Posted on 11/10/2004 5:18:05 AM PST by Afghanistanmation
We have located the recently cited and widely discussed report on the effects of global warming on the Arctic region, titled “Impacts Of A Warming Arctic" and published by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. You can read and/or download the report here.
We will not argue with the report’s findings on the results and impacts of warming on the arctic, as those seem fairly self-evident plus, they are beyond the scope our interest at this time. Our only concern was whether or not this much hyped study finally offered proof that global warming was human induced rather than a normal ecological phenomenon. Sorry to say we were disappointed (but not surprised) that the report failed to make the case. The report provided no conclusive or smoking gun to link human activity (i.e. the burning of fossil fuels) and global warming. In fact, we found some glaring problems with the report which have been completely overlooked by the press championing the report on an almost daily basis.
For starters, the study reiterates a common myth by stating that “there is an international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” We find it difficult that the authors of this report were unaware of the Oregon Petition signed between 1999 and 2001 by more than 17,000 scientists around the world, who by signing the petition, certified their rejection of the unproven assumption that the burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming. Specifically, the most important part of the petition contained the following clause:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
While the exact number of scientists in the world is unknown to us, it is inconceivable that there could be any sort of "consensus" on the issue of human induced global warming when 17,000 scientists reject that claim. Therefore, we are puzzled on how the clause “an international scientific consensus” was ever permitted to be inserted in this study or why the Mainstream Media (MSM) reprints this falsehood.
The second major problem with this study’s assertion that global warming is attributable to human activity is that the study uses a strategically based starting point to bolster their contention. As mentioned two weeks ago, most people point to an alleged jump in the Earth’s temperature and CO2 emissions since the mid 19th century as evidence of human contribution to global warming. This study expands the timeline a bit, and starts with 160,000 years ago, although it is equally misleading. Had these scientists included in their analysis the chart we cited showing the Earth’s temperature and CO2 concentrations over the last 400,000 years, one quickly notices a predictable and consistent pattern of fluctuating climate change. This Arctic study (presumably) left out this information because any rational person would wonder why today’s global climate change period is different than those indicated in the historical record. There were no Fords or Chevy’s back then, so what was to blame then that could not be to blame now? To date, we have not found an adequate response on this question, and this study failed to provide one as well.
And the third problem is that one of the contributors to the study, Oceanographer Mr. James J. McCarthy of Harvard University, is a known "Chicken Little." While Mr. McCarthy is not exactly a household name, he is the one responsible for one of the biggest global warming falsities in recent memory. Back in August 2000, The New York Times published a story based on information provided by Mr. McCarthy (which he obtained from an eyewitness account while on a cruise) that clamed the North Pole was melting. Here is an except of their story:
For the first time in 50 million years, visitors to the North Pole can see something extraordinary: water. The thick ice that covers the Arctic Ocean at the North Pole has melted, leaving a mile-wide (1.6-kilometer-wide) stretch of water at the top of the world. Two recent visitors to the poles spoke about the unexpected sight.
Sounds scandalous enough and would represent direct evidence that global warming is occurring, and perhaps quicker than we had thought. The only problem was that Mr. McCarthy’s eyewitness account was not abnormal. Scientists familiar with the region quickly contacted the Times and informed them that stretches of open water in the Arctic are a normal summertime event, caused by shifts in the ice. The Times subsequently published a retraction. (Typical of the Time’s recent journalist practices, no fact checking on the story was done because the story conformed to their preconceived notions.) So, now we have Mr. McCarthy participating in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report, and his presence on this team should raise some concerns, as well as skepticism.
The topic of global warming represents perhaps better than any other topic how partisan ideology has been injected into issues that deserve to remain politically neutral. And it says a lot about the current state of the environmental discussion when, aside from ABC’s liberal turned libertarian commentator John Stossel, the only place to find a critique or a basic challenge of environmental claims is in right-leaning publications such as WorldNetDaily, FrontPage Magazine and occasionally Fox News. The MSM report the findings of scientists as fact and rarely ever question their findings in a manner reminiscent of the treatment bestowed upon clergy during medieval times. An honest debate on the sources, results and potential antidotes to the possible concept of human induced global warming becomes more difficult each day, and this dishonest report by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment is not helping the debate.
"Scientists familiar with the region quickly contacted the Times and informed them that stretches of open water in the Arctic are a normal summertime event, caused by shifts in the ice. "
I wouldn't mind, but this isn't the first time left-wing journalists have leapt on this phenomenum, and been slapped down by the scientists. It happens every year.
Great post-- thanks.
Some day we'll build a time machine and go back in time and save every plant or animal that became extinct. We'll stop all the ice ages and warming cycles and make the earth an ever an constant unchanging place. (/B.S.)
Amen.
Do these hand wringers ever watch National Geographic? Especially the shows that take the viewer all over the world to see things like the giant water falls in Africa. Or the North Pole where chunks of ice as big as the Sears Tower break off and fall into the water. This planet and the fascinating things on it like the water falls and glaciers are HUGE, I mean HUGELY HUGE!!
To think that we little tiny beings can effect these things is the height of arrogance and or stupidity.
The Goebbels maxim.
btt
Welcome aboard, good find.
I do miss the Map Issues though :-(
I live in a mountainbiking, snowboarding envirowacko hotbed. I want a bumpersticker that says "Warm the Planet, Man."
My husband a self described liberal/progressive, who is an environmental consultant (hydro geologist) also stopped subscribing to Natl. Geographic Magazine because he said they were getting too political and preachy. And he believes in global warming. Go figure!
That any change in temperatures (up or down) is man's doing is dogmatic to the Green Religion.
I heartily agree. I find layers of pure BS interspersed with layers of political and economic manipulation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.