NASA extinguishes global-warming fire

Washington Times ^ | February 3, 2002 | Patrick Michaels

[Cincinatus' Wife]

It really happened. The NASA scientist who lit the bonfire of the global warming vanities with his flamboyant congressional testimony 14 years ago, has turned the hose on its dying embers.

There is now no reason for the Bush administration to give an inch on climate change. Sure, energy efficient technologies (like my Honda hybrid) are worth exploring. But there is absolutely no scientific reason for any expensive policy like the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Mr. Bush led the world by being the first to walk away from Kyoto, and science has proven him correct.

[Amelia]

Thanks so much for posting this! It fits right in with what I'm teaching right now - guess what a group of "gubmint school" students will be learning next week, instead of the "global warming doom & gloom" stuff in their textbook? :)

[Chemist_Geek]

Thank you kindly.

[angkor]

If they would even look around the city they could witness the resilience of nature

You are correct.

Think also of Pompeii, Chichen Itza, or Angkor Wat. The largest cities of their time, overtaken by vines and volcanic dust.

The environmentalists are nearly insane in their denials of reality.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

You nailed it. Its all about redistribution.

[Citizen Tom Paine]

All interested parties should buy (or at least look at) the book

The Skeptical Environmentalist

Subtitle:Measuring the Real State of the World

by Bjorn Lomborg

ISBN 0 521 01068 3 paperback

Cambridge University Press

This is the book that has stirred up the liberal environmentists recently. There are several hit pieces in the recent issue of "Scientific American" attacking Lomborg's scholarship. After perusing the book, I think that he has done an amazing job of ferreting out articles and data. You can hear the environmentalist squealing if you listen for a minute.

I suggest that we send copies of this article to some of the groups that espouse ridiciulous positions.

[backhoe]

All interested parties should buy (or at least look at) the book--The Skeptical Environmentalist

Naturally I agree... are you familiar with John Lott's "More guns- Less Crime?" What I found fascinating was his chapter on how his book was received by opponents- many would not even read his work! Did not stop them from critqueing it, naturally....

[The Great RJ]

The enviro-whackos will just come up with some new calamity. Remember in the 1970's it was global cooling and nuclear winter that was going to kill us all by the year 2000 and before that the "Club of Rome" group predicted that we would all starve because of over population.

[jimkress]

If nothing is "blocking" the warming, then the climate isn't as sensitive as the climate modelers had assumed.

These pseudo-scientists have never done a sensitivity analysis of their models - something that competent scientists that work in the field of math modeling know is a prerequiste before you ever make any predictions. A proper sensitivity analysis would have displayed these kinds of flaws in the 'climate models', thus confirming that the predictions of 'global warming' were incorrect. However, that would not have met the agenda being pushed by the 'global warming' advocates so they sacrified scientific validity for political gain.

[oldvike]

This man's switch on global warming will do nothing to slow down the environmental whacko crowd. And teachers will continue to teach our children that global warming is happening. So, while this story is nice and vindicates us conservatives in our own minds, it means basically nothing. Thanks for posting it, though.

[Texas_Longhorn]

methane is in fact one of the more powerfull greenhouse gases...What the commie socialists don't tell you is that the half-life of methane is 7 years. In other words, every 7 years 1/2 of methane in the atmosphere has completly broken down.

[Texas_Longhorn]

Another thing the commie socialists don't tell about is this greenhouse experiment: Have an air-tight greenhouse. raise the CO2 levels to around 90%...what happens? The plants grow up to 12 times the amount of mass...they also grow MUCH taller which implies more conversion of CO2 to oxygen. Yes, there is a reason our planet has survived many large global events (volcanoes, astroids) or perhaps....just perhaps....it was designed this way.../sarcasm

[reg45]

You should talk! Most of that methane is caused by flatulent Texas Longhorns!

8-)

[Texas_Longhorn]

huh? Are you another nutcase Aggie?

[Texas_Longhorn]

NOT BEVO!

[callisto]

What a wonderful find. Keep up the good work!

[Graewoulf]

Not so. A large empty room that is cool, soon becomes uncomfortably warm when it is filled with people. So, my question is, if a heat increase, with time, is true for the air in a crowded room, then why is it not true for the atmosphere of our increasingly crowded planet?

Calculate the biomass of humans in 1900 to the biomass of humans for each year to date, and then cross-plot the average atmospheric temperature by year. What is the correlation between the two variables?

Is the correlation coefficient greater than that for the politically incorrect "Satanic Gas," C02?

My hunch is 98.6 % in favor of the human biomass correlation.

[Graewoulf]

The primary source of carbon for the trees that the tree-huggers hug is the C02 that the trees glean from the atmosphere.

Thus, in like manner, C02 is an environmentally friendly gas to all carbon-containing organisms including trees, corals, seashells, the veggies we eat, the grass the beef cattle we butcher, etc.

Do we need to produce MORE C02 to make our environment even better?

[A. Pole]

Bump. No danger of global worming. And no chance to see Greenland green again during our life.

[Texas_Longhorn]

It's just a little ironic huh? the envirowackos are scared of CO2..which might help vegitation...methane....which has a half-life of only 7 years... another thing that gets me...they recycle glass...glass is made from sand, which is one of the more abundant chemicals we have on this planet...also, it takes MORE energy to recycle glass than it does to make some new glass from sand! If I ever meet an envirowacko that is a stock analysts then I'm just going to do the opposite of what they say and I'll get rich.

[reg45]

No, I'm not an Aggie. However, I have a good friend who is an Aggie. He's going to medical school. He may major in Proctology. I figure he'll get rich off the constipated, humorless UTex grads!