COLD, HARD FACTS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

www.ncpa.org ^ | Thursday, September 30, 2004

[InvisibleChurch]

Are glaciers, ice caps and sea ice melting worldwide because human industrial activity is causing global warming? Geologic history says otherwise.

Researchers from Montana State University found the fluctuation of glaciers at the Glacial National Park in Montana is the result of unique interactions between summer draught and winter snow concentrations rather than rising CO2 concentrations.

Using tree-rings and National Park Service observations, the researchers found numerous links between the variability of drought (also reconstructed through tree-rings) to glacier positions. Furthermore:

During the late 19th century, a shift from cool and rainy conditions to drought coincides with the onset of glacial retreat from the previous ice age. Similarly, extreme drought between 1917 and 1941 coincided with rapid glacial recession in the park. Montana’s glaciers began to retreat long before the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases began to change significantly. Combining data on drought variability and winter snow-pack accumulation, the researchers were able to derive a 300-year index that provides a precise history of glacial dynamics. In other words, these two natural quantities account for the observed glacial variability over the last three centuries.

Though it is yet to be determined what potential effect CO2 concentrations may have on these drought and snow interactions, these findings show how natural phenomena can result in glacial retreat and advance for hundreds of years in the absence of greenhouse gases.

[InvisibleChurch]

[HawaiianGecko]

Global warming has been going on for a long time. Remember that most of the midwest was covered by glaciers and I don't think "evil industry" was around when they started melting.

[jcb8199]

Watch what happens should Mt. St. Helens erupt--talk about pollution and harmful gases...

[RockinRight]

The idea that we are causing Global Warming is a hoax designed to undermine our economy in the US to the benefit of the Third World.

[dmz]

One small problem with your "theory".

The 3rd world would definitely NOT benefit from a weak US economy.

[Outland]

"The idea that we are causing Global Warming is a hoax.."

RockinRight is absolutely right on that note. I have been researching this nonsense for some years now. The science is B.S., the data is skewed and too many stand to gain too much based on utterly fraudulent nonsense.

Anthropengenic induced "global warming" is a farce and a handy tool being used by the greens/socialist/liberals to cause damage to the West.

As I have posted elsewhere here, this issue needs to be addressed more frequently and more loudly! This farce stands to do almost as much damage to the US as terrorism would like to do. Energy is at the heart of our economy and Kyoto and similar policies effectively seek to make the US pay foreign entities what amounts to an energy tax. This is not acceptable.

[Gorjus]

The idea that we are causing Global Warming is a hoax designed to undermine our economy in the US to the benefit of the Third World.

Define 'Third World.' The biggest beneficiary of Kyoto would be China. They claim 'third world' status when it suits them, but their GDP will soon be larger than the EU (if it's not already).

My disagreement on your statement is only with whom the intended beneficiaries are. The right answer is 'Everyone but the US.' The intent is to undermine our economy. Period. They know there is no real global threat from our industrial output. And anything that undermines the US economy is expected to benefit China, Brazil, the EU, Russia, and . . . well, everyone but the US.

[patrick_star]

Montana’s glaciers began to retreat long before the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases began to change significantly.

Here is an interesting article also putting into perspective the degree of impact humans have on the world climate: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

We just are not that significant folks!

[Sam Cree]

It's true that the 3rd world would not benefit, but it's also true that the Left, which is behind a lot of this global warming stuff, has long attempted to undermine the USA in any way they could.

[RockinRight]

You're right. Third world isn't the right term. "All the world except the US" is the correct one.

[Yelling]

I too have been researching this for a while and I have come to different conclusions. What do you feel are compelling arguments against global warming?

[WildTurkey]

One small problem with your "theory". The 3rd world would definitely NOT benefit from a weak US economy

Of course it would. They are exempt from the protocol requirements. This would give them another 30 percent wage/price advantage.

[KJacob]

Watch what happens should Mt. St. Helens erupt--talk about pollution and harmful gases...

Volcanic activity is helpful in reducing global warming. As the particles inter the atmosphere they help to block the sun's rays.

[Outland]

"Here is an interesting article also putting into perspective the degree of impact humans have on the world climate: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html"

What a crock.

First, the historic proxy data for CO2 has been distorted! See http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm.

Second, can anyone tell me how 0.038% of the atmosphere (CO2 content) can force the remaining atmosphere to heat up? Even when you add the rest of the "geenhouse gas" content, it still doesn't add up to much.

Third, there is NO correlation between global temperature anomalies and the trends in "greenhouse gases". Anyone can find this for themselves by charting the data which is freely available. I have done this myself and posted it in other forums where the "global warming" wackos have yet to refute my claims with actual data.

Sorry folks, but this is one topic that I am very passionate about and an area that I have studied well. There is motive behind the "global warming" farce with "green" influences traceable from "green" NGO's all the way to NOAA.

[dmz]

If the US economy is weak, the world economy is weak. 30% of sh%^ is still sh^&.

[patrick_star]

Dude i am agreeing with you. I see the article as more of an eye-opener to those that claim man has/is having a significant impact on greenhouse gasses... it states right in that article that the amount of gasses released without human industry versus the amount of gasses that can be reabsorbed by the planet is already at a higher output to absorption rate.

What i am trying to say is that we don't really make much of a dent in the overall global climactic process.

I am very concerned about this topic as well, because i have met too many people with a strong conscience suddenly go all-out Liberal over this issue simply because they are too scared to dig into the facts and find out what is really going on. Its a scary topic [that of the slow painful destruction of our planet due to the hands of the greedy humans] that many are simply too overwhelmed to look into and try to see it clearly.

This whole Montana study only adds to the pile of evidence that there are global climate cycles, some colder, some warmer and they span thousands of years. How long have we been recording weather patterns accurately? A hundred?

That is why i say it:
We are just not that significant.

[ABrit]

This all started with the allegedly discredited Mann et al paper in Nature.
Read how it has been debunked.

Graph showing the allegedly incorrect Mann et al Hockey Stick graph, and the corrected version of historical temperature data.
The temperature rises in the late 20th century are not out of the ordinary, and cannot be laid at the door of environmental issues.

[Yelling]

Of course the McKitrick version has temperatures in the middle of the ice age significantly higher than they are today!

Oh and of course in his last paper McKitrick mixed up degrees and radians (a mear factor of 57!!). I don't put a lot of faith in McKitrick's work these days. He did force Mann to correct his references which is good but that is really all he has done.

[ABrit]

The environmental issue is being used by the left to attack capitalism by means of blocking the use of energy, particularly oil.

It is funny seeing them get in a twist about the use of non CO2 producing nuclear energy, and landscape destroying wind farms.

Nuclear power will not cause "global warming" so they can't oppose it on those grounds. Windfarms are not very eco friendly, but they support them.

[ABrit]

Where is the peer reviewed paper which checked the figures, and which says Mann et al were correct, and where is the peer reviewed paper showing McKitrick was wrong about his analysis of Mann et al.

PS the McKitrick version doesn't seem to go back as far as the ice age???