Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« On My Desk | The Morning News »

Monday, June 5, 2006

Those Really Cool College Republicans

Posted by on June 5 at 22:36 PM

The College Republican National Committee is recommending that students hold Global Cooling Beach Parties & set up Snow Cone Stands to belittle Al Gore’s movie.

The CRNC site also posts a brief analysis paper from 1997 criticizing Clinton’s intention to commit to Kyoto. (I’ve linked it below for your reading pleasure.)

Al Gore, if you read the Slog, and I know that you do, please post a lengthy comment.

Friday, May 23, 1997
The Clinton administration has decided to commit the United States to finalizing a treaty in December 1997 that would impose legally binding, internationally enforceable limits on the production of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2). That decision was based on the belief that global warming is significant, that humans are its primary cause and that only immediate government action can avert disaster.

Yet there is no scientific consensus that global warming is a problem or that humans are its cause. Even if current predictions of warming are correct, delaying drastic government actions by up to 25 years will make little difference in global temperature 100 years from now. Proposed treaty restrictions would do little environmental good and great economic harm. By contrast, putting off action until we have more evidence of human-caused global warming and better technology to mitigate it is both environmentally and economically sound.

Much of the environmental policy now proposed is based on myths. Let's look at the four most common.

Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming. While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measure-
ments, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years. [See Figure I.] Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last 15,000 years. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries - a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada.

Myth #2: Humans Are Causing Global Warming. Scientists do not agree that humans discernibly influence global climate because the evidence supporting that theory is weak. The scientific experts most directly concerned with climate conditions reject the theory by a wide margin.

A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels. [See Figure II.]
Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted by the environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use.
More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter declaring that costly actions to reduce greenhouse gases are not justified by the best available evidence.
While atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 28 percent over the past 150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a small part in any warming, since most of the warming occurred prior to 1940 - before most human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.

Myth #3: The Government Must Act Now to Halt Global Warming. The belief underlying this myth is that the consequences of near-term inaction could be catastrophic and, thus, prudence supports immediate government action.

However, a 1995 analysis by proponents of global warming theory concluded that the world's governments can wait up to 25 years to take action with no appreciable negative effect on the environment. T.M.L. Wigley, R. Richels and J.A. Edmonds followed the common scientific assumption that a realistic goal of global warming policy would be to stabilize the concentration of atmospheric CO2 at approximately twice preindustrial levels, or 550 parts per million by volume. Given that economic growth will continue with a concomitant rise in greenhouse gas emissions, the scientists agreed that stabilization at this level is environmentally sound as well as politically and economically feasible. They also concluded that:

Governments can cut emissions now to approximately 9 billion tons per year or wait until 2020 and cut emissions by 12 billion tons per year.
Either scenario would result in the desired CO2 concentration of 550 parts per million.
Delaying action until 2020 would yield an insignificant temperature rise of 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100.
In short, our policymakers need not act in haste and ignorance. The government has time to gather more data, and industry has time to devise new ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Myth # 4: Human-Caused Global Warming Will Cause Cataclysmic Environmental Problems. Proponents of the theory of human-caused global warming argue that it is causing and will continue to cause all manner of environmental catastrophes, including higher ocean levels and increased hurricane activity. Reputable scientists, including those working on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations organization created to study the causes and effects of global climate warming, reject these beliefs.

Sea levels are rising around the globe, though not uniformly. In fact, sea levels have risen more than 300 feet over the last 18,000 years - far predating any possible human impact. Rising sea levels are natural in between ice ages. Contrary to the predictions of global warming theorists, the current rate of increase is slower than the average rate over the 18,000-year period.

Periodic media reports link human-caused climate changes to more frequent tropical cyclones or more intense hurricanes. Tropical storms depend on warm ocean surface temperatures (at least 26 degrees Celsius) and an unlimited supply of moisture. Therefore, the reasoning goes, global warming leads to increased ocean surface temperatures, a greater uptake of moisture and destructive hurricanes. But recent data show no increase in the number or severity of tropical storms, and the latest climate models suggest that earlier models making such connections were simplistic and thus inaccurate.

Since the 1940s the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory has documented a decrease in both the intensity and number of hurricanes.
From 1991 through 1995, relatively few hurricanes occurred, and even the unusually intense 1995 hurricane season did not reverse the downward trend.
The 1996 IPCC report on climate change found a worldwide significant increase in tropical storms unlikely; some regions may experience increased activity while others will see fewer, less severe storms.
Since factors other than ocean temperature such as wind speeds at various altitudes seem to play a larger role than scientists previously understood, most agree that any regional changes in hurricane activity will continue to occur against a backdrop of large yearly natural variations.

What about other effects of warming? If a slight atmospheric warming occurred, it would primarily affect nighttime temperatures, lessening the number of frosty nights and extending the growing season. Thus some scientists think a global warming trend would be an agricultural boon. Moreover, historically warm periods have been the most conducive to life. Most of the earth's plant life evolved in a much warmer, carbon dioxide-filled atmosphere.

Conclusion. As scientists expose the myths concerning global warming, the fears of an apocalypse should subside. So rather than legislating in haste and ignorance and repenting at leisure, our government should maintain rational policies, based on science and adaptable to future discoveries.

This Brief Analysis was prepared by H. Sterling Burnett, environmental policy analyst with the
National Center for Policy Analysis.


CommentsRSS icon

It's worse than that. Don't forget this infamous exchange:

http://www.counterpunch.org/landau05212003.html


"At the 1997 Kyoto Conference on environment, Jeremy Leggett, who wrote The Carbon War: Global Warming and the End of the Oil Era (2001), cornered Ford Motor Company executive John Schiller.

"Leggett, a Greenpeacer, asked Schiller how he dealt with "a billion cars intent on burning all the oil and gas available on the planet." Schiller first denied that "fossil fuels have been sequestered underground for eons." He claimed, instead, that the Earth is just 10,000, not 4.5 billion years old, the age widely accepted by scientists. Schiller then referred Leggett to The Book of Daniel: "The more I look, the more it is just as it says in the Bible." In other words, Schiller's "theological" interpretation of the world foresees "earthly devastation [that] will mark the `End Time' and return of Christ.""

Oh beauteeeeful... so since Christ is returning and the end time is near, we might as well trash the environment because the earth will be destroyed anyways?!? He must be married to the woman who in grad school informed me that the "earth is a star upon which all revolves around". In my book those people are mentally ill and should all have numbered rubber rooms assigned.

Can we make a law banning people who don't understand science from using it in an argument? There are so many holes in what they're saying, I don't know where to begin ...

Josh,
Yes, the College Republicans are idiots, but no more than you and your troup of pithed hamsters called a news staff. Please stick to stories about the Monorail and I will keep trying to save the earth.
Love,
Al
PS, Tipper says thanks for the fruit basket you sent last week.

Retards. The whole lot of them. In the literal sense.

I was in student goverment in college, and I have to say that the liberals threw the better parties. The liquor was better (and more plentiful) and the drugs were great. Plus, they could drink/drug and still engage in converation.

The republicans, OTOH, just got drunk really quick and ended up vomitting all over the place. And they guys would end up hitting on each other. That was really the only reason I'd go to their parties. Drunk college republican boys will do anything.

I'm really amused by their Global Warming Myths Debunked page. Especially the Stephen Schneider quote that has [sic] placed after each instance of the word 'to,' because apparently the person who grabbed the quote doesn't know the difference between 'to' and 'too'. Maybe the College Republicans should take some remedial English with their remedial Science.

Just you wait until my husband wins the Presidency. Your filthy, obscene paper's days are numbered!

If they think it's the end days, why are they in college?

Wait, I forgot.... they're republicans. They want everyone else to do the work.

Hm, I think I just got blocked on my last post. Anyway, I wanted to remind everyone that the author of this manifesto is none other than H. Sterling Burnett, the same Exxon-Mobil hack who recently compared Gore to Goebbels:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/23/gore-movie-g/

Climate Change for Dummies & Retards:

"What the record shows is that it was a period of intense instability. The temperature did not rise slowly, or even steadily; instead, the climate flipped several times from temperate conditions back into those of an ice age, and then back again. Around fifteen thousand years ago, Greenland abruptly warmed by sixteen degrees in fifty years or less. In one particularly traumatic episode some twelve thousand years ago, the mean temperature in Greenland shot up by fifteen degrees in a single decade.

"If we go back farther still, the picture is no more comforting. Even as much of Europe and North America lay buried under glaciers, the temperature in Greenland was oscillating wildly, sometimes in spikes of ten degrees, sometimes in spikes of twenty. In an effort to convey the erratic nature of
these changes, Richard Alley, a geophysicist who is leading a National Academy of Sciences panel on abrupt climate change, has compared the climate
to a light switch being toyed with by an impish three-year-old."

(From 'ICE MEMORY,' The New Yorker,
by ELIZABETH KOLBERT, 7 January 2002. Note that the climate change discussed was pre-industrial, & even preceeded Al Gore's trashing of the planet via the thousands of gallons of jet fuel he expended while flying Kyoto.)

The College Republicans - all six of them - are a bunch of stupid poopyheads who thought My Pet Goat was a sex manual.

Buy soma online right now!
Buy soma online
http://buy-soma-online.to.pl
buy-soma-online.to.pl
[url="buy-soma-online.to.pl"]Buy soma online[/url]

Ice 9 -- You forgot to add that in Science magazine a few years back, the cover article was about an excellent study that showed that the current climate change was due to both natural and human causes, thus showing that we can affect our planet's climate in spite of natural fluctuations.

Oh, pardon me, that statement should be under the heading "Climate Change for People Who Can Think." My bad. But the dummies are free to keep reading what you posted! :)

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).