WASHINGTON
U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher was in a froth, and his audience loved it.
The California Republican was talking about global warming and could barely contain his disgust.
"Al Gore has been wrong all along!" Rohrabacher yelled into the microphone. "This is outrageous! All of this is wrong! The people who have stifled this debate have an agenda that is just frightening!"
Welcome to the third annual International Conference on Climate Change, a daylong session of speeches and scientific presentations that took place Tuesday just blocks from the U.S. Capitol. Almost no media covered the event.
Organized by The Heartland Institute and other conservative think tanks and groups, the conference drew about 250 guests, most of them researchers and policy analysts, some from as far away as Japan and Australia.
There was plenty of wry laughter during the day, especially when former Vice President Gore and his award-winning movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," were brought up, which was often.
The conference hall also was filled with a tangible air of frustrated defeat, like the brainy kid in math class who thinks he knows all the answers, raises his hand time and again, but is never called upon.
"We are seldom heard in the policy debate," said Joseph L. Bast, president of The Heartland Institute. "If you open your newspaper, turn on your TV set, you're likely to see global warming alarmism, and nothing else."
Bast labeled as "popular delusion" the current conventional wisdom on the issue - that man-made emissions, notably carbon dioxide, from the burning of fossil fuels is dangerously heating up the planet, causing sea levels to rise and is increasing the ferocity of storms and drought.
As such, the conference represents a lingering - and still powerful - sentiment that global warming is not such a big deal after all.
Instead, attendees argued, the slow and slight increase in air, water and atmospheric temperatures during much of the 20th century is part of a natural cycle of the Earth's unpredictable, roller-coaster weather patterns.
Carbon dioxide, they debated, is not a pollutant that should be regulated, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Supreme Court now hold; it is an attribute that helps plant and sea life.
Bast acknowledged that the conference was hurriedly organized, and moved from New York City to Washington, to counteract proposals from President Barack Obama for a "cap-and-trade" program aimed at fighting global warming by drastically limiting carbon emissions.
Bast and others described the proposed programs as a complete waste of money, with potentially crippling consequences for the economy, and without any attainable goals.
"How do you control the weather?" asked Bob Carter, an Australian scholar from James Cook University. "For us to assume we can somehow control nature and regulate weather patterns, when we cannot even predict them correctly, is patently absurd."
Others saw darker motives in the climate debate.
These skeptics, including Rohrabacher, contended that global warming is a liberal-inspired hoax, intended to wrest control of world energy policy and wealth from Western countries so the United Nations can have its way.
To them, liberty, capitalism and the U.S. economy are at stake.
"I have to wonder what has happened to the sovereignty of the United States," said U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the keynote speaker at the conference and the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which debates climate policy.
Skeptics, or "realists," as they call themselves, focus much of their scorn on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Gore in 2007.
The IPCC consists of hundreds of scientists from across the globe who, for two decades, have tracked climate research and temperature trends, and attempted to interpret what they mean for policymakers.
Its most famous pronouncement, in 2007, was that a marked increase in greenhouse gases from mostly man-made sources is "very likely" causing climate change.
"Very likely," the IPCC wrote, means a 90 percent certainty that human activity, not natural variability, is the driving force.
The IPCC also noted that many geographical areas seem especially susceptible to climate change, including low-lying coastal areas, such as southeastern Virginia and northeastern North Carolina.
But scientist after scientist at the conference pointed out flaws and shortcomings in the calculations of the IPCC, especially its reliance on computer models to make forecasts.
One researcher, Roy Spencer, a professor at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, noted that the IPCC did not adequately calculate how clouds play a major role in ground temperatures.
When there are few clouds in the sky, temperatures typically are warmer, Spencer said, and when it is cloudy outside, conditions typically are cooler.
Is it possible then, Spencer asked, that decreasing clouds in recent decades caused the warmings recorded on Earth?
Spencer said he asked the IPCC about this and was surprised to learn that the organization had not researched this point and had assumed that cloud cover does not change over time but is fairly consistent.
The two revelations sparked more wry laughter from the audience.
"If a 1 percent change in cloudiness could trigger global warming, or global cooling, wouldn't you think that'd be a pretty important thing to nail down?" Spencer asked. "They have never gone there."
Skepticism over climate science is hardly new. Indeed, skepticism has always been a part of scientific discourse and has been around global warming since the 1970s, when the theory first gained credence.
William "Skip" Stiles, a Norfolk environmentalist, was working as a congressional aide back then, and he remembers the committee hearings, the charges and countercharges of bias and flawed science.
"I will agree that these models are only as good as the data that goes into them," Stiles said. "But when you think of all the shots these folks have had at this, and all the years of research by the IPCC - we're talking 25 years! - you have to think we've reached some fairly solid conclusions that global warming is real and we, as humans, are playing a major role in it."
Carl Hershner, a researcher and professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science who has tracked sea level rise in Virginia for years, expressed similar thoughts.
"One thing about science is that you never get rid of all the naysayers," Hershner said. He described the IPCC as "an extremely conservative group" that "constantly looks at achieving consensus, and updates its findings regularly."
In his keynote address Tuesday, Sen. Inhofe predicted that cap-and-trade will pass the House of Representatives - "Nancy Pelosi has the votes," he said - but will stall in the Senate, where previous climate-change programs have similarly died.
Last year, without any action coming from Washington, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine appointed a Climate Change Commission to suggest ways Virginia can reduce carbon emissions and lessen its role in accelerating warming.
The theory that global warming is a natural phenomenon, and not man-made, was not part of commission deliberations.
"The fact that global climate change is happening and is largely human-caused is now widely accepted," reads the commission's final report, published in December.
At the bottom of the page, however, is a footnote: "While we have concluded that the overwhelming evidence supports these points, we have heard testimony providing contrary information during public comment periods at our meetings."
State Sen. Frank Wagner, a Republican from Virginia Beach, was a member of the climate commission. He also has attended one of the skeptics' conferences in New York City.
"I've tried to keep an open mind," Wagner said. "There are so many theories out there, and so much detail, you're kind of overwhelmed.
"I mean, even the scientists themselves are debating with each other at these meetings. You're left wondering what the truth really is."
Scott Harper, (757) 446-2340, scott.harper@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Funding
TheGreenMiles wrote: "ExxonSecrets"
Who "funds" "ExxonSecrets"?
Discover The Networks reports it is a Greenpeace affiliate, "funded" by many Leftist individuals, foundations & groups.
Including: the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Bauman Family Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund, the Columbia Foundation, the Compton Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Scherman Foundation, Ted Turner's Turner Foundation. The organization has also drawn support from numerous celebrities, including singers Sting, Tom Jones, and Elton John, who have sponsored its "save the rainforest" campaigns.
In 2004, Greenpeace received $15,844,752 in grants, and held net assets of $1,893,548. That same year, the Greenpeace Fund received grants totaling $6,866,534 and held net assets of $7,532,018.
follow the money
According to ExxonSecrets.org, the Heartland Institute received $561,500 (unadjusted for inflation) from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. They're just doing what Big Oil pays them to do. Thank you, Scott, for seeing the conference for what it really was.
If CO2 is the culprit..
then stopping the pillaging of the rain forests world wide should be the FIRST priority. Don't trees absorb CO2? It would be interesting to see any scientific measurements correlating CO2 increases with measurable rain forest destruction.
"There it is in black and white"
Reply to beetle-juice.
Your EPA website does indeed contain some truth.
However, as I've stated before on this thread, "All propaganda contains at least some truth".
Unfortunately, your EPA website does not address many issues of contention within the climate science debate. And it appears to deliberately minimize, gloss over, or ignore, any & all information outside of their propaganda agreement.
With that true, I invite you to study the 880 page 2009 NIPCC Report (the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) here: http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/NIPCC%20Final.pdf
I'll be (somewhat) available, and happy to discuss, any area of the report you may wish to dispute, and/or better comprehend.
On Tuesday, June 2, 2009...
there was an article in the Pilot's Op-Ed pages titled "Cap and trade is all cost, no benefit". The author is a Harvard professor, and he appears to support cap and trade as a practice, but recognizes, and thus cautions, against its implementation because there will be no 'payoff' unless other countries are part of ironclad agreements to do the same. In particular, he cites China and India. His main point is that there will be no significant return on efforts in this country by way of cap and trade if those 2 nations continue with their present environmental policies, i.e., any 'cleaned air' here will be negated by the increasingly 'dirtied air' there! Martin feldstein is the profesor's name, and I recommend to all that they seek this article out. It is available in the Pilot's archives, but that will change soon..
Too Funny
"Europe is finally coming to their senses and voting out the liberal majority! If only America could regain her conservative stance"
Remember the saying, be careful of what you wish for?
"Fighting climate change was also a priority for the center-right, which still favors spending more than Europe's free-market Liberal Democrats or many conservatives in the United States."
Mistake
The most aggravating thing about topics like Global Warming is that everyone fancies themselves to be an expert. How many references to the Vikings appear in this thread? All, no doubt, made by people who know absolutely nothing about Vikings beyond what they think they heard somewhere from someone.
While I don't presume to be an expert (unlike many foolish people here), I think we should all agree that opinions made by people who confuse weather and climate are worthless.
Reply to beetle-juice
beetle juice wrote: "Regardless of whether or not the climate change is mostly man made or an earth cycle, it is happening and I seriously doubt we can do anything to change it."
Acknowledging that until Dr. Roy Spencer (and later, others) began assessing earth's atmospheric temperature trend with satellite measurements, quantifying earth's temperature was an imprecise science at best. Therefore, we have no precise average any longer than the beginning of Spencer's precision data-stream, that began in earnest during the middle 1990's. Since the late 1990's, global atmospheric temperature has been quiescent (although an insubstantial cooling trend has emerged) for nearly eleven years. This is occurring despite atmospheric CO2 levels continuing to (slightly) increase throughout the entire period. With all that so, we should abstain from embracing dogma, & return to the hard work of understanding climate, before we assume to control it.
Global Warming Hoax
Amen! The garbage that the far left has been spewing is exactly the reason why Europe is finally coming to their senses and voting out the liberal majority! If only America could regain her conservative stance-- think the Reagan era-- we could begin to climb out of the mess that the "anointed one", aka Obama, has created for us, our children, our grandchildren, and most likely, our great-grandchildren. What goes around comes around...
Global warming IS the United Nations' way of striving for power and anyone who buys into those theories needs to start thinking independently instead of believing everything they hear, read, and watch in the super-liberalized media. Yes, recycling is good. Yes, saving endangered species and rainforest is good. Yes, reducing pollution is good. No, fat people are not contributing to global warming. NO, I will not adhere to a climate-friendly, low-carbon diet. No, I will not support the government's push for control over what kind/color of car I can buy. NO, I will not support government's push for control over my AC/thermostat in MY home. Let's not forget-- People exhale carbon dioxide. Plants need carbon dioxide to grow. Plants give off oxygen. Peo
http://www.epa.gov/climatecha
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
There it is in black and white, all the "garbage" on global warming from scientists who got past high school chemistry. The right bell dingers love a good conspiracy.
Take note, it has been posted before Obama was elected to ruin the lives of the lay scientists.
It is apparent that some
It is apparent that some people have forgotten how one small incident, the eruption of Mt. St. Helen affected the climate of the US for three years. Now take into consideration the massive amounts of hydrocarbons being strewn into the atmosphere. What do suppose would be the outcome, nothing?
Do scientists have a definitive test to demonstrate how mankind is affecting the climate? No. Do they have a reasonable hypotheses based on a myriad of evidence? Yes. And for that person who thinks that because it is snowing in one area during the wrong time of year changes the fact that the Polar ice cap is melting at an alarming rate, such a statement is referred to as "junk science".
Regardless of whether or not the climate change is mostly man made or an earth cycle, it is happening and I seriously doubt we can do anything to change it.
Adaptation
Whatever the climate does in our lifetimes we can adapt to. We have brains and opposable thumbs.
If water levels rise, we can build levies - using New Orleans as an example of what not to do.
If the temperature drops, we can build more nuke plants.
If the roads freeze over, we can spread more salt.
If that doesn't work we can build cars that drive and/or fly over the ice.
The cap & trade shell game has been tried and failed
In the EU they have had Cap & Trade for awhile now.
Even if CO2 was a "pollutant", this wouldn't be the way to deal with it.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme
Green jobs
Hilda Solis on C-Span this A.M. Talks about all the $ the government is pouring in to retrain otherwise unemployed and unemployable people for green jobs This is hand in glove with the alleged global warming "fact" which, according to the proponents, must be countered with clean and "green" energy production. I don't think there is a big demand for "green energy" trained rank and file workers at this time. These people being retrained for jobs of that kind will not find them available without the government also legislating and narrowing the legal supply of energy to fit the training they will be giving these folks. That will be a huge whack in Free enterprise and lead only to more socialism. Some day, there may actually be the kind of green jobs these people are "preparing" these folks to perform and for the rest of us to accept. As of now, I think all the "green" is government money going into the pockets of selected individuals who are "recognized" as the only ones with the knowledge, vision, and ability to convince the rest of us they know what they are doing. All is being spent on additional research and presently valueless training.
Follow the Money
Two points:1. Money and 2. Power.
Money: Who stands to profit from the new "Global Warming Religion"? When Al Gore left office he had a net worth of around two million dollars. Now he is worth over $100 million! Its time for everyone to wake up and see this fantasy for what it is; a new source of tax advantaged money for the Leftist Political Class.
Power: If the Socialist can replace our Private Sector controlled Petroleum Based Energy Economy with a Government Based "Green Energy" based economy, they will pretty much control all our lives from cradle to grave.
This is what they want: Money and Power.
From chris33...
"The ignorance displayed here is breathtaking. CO2 causes the Earth to retain heat. We are pumping BILLIONS OF TONS of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Soon we will have DOUBLED the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. What effect will that have? It will cause the Earth to warm."
The President's own science 'Czar' is proposing, if the need arises, to shoot pollution into the atmosphere to 'help keep the sun out'. The site below is one of many that show this:
http://cbs5.com/politics/president.barack.obama.2.980111.html
If we're supposed to be getting rid of pollution to save the planet, why would pollution be part of the fix? It appears to one and all that the alleged 'cures' are far more lethal than the problems they are suppose to address.
The 'ignorance displayed here', indeed!
Global Warmers have no credibility
Man made global warming advocates, whether scientists with PhDs or the ignorant pro global warming laymen posting comments here, have no credibility until they can explain away the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). None of the global warming hucksters (excuse me, it's now "Climate Change" hucksters, as the earth has been steadily cooling since 1998...), such as Algore and James Hanson ever mentions the Medieval Warm Period because none of their theories and none of their computer models (Garbage In, Garbage Out) can deal with it.
It's an historical fact that the Vikings grew grapes on Greenland around the 11th and 12th centuries, proving the earth was at least 5 degrees warmer back then than it is now. Where were the coal fired power plants and SUVs belching CO2 into the atmosphere 800 years ago? The REAL Inconvenient Truth is that no matter how much grant money governments shovel their way to generate those theories, and no matter how much the mainstream media parrots those theories while ignoring anything the the contrary (above article excepted..), until all those scientists lining up behind Algore can reconcile their theories with the Medievel Warm Period, their theories are bunk.
Turn your money over to fat Al.
Of course the climate is cooling! Global warming CAUSES Global cooling. The only way to stop this vicious cycle is to turn your money over to fat Al.
continuation part 2
Just look at the black moths vs the white moths of Russia after the coal pollution.
The Earth was formed 4 billion years ago, and in that time it has seen asteroid collisions, violent gamma bursts, volcanic eruptions, a moon with greater tidal force, and yet here we are.
Tree samples, ice samples, and ozone layers are just 3 things that may mean nothing in the long run. Unless these scientists test every aspect under ever condition, there is nothing that can be made fact. Yet, everyone knows, that to test every thing would be pedantic, costly, and lose funding, interest, or prove that our methods of inductive reasoning is merely generalizing the facts or leaving them for religion to claim that "one does not play God."
We must never forget that life will survive, even if it means the replacement of humans with cockroaches; life will survive on a world similar to Venus if it had been like ours. My best guess is that Venus never had life to begin with. Yet look at Earth, they found micro-organisms in lava and glaciers.
Bacteria rapildy evolves to the conditions; we don't evolve so quickly.
I digress, but this could mean we could infect Mars or Mars could infect u
what is the truth?
I am totally open minded about this, and I reject the cult like 'believers' who keep claiming man-made warming is a 'fact' which is only questioned by right-wing fanatics. Any pure scientist would welcome debate and scrutiny in order to refine their theories. Likewise, anyone who rejects the theory COMPLETELY, is also lacking objectivity, because there is enough scientific data to demonstrate we should be concerned AND need to do more research.
One 'believer' posted this link to support and inform people.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
I just read the entire piece and was left with a few questions. Weart's writing plainly states that CO2 is a lagging indicator, and then states it causes a feedback loop which amplifies the effect. If that was the case, then what broke the loop in previous warm cycles? That is not addressed but seems like an important piece of the puzzle, especially if they maintain we are in one of these feedback loops now...
And the conclusion states that if human's moved to producing zero CO2 emissions, the warming cycle would continue (because of the feedback loop) for a few more centuries, after which a new equilibrium would be reached with