Newt calls for “urgent” measures to reduce carbon in the environment

posted at 5:30 pm on April 10, 2007 by Allahpundit

We’ve already had one post threadjacked by forlorn conservatives expressing the Sullivanesque depths of their heart-ache over this so I figured I should toss up a post and just let you get it all out.

Most of us thought the debate today with Waffles was going to focus on whether humans are contributing to global warming. Think again.

Gingrich raised some discrepancies among the science that has led to the current data on climate change, but when asked pointedly about science doubters, like Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., Gingrich strongly held the case that climate change is a problem.

“What would you say to Sen. Inhofe and others in the Senate who are resisting even science? What’s your message to them here today?” Kerry asked.

“My message, I think is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere —”

“And do it urgently, now?” Kerry interrupted.

“Urgently, yes,” Gingrich said.

According to Human Events, he also conceded early on that scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports man-made global warming.

Because it’s Newt, though, even the bitter comes with some sweet:

Gingrich also said that up to now, conservatives have been slow to loathe with environmental policy because, he said, “For most of the last 30 years, the environment has a been a powerful emotional tool for bigger government and higher taxes. And therefore if you’re a conservative, if you hear these arguments, you know what’s coming next.”

Bingo. Here’s six minutes of video from CNN. The “urgency” exchange isn’t in there, but it’s worth a watch for what Gingrich has to say about luring China and India into green development. Hint: it doesn’t involve duets between Al Gore and Jon Bon Jovi. Click the image to watch.

ging.jpg


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Comment pages: 1 2

I recommend watching the video for Newt’s full address. As a conservative and environmental professional I think he is right on and taking a realistic approach. He advocates US leadership to develop technologies that reduce human contributions to global warming while allowing for continued developing country economic growth in the meantime. The added benefit to US will be reduced energy dependence.

It is a smart approach and conservatives would be wise to get on board. There will be a cost for the initiatives but should pay dividends down the road.

MRegine on April 11, 2007 at 9:40 AM

Every time I hear the words “global warming” I have flashbacks to the summer of 2001. Remember the “summer of the sharks?” That kid Jesse Arbogast getting his arm bitten off? (the fact that I can remember his name shows you how prevalent the coverage was).

From out of nowhere, for months, all the media talked about was sharks. They were coming to eat my children. Any second now. They even had REAL SCIENTISTS talking about the reasons for all the shark attacks … and (OF COURSE) it was all mankind’s fault, and Americans in particular. We’d overfished the oceans! The sharks were looking for new food sources – and it was us! Oh – the horror!

Am I the only one who remembers this?

It was just a smaller version of the global warming stupidity. In fact, it was PART of that stupidity, since the same idiots were behind it. (In fact, I heard at least one claim that global warming CAUSED shark attacks … Jesus wept.)

But that hysteria vanished that September for obvious reasons, never to return. Global warming will be the same. In two decades, it will be mocked the way smart people now mock the Y2K bug … or the “Population Explosion” theory that was supposed to have ended the world by now.

Speaking of world enders — is AIDS still around? I really can’t tell. I can’t even remember the last time I heard anybody in the media bring it up.

How about famine in Africa? Anybody old enough to remember the early 1980s, when that was all that was talked about? USA for Africa, “We are the World!” and all that? Whatever happened with that? I’m assuming that Africans are all happy and well-fed now. They must be. Otherwise the media, and the scientists, would still be focused on it.

Right? Or maybe not.

SARS? “Nuclear Winter?” Wait, how about the great Genetically Modified Food scare – that was a good one! And that MAD COW disease! Oooooo – scary!

And who can forget global cooling? Thank God we dodged that bullet.

It’s all the same. Always has been. Chicken littles shrieking at the gods to give their lives meaning. And in case you aren’t paying attention, its the SAME PEOPLE behind every other scare, too.

In future decades, your children will be watching them mock global warming on VH-1 as a silly fad right up there with Ugg boots … you watch. And by then, the whole world will be panicking about an impending martian invasion or something.

Nothing changes. Global warming is as dumb as any of it. No matter what we do, that next ice age really is still coming … hey, maybe we should start panicking about that now? Hmmm. Get me a mill in funding, and I’ll start the research. (The irony that our descendants will really probably be looking for ways to warm up the planet is always good for a chuckle).

Just. So. Stupid. And yet today, just like ALL politicians have to at least pretend to have some sort of religious faith (right, Allah?), I think Newt has just proven that, no matter what, you better at least pretend to believe in the Great Church of the Impending Global Meltdown.

Oh – by the way – remember those sharks? Here’s what all those hysterical scientists in 2001 never mentioned: it wasn’t a particularly bad year for shark attacks. 1995 was worse. 2000 – the year before – was worse. In fact, fatalaties in 2000 were 300% higher. (A whopping 11 worldwide, as opposed to just 4 in the SUMMER OF THE SHARK year).

Can you guess what happened next? Of course you can. Not only have sharks not taken over my swimming pool, the numbers have continued to fall. Exactly one death in Florida since the (gasp!) SUMMER OF THE SHARKS.

There’s global warming – and every other scare and hysteria like it. That’s what happened, what’s happening now, and what will happen. I guarantee it.

And nobody will notice that I’m right, because by then we’ll be on to the next great scare.

Meanwhile, there’s a crazy guy in Iran who REALLY wants to kill you and REALLY wants a nuclear bomb and is REALLY going to get it. But let’s ignore that kind of thing. After all, the temperature is expected to go up by a whole half a degree this century! Oh, the horror. Oh, well. Look at the bright side: a good nuclear war might cool the planet a bit. And who can’t support that?

Professor Blather on April 11, 2007 at 10:07 AM

I like carbon. Some of my best friends are made of carbon. Go carbon!

Halley on April 11, 2007 at 10:17 AM

Scientists have been trying to get the message out on global warming studies for over a dozen years. It’s a hot public issue now largely because of Gore and his followers. Parts of the US, Canada and Russia may actually benefit from global warming but other parts of the world would suffer greatly according to models. Whether it is possible for human intervention to alter the trend is not known, but scientific initiatives generally have side benefits. If there is a great public clamoring to address the issue, the smart approach is to encourage the technology approach rather than regulatory approach.

MRegine on April 11, 2007 at 10:22 AM

The public has become increasingly aware the science behind manmade global warming is a fraud. But maybe Americans like bogus science in pursuit of certain public policy objectives. Let’s look at it.

Read the whole article here:

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070410-101754-7163r.htm

db on April 11, 2007 at 10:28 AM

sorry, never thought I’d say it.

Newt = Libtard

*weeps profusely in his mini-wheats!

-Wasteland Man.

WastelandMan on April 11, 2007 at 10:56 AM

This is truly depressing…

canvas on April 11, 2007 at 11:03 AM

Let me rephrase that… anyone who knows ANYTHING about the underlying science knows that we are certainly affecting the climate. Consensus isn’t science, but spectroscopy and absorption spectra are science, and it is simply irrefutable fact that CO2 will absorb particular wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation that passes through the atmosphere, which is converted, ultimately, to heat.
….

DaveS on April 10, 2007 at 10:16 PM

And that was the theory behind global cooling in the 1970′s (which was “proven” by the nasty winter of 1977). Before any of those wavelengths can be reflected, they have to pass through the atmosphere first, and CO2 can absorb those wavelengths on the way down just as easily as when they are on the way up post-reflection. And the so-called consensus then was that too much CO2 in the atmosphere would reflect away those wavelengths before they could ever reach the ground, causing a massive cooling effect.

Thus, the science you are relying on for this part of your argument can be (and has been) used to make the case that the opposite effect will occur.

thirteen28 on April 11, 2007 at 11:17 AM

In California, right now, they are talking about banning the incandescent light bulb.The thinking is that it will save electricity and therefore help lower CO2 emissions.

This is the same stupidity by Government pinheads that gave us the low flow faucets and toilets that do not flush without plugging up with one flush. Instead of flushing once, everyone now has to hit the handle two or three times.

Tell me how any of these so called prevention solutions will have any effect on the global environment. If we had enacted the Kyoto treaty, in full, and all the countries abide by the agreement, by 2050 according to the UN Science Advisory Group it would result in a CALCULATED temperature reduction of 0.05 degrees centigrade. That amount is not even measurable on a global basis.

The economic costs of the treaty would be immense. We’re being asked to reduce energy use, not just by a few percent but, according to the Kyoto Protocol, by about 35 percent within ten years.

This type of thinking is pathological-IMHO

Then, there are the unintended consequences. Thanks to GWB, we are being forced to use ethanol which does nothing to help the environment. In fact, it increases green house gases because of the problems with producing and transporting ethanol. In addition, it reduces the MPG of your car because ethanol has less energy per gallon than gasoline.

Have you noticed that food prices are beginning to increase right along with the cost of fuel. That is because there is now a corn shortage used to feed cattle and pigs. Government mandated ethanol production is using all the corn that used to be used to feed cattle.

Arthur Daniel Midland is getting rich while our food prices skyrocket. For what? That is why these idiotic regulations are pathological.

ScottyDog on April 11, 2007 at 11:32 AM

Professor Blather on April 11, 2007 at 10:07 AM

Dead on. Excellent post.

thirteen28 on April 11, 2007 at 11:36 AM

It’s a hot public issue now largely because of Gore and his followers. Parts of the US, Canada and Russia may actually benefit from global warming but other parts of the world would suffer greatly according to models.blockquote>

Garbage in, garbage out.

thirteen28 on April 11, 2007 at 11:38 AM

Arthur Daniel Midland is getting rich while our food prices skyrocket. For what? That is why these idiotic regulations are pathological.

ScottyDog on April 11, 2007 at 11:32 AM

And how much is this costing the taxpayers? LOL

(For those of you who missed our exchange, Scotty claims that each American pays $11,000 per year to support illegals in our country. Yes, you read that right. When I made the observation that if this were the case, this cost would exceed the entire Federal budget, he was oddly unmoved. But I’m sure he’s got this right….)

honora on April 11, 2007 at 11:38 AM

I nominate Professor Blather for post of the thread.

Fred on April 11, 2007 at 11:58 AM

Ladies and Gentleman, I present to you……

ManBearPig!

Scorched_Earth on April 11, 2007 at 12:02 PM

And how much is this costing the taxpayers? LOL

(For those of you who missed our exchange, Scotty claims that each American pays $11,000 per year to support illegals in our country. Yes, you read that right. When I made the observation that if this were the case, this cost would exceed the entire Federal budget, he was oddly unmoved. But I’m sure he’s got this right….)

honora on April 11, 2007 at 11:38 AM

You know Honora, you are bitter little person that cannot stand to loose an argument. I stand by my math and I am still waiting for you to provide any peer reviewed research to dispute the facts.

I stated each taxpayer BTW but facts do not seem to bother you in the least in you quest to be nasty.

Today worldnetdaily published another updated report on the costs of Illegal Aliens to the taxpayers. My figures were based on the heritage foundations research specifically Robert Rectors excellent work.

Turns out the previous estimates were low, way low. His latest study, reveals that he under estimated the true costs of Illegal Immigrants without a high school diploma to the federal Government. You know,the taxpayers.

Here is an except from the article:

“A new study by the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector found a household headed by an individual without a high school education, including about two-thirds of illegal aliens, costs U.S. taxpayers more than $32,000 in federal, state and local benefits. That same family contributes an average of $9,000 a year in taxes, resulting in a net tax burden of $22,449 each year.

Over the course of the household’s lifetime that tax burden translates to $1.1 million.”

ScottyDog on April 11, 2007 at 12:10 PM

thirteen28

Before any of those wavelengths can be reflected, they have to pass through the atmosphere first, and CO2 can absorb those wavelengths on the way down just as easily as when they are on the way up post-reflection….

That’s nonsense… the energy is reflected a a much longer wavelength which is absorbed by CO2. It is not absorbed on the way down.

Furthermore, even if it WERE absorbed on the way down, it would still result in a net gain of heat energy in the upper atmosphere.

Once again, guys, this part of the science is not disputed by ANYONE. It is solid, VERY well understood science.

Please… PLEASE… stick to stuff that is actually up for debate, like how much is actually our fault, is it bad, what would it cost, is it worth it, yada yada.

… And the so-called consensus then was that too much CO2 in the atmosphere would reflect away those wavelengths before they could ever reach the ground, causing a massive cooling effect.

That’s not true. There wasn’t a consensus about cooling in the 70′s, just as there is no consensus about the extent of human influence today.

DaveS on April 11, 2007 at 12:12 PM

Crash and burn, Mav, crash and burn

doginblack on April 11, 2007 at 12:29 PM

That’s great, DaveS. You’re really kicking ass on one variable out of literally thousands of variables that affect global climate. We get it. CO2 does something or other to sunlight wavelength thingees.

Is it gonna rain on Friday? I’ve got a little league game.

Fred on April 11, 2007 at 12:35 PM

I stated each taxpayer BTW but facts do not seem to bother you in the least in you quest to be nasty.

No you did not. However, assume you did. There are approx 135 million individual taxpayers according to the IRS. $11,000/per year equates to:$1,485,000,000,000, or roughly half the entire fed budget.

“A new study by the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector found a household headed by an individual without a high school education, including about two-thirds of illegal aliens, costs U.S. taxpayers more than $32,000 in federal, state and local benefits. That same family contributes an average of $9,000 a year in taxes, resulting in a net tax burden of $22,449 each year.

Over the course of the household’s lifetime that tax burden translates to $1.1 million.”

ScottyDog on April 11, 2007 at 12:10 PM

You’re getting warmer. So if the tax burden per illegal family is $22,499/year, how does that relate to your statement that each taxpayer pays $11,000 per year? (I’ll let it slide that you limited your comments to only fed spending before).

That would mean that there is a family of illegal for every 2 taxpayers. (OK, stop and review before we go on. Are you with me?)

There are about 135 million returns filed according to the IRS. So the conclusion based on your “data” would be that there are over 65 million illegal families

I used to have a young fellow who worked for me, he headed up the accounting dept in our division. He used to get very upset with some of the folks who would handle the yearly physical inventory, and likened them to a tribe in New Guinea or some such place whose method of counting was: one, two, many. Sound familiar?

honora on April 11, 2007 at 12:39 PM

That’s great, DaveS. You’re really kicking ass on one variable out of literally thousands of variables that affect global climate.

I agree with the sentiment. We can calculate, roughly, CO2 forcing, but noone can even pretend to understand all of the resulting feedbacks, etc.

DaveS on April 11, 2007 at 12:56 PM

That’s nonsense… the energy is reflected a a much longer wavelength which is absorbed by CO2. It is not absorbed on the way down.

The sun emits electromagnetic energy across the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Some of that energy reaches the earth’s surface, some of it is absorbed there, some of it is reflected back into the atmosphere. Electromagnetic energy of those wavelengths can be absorbed either upon entering the atmosphere from space or upon reflection from the earth’s surface. The fact that a large amount of that energy gets through is due to the fact that earth’s atmosphere is very CO2 poor relative to other times in it’s geological history (currently around 0.04%).

Furthermore, even if it WERE absorbed on the way down, it would still result in a net gain of heat energy in the upper atmosphere.

If global warming is indeed occurring, there will be a net gain of heat energy in the upper atmosphere anyway.

Heat rises. More heat on the surface will translate into more heat in the upper atmosphere.

Thermodynamics 101.

That’s not true. There wasn’t a consensus about cooling in the 70’s, just as there is no consensus about the extent of human influence today.

DaveS on April 11, 2007 at 12:12 PM

Are you sure about that?

BTW, there is are Russian scientists today that claim global cooling is on the way. In fact, there is a consensus among Russian scientists on global cooling.

So based on indisputible science, should I believe them or believe the global warming crowd? Which is it?

thirteen28 on April 11, 2007 at 1:07 PM

To get an understanding of how insignificant CO2 is in the greenhouse process, check out the following article. Here’s a snippet. The article itself contains lots of real data and pretty pictures.

I like the way that my colleague, Jan Veizer at the University of Ottawa, a world-renowned expert on the carbon cycle, lists the relative importance of greenhouse gases when he speaks on the topic. He points out that the number one greenhouse gas is water vapor, the number two greenhouse gas is water vapor, the number three greenhouse gas is water vapor, the number four greenhouse gas is water vapor and CO2 is a distant fifth. Of course, this list is somewhat facetious as there is only one type of water vapor. However, he lists the relative importance of greenhouse gases this was to indicate just how insignificant the tiny carbon dioxide cycle is to the water vapor cycle that it piggybacks on.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M

db on April 11, 2007 at 1:09 PM

honora
Did you read the latest article?

Just what are you trying to say is incorrect in the context of the debate?

The $11,000 figure was from the previous study done by Robert Rector that Jeff Sessions presented to the Senate during the debate over the cost of Amnesty to the taxpayers.

My point is that Illegals do not provide a net gain to the US economy which you told me yesterday was BS.

There have been some estimates that there are 60 million illegals in the country right now and I tend to believe that number from what I see happening in California for myself.

GWB has been saying there are only 12 million since he took office and has never revised the number up even though estimates are that over 4-6 million are coming across the border every year.

In 2003, Bear Stearns did a study which found that conservatively that there were 20 million illegals in this country in 2003 not including anchor babies or their extended chain migration families. Where does that leave us now in the year 2007.

I am a Minuteman and have been down on the border. The last time I went down there we spotted over 300 illegals coming across in one night. I was spotting for only 6 hours and was monitoring a 1/2 mile stretch of the border at Campo. You do the math for the rest of the 2500 miles of border that is wide open to the invasion from Mexico.

In short we are being invaded by a foreign country, namely Mexico. Two, the costs of illegal immigration to the federal government are astronomical and not a benefit to our economy.

Robert Rector estimates that the total cost to the federal Government over the next 10 years based on current numbers will be 3.2 trillion dollars for low-skill households. Since the vast majority of Illegal Immigrants do not even have a high school education, they qualify as low skilled households.

Since you seem to have a background in accountanting, you do the numbers. 1.1 million over the lifetime for uneducated illegal immigrants if they are given Amnesty and can apply for the all the goodies in the welfare benefits that they will become eligible to receive.

You said yesterday the following:

I am very much opposed to illegal immigration. However, let’s keep within the bounds of truth: illegals are a net positive benefit for the economy.
honora on April 9, 2007 at 10:25 AM

In light of the overwhelming evidence that Illegals are costing taxpayers a fortune in entitlements and will cost even more if they are legalized through Amnesty, please explain to the forum why “illegals are a net positive benefit for the economy”.

ScottyDog on April 11, 2007 at 1:44 PM

Professor Blather on April 11, 2007 at 10:07 AM

Great post.

Rick on April 11, 2007 at 1:49 PM

In light of the overwhelming evidence that Illegals are costing taxpayers a fortune in entitlements and will cost even more if they are legalized through Amnesty, please explain to the forum why “illegals are a net positive benefit for the economy”.

ScottyDog on April 11, 2007 at 1:44 PM

The economy is made up of lots of variables. You claim that illegal are a drain on the resources that taxpayers pay for–education, medical care etc. I accept that, though as I believe you not concede, the initial numbers you cited were wildly inaccurate. This is not the sole measure of the contribution (positive or negative) of this, or any group.

Illegals provide cheap labor, which in turns produces fat profits for goods and services. While these profits may not and probably do not benefit you personally and directly, they are a component of the overall economy. GNP and all that. So you look at the cost and the contribution and figure the delta. Everything I have read shows a net positive.

Now there is a cost that is not calculated: the depressing effect of this flood of low wage workers on our own citizens’ wages.

Like I said, several times, I object to our immigration “policy”, but I believe that the actual facts are enough to make the argument without going into crazy Sessions land.

honora on April 11, 2007 at 2:24 PM

honora on April 11, 2007 at 2:24 PM

Solution = just nationalize it all

Rick on April 11, 2007 at 2:35 PM

honora on April 11, 2007 at 2:24 PM

Solution = just nationalize it all

Rick on April 11, 2007 at 2:35 PM

Sorry for the double posting of my SARCASTIC comment above.

Rick on April 11, 2007 at 2:36 PM

I never thought I’d ever say this in my entire life, but:

honora, quit feeding the troll.

db on April 11, 2007 at 2:38 PM

I never thought I’d ever say this in my entire life, but:

honora, quit feeding the troll.

db on April 11, 2007 at 2:38 PM

Hey db what is your problem? I have ignored your personal attacks in the past but where do you get off calling me a troll.

ScottyDog on April 11, 2007 at 2:50 PM

Geez um…Hey Newt, could you please translate your theories on global warming into Spanish. Since as an American, I can only speak and understand English, I won’t be able to understand anymore stupid things you are saying! Thank you!

soulsirkus on April 11, 2007 at 3:04 PM

Do I really want to read up the thread and find out how you krazy kids went from global warming to Mexican illegals?

Ah, who I am to talk. I wanted to talk about sharks. Cuz sharks are cool. Everybody likes sharks.

So – can I play? Are we blaming illegal immigrants for global warming, or blaming global warming for illegal immigration?

I get confused. I should just consult the Goracle on this. He’d know.

Professor Blather on April 11, 2007 at 3:08 PM

ScottyDog on April 11, 2007 at 2:50 PM

1) Sorry, just a joke. Aimed more at her (she is often called a troll) — sorry to you too, honora, if I offended you.

2) I don’t recall attacking you.

db on April 11, 2007 at 3:11 PM

Do I really want to read up the thread and find out how you krazy kids went from global warming to Mexican illegals?

Ah, who I am to talk. I wanted to talk about sharks. Cuz sharks are cool. Everybody likes sharks.

So – can I play? Are we blaming illegal immigrants for global warming, or blaming global warming for illegal immigration?

I get confused. I should just consult the Goracle on this. He’d know.

Professor Blather on April 11, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Sweet mother of God!!! I am finally making headway with this guy and the Blathster rears his ugly (figuratively only of course) head. What’s a girl to do?

honora on April 11, 2007 at 3:14 PM

1) Sorry, just a joke. Aimed more at her (she is often called a troll) — sorry to you too, honora, if I offended you.

2) I don’t recall attacking you.

db on April 11, 2007 at 3:11 PM

(sotto voce)…you’re in trouble…you’re in trouble…

honora on April 11, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Newt, time to fess up to your latest mistress! Miss Stupidity!

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on April 11, 2007 at 3:18 PM

Sweet mother of God!!! I am finally making headway with this guy and the Blathster rears his ugly (figuratively only of course) head. What’s a girl to do?

honora on April 11, 2007 at 3:14 PM

Don’t sweat it, sis. You go ahead and have your fun. I wasn’t even interested enough to find out how exactly you latched onto illegal Mexicans on a thread about Newt’s views on global warming.

And in case it wasn’t abundantly clear, the whole global warming thing is so mind-numbingly stupid that there’s not much to say on the subject. Not when I could be learning about Anna Nicole’s nappy-headed baby. Or something. Slow news day.

Knock yourself out. But try not to say anything too enormously stupid in a historical sense. I did some hard ab work yesterday, and laughing at some patented Honora ignorance might be enjoyable, but it would hurt. So let’s leave your views on Johnson’s second term and your theories on military matters for another day, kay? I know you don’t want me cracking another rib. That’s wrong.

Okay, back to them damn Mexicans. I shoulda know global warming was all their fault.

Professor Blather on April 11, 2007 at 3:24 PM

Professor Blather

Just so you, know I had no intention of hijacking this thread.For that, I apologize.

The discussion about illegal immigration was from another thread started yesterday; O’Reilly, Geraldo go berserk over illegal alien drunk driver

I had to audacity to assert that illegal immigration was not a benefit to our economy and Honora got pretty nasty as usual. I made a comment about the global warming issue this morning and Honora immediately attacked my global warming comment based on the previous days exchange.

I sincerely apologize, I should have just ignored him or her.

********************
db no problem, I did not realize you were just kidding. I apologize for being so sensitive.

ScottyDog on April 11, 2007 at 3:24 PM

Professor Blather

Just so you, know I had no intention of hijacking this thread.For that, I apologize. …. I made a comment about the global warming issue this morning and Honora immediately attacked my global warming comment based on the previous days exchange.

Whatever. Truly not interested. I’m busy learning new rap lyrics. And hair styling tips.

Honora ain’t the smartest cookie. Arguing with him/her is probably going to kill some brain cells and shrink your penis. Consider yourself warned. If you get bored though, its always fun to bring up her assertion about Lyndon Johnson’s second term. She made that boo boo months ago, and its still cracking me up.

Now back to the Mexicans. They’re global warming deniers, aren’t they? I knew it. Bastards.

Professor Blather on April 11, 2007 at 3:29 PM

(sotto voce)…you’re in trouble…you’re in trouble…

honora on April 11, 2007 at 3:17 PM

(Chuckles) No, It’s just never my intent to personally attack anyone here, just challenge ideas, point out hypocrisy, closed-mindedness, etc. I felt I was misunderstood and took it upon myself to try to clear the air. I hope the humor wasn’t lost entirely — I certainly cracked myself up :^)

db on April 11, 2007 at 3:30 PM

So – can I play? Are we blaming illegal immigrants for global warming, or blaming global warming for illegal immigration?

Believe it or not, Blather, the last issue of Atlantic Monthly blamed Darfur on global warming. I am not making this up.

thirteen28 on April 11, 2007 at 5:00 PM

thirteen

Electromagnetic energy of those wavelengths can be absorbed either upon entering the atmosphere from space or upon reflection from the earth’s surface. The fact that a large amount of that energy gets through is due to the fact that earth’s atmosphere is very CO2 poor relative to other times in it’s geological history (currently around 0.04%).

No, it cannot be absorbed by CO2 on its way in. The amount of energy that reaches the earth has nothing to do with CO2, at least not directly. There are feedbacks, however. CO2 affects what leaves the Earth.

If global warming is indeed occurring, there will be a net gain of heat energy in the upper atmosphere anyway.

Dude, no offense, but you are just making stuff up as you go. Here’s what basically just transpired, in another language: I said, “If you turn the car key, the engine will turn on.” And you said, “If you start the car, the engine will turn on anyway”.

Heat rises. More heat on the surface will translate into more heat in the upper atmosphere.

Dude, this isn’t your living room. The atmosphere is an incredibly complex system. All theories of warming due to CO2 involve the upper atmosphere warming first.

Regarding the “global cooling”, despite what you have been told, there was never a “consensus” of that in the seventies. It was a media phenomenon, for the most part–as evidence by the sensational Time cover you just linked–and much like the media circus today around the fabricated “consensus”.

I’m just trying to get you guys to quit saying stupid crap, and latching onto every little urban legend that you think supports your case. After 140+ comments of you guys crying about “consensus”, you just suddenly decided that “Consensus” was fine when some blog told you that Russian scientists had established a consensus about cooling.

That doesn’t make you look so good in a debate. Rather, it makes you look like you will just latch onto anything that superficially supports something you want to believe, even when it directly contradicts something you said just a few comments up.

And I tend to believe the Russian study that predicts cooling. You guys need to learn to actually THINK about things instead of reflexively trying to spin every little thing you read… this comment section has been exhibiting more and more of the sort of mindless group-think that I expect from Kos for months now.

I’m trying to get you to realize that just because some column says “Remember the global cooling from the 1970′s?”, it doesn’t actually mean there was some consensus in the 1970′s that there was anthropogenic global cooling. Just like, today, when you read an article in Time about global warming, it doesn’t actually mean that there is a true consensus on global warming today.

DaveS on April 11, 2007 at 6:14 PM

Just like, today, when you read an article in Time about global warming, it doesn’t actually mean that there is a true consensus on global warming today.

DaveS on April 11, 2007 at 6:14 PM

This is probably the whole point that many have tried to articulate.

There is no consensus, although those who stand to gain from it claim there is, and are trying their damndest to shut off debate.

Knowing there is no consensus, and knowing there are many experts who disagree with those who claim consensus, makes it rather disheartening to see Newt take the position that he did.

91Veteran on April 11, 2007 at 9:57 PM

Newt has always shown himself to be an “Establishment Republican” so this comes as no surprise to me. I had little respect to lose for Newt, but whatever little there was, its all gone now.

Maxx on April 11, 2007 at 11:26 PM

I’m as shocked as you guys are about these particular comments from Newt and for now, thats all I have to go on. You guys maybe right, maybe he has crossed the line into RINO-land but I tend to doubt it. I hope it ain’t so. I am going to go find out what Newt really thinks on the matter before I pass judgement based on this. I suggest you all do the same.

RobertCSampson on April 12, 2007 at 12:42 AM

Dude, this isn’t your living room. The atmosphere is an incredibly complex system. All theories of warming due to CO2 involve the upper atmosphere warming first.

In your other post, you implied (by your assertion that CO2 can’t absorb the same wavelengths on the way down that it absorbs post reflection) that there was no excess heat in the upper atmosphere.

Regarding the “global cooling”, despite what you have been told, there was never a “consensus” of that in the seventies. It was a media phenomenon, for the most part–as evidence by the sensational Time cover you just linked–and much like the media circus today around the fabricated “consensus”.

No consensus? Get the f outta here? Really?

Why do you think we’ve been arguing that point against those that repeatedly tell us that there is such a consensus? It took you this long to figure out the fundamental point we were making? Geez, you’re sure one to make this kind of comment:

Dude, no offense, but you are just making stuff up as you go. Here’s what basically just transpired, in another language: I said, “If you turn the car key, the engine will turn on.” And you said, “If you start the car, the engine will turn on anyway”.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

And why do you think we’ve been criticizing Newt for essentially agreeing with the so-called consensus when he concedes to the stipulation that humans are causing global warming, as illustrated in this exchange:

“My message, I think is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere —”
“And do it urgently, now?” Kerry interrupted.
“Urgently, yes,” Gingrich said.

Then you go on with this:

And I tend to believe the Russian study that predicts cooling. You guys need to learn to actually THINK about things instead of reflexively trying to spin every little thing you read… this comment section has been exhibiting more and more of the sort of mindless group-think that I expect from Kos for months now.

I’m trying to get you to realize that just because some column says “Remember the global cooling from the 1970’s?”, it doesn’t actually mean there was some consensus in the 1970’s that there was anthropogenic global cooling. Just like, today, when you read an article in Time about global warming, it doesn’t actually mean that there is a true consensus on global warming today.

Did it possibly occur to you that the whole reason I brought those articles into the picture in the first place was to make the exact same point you just did (i.e. that there is no consensus despite the repeated claims to the contrary)?

I dub thee, Dave S., Master of the Obvious(TM).

Maybe if you spent less time myopically focusing on one small variable among an infinite number that affect global temperatures, you could have figured that out sooner and saved yourself a lot of typing.

But thanks for playing, it was fun.

thirteen28 on April 12, 2007 at 2:47 PM

Oh, and BTW, DaveS, since you now agree that there is no consensus, I’ll remind you of this statement from your first post in this thread:

What he said was absolutely correct. There is certainly a consensus that we are contributing to it. There is no question that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will affect the climate, one way or the other. The questions are how significant is our contribution and is climate change bad or avoidable even if it is? There is no evidence of any consensus on those questions.

… so chill out and quit embarrasing yourselves

DaveS on April 10, 2007 at 10:00 PM

You too.

thirteen28 on April 12, 2007 at 2:52 PM

LegendHasIt on April 10, 2007 at 8:22 PM

Yeah…what you said.

Jaibones on April 12, 2007 at 4:18 PM

Bla…bla…bla…..Lets say for the sake of the argument, there is no global warming….Hello!? Do we have an inexhaustable supply of oil? Should we start to develop alternative fuels? And if so, why not now and why not clean fuels?

All this whining about non-global warming is just a knee-jerk reaction to anything liberal. Newt is not, and never will be a knee-jerk reactionary to ideas regardless of their origination. His brilliance is demonstrated in his ability to take the libs issue and accomplish it by conservative means. Thereby taking the issue away from them.

Just pay attention to Kerry’s reaction to Newts answer. He was at a total loss for words. At that point, Newt started taking the issue away from him.

Brilliant!

csdeven on April 13, 2007 at 12:54 AM

Honora ain’t the smartest cookie. Arguing with him/her is probably going to kill some brain cells and shrink your penis. Consider yourself warned. If you get bored though, its always fun to bring up her assertion about Lyndon Johnson’s second term. She made that boo boo months ago, and its still cracking me up.

Now back to the Mexicans. They’re global warming deniers, aren’t they? I knew it. Bastards.

Professor Blather on April 11, 2007 at 3:29 PM

So Johnson didn’t have a second term? Tell me, who won the 1964 election?

honora on April 13, 2007 at 9:23 AM

What there is NO debate about, though, is the fact that CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation as it passes through the atmosphere. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA… (a little “Rush” lingo there, folks), and the fact that CO2 has increased significantly since 1940.

And there is zero, zilch, nada, data that suggests that increased CO2 is 1) primarily man made or 2) a net bad thing. CO2 levels have risen and fallen throughout the history of the planet, with and without man. Take a look at the Vostok graph. What causes CO2 to spike 300,000 years ago? Flinstone SUV’s? There is a theory, and that’s all it is, that humans have caused CO2 levels to be higher than they have been before. There is no scientific proof. Consensus means dick. That’s not science.

Better yet, tell me why Newt didn’t state the very simple scientific fact that CO2 is one of the building blocks for growth of plant life and crops? How does Newt, or anyone else know, that an increase in CO2 isn’t a net beneficial thing? We do have a hunger problem on the planet, maybe an increase in CO2 is just what the doctor ordered. In any case, it might not be worse than the global cooling crisis of the 70’s. Remember that? A lot of consensus around that one, too.

I say again, I am not in favor of doing anything until we know what really is the cause of global climate change and if it is a net positive or negative. Newt would do better to lend his prestige to facts.

JackStraw on April 10, 2007 at 10:52 PM

Consensus means nothing? So I guess you don’t favor the notion of peer review?

As for me, the National Academy of Scientists says “A” and Rush Limbaugh says “B”. Hmmm, this is a pickle…LOL

honora on April 13, 2007 at 9:28 AM

Consensus means nothing? So I guess you don’t favor the notion of peer review?

As for me, the National Academy of Scientists says “A” and Rush Limbaugh says “B”. Hmmm, this is a pickle…LOL

honora on April 13, 2007 at 9:28 AM

Which “consensus” are you talking about honora? Are you talking about the fraudulent list of 2,500 scientists that the UN has, where the significant finding AGAINST the theory of man made global warming were edited out. And many scientists names on the list that ACTUALLY DO NOT CONCURE with the theory of man made global warming…..

or

Are you talking about the all volunteer consensus of over 17,000 (Seventeen-THOUSAND) persons ….. mostly with advanced degrees, that concur that man made global warming is a total FRAUD.

Which “consensus” are you talking about?

Maxx on April 13, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Which “consensus” are you talking about?

Maxx on April 13, 2007 at 12:33 PM

I clicked the link you gave. You cannot be serious. This group has a PO box as their address and the list of names is just that–a list, no associated university or corporate or institute or any published articles.

The consensus I refer to is that of the NAS.

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer

honora on April 13, 2007 at 1:49 PM

honora…. you are the one who’s got to be joking. Did you bother to read the footnotes of the document your top link pointed to? Well here are those footnotes so you can read them.

Notes and references
1 This statement concentrates on climate change associated with global warming. We use the UNFCCC definition of climate change, which is ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’.

2 IPCC (2001). Third Assessment Report. We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

3 IEA (2004). World Energy Outlook 4. Although long-term projections of future world energy demand and supply are highly uncertain, the World Energy Outlook produced by the International Energy Agency (IEA) is a useful source of information about possible future energy scenarios.

4 With special emphasis on the first principle of the UNFCCC, which states: ‘The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof’.

5 Recognising and building on the IPCC’s ongoing work on emission scenarios.

Do you see what they are relying on? The very same study that I referred to in my earlier post, from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

YES… the one that has been totally discredited by the fact that it omitted all scientific comment that did not agree with the IPCC’s agenda. The same report that listed 2,500 names of persons, of which many were in total disagreement that man-made global warming was occurring!

And then did you look at the bottom of this report you pointed to? Totally unlegible signatures…… WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE ? They didn’t even print their names under their signatures to allow us to identify them! Are they ashamed of what they are saying? They should be !

And the strongest statement I saw in this “report” was…..

It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. (the “2″ refers back to the IPCC report as shown int the footnotes I quoted above !)

Oh boy… that’s really some consensus ! Unlegible names signed to an article that uses a debunked and fraudulent report as it’s source!

Now look again at the Petition I pointed you to. Firstly the names are all TYPED and legible, along with their credentials and degrees. There are doctors physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, environmental scientists, and none of these people were paid for their opinions. They have volunteered their good names to stand up to the fraud of man-made global warming. And did I mention that there are over SEVENTEEN-THOUSAND OF THESE NAMES…. oh…. yeah, I guess I did mention that.

Maxx on April 13, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Newt is right. Kerry….well, he just doesn,t get it. I remember ol’ Ma Richard’s comment on Bush No.# 1;
“Poor Old George ( Kerry ). He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth!

oldelpasoan on August 5, 2007 at 10:32 AM

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks “Consensus”

Report Released on December 20, 2007

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Winghunter on February 7, 2008 at 10:02 AM

Comment pages: 1 2