The only problem with a project to prove that Arctic ice is disappearing is the fact that it is actually getting thicker, says Christopher Booker.
What a wonderful parable of our time has been the expedition to the North Pole led by the explorer Pen Hadow. With two companions, he is measuring the thickness of the ice to show how fast it is “declining”. His expedition is one of a series of events designed to “raise awareness of the dangers of climate change” before December’s conference in Copenhagen, where the warmists hope to get a new treaty imposing much more drastic cuts on CO2 emissions.
The idea is that the expedition should take regular radar fixes on the ice thickness, to be fed into a computer model in California run by Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, whose team, according to the BBC, “is well known for producing results that show much faster ice-loss than other modelling teams”. The professor predicts that summer ice could be completely gone as early as next year. It took the Watts Up With That? science blog to point out that there is little point in measuring ice thickness unless you do it several years running, and that, anyway, Arctic ice is being constantly monitored by US Army buoys. The latest reading given by a typical sensor shows that since last March the ice has thickened by “at least half a metre”.
"It's to their interest to say the sky is falling, but it's not. ... The truth is we've never had to sacrifice air quality to maintain a healthy economy. The EPA has discretion to do this in a reasonable way."
“The scientists can connect the dots and define the implications of different policy choices and we should make clear those implications.”
Consensus opinions in science have proven notoriously wrong in history, and maverick thinkers—those bucking the majority--are usually those who create science that is NEARLY impregnable (with the understanding that no science is entirely incontrovertible). Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is nearly unassailable; global warming theory is NOWHERE near the quality of relativity theory (or even Marx’s evolutionary theory), and AGW involves MANY directly observable effects—empirical evidence. It's really quite sad that I even must type this for the morons out there.
Science must embrace debate; it's the only part of science that ensures continued advancement (i.e., criticisms of colleagues—REAL peer review, not cultish peer review). Labeling and name-calling the critics of scientific theories as an exercise in political correctness is absurd and will fail in the long run.
The 15,000 scientists and engineers who protested the manipulation, suppression, and distortion of research during the Bush administration no doubt welcomed President Obama's pledge last week to restore scientific integrity to the White House.
With earnest words and the stroke of a pen, it was goodbye to George W. Bush's "sound science," and welcome to Obama's "soundest science."
"The politicization of science is a risk across the political spectrum," said panel member Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado. "The Bush administration had especially heavy-handed controls, but science and politics come into conflict in every administration."
PRINCETON, NJ -- Although a majority of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is either correctly portrayed in the news or underestimated, a record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated. This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject.
Well, in much the same way that the media practically chanted for Obama’s election, we’ve seen that the media is an open advocate for global warming theory as a reality (because of the political advantages it affords), and the media typically attacks or ignores anyone who attempts to discredit global warming (no matter how credible or correct they sound). In short, our mainstream media is now opinionated and agenda-driven; they barely even hide that fact anymore, and only occasionally do they emanate a tacit denial of bias. Their actions don’t match their words. ‘I don’t believe in global warming’ draws gasps of incredulity and leaves the “offender” to stand on his own and draw invectives from faithful alarmists (e.g., ‘deniers are insane’) who are always portrayed as the bringers of truth, with few willing to point out how that denier just might be right.
Don’t forget…Prince Charles was one of those goofballs who was screaming for a weaker economy to fight global warming, along with Bill Clinton and Obama’s Secretary Geithner. Well, now they’ve got what they wanted! So why isn’t the media asking them: “In terms of global warming, are you now pleased that the economy is in recession? Will this save the Earth?” Figure it out for yourself—why won’t the media do its damn job?!
Prince Charles will say that the need to tackle global warming is more urgent than ever before and that, even in a global recession, the world must not lose sight of the "bigger picture".
His warning will be delivered on Thursday in a keynote speech in Rio de Janeiro.
Aides believe it will echo one he gave in Sao Paulo in 1991 at the start of the last recession, when he warned that caring for the world's long term welfare must not become a "luxury".
I'm just wondering why the media hasn't written about the massive amount of carbon that Obama's TelePrompters pump into the atmosphere? I mean...the media never misses an opportunity to tell us how our computers, Internet , LCD TVs, SUVs, and video games cause global warming.
So come on media! Where's the fairness here? Hold The Almighty to account for his climate transgressions! Stop attacking him for just being a talking head, incapable of speaking without his silly crutch; he's destroying the earth with those things too!
President Barack Obama doesn’t go anywhere without his TelePrompter.
The textbook-sized panes of glass holding the president’s prepared remarks follow him wherever he speaks.
Resting on top of a tall, narrow pole, they flank his podium during speeches in the White House’s stately parlors. They stood next to him on the floor of a manufacturing plant in Indiana as he pitched his economic stimulus plan. They traveled to the Department of Transportation this week and were in the Capitol Rotunda last month when he paid tribute to Abraham Lincoln in six-minute prepared remarks.
Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter is unusual — not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small.
Ha ha...what a moron this Al Gore is. He insults science--a discipline that's ALL ABOUT DEBATE--on a daily basis. Only the politically motivated scientists have attempted to shut down debate about global warming theory.
The Goreacle has spoken–again.
Former Vice President Al Gore repeated his message that climate change is a planetary emergency at the WSJ’s Eco:nomics conference in California. The Nobel-prize winner declined to take any questions from reporters, but he did receive a couple of challenges from attendees, including Bjorn Lomborg. But don’t expect Mr. Gore to debate the merits of how best to tackle climate change anytime soon.
Mr. Gore stuck to his prepared script about the urgency of taking action to curb global greenhouse-gas emissions, down to well-worn phrases he trots out at conferences across the country: America is at “a political tipping point” on climate change, and even if Washington has failed to address the energy challenge in the last 35 years, “political will is a renewable resource.”
But he was challenged by Mr. Lomborg, the Danish skeptical environmentalist who thinks the world would be better off spending more money on health and education issues than curbing carbon emissions.
In the same month that Logan International Airport hiked its parking rates by $1, Governor Deval Patrick is asking for another $2 parking "carbon fee" as part of his transportation overhaul filed this week.
The carbon fee, described on page 137 of Patrick's 141-page bill, would that mean a 20- or 30-minute trip to pick up a relative at Logan could cost $6 in parking alone, not including tunnel tolls, which could rise to as much as $7 if legislators fail to pass Patrick's other proposal to raise the gas tax. Three hours in a Logan garage would cost $18; all-day parking in a garage would run $26.
This is some crap, no pun intended. Okay, so toilet paper made from recycled fibers is more biodegradable than regular toilet paper? And yes, I realize that trees need CO2 (which should be an instant wakeup call for you dolts out there calling for CO2 to be considered a pollutant).
This brings me back to the Sheryl Crow nonsense (use only two or three sheets of TP or a little more for those pesky situations). So toilet paper is worse for the environment than a Hummer? I, somehow, don’t think so.
The United States is the largest market for toilet paper in the world, the newspaper reported, but tissue from 100 percent recycled fibers makes up less than 2 percent of sales for at-home use among conventional and premium brands. People from other countries throughout Europe and Latin America are far less picky about what they use to wipe.
“This is a product that we use for less than three seconds and the ecological consequences of manufacturing it from trees is enormous,” Hershkowitz told the Guardian newspaper, which cited the chemicals used in pulp manufacturing and process of cutting down forests.
“Future generations are going to look at the way we make toilet paper as one of the greatest excesses of our age," Hershkowitz said. "Making toilet paper from virgin wood is a lot worse than driving Hummers in terms of global warming pollution.”