphate pollutants to the equation today will result in equilibrium.
I’ll take my 25 million in cash, Mr. Branson.
Perchant on March 13, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Note to Mr. Gore and his lovers, from National Geographic News - Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says.
Mars and Earth are warming from the Sun. Deep voice and concerned demeanor “What will aa come up with to be important now? My daddy always told me that I’m very impooortant”
Entelechy on March 13, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Funny they have all these “corrected” data sets that have suddenly contradict the previous sets…Sound like a student in lab, can’t get the “right” results so, tweaks the data.
So now, to offset global warming we need to put more sulfate pollutants in the air? This is all insane… Who knows what’s true now. The whole thing has been corrupted.
TheBigOldDog on March 13, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument. Mr Durkin also used a schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16 years old, which gave the impression that today’s temperatures are cooler than during the medieval warm period. If he had used a more recent, and widely available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed the past 1,000 years.
Notice, they give no proof of their claims. No graphs. No Scientists name. Nothing. Just charges. Some “widely available” graph with substantiation.
TheBigOldDog on March 13, 2007 at 10:13 PM
so the corrected grafts would not support the hypothesis that Durkin was putting forward, since the corrected grafts have been corrected in order to meet with approval from the IPCC executive summary for policy makers?
do I have this right?
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on March 13, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Yeah… that’s the ticket!
That there is no attempt to address the eight century lag between global temperatures and CO2, while picking on some other point, is reminiscent of a couple of other de-debunkings…
During Rathergate, some lefties were able to find one typewriter that could do superscripting, and another that did primitive proportional spacing, etc., and crowed that having found a dozen machines each of which could produce one of the characteristics of the infamous memo, that was somehow equivalent to finding a single machine that could produce them all.
Then “Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein”. Even Allah and Michelle admitted that he really does exist, even though he doesn’t. Someone with a different name does. In any event, the fact that someone exists still doesn’t prove the truth of the stories alleged to come from his anonymous mouth.
Taking a lesson from the Clinton White House, expect the Gorons to start referring to Global Warming Swindle as “thoroughly debunked”, and refuse to discuss any of the points it raises. In fact, if anyone does bring up the CO2 lag, it will be part of the baby thrown out with this bathwater.
The Monster on March 13, 2007 at 10:22 PM
The concept of scientific consensus reminds me of when scientists knew and could prove that the Earth was the center of the universe. That everything, including our sun revolved around our planet. What happened to debate and leaving open for change any scientific theory? True or not it seems that stifling debate to win your argument instead of proving your point repeatedly against all your peers. Energy conservation should be done especially here in America, but the public must be aware that it will cost us more in the short run.
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.” Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens)
jasoneverts on March 13, 2007 at 10:28 PM
The NYT link is no longer available without logging in.
Entelechy on March 13, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Maybe this will work for a while…
Entelechy on March 13, 2007 at 10:39 PM
I don’t know what you’re all worried about. John Edwards is on the case and he will take care of everything. He told me so today in an email:
IrishEi on March 13, 2007 at 10:43 PM
AP, Easterbrook was just on H&C did you grab it?
TheBigOldDog on March 13, 2007 at 10:43 PM
I have just one simple question.
It is the same question I have always had since this whole ‘man made global warming’ thing started.
There is an interesting page hosted by the Lake Powell science center which explains global climate change over a long period of time. About half way down the page there is a graph showing about 5 major climate change events.
My very simple question is this:
What caused the sudden global warming event that took place 570 million years ago at the pre cambian, cambian junction?
Several possible answers are presented on that page, but no where does it suggest that the global warming events which have occurred over the last ~600 million years were caused by all of those SUVs being driven around Los Angles.
Another article (which I failed to preserve) stated that current global climate conditions appear to occur ~10% of the time over the last 2 million years.
Google search term used was “glacial epoch”. Enjoy
rockhauler on March 13, 2007 at 10:47 PM
TheBigOldDog on March 13, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Does anyone have a graph of sunspot activity/cosmic rays correlating with temperature over time? Even if the correlation was very high in the data used, a decent correlation would still back up the theory.
Valiant on March 13, 2007 at 10:49 PM
When they can get the 10 day forecast right, then I’ll consider listening to the 20 year forecast.
Pablo on March 13, 2007 at 10:50 PM
If there are awards for screen captures, this one is a definite contender. Maybe Gore would show up to accept it on ap’s behalf.
Coyote D. on March 13, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Islam already has a plan for British carbon budgets.
This is like 1940 UK waking up to the threat of jitterbug injuries while Nazi troop ships are landing in Southhampton.
Hening on March 13, 2007 at 10:52 PM
Hi Entelechy,
Can you believe it? In the New York Times?!? Must be Urban Cooling or somethin!
Hey, shoot me an email, would ya? pablo 4200 at hotmail period com.
Pablo on March 13, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Well, the earth was in pretty bad shape after the original impact that killed the dinosaurs and it recovered just fine. I think it is still recovering actually. The earth got too cold to start with after that. I say leave the damn planet alone.
johnnyU on March 13, 2007 at 11:05 PM
This chart looks familiar. It’s from a group called Friends of Science who have loads of info and links. The one I’ve been most intrigued by is a hugely cranky, 31 page .pdf by deFreitas that does a good deal of debunking while remaining coherent to non-scientists like myself. It goes into actual reporting methods and artificial heat islands caused by urban areas that impact readings. I heartily suggest setting aside a bit of time to check it out.
tree hugging sister on March 13, 2007 at 11:23 PM
Am I the only one who wants to puke when reading this most ridiculous of paragraphs:
First of all which “scientists” explained this… the same ones that want us to believe in global warming? And why the hell don’t we toss some of that sulphate back out there to cool down? I mean, we’re obviously not going to stop emissions, and at best emission growth could only slow down, but won’t be less than it is today (again, I don’t think it matters because I’m not a warmist anyway) but why don’t we toss that sufphate back in the air to have a cooling period so that we don’t have to “reveal the true scale of global warming”. Even that line was obnoxious. As if there was some crowd screaming “Global warming is happening even though it’s getting colder, you’ll see! As soon as we stop these sulphates we’ll reveal the true scale of it”. Ughhh, such crap.
By the way, this was a biased movie and that wasn’t a secret (just look at the title) obviously they’ll use some stats biased in their side’s favor. Sure, I’d appreciate if they hadn’t… but do any of the “points” in the criticism have anything to do with the overall main points in the movie? That carbon increases FOLLOW temperature increases (not the other way around) and that this thing was conjured up for the bidding of Margaret Thatcher. She obviously isn’t responsible for what has followed, and definitely doesn’t shoulder all the blame. And the criticism doesn’t address other main scientific points (natural causes of CO2 FAR exceding anything we do, C02 being a fraction of “green house gases”, etc.)
RightWinged on March 13, 2007 at 11:30 PM
What I think funny is that I remember the left, AlGore included, decrying Bush’s Clean Air Act because they said that his “pollution offsets” did nothing to actually clean the air and provided incentives for corporations to pollute more by buying these offsets.
Now AlGore is hopping around the country selling his own brand of pollution offsets like Billy Mays on a late night infomercial and the left thinks they’re wonderful.
Personally I think the illegal immigrants will get us long before any global warming problems crop up.
Buzzy on March 14, 2007 at 12:17 AM
The main complaint here is that temperature graphs dont go all the way right up to 2007. This is very sloppy when new data is readily available. However, I fail to see how missing 2 decades of the most recent data is really that significant when you are analyzing thousands of years of trends. It is inherently flawed and faulty to rely on the recent 20 years of data when talking about thousands of years of trends. Many alarmists do try to use graphs of satelite data and say this outweighs long term data. That might be compelling if satellite data went back more then 40 years, but that is like switching measuring beakers right in the middle of a chemistry experiment. It is proper procedure to smooth the curve of graphs not spike it based on a few points.
Nothing in the article suggests or even attempts to argue the main points of the film it is more of a silly “gotcha” because the recent 20 years of warm temps werent included.
And I have a question, dont know the awnser but is the explaination about sulfate pollution from 1940 to 1970 reallly known to be correct? It seems to me China is ramping up this pollution faster then we have cleaned it up, but I dont know for sure. Seems quite possible that only has a regional affect, I dont recall any stories of the smog in Bejing reaching Seattle.
Resolute on March 14, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Man those eco-crazies are just… well… crazy.
Vincenzo on March 14, 2007 at 12:42 AM
I’ll keep polluting and do my part to try to try to catch up to atmosphere damage on the level of Krakatau.
Tim Burton on March 14, 2007 at 12:53 AM
Okay… so according to the GISS data, almost exactly half of the warming occured during almost exactly the first half of the period of time in question, before the bulk of the anthropgenic CO2 emissions.
The point still stands, in my opinion. How can they possibly try to argue that the 50% of the warming post-boom is manmade, while the 50% preboom–over rougly the same period of time–is not?
I’m seriously sick to death of them trying to explain away every little thing as some feedback to anthropogenic emissions. We can’t even have 30 year negative trends naturally, now? BS. It’s getting harder and harder to take the “science” seriously. It’s just a bunch of people using really big words and fancy video games to make up crap.
DaveS on March 14, 2007 at 1:04 AM
That picture is priceless. You simply must start using it on every Gore thread.
jaleach on March 14, 2007 at 1:26 AM
They say that the sulfate pollution that erupts from a volcano goes into the stratosphere and I guess it disperses evenly up there. Perhaps the industrial sulfites do the same? I don’t know.
However much sulfate pollution the Chinese are belching, they better not stop or the glaciers will melt and we’ll all be dead!
Perchant on March 14, 2007 at 1:29 AM
International Space Station astronauts have taken many images showing such pollution, and have reported being able to track that poluution accross the pacific to the United States. I have a vague recollection of various astronauts making the comment that they could see the pollution, and track it.
Another image shows smog from LA reaching Houston. If you have ever traveled I-10 out of LA, you can see the smog reaching Phoenix.
rockhauler on March 14, 2007 at 1:43 AM
Ahhhhhhhhhh…… I just farted and added to “Gorbal Warming”..
I feel a lot better now, but after reading the links, I must go wipe my arse!
Their feeling the heat boys and girls……. Keep up the Fight!
This is Sparta!
PinkyBigglesworth on March 14, 2007 at 1:59 AM
So I went looking around for a historical graph of sulphate pollution, and quickly learned that even if there was such a thing it would be useless because sulphate pollution is complex.
What I found interesting is this,
where it is truly amazing to see the groupthink in action. The author is trying to refute the recent findings in the correlation between cosmic rays and cloud cover. The graphs he is trying to refute are amazing in the detail of their match, and the author is not up to the task. He “refutes” them by quoting a generality from a 20 year old textbook.
pedestrian on March 14, 2007 at 2:20 AM
Oops, I hit submit by mistake. The link is http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/#more-412
The idea that any uncomfortable new idea can be dismissed as old news seems to me to have been popularized by the Clinton war room and kept alive on the left. What is new on the left is the routine use of the word denier to mean anyone who has not drunk the CO2 global warming kool-aid.
The cosmic data is new, accurate, and amazingly powerful. The old data by comparison is incredibly wobbly and requires calibrating historical data when there are huge uncertainties. The effect due to sulfates is only slightly smaller that CO2 and yet both must be known in order to set the parameters to determine how much of the current warming is due to CO2 versus the sun.
pedestrian on March 14, 2007 at 2:26 AM
Somebody should point out the huge cash cow Carbon Offset futures are, and point out how much the Goreacle is making off the whole global warming shtick.
Hmmmm…. Now who do we know with access to a major cable news network and a blog with a huge following to spearhead this?
liquidflorian on March 14, 2007 at 2:43 AM
If they re-edited the program and took out the points that the Independent were challenging, it would still make a damning case against the man made Global Warming, CO2 being the cause and the Science/Leftist mafia enforcing these beliefs.
uptight on March 14, 2007 at 3:00 AM
Of which the Independent itself is a high ranking capo.
uptight on March 14, 2007 at 3:01 AM
Where’s that friggin comet?
Coronagold on March 14, 2007 at 5:39 AM
Haha, where the hell do you guys get these pictures? So priceless of the Goracle, so sweet. One of these days you’ll have to use a “ManBearPig” screen shot of Gore from Southpark, now that would be sweet…
Roark on March 14, 2007 at 6:08 AM
Thanks!
Valiant on March 14, 2007 at 7:59 AM
So all of these facts come out, and all of the politicos who have gone on record, and all of the scientists who have gone on record will now say they made and error? I don’t think so. It does not matter now what comes out or what is proven, the mindset is established. We are causing it, and that is the end of the argument.
Gore has already stated that some things are not accurate, but the overall conclusion…regardless of the data…is correct. In other words, what “we” (the collective we of global warming) believe is more important than the facts.
That is why a scientific problem, is now a political left/right problem. The leftists do not need facts.
A religion has been established. Funding from the government is now unconstitutional. Hopefully some brave soul will take this to court and prove it has become a religion based on faith and not fact.
right2bright on March 14, 2007 at 9:07 AM
And the money quote from the LA Times article:
dalewalt on March 14, 2007 at 9:46 AM
Wiser words have seldom been spoken.
Or written, whatever.
But really…we’re darn puny compared to the planet we live on. At the most we can wreak a minor sort of temporary havoc and the planet will survive. We might not, but the planet will, and since too many of those concerned with “Global Climate Change” couldn’t care less about the people who inhabit the planet, that ought to be just fine with them.
Bob's Kid on March 14, 2007 at 10:04 AM
The problem with the whold CO2 arguement is that you can’t proove it.
When sea temperature rises is EMITS CO2… When global temperatures rise, there are more plants worldwide sucking up that CO2…
And as to the aerosol answer to the rise in temp between 40s and 70s? If there idea is correct, than we have a demonstrated CHEEP means of global temperature control.
Check this one out!!!
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/12343892/can_dr_evil_save_the_world
Romeo13 on March 14, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Follow the $$$ and you will find the lefty’s all the time This is just the 21st century’s liberal agenda to promote job growth and take the money from all the sane people period. Amazing, how many have heard about the “Carbon Footprint or Carbon Offset’s” until recently. The sky is falling so you better go to your local carbon cenetr to get your papers in order or the air poilice will book you danno. Give me a f***king break
bones47 on March 14, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Its tough to seek the truth through all of this dishonesty.
Zetterson on March 14, 2007 at 10:58 AM
The catalytic converters in cars converts the global cooling elements into global warming elements. That is why the cooling stopped and the warming began when the catalytic converters came onto the scene in the early 70’s.
Perchant on March 14, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Sulphate pollutants–
One reason the temperature drops after a large volcanic eruption is sulphates. Fortunately they’re rather short-lived in the atmosphere.
Mars–
The Mars temperature changes can be explained by “wobbles” in the Martian orbit caused by Jupiter, so it may or may not be a function of the sun.
Lies & Graphs–
Yes, I’m disappointed in the fact some data in the movie was fudged, because it’s a Coulterism. Because a small amount of information was outrageous, people think it’s then OK to toss out everything that was in the movie, even if much of that information is reliable!
There are some very valid points in the movie that still damage the claim to man-made global warming (I discuss this in length over at The Autopsy):
1: CO2 levels lag behind warming. They do not cause the warming, nor do the increased CO2 levels (which persist for decades on average) result in increased planetary temperatures. If that were the case, the increasing CO2 would cause a feedback loop that would make Earth uninhabitable, and that’s the greatest flaw of the Global Warming movement. It has been shown that Earth’s temperature varies, and those variations far outweigh any contribution by carbon dioxide-based warming.
2: The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is minor, and it’s greenhouse ability is trumped by water vapor. Additionally, CO2 sources come mainly from non-industrial sources. The percentage of man-made gas emitted into the atmosphere through human pollution is tiny.
3: Carbon dixoide-based warming is greatest in dry climates. 3/4 of the planet surface is water and the humidity over those areas makes CO2 based warming insignificant. Essentially, the CO2 based warming over areas of low humidity are resulting in a majority of earthly warming, which means the heat-transfer from those locations is enormous.
4: The effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation is fascinating and has an excellent correlation. Variations in the solar wind that deflect these particles could explain warming variations quite easily.
5: Enforced changes in the global economy to run ‘green’ power will end up harming developing economies, especially those in impoverished nations. Coupled with the ban on DDT manufacture, it certainly seems like environmentalists want to kill all Africans.
6: As for the graphs, the Independent says there are more “widely available” graphs that are better. They don’t explain where these graphs come from. Additionally, the Independent attacks the scientists themselves and their source of funding, a salient point brought up in the movie itself!
7: As for Durkin’s claim that “sun-spots” cause Global Warming– that’s not entirely correct. He doesn’t say sun-spots are the only predictor of global activity.
Nethicus on March 14, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Don’t confuse Gore and his rabid environmentalists with the facts - they have their minds made up. They are more interested in their political crusade, making money for themselves, and finding a way to weaken the United States that protecting the environment.
How do we call this Global Warming campaign a SCAM and FRAUD when it has been accepted as Politically Correct and therefore beyond question? Big surprise, the Left, our biggest weakness, is solidly behind this fraud for the reasons metioned above - not the least of which is to export wealth from the United States in a deliberate effort to weaken our nation.
omegaram on March 14, 2007 at 11:45 AM
The radio stations are referring to Mr. Gore’s ‘documentary’ as “An inconvenient Exaggeration” now.
Entelechy on March 14, 2007 at 12:35 PM
There is a way for Mankind to quickly, and inexpensively, reverse the global warming that, I am told, is caused by mankind.
This can be accomplished by dredging up the silicates (sand) from the beaches along both coasts and spreading them evenly over the surface of America which, I am told, is the main contributer of Global Warming. The silicates have a very high albedo (light reflectivity) and would redirect a significant percentage of sunlight back into space, thus lowering the amount of heat being generated by sunlight absorption. I call this the White America Solution. This would be a relatively inexpensive means to reduce the Mean Global Temperatures in a short time.
Of course, it would also force the Elite Liberals to abandon their summer cottages, but this is a small price to pay and would be appropriate as these rich elites use a proportionally higher percentage of energy and cause an equally proportional increase in the CO2 emissions that, I am told, cause Global Warming.
We need to start a White America Now! movement and we should present this proposal to Al Gore. Since Al is the Voice of Global Warming and is concerned about the increasing global temperatures, I am sure this proposal would meet with his approval and that he would promote it rigorously. Al can be the Face of White America and, when this program is successful, will be know as the Saviour of Mankind.
RedinBlueCounty on March 14, 2007 at 12:37 PM
We know industries didn’t slow down production so what was this cooling factor converted into? Was it converted into greenhouse gases the same way our cars began converting the cooling factor into greenhouse gases when they made catalytic converters mandatory?
Their own science blames the environmentalists for global warming.
Perchant on March 14, 2007 at 12:51 PM
My question is, when was the election held that gave these people complete ownership and control of all the carbon on the planet?
TheSev on March 14, 2007 at 2:48 PM
That photo is classic!
Photoshop…?
CliffHanger on March 14, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Junk science is junk science. All Al does is “junk science”. He should be running a medicine show.
duff65 on March 14, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Democrats, always trying to control anything that’s black.
RedinBlueCounty on March 14, 2007 at 8:14 PM
Interesting article. I love this part
Lets get this straight. A Yale economist attends a global warming confrence and complains about a possible cheap solution to global warming because then he can no longer use the issue as a reason to convince people to “change their lives“.
Resolute on March 14, 2007 at 9:18 PM
Ding! A way to solve global warming…through pollution!
In other words, we were on the right track all along, and this global warming is really the result of meddling by them darn enviros.
TexasDan on March 14, 2007 at 9:50 PM