Thursday
Dec042008
Christopher Horner: the fallacy that is global warming
Thursday, December 4, 2008 at 2:34PM
“Catastrophe sells,” said Christopher Horner, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism).” At a Heritage Foundation event, Horner said the recent wave of “global warming enthusiasts” are encouraged by “a multi-million dollar global warming industry adding new urgency to the ritual shriek of ‘we must act now,’ as they scramble to impose a costly regime that imposes mandates, subsidies and energy taxes both direct and regulatory to pay for them.”
Horner said, “90 percent of our official United States government measuring stations don’t meet the requirements for citing. For example, why are so many of our official thermometers now on asphalt parking lots, black tar roofs, airport tarmacs and placed directly above exhaust fans and even in Hopkinsville, Kentucky, over a barbeque grill?”
Horner said scientists who come out against the idea of global warming are refused their voice, and that global warming is appealing to public figures like Newt Gingrich because it offers them the “ultimate intellectual challenge.”
“After all, there is a reason the media don’t report on the global warming industries; admitted objectives, extreme statements, and their tactics,” said Horner. “How can we predict the weather ten decades away if we can’t predict 10 days from now?” As a result, Horner believes, “environmental alarmists have become like car alarms that no one listens to anymore.”
Horner said, “90 percent of our official United States government measuring stations don’t meet the requirements for citing. For example, why are so many of our official thermometers now on asphalt parking lots, black tar roofs, airport tarmacs and placed directly above exhaust fans and even in Hopkinsville, Kentucky, over a barbeque grill?”
Horner said scientists who come out against the idea of global warming are refused their voice, and that global warming is appealing to public figures like Newt Gingrich because it offers them the “ultimate intellectual challenge.”
“After all, there is a reason the media don’t report on the global warming industries; admitted objectives, extreme statements, and their tactics,” said Horner. “How can we predict the weather ten decades away if we can’t predict 10 days from now?” As a result, Horner believes, “environmental alarmists have become like car alarms that no one listens to anymore.”
Reader Comments (4)
So is that barbeque in Hopkinsville, Kentucky causing these problems?
Glaciers high in the Himalayas are dwindling faster than anyone thought, putting nearly a billion people living in South Asia in peril of losing their water supply.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/24/tibet-glaciers-warming.html
The rate of ice-mass loss from the Greenland increased by 250 percent during a period spanning May 2004 to April 2006 relative to the period from April 2002 to April 2004.
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/publications/press/09202006_natlgeo.pdf
"With few exceptions, glaciers around the world have retreated at unprecedented rates over the last century. Some ice caps, glaciers, and even an ice shelf have disappeared altogether. Many more are retreating so rapidly that they may vanish within decades." Be sure to look at the difference between the two photos from Glacier Bay National Park and Reserve's White Thunder Ridge as seen on August 13, 1941 and August 31, 2004.
http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07
Here is what Climate Code Red says:
--Human emissions have so far produced a global average temperature increase of 0.8 degree C.
--There is another 0.6 degree C. to come due to "thermal inertia", or lags in the system, taking the total long-term global warming induced by human emissions so far to 1.4 degree C.
--If human total emissions continue as they are to 2030 (and don't increase 60% as projected) this would likely add more than 0.4 degrees C. to the system in the next two decades, taking the long-term effect by 2030 to at least 1.7 degrees C. (A 0.3 degree C. increase is predicted for the period 2004-2014 alone by Smith, Cusack et al, 2007).
--Then add the 0.3 degree C. albedo flip effect from the now imminent loss of the Arctic sea ice, and the rise in the system by 2030 is at least 2 degree. C, assuming very optimistically that emissions don't increase at all above their present annual rate! When we consider the potential permafrost releases and the effect of carbon sinks losing capacity, we are on the road to a hellish future, not for what we will do, but WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY DONE.
"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008
How is it science when it is based on correlation, "they say" and making effects look like causes?
How can it be science when it is now based on the "precaution" theory?
How can it be science when the IPCC is as they themselves say: "90% sure".
How can it be science when the first IPCC predictions began 18 freaking years ago for a theory that next month will be one year short of being a quarter of a century old?
How can it be science when the crisis as predicted TWO AND A HALF DECADES AGO, didn't arrive.
How can it be science when last year we had the coldest winter in 12 years when we where supposed to be experiencing 25 years of escalating warming?
How can it be science when the believers such as you confuse predicted effects with causes as in polar bears, floods, bad weather, glaciers etc?
How can it be science when the only knowledge you have of this issue is your single belief in the "they say, they say" logic?
I think you and all of the other glowbull warmers should tell every child TO THEIR FACE that they are doomed because that is what the IPCC has been predicting.
I haven't yet met a global warmer who didn't have their own personal definition of the theory to suit their particular narrow understanding of the theor and the fuzzy feeling they get when they literally are yelling "Fire" in a movie theatre.
History will laugh at global warming AND the WMD scam. Both were lies. Both were for power.
Can we motivate without fear anymore. No, because this is terrorism. My kid is being promised a planet that by then according to the IPCC who have the last word on their theory that they will be living on a hell on earth.
Not since the ancient sieges and the Warsaw ghetto have an entire generation of children had suicide as an option.
Take the CO2 factor out as time WILL I PROMISE, and what do you have left? Describe it to me. Caution, it may be good news.
Back in 1900 they wondered what to do with all of the horses needed by the year 2000. So have some optimissim and faith in progress and face the future with determination and bravery. Not mass fear and this silly crisis mentality from a non-existent crisis.
The race of man is filled with credulous fools, and global warming is a bunch of shit.