What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?

"This is very nice hotel indeed. Our recommendation to those elected officials tempted by the offer: enjoy a great weekend in Manhattan at Heartland's expense and don't waste your time on tobacco-science lectures - you are highly unlikely to hear any real science there."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it should come as no surprise that they are willing to tout this PR event as a conference.

Wake me up when Fox says ANYTHING that is trustworthy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am amazed that people still watch FOX.

It shows to me that, we Americans really need to pay attention to the "dumbing down" of Americans.

If we allow those who make our decisions for us, (the "supposed" representatives we believe we elect) to make decisions without our oversight, they would be most happy.

Most politicians believe that the masses (aka common folk) are too uneducated to run a community.

This is true, as we have let them to act this way.

Seems, (at least one study I just read about) that most people, would rather be told what to do than make their own decisions.

That leads to the current Bush administration and the precedent he has presented where the next president and future presidents of America, will do whatever they want, and most Americans will just follow orders like cows to the slaughter.

FOX feeds on the masses, the common folk that those in politics, like the Bush administration, who want a mindless country, where men and woman will go to another country to die for a lie.....

Seems we are already there.

Wasn't it FOX that won a lawsuit that stated that they did not have to tell the truth even if the present themselves as a "news outlet".

I mourn for America and the rest of the world laughs at us.

Corey Mondello
www.CoreyMondello.com
3-4-08

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

..its climate change. The absurd coverage by Fox (surprise surprise) is not only ideologically driven, it is scientifically stupid. Some places will get colder as a result of changing patterns, or at least, there will be heightened incidences of severe weather, be it rain or drought or cold. This increased variation will occur even against a backdrop of increasing mean temperatures. The misunderstanding is partly the result of an ignorant and lazy media, as well as willful ignorance. We should all be talking about *climate change* not global warming. The former is much more accurate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am not watching the FOX channel, I do not have to to have doubts about the "global warming" campaign. This is why:

For those old enough to remember, the debate over global warming may be reminiscent of the equally intense scare propaganda lasting for several years during the 1980s. Just like the predictions then of doomsday coming in form of “nuclear winter”, nobody can escape being exposed today to the projection of the ominous effects of greenhouse gases proclaimed by the “experts”, the news media, politicians and, of course, Hollywood.
I certainly find the narrow scope of the ongoing “scientific” debate about “global warming” very disturbing. One does not need more than high school science education and common sense to question the scenarios claimed by the Advocates to become the consequences of greenhouse gases generated by human activities.
Since the Advocates and the Opponents have a dispute over the impact of carbon compounds on the climate, it is most appropriate to take a look at the history of carbon now found in fossils. There is absolutely no doubt about the fact, that at one time virtually all the carbon now trapped in fossils was present in the biosphere. After all, before carbon compounds became converted to fossils, they first, by definition, had to have been incorporated in living materials. With all the carbon available in the biosphere, the concentration of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and light hydrocarbons had to have been substantially higher in the atmosphere than it is now. Nevertheless, the evidence is overwhelming, that Earth not only did not go up in flames but instead it was a very inhabitable place providing favorable conditions for all kinds of living organisms to thrive.
Typical of the narrow scope of the rhetoric about “global warming” is the completely one-sided characterization of the significance of humans and their activities in the movement of carbon. The natural physical and chemical processes converting biomass to fossils are irreversible. The overall result of the phenomena involved in this process is, that the amount of carbon available in the biosphere is steadily diminishing and, on a geological time scale, it is certain that without human intervention it would eventually lead to critical shortage of carbon available for life on Earth.
Humans probably are the most successful species on our planet when it comes to their ability to adapt to virtually any condition Earth has to offer. As a matter of fact, for thousands of years humans were very resourceful in finding food, cloths and shelter in areas ranging from the frigid polar region to the scorching deserts, from high mountain ranges to farmlands several feet below sea level. Obviously, humans have the capacity to adopt to climate changes caused by their own activities or nature, although the preference is obvious as evidenced by the voluntary migration of people to warmer climates (to e.g. Florida, Arizona, California, Costa Rica, Mexico, etc.). Historic records leave no doubt about the fact, that we have more reason to fear global cooling than warming. The agriculture-supported Viking settlements of Greenland established during the warming trend were wiped out and parts of Europe suffered from famine during the subsequent “little ice age”. Now, should “global warming” proceed as predicted by the Advocates, increasing temperatures would open up vast territories of Canada, Europe and Siberia for agriculture as well as industrial development, that currently are sparsely populated due to the climate too cold to be attractive for the majority of the population.
— Posted by L.R. Treiber

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"...Business and Media institute, a group run by the right-wing Media Research Center".

Glossy web blurbs like this one tell us that the MRC and its ilk exist to defend Family Values and the Free Market.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, but I think Fox actually has it right this time.

All the models of climate change in the past have indicated global cooling, not warming. Additionally, there have been ice ages about every 10,000 years.

I too believe that global warming is a hoax, meant to distract us from other much more important issues like peak oil which is the main reason why we should be concerned about excessive use of fossil fuels.

I too was convinced by "Al who can afford to purchase his own enormous carbon footprint Gore", but then I did some research of my own and it just ain't necessarily so.

Of course we should treat our mother earth gently, maybe stop having so many children, recycle, conserve--it's part of being a thoughtful human being, in tune with nature. But this global warming threat is simply not true. When carbon emissions get so plentiful they will block the sun's rays and create a cooling effect.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In more "dimensional" circles they are talking about the "precession of the equinoxes" whereby the earth is shifting on it's axis, happens every 26,000 years. We are currently in the age of pisces (all those fishies on bumper stickers!) into the age of Aquarius, just like those cute girls in miniskirts told us in the 60's. Please note that the earliest astronomers were astrologers.

I know this comment is a real rotten tomato target for the pc zone. Most of the comments on this site are simple regurgitations of the supposedly "left wing" status quo.

Sorry, galactic dimensionality is real, if you're not aware of it you might want to look harder into the nature of existence.

For instance, if you don't know that that the physical universe is 99.99% empty space (composed entirely of atomic matter, the universe is pure energy) then you don't have sufficient understanding to contemplate "things beyond your ken".

So keep those "1"s coming but look no further than the mirror to understand why, for instance, a president like GWB has been able to parade around with impunity, stark naked.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't disagree with "global warming" per se...

The planet is definitely going to "heat up" when gas prices start going through the roof.

Where is the sage and increasingly-rotund Al Gore on this subject?

It's been highly publicized that several of the "facts" that he presents in his slick slide show are wrong, which should invite people to take a much more critical look at the rest of his body of "evidence".

Personally I think he is over-eating to assuage his guilt that he is part of the disinformation team designed to keep us all very afraid and distract us from the real issues of overpopulation, dwindling water supplies and peak oil, as well as the criminal imperialistic agenda of our government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ok, I'll admit it. I've seen "An Inconvenient Truth" and caught Al Gore giving information that was not scientifically true. Yes, I'm not the only one.

But that doesn't mean he is wrong. Nor does it mean that he is right.

For me, I've decided I don't care about global warming (or global cooling, should the right-wingers, be strangely correct).

No, I'm not amoral about our environment either.

I care about air pollution. By coincidence, reducing air pollution is the same thing that Al Gore says will reduce global warming (assuming it exists).

To me, we need to do the right things, just because doing the wrong things, pollutes the air. I don't want to breathe exhaust. If global warming is real, and it helps, great. If it isn't, we still will be breathing something other than exhaust.

Lets get rid of coal plants and move to power plants that don't emit smoke of any kind.

We have workable, safe, clean, hydroelectric, solar and nuclear power plants. We just need more.

Thats the way I feel, and it's the way you should feel too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Screw fox but practice safe sex!
Back in the early sixties we were taught the world would warm and then it would cool and then it would warm and then it wold cool just as it has for millions of years. This is not the result of mankind but the effects of geothermal activity of the earth itself. One volcanic eruption of non-cataclysmic proportions releases more greenhouse gases than mankind has sinc it first came to be. It'going to happen over and over and over until the Earth is dead. Live with it. So take all your efforts and energies and put them to use productively. First get rid of all the sham scientists and their promoters so financial resources are used to affect real change. The funds they are wasting are needed to find cures for diseases that are really killing people right NOW! Cancer, Aids, MS, ALS, and the list goes on and on. Come on people, it's time to face the real world!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

they're just crazy. what sucks is that, aside from the business tycoons, most republicans have nothing to benefit from this idea that we aren't harming our planet. it's just a stupid identity issue they all feel they need to rally around bc their party masters say so. what a shame.

there are a lot of people who are bad for this world, but global warming deniers are among the worst.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anthopogenic (human caused) global warming is real. Not only is it real but it's getting worse faster than the science community can write papers to keep up.

Google the phrase:climate "faster than expected" and you'll see what I mean.

We have to stop burning all the carbon, all of it. We are already past crucial tipping points and 80% reduction by 2050 isn't fast enough or enough of a reduction.

Deal with it or IT will deal with you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/
environment/76461/?
comments=view&cID=831018
Why John McCain Isn't the Candidate to Stop Climate Change
Posted by Dr. Joseph Romm, Climate Progress at 12:10 PM on
February 8, 2008.

Especially the paragraph:
The next president must make reducing GHG emissions a central
focus of his or her administration if we want to avoid the worst
impacts of global warming: catastrophic sea level rise, widespread
drought and desertification, and loss of up to 70 percent of all
species.

"[L]oss of up to 70 percent of all species" includes Homo Sapiens,
the human race.

The above links to:
http://www.salon.com/
news/feature/2007/
12/12/ipcc_report/
index_np.html
Desperate times, desperate scientists

Fed up with politicians and the media, scientists are pleading to
the world to wake up to the imminent threats of global warming.

By Joseph Romm

How dire is the climate situation? Consider what Rajendra
Pachauri, the head of the United Nations' prestigious
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said last
month: "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we
do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is
the defining moment." Pachauri has the distinction, or misfortune,
of being both an engineer and an economist, two professions not
known for overheated rhetoric.

In fact, far from being an alarmist, Pachauri was specifically
chosen as IPCC chair in 2002 after the Bush administration waged
a successful campaign to have him replace the outspoken Dr.
Robert Watson, who was opposed by fossil fuel companies like
ExxonMobil. So why is a normally low-key scientist getting more
desperate in his efforts to spur the planet to action?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Downloaded FROM: Environmental Defense
http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/
climate411/2008/01/14/global_winds/

This post is by James Wang, Ph.D., a climate scientist at Environmental Defense.

You may have heard about the persistent droughts in the western U.S., Australia,
and other regions. The Upper Colorado River Basin is experiencing a protracted,
multi-year drought that started in 1999. Australia's record drought is threatening
the livelihood of traditional farmers and ranchers.

At what point does a passing drought become a permanent shift to desert
conditions, and why would such a thing happen?

It can happen because of global warming. Climate change can alter global winds,
the strength and location of high and low pressure systems, and other climate
factors.

.........shortened.........Graphics and URLs omitted.

Global winds shape the Earth's climate, determining - in broad strokes - which
areas are tropical, desert, or temperate. Here's a simplified overview of how it
works.

The Sun heats the Earth most intensely in the tropical zone around the equator. The
heated air rises, cools, and then dumps its moisture as rain. That's why there are
rain forests in the tropics.

The now drier air is forced by the continuously rising equatorial air to move
towards the temperate latitudes on either side of the equator. At roughly 30° N and
S - called the "horse latitudes" - it can move no further due to the Earth’s rotation,
and settles to the surface. As the air sinks, it compresses and warms, creating hot,
rain-free conditions. This circulation pattern, called a Hadley cell, is why the
deserts of the world are located just poleward of the tropics, to the north and south.

Poleward of the desert belt, strong, high-altitude winds known as the jet streams
flow from west to east, carrying large storms with them. These mid-latitude,
temperate-region storms are an important source of rain and snow, especially
during the winter season. Much of the world's population lives in the temperate
region. It includes most of the U.S. and southern Canada, most of Europe, East
Asia, southern South America, southern Africa, and southern Australia and New
Zealand.

But climate regions aren't fixed. Several independent studies have found that
global winds are shifting due to global warming, and the shifts are faster than
predicted by climate models. Most recently is this new study in Nature
Geoscience. The tropical belt has widened by several degrees latitude since 1979.
This is consistent with other observations suggesting that the jet streams and storm
tracks have moved poleward.

The drought-stricken Upper Colorado River Basin, which includes Lake Powell, is
located just poleward of the horse latitudes at around 37° N. This has historically
been in the temperate zone, but the desert zone may be gradually encroaching upon
it. (Since nothing is simple, there are other factors contributing to this particular
drought, as well.) Similarly, water-starved Sydney, Australia at 34° S is just
poleward of the southern horse latitude.

What we may be seeing here is not so much drought as desertification - a shift in
global climate patterns due to global warming. Areas that used to be in temperate
zones may be shifting into desert, while areas that had been arid receive more
precipitation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anthropic [human caused] Global Warming [AGW] began 200 years ago. We are
talking about CLIMATE, NOT WEATHER. In the 1950s and 1960s in my
home town in western New York state, it snowed 450 inches per year. Now it
snows only 96 inches per year. That is an average over at least a decade. In the
mid 19th century, the Mississippi river froze over in the winter so you could drive
on it at St. Louis. That's how St Louis became known as the gateway to the west.
Now the Mississippi river is ice-free at Davenport, Iowa, in most years. Hurricane
season starts in spring now. Hurricane season used to start in the fall. The
hurricanes are bigger now than ever before.

Great damage has been done, but we still have 8 years before natural positive
feedbacks lead to our extinction. Sea level will continue to rise even if we
disappear right now, but that is "minor" compared to poison gas bubbling out of
the ocean and killing almost everything including all of the people.
See the chart on page 274 of "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. We have until 2015
to BEGIN REDUCING our total CO2 output and we have until 2050 to actually
reduce our CO2 output by 90%. The curve has to start down by 2015, not we
have to think about it by then. The peak of our CO2 production has to happen in
the next 8 years.

If we don't follow the schedule in Six Degrees, we will encounter positive
feedbacks which will take the control of the climate out of our hands.
Preventing the fall of civilization is a daunting task, but not yet impossible. We
have to hold the CO2 level to 400 parts per million to have a 75% chance of
avoiding the positive feedbacks. The natural positive feedbacks are explained in
Six Degrees. We have to deal with enormous changes in where agriculture works
because of climate changes that are already unavoidable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hydrogen Sulfide gas will Kill all people. Homo Sap will go
EXTINCT unless drastic action is taken.
Reference:
October 2006 Scientific American

"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."

Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."

www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=1535

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/article2509.html

http://astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload
&name=News&file=article
&sid=2429&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0

These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.

The global warming is already 1 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
Paleontologist discusses mass extinctions of the past and the one
we are doing to ourselves.

ALL COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS MUST BE
CONVERTED TO NUCLEAR IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID
THE EXTINCTION OF US HUMANS. 32 countries have
nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The top 3
producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal fired power
plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China and India.
Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050 requires drastic action
in the USA, China and India. King Coal has to be demoted to a
commoner. Coal must be left in the earth. If you own any coal
stock, NOW is the time to dump it, regardless of loss, because it
will soon be worthless.
I ahve no financial connection to the nuclear power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From the article in Scientific American at:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
here is how the hot ocean makes the H2S that kills everybody.

Step 1: CO2 from some source warms the earth. 251 million
years ago, 201 million years ago and 60 million years ago it was
supervolcanoes. The first of these created Siberia. This time the
CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels. Coal is the worst.

Step 2: The oceans cannot dissolve enough oxygen when they get
too warm, so the fish die. I don't know why or when the plants in
the ocean die.

Step 3: "Deep-dwelling anaerobic microbes churn out copious
amounts of hydrogen sulfide, which also dissolves into the
seawater. As its concentration builds, the H2S diffuses upward,
where it encounters oxygen diffusing downward. So long as their
balance remains undisturbed, the oxygenated and hydrogen
sulfide-saturated waters stay separated, and their interface, known
as the chemocline, is stable. Typically the green and purple sulfur
bacteria live in that chemocline, enjoying the supply of H2S from
below and sunlight from above."
The chemocline moves up and down in response to the climate.
The warmer the ocean, the higher the chemocline. Heat alone
cannot take all of the oxygen out of the ocean unless the ocean
boils, but warmer water dissolves less oxygen. Oxygen and
H2S cannot exist in the same mixed volume of water because O2
reacts with H2S by the equation:

6H2S + 9O2 = 6H2O + 6SO2

H2S removes O2 from the ocean long before heat does. If the
deep ocean warms and the supply of sulfur is adequate, the sulfur
bacteria:
1. Work faster because reaction rate doubles with each 10 degrees
C temperature rise and
2. Have a greater volume of ocean that is below the chemocline
and free of oxygen in which to live. Oxygen kills sulfur bacteria.
No, we can't pump enough oxygen down there to kill them.

The supply of H2S increases because of the above positive
feedbacks. The chemocline continues to move upward. Will a
new equilibrium be reached before the surface is reached? Is
there a barrier to chemocline rise or is it like a flipflop circuit? Is
there a threshhold temperature for this to happen? What is the
threshhold temperature of the ocean for this to happen? Does
anybody know? Ocean currents keep the deep water cold now,
but a change in the currents caused by global warming could
warm up part of the deep water. That would be a third positive
feedback.

Setp 4: Since there is no oxygen in the ocean to burn up the H2S,
H2S bubbles out of the ocean. H2S is a poison gas, so everybody
dies. The supply of H2S will be ample in spite of the reaction of
H2S with oxygen, not that we would want to breathe SO2. There
were extinction events 251 million years ago, 201 million years
ago and 60 million years ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=536
By John Fleck http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/ and William
Connolley http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/

To veterans of the Climate Wars, the old 1970s global cooling
canard - "How can we believe climate scientists about global
warming today when back in the 1970s they told us an ice age was
imminent?" - must seem like a never-ending game of Whack-a-
mole. One of us (WMC) has devoted years to whacking down
the mole (see here, here and here, for example), while the other of
us (JF) sees the mole pop up anew in his in box every time he
quotes contemporary scientific views regarding climate change in
his newspaper stories.

The problem is that the argument has played out in competing
anecdotes, without any comprehensive and rigorous picture of
what was really going on in the scientific literature at the time.
But if the argument is to have any relevance beyond talking points
aimed at winning a debate, such a comprehensive understanding is
needed. If, indeed, climate scientists predicted a coming ice age,
it is worthwhile to take the next step and understand why they
thought this, and what relevance it might have to today's science-
politics-policy discussions about climate change. If, on the other
hand, scientists were not really predicting a coming ice age, then
the argument needs to be retired.

The two of us, along with Tom Peterson of the National Climatic
Data Center, undertook a literature review to try to move beyond
the anecdotes and understand what scientists were really saying at
the time regarding the various forces shaping climate on time
human time scales. The results are currently in press at the
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, and Doyle Rice
has written a nice summary in USA Today, and an extended
version based on a presentation made by Tom at the AMS meeting
in January is on line.

During the period we analyzed, climate science was very different
from what you see today. There was far less integration among the
various sub-disciplines that make up the enterprise. Remote
sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling were all in
their infancy. But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in
the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between
1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details):

* 7 articles predicting cooling
* 44 predicting warming
* 20 that were neutral


In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you
believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were
doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that
increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any
changes we might see in climate on human time scales.

We do not expect that this work will stop the mole from popping
its head back up in the future. But we do hope that when it does,
this analysis will provide a foundation for a more thoughtful
discussion about what climate scientists were and were not saying
back in the 1970s.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]