• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Greenpeace Confesses to Ice Cap Melting Exaggeration

    On July 15th, Greenpeace said in a press release calling for urgent action: “As permanent ice decreases, we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030,” but in an interview with BBC, Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold said that might not exactly be the case. See the video below:

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC7bE9jopXE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbighollywood%2Ebreitbart%2Ecom%2Famcelhinney%2F2009%2F08%2F19%2Fexclusive%2Dlies%2Drevealed%2Dgreenpeace%2Dleader%2Dadmits%2Darctic%2Dice%2Dexaggeratio&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

    Emotionalizing or scare tactics? The problem with fear-mongering is that it’s a double-edged sword. Chicken Little scenarios allow you to convince someone to do something they may not have otherwise done or they can make you look very foolish.

    In any event, no matter how quickly or slowly the ice caps are melting, capping carbon dioxide emissions with a cap and trade system will do nothing to help and could actually hurt any attempt to slow the ice from melting. The Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill that requires carbon dioxide reductions would reduce global temperatures by negligible amounts (0.2 degree Celsius moderation in world temperature increases by 2100 and no more than a 0.05 degree reduction by 2050), but it would reduce economic activity by significant amounts.

    The Heritage Foundation’s analysis of the bill estimates that between 2012-235 will lose $9.4 trillion in income (GDP). In other words, we’ll be living in a world with much less wealth. Over the same time frame, the government will collect $5.7 trillion in new taxes. A world with less economic activity and higher taxes will stifle the innovation that could actually help respond in adapting to a climate crisis.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    48 Responses to Greenpeace Confesses to Ice Cap Melting Exaggeration

    1. Pingback: What the global warming issue is really all about - Page 54

    2. Will Watson, Ph.D. M says:

      No serious environmentalist is comfortable with cap and trade; even the guys who dreamed it up back in the 60's are now saying it's not gonna work and arguing for a straight up carbon tax. You guys, like most conservatives, love to set up a strawman version of progressive ideas and then knock it down. That's what you've done here with your phony "expose" of the "exagerration"(sic) by the GreenPeace prez. Good heavens. What real scientists are saying is that climate feedbacks are the wildcard in the AGW deck. Once the Arctic melt reaches a certain point, the melt could simply accelerate beyond all predictions, or not. The only thing that's certain is that the Arctic ice cap is smaller, on average, than it has been for 10,000 years. In the case of ACES' economic impact, the most credible studies, the Stern Reports, show that the cost of fixing the GHG problem will be about 2% of global GDP. The cost of business as usual–which is basically your plan–will be a catastrophic 10-15%, 500% of the cost of mitigation. Q. Why is conservative rhetoric all strawmen, lies by mission and "exagerration"? A. Because you preach to the choir too much, and the choir of true believers is getting smaller and smaller every day. You've had the field to yourselves, w/"no alternative", since 1981 and every single one of your ideas has been a disaster for the human race. Good job!

    3. Pingback: Greenpeace Confesses to Ice Cap Melting Exagerration - RENEWtv: Renewing America. One Episode at a Time. Hosted by Billy Hallowell.

    4. TJ, Virginia says:

      If you want to understand something, follow the money. Where will the money go? To the government. To the environmentalists. That is the real motive behind all this AGW talk. Money. It has never been about anything else.

      Al Gore will make millions with cap and trade. So will most of the major players in this new wealth transfer.

      We "serfs" will, as always, have just enough left to survive and produce for our keepers.

    5. Jeanne Stotler, wood says:

      Since only God can determine the true future and for centuries there has been a fluctuation of temperatures in seasons, ie: this is coolest summer in recent history in this area (Wash. D.C.) (must be lack of hot air in Congress)I am not a believer in Al Gore, he's just getting rich off the back of his followers and laughing all the way to the bank.

    6. Nick N., New Jersey says:

      My dear Watson,

      You have definitely missed the recent news report regarding the so called "Conservative Choir". Last week it was noted that most of the USA is now in the choir :}

    7. Todd Home says:

      Just as we suspected.

    8. william boyer says:

      "Dr." Watson is heavy into accusations, name-calling, and finger-pointing, but he shows no ability to reason or to present his argument logically. Example: "…the melt could simply accelerate beyond all predictions, or not." In other words, he is not at all certain that there will be a giant meltdown, but he is certain that the environmentalists know how to fix a problem that might or might not exist. Duh.

    9. Lloyd Scallan - New says:

      Wake-up People. This entire "GREEN" movement is

      an anarchist ploy to continue to destroy our way of life in favor of a socialist society. Greenpeace is at the head of the pack. But make no mistake, almost every "green" and/or group that uses "green or conservation", or claims they are out to "save the environment" is of the same mind and purpose.

    10. Ben C, Ann Arbor says:

      Dr. Watson:

      I typically am skeptical of a hypothesis as proposed by proponets of "global warming" when it is based on a computer model. The previous model was valid until the 2000's as noted by NOAH and other respected scientific organizations. Slowly but surely newer tinking is emerging. To date, it appears that the presence or abscence of solar flairs has more to do with our planet climate than man's influence. In addition, you state that for certain the polar ice caps are smaller than they were 10,000 years ago. It has been noted that the Fox Glacier is expanding. In addition, a local scientist has been studying "ice out" dates from in-land lakes in Michigan and they remain unchanged for the past thirty years. Maybe the Fox glacier and our lakes in Michigan are not influenced by "global warming." Your thoughts………..

    11. Bill Hylton, Little says:

      It's neither "emotionalizing" nor "fear tactics." It's plainly and simply lying.

      This eco-radical tactic is the same one they admitted using with the spotted owl. They lied to a federal judge, saying that the owls could only live in old-growth forests, and on that basis the judge put thousands of loggers out of work. They later admitted that they lied but rationalized it by saying it was for a worthwhile cause.

    12. Bill Hylton, Little says:

      If you moderate it, take it off. It's the truth and I will tell it or say nothing at all.

      Bill Hylton

    13. Pingback: Greenpeace Exec Director admits they lied about ice sheets | Jason Hayes – Musing

    14. Brad S,, Detroit, MI says:

      Should I add MS ME to my post to make it more credible ? Sorry, Watson, your post is the typical liberal ideology and blame-calling with absolutely NO FACTS to support your argument. I have as much knowledge about global warming as Al Gore, but I don't distort data so I can sell carbon credits. But then again, I believe in hard work and honesty. Let's see how much the world temperature has increased in twenty years and all of the so-called "green" activists will have moved onto a new idea because AGW will be DEAD.

    15. Tom Bates says:

      Cap and trade is a TAX Scheme(Congressman John Dingle (D).

      It assumes that all industry is polluting. Even if you comply with all existing safe guards and are not.

      If you wish to continue in business. You must purchase someone elses potential right to create enegry that might have an adverse impact on the environment. Adverse impact is whatever you want it to be!

      In purchasing that right Government(Con.Waxman/Markey)have designated Brokers handle the transaction. In this case General Electric, Goldman Sachs etc. They are paid a 15% commission.

      The person who sells their right has a windfall of money. The brokers make commission.(Quid pro Quo?) The industry passes the cost on to the general public.

      The industry who has been deemed a polluter continues business as usual with absolutely no decrease of so-called pollution.

      The best of all is that Waxman & Markey can feel good about screwing the EVIL industry and getting even.

    16. Tom Bates says:

      Cap and trade is a TAX Scheme(Congressman John Dingle (D).

      It assumes that all industry is polluting. Even if you comply with all existing safe guards and are not.

      If you wish to continue in business. You must purchase someone elses potential right to create enegry that might have an adverse impact on the environment.( Adverse impact is whatever you want it to be!)

      In purchasing that right Government(Con.Waxman/Markey)have designated certain Brokers to handle the transaction. In this case General Electric, Goldman Sachs etc. They are paid a 15% commission.

      The person who sells their right has a windfall of money. The brokers make commission.(Quid pro Quo?) The industry passes the cost on to the general public.

      The industry who has been deemed a polluter continues business as usual with absolutely no decrease of so-called pollution. The only difference is that it costs more!

      The best of all is that Waxman & Markey can feel good about screwing the EVIL industry and getting even.

    17. Pingback: Ice, Ice Baby « Around The Sphere

    18. Will Watson, Ph.D. M says:

      Nobody addressed my main point: that real environmentalists, such as the original cap and trade inventors, notably economist Thomas Crocker, now want cap and trade proposals scrapped, simpy because they won't work. Yet Heritage is presenting cap and trade as if it were the most radical form of GHG control policy. C&T is simply not radical enough. So, in fact, conservatives are right to be leery of it. Heritage is beating a dead horse. Behind the curve. Setting up a straw man. Etc.

      see WSJ: http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/08

      I also notice that nobody bothered to look into the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change–to which I directed you–to understand that considerable research exists to show that the global GDP will be much better off if we act strongly, directly, NOW to soften the impact of climate change. Here's a pretty good description of the Stern Review:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review

      Look into the Stern Review before you accept, uncritically Heritage claims about the supposedly disastrous costs of global warming abatement. The real disaster would be to do nothing, or to try to respond after the damage is done.

      Ben C. I appreciate the specific points and questions, and civil tone. First, the "global warming hypothesis" is NOT based only on computer models. That's a common misunderstanding. Global warming theory is supported by millions of data: global temperature readings from surface stations, sea measurement, satellite and weather balloons, for instance. Some of the surface temp records go back 300 years, in England and France for instance. These records are supplemented by "proxy" temperature records from glacial ice cores and ancient tree rings. These proxies extend our knowledge of global temperatures back almost a million years, and with great accuracy. All these empirical data tend to show the current warming is both rapid and unusual. Computer models are only part of the array tool used by climate scientists.

      About the "Fox glacier", specifically, I can't say much. The US Geological Survey is pretty consistent in showing that American glaciers, in the Rockies, Cascades and Alaska are shrinking at an alarming rate. As are about 90% of glaciers worldwide. Here's a link to a Reuters piece on a recent USGS study:
      http://planetark.org/enviro-news/item/54191

      The study of "ice in/ice out dates" in Michigan lakes is interesting. But again, it's difficult to attribute, with certainty, a limited local WEATHER phenomenon to a global CLIMATE shift. Globla warming has meant, for instance, heavier snowfall in some locations, and cooler temperatures in other locations. The global mean trend is still up, however, and that's what is important. There are plenty of studies to show that in the N. hemisphere Spring has come earlier and earlier for the last 50 years, while winter has come later and later. Wildlife biologists have also found that the ranges of many weather-bound species of plants and animals have shifted accordingly. Warm weather species, such as mosquitos, for instance, are found at higher altitudes and earlier in the Spring at higher latitudes than formerly was usual.

      About "solar flares", more later. In brief, solar activity is not of the sort, or level, that would cause the precipitous warming we're seeing now. In fact, solar levels and the Sun-Earth alignment are such that we SHOULD be in a cooling trend. But as I say, later. Hope this helps. There's a lot to learn and, although I wish it weren't so, Heritage is simply not going to give you straight information on climate change.

    19. fiftyfifty says:

      By GE stock Waxman will be and my best friend Dick Durbin D,Il

    20. Jefe, Tennessee says:

      Mr. Watson:

      I'm always suspicious of someone who likes to parade their title and/or academic degree for all to see. I,too, have a Ph.D but don't feel the need to throw it around. That being said, I did enjoy reading your comments even though I am not in agreement.

    21. chris says:

      Why is Greenland called Greenland? Greenland got its name because during the Medieval Warm Period, around 1000 A.D., the snow and ice melted back, exposing nice, lush green land! It was so lush, the Vikings settled parts of Greenland, where crops flourished and the economy boomed.Unfortunately, from 1400-1900, a 500-year cooling occurred. Certain crops like grapes could no longer be grown, the economy declined, and the encroaching snow and ice forced the Vikings from Greenland. How come Al Gore doesn't talk about this in his presentations? Could it be an Inconvenient truth?

    22. duelles, Santa Fe, N says:

      HAA haaa haaaa haaaaaa !!!! My only response When blank.PIRG comes or Greenpeace, or "we-want-to-stop-the -wolrd-from -having-a-decent-economy " come to door asking me to fund my own demise.

      These goofy people finally have become the "Mitch Schnieder" of the environment. Remember Mitch? Hey Miitch, Where did you get the number 2,000,000 homeless from? " Oh, I made it up !! "

    23. Lynn B. DeSpain says:

      Green Peace should do what it does best, save the whales!

      Hozro

    24. Not Evil Just Wrong says:

      This situation is exactly why we made Not Evil Just Wrong. This kind of alarmist tendency is…well alarming. We need to get to make this information common knowledge. Please check out Not Evil Just Wrong and consider hosting a party.

      http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/

    25. victor dulerain, new says:

      Dr. Watson:

      Your argument is not falling on deaf ears,nor is it pooh-poohed by evil ultra right wingers only thinking of lining their pockets and blessed mother earth be damned. But you must admit that what the green-nicks are proposing, and you are defending and adamantly expounding is based on tailored research- and not on hard core proven facts. Back in the sixties the favored armageddon theory said that in 40 years the sea levels would rise, out of control tsunamis would ravage all coastal cities and we aint gwyin up ta heaven!

      Before you consider unilaterally and completely decimating the worlds greatest nation and sending the US back into an economic ice age, I strongly urge you to thoroughly check on who came up with what data, who paid for the services, and oops you just may find a hidden agenda behind the ominous sounding( but perhaps patently false research). This week there was a chemists convention held, where a noted scientist has found substantial proof that burning candles also heavily contributes to global warming. In addition, this horrific practice has also shown to have deletirious effects on humans! – this would explain why the hippie generation was brain dead in the sixties and now that they're all grown up they try to they are hell bent on passing disasterous legislation such as cap'n'crunch. Happy trails Dr.Watson

    26. Ross writes, Braden says:

      When the Soviet Union communism went away, where did it go. It didn't dissolve, it moved to the "Green movement". What better way to control people and confiscate private property, all in the name of saving the planet. The sun, the earth's core, and whatever hits us from space is what will change the earth, not what we, as earth inhabitants may do to our home planet.

      The "Cap and Trade" bill is nothing more than a money grab and freedom eliminator using an unintrusive or benine looking poison apple now being peddled by the socialist Democrat witches of congress. I've now seen the movie, Snow White starring Rep Henry Waxman of California as the wicked witch. The outcome is scary because it ended before a prince charming could arrive to save Snow White(that's us).

    27. Will Watson, Ph.D. says:

      Chris: The medieval warm period (WMP) may have been good for the Viking settlements in Greenland, but it was probably disastrous for the Mayans in Central America, where it contributed to the dissolution of a society that had lasted 500 years and probably was populated by about 10M people at its peak. Plus, the human population of the world during the MWP was less than 14% of what it is now, less than 1B then to almost 7B now. Massive shifts in climate will be caused by global warming. It's not just that the high latitudes will warm and northern states will enjoy a longer warmer summer. Rather, changes in global mean temp will change patterns of rainfall and snowfall, leading to droughts in agricultural belts, floods in heavily populated areas, the widening of tropical disease vectors,mean sea level rise (even a meter will be awful), unprecedented heatwaves and a host of other disastrous things. If the level of atmospheric CO2 reaches 550ppm–which it's on track for late in this century–terrible, terrible things will happen that simply wouldn't happen on a less crowded, less resource-stressed planet, such as that of the MWP.

    28. Will Watson, Ph.D. M says:

      Mr. Dulerain: I admit nothing of the sort about the research. Almost all of it was paid for with tax dollars allocated by GOP administrations and GOP-dominated Congresses. OVerseas, the case is much the same: government funds scientific research. There's very little real research being funded by what the Right considers to be those scary, leftist envrionmental organizations, such as Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd. These organizations are relatively well-funded, but the money is used almost exclusivley to wage local fights against pollution and for habitat and species preservation. Compared to mega-polluters like Exxon and Southern Company, green organizations are puny and powerless. Funded mainly by governments and states, the research into AGW is credible, rigorous and profuse. Global warming theory is probably the most thoroughly researched theory in the history of science. I know I'm not going to convince you of anything, but consider one thing: what, as you see it, would constitute those "hard core proven, facts" you see are lacking? What would convince you?

    29. Will Watson, Ph.D. M says:

      Ross, the environmental movement in the USA and Europe predates the fall of the USSR by 20 years or more. In the USA, environmentalism is midwifed into being by Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" in 1962 and the first EarthDay in 1970 is generally considered the moment that the environmental movement reached maturity. It's thus kind of difficult to see how Soviet style communism "moved" into the green movement since the USSR dissolved 1989-1991, well AFTER the movement took its mature form. The other fallacy in your reasining is that Soviet-style economic development was an environmental disaster. Chernobyl was the least of it. From a green perpsective, BOTH capitalism and Soviet-style communism are enemies of Earth. Dude, trust me on this, OK: there are no ex-Soviet apparatchiks or even genuine socialists running the environmental movement. The enviro movement poses a sort of radically democratic "third way", most emphatically NOT a reincarnation of Soviet-style policies and authoritarianism.

    30. Ross writes, Braden says:

      Dr. Will, I'm a life-long student of government designs, history, sophistry, man's continual folly and the great outdoors. Therefore if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. It doesn't matter is environmental quacko, capitalist quacko, or communist quacko. Quacko's are wackos and are a danger to us all concerning our lives, liberties, and our pursuit of happiness as promised by our constitution.

      The origins of modern day socialism and communism goes back to the mid 19th century and has been a part of western history every since. I was born and raised on a farm and was taught that I was a steward of the land, a conservationist, not an exploiter. I still believe that.

      The point is that environmental wacko's are giving the honest and informed environmental scientist a bad name, a disgusting reputation. Therefore, I would never, ever considered myself an environmentalist.

      Socialism and communism is of the same DNA, primarily to enslave the populations of the world, own all lands, and exploit everything and everybody no matter the cost nor method employed.

      The "green movement" is the environmentalist most unintrusive method of indoctinating the population as to an unrealistic goal of saving the earth, thus making the ignorant think they can make a difference with their sacrifices. The head environmental wacko is former VP Al Gore of Tennessee. Most of his writings and speechs are confirmed lies and just plain fanasies as are most of the "more money than commonsense", brain-dead airheads in the "arts", the Hollywood types.

      Commonsense and a little thinking can enlighten anybody as to one major volcano erruption(like the sleeper at Yellowstone) would wipe away in 5 minutes what environmental legislation has imposed on the world in 30 years. A meteorite the size of a bus could cause environmental damage beyond belief. A solar storm could set the world back to the 18th century in 5 minutes. What about earthquakes, tornatos, and hurricanes? And this is not junk science, the question is when? With all the junk science being spewed out like a broken sewer pond levy , I say; physicians, "Heal thy self" God knows you need to. Commonsense is a good place to start.

    31. Will Watson, Ph.D. M says:

      Ross, certainly there exist in the universe the existential threats thatyou ennumerated to our planet and species. But anthropogenic pollution is just about the only one that we can do something about proactively. Scientists–"bad name" or not–widely agree that pollution, specifically that which causes global warming and climate change, IS an existential threat. I notice that you don't challenge this assertion. To the extent that we can "save the Earth" from ourselves we should, not for the current generations but for the ones who will inherit the wasted, pollution sink of an overheated planet we're making right now. This planet, you might have noticed, is the only one we've got. It has a right to exist, you might also consider, that is more deeply established, and for far longer, than that of our species. For us to do so would be a crime beyond human imagining. It would make even the most benevolent, all-forgiving God lose his/her temper!

    32. Jerry from Chicago says:

      Mr. Watson — enough already. You are not going to convince anyone other than those who already believe you.

      Maybe everyone should just kill themselves to spare the environment. If it gets too hot or too cold on the planet well, at least it can be said (I don't know by whom) "we didn't do it".

    33. Will Watson, Ph.D. M says:

      Jerry from Chi: You mistake my point. My point is not to convince, it's to make it clear to everyone who comes to this page that, even on The Heritage Foundation's blog, global warming denial is not safe. Heritage's distorted views and specious, feeble, science-free arguments will not pass unchallenged, even here, in the very place where the very worst lies of the global warming denier camp are spawned and sent out to breed amongst an unsuspecting, science-illiterate populace.

    34. Will Watson, Ph.D. M says:

      Jerry from Chi: I started out this debunking of Heritage's faux "journalism" by charging that the story on Greenpeace essentially sets up a false version of environmentalism, a strawman, and then knocks it down. Your suggestion that environmentalists think that "everybody should just kill themselves to spare the environment" is another strawman, another false characterization of environmentalism. Here's why. The vast majority of vital resources that are being used up by modern industrial civilization are not consumed by private individuals. They are expended by wasteful manufacturing, agricultural and recreational practices that serve basic human needs poorly, but create wealth in ways that are irresistible to the global economic elite. We, in the developed nations, could live immeasurably richer lives if we consumed less of the meaningless, useless junk that the elite have convinced us we need. But even if everybody in the USA bought CFL's, stopped driving, eating meat, and running the A/C and heating full blast, even if we did all that, we'd still only cut our GHG emissions by about 20%. In other words, we don't need to do away with people, my man, we need to change the way we've allowed the profit motive to take precedence over every other concern, including the survival of the human race. And let me tell you, if we do nothing about GHG emissions and resource degradation, if we pursue the "business as usual" agenda I see in your remarks, the global human population is going to be radically adjusted downward, not by environmentalists but by environmental factors like disease, famine, and drought and the social instability, most notably war, they will catalyze.

    35. Chuck Sproull, Sprin says:

      According to information I read in IMPRIMIS (Hillsdale College publication Aug 2007, Vol 36 #8) and other honest scientific studies (including Dendrochronology – study of tree rings in very old trees), our climate may slowly be warming up as a result of natural periodic changes in the earth that cause slight long-term variations in oceanic and atmospheric temperatures. This has been going on for centuries – so no big deal.

      During the late 60's and early 70's I was involved in deep ocean surveys (with the Naval Oceanographic Office) collecting many kinds of data from sea water and the ocean bottom. We could see how ocean water temperatures were affected by the magma and tectonic processes under the oceans, and how much they in turn affected the atmospheric weather patterns and climate above the oceans.

      Also, look at the enormous effects natural surface processes like volcanoes and forest fires have on our atmosphere. I believe man-made effects (cars, factories, incinerators, eating meat instead of veggies) only add an insignificant amount to this current warming trend; so it would be impossible for man, even in his most conservative efforts, to slow down this present trend.

      I believe our liberal politicians should apply “Cap and Trade” taxes and charge carbon credits to each forest fire and each volcano. Also, I believe that global warming activists are "FULL OF HOT AIR" and for there to be a better political climate in America, they should just "COOL IT" or “CHILL OUT.”

    36. JK, Arizona says:

      Dr. Will,

      The hidden message you speak of when describing the differences between the WMP and now is a drastic rise in population and the permanent residency of this population. Climates have changed over time on this planet. With those changes come either enhancement and proliferation or decimation. In case of the later, migration has been the pattern. If the soil stops yielding, there are two alternatives. Civilizations disappeared. But due to the population masses and the permanent societies and locations of population, these past patterns are not conceivable. The reality is this planet changes. And man has historically changed WITH it (or died), not been so ridiculously arrogant to think that it can stop or control that change. This is the absolute fallacy of the green movement.

      As some of the greenies have spoken out saying the birth of a child is the worst thing you can do to the environment. Put two and two together. Population control will be the next step. Reducing population will be next on the agenda. Fewer people mean fewer resources required, and a grand reduction of CO2.

      Europe is pointed to as a model. Lets look at their population. The native population is declining. By 2050, the native culture will be a minority. (1.38 – 1.62 native birth rate cannot sustain a population). Emigration of a mainly Muslim population offsets the decline. So in the end, the decimation is already happening. If not for the emigration, the population of Europe would be shrinking.

      The arrogance of academia. It is inbred into policy controlling government. And policy controlling government is corrupted by power and wealth. What happened to the ICE AGE that was imminent in the 70's? That was all based on scientific data. Again the arrogance of academia. The masses are too stupid, so they must be controlled.

    37. Will Watson, Ph.D. M says:

      Mr. Sproull: if you follow dendochronology you must be aware that one of the most important studies in soidifying global warming theory was the study of ancient tree rings done by Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999) that resulted in what came to be known as the MBH98 reconstruction, or, as it was dubbed by NOAA head Jerry Mahlman, "the hockey stick graph." This was/is the first really rigorous attempt at long term proxy temperature reconstruction–it records the last thousand years–and it shows a pronounced, in fact unprecedented, northern hemisphere mean temperature warming since about 1850. NHMT in fact actually spikes up in the 149 years before the study. I don't want to be dismissive, but the fact that you could cite expertise in dendochronology without even mentionining the MBH98 reconstruction tends to make me think that you don't really have ANY expertise in the field at all.

      About volcanoes, you're similarly misinformed. If it were true that volcanoes contribute more CO2 and GHG to the atmosphere than human sources, this should be reflected in the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If your claim were true, that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these CO2 records would be full of spikes, one for each eruption. But that is NOT what the record looks like. The atmospheric CO2 record, instead, shows a very smooth and regular upward trend, not CO2 spikes coincident with each volcanic eruption. The fact of the matter is that the sum total of all actively out-gassing volcanoes emit CO2 at a rate that is about 1/150th that of human emissions. Again, despite your claims of a background in oceanography, an informed reader would have a hard time taking your seismic hypothesis seriously. There's just too much data suggesting otherwise.

    38. Will Watson, Ph.D. M says:

      JK from AZ: You have a point when you say that, "the reality is this planet changes. And man has historically changed WITH it (or died)" but you totally off the rails when you charge that humanity has, "not been so ridiculously arrogant to think that it can stop or control that change." You wouldn't say the same thing about bubonic plague, malaria, polio, diptheria, scarlet fever or any of a hundred other naturally occurring diseases, would you? How about seasonal flooding? Lack of surface water? Famine? Of course not. In each of those cases human ingenuity and knowledge enabled us to survive and prosper despite natural conditions that were hostile to our survival.

      JZ, what you're ignoring is the single most important fact about human progress: that as human knowledge expanded so did our scope of action against natural forces that were formerly beyond our control.

      The ancient Mayans didn't have the knowledge to adapt to drought and overpopulation, but we have surpassed their understanding of hydrological cycles and demographics. Should drought-striken populations, now or then, just "die", as you put it? Is it "ridiculously arrogant" to drill for deep acquifers and make plans to match vital resources to population demands? No, of course not. It would be expected that we would try to save as high a life quality for as much of that affected population as possible. That's what human beings do. It's not "impossibly arrogant" to use our knowledge to prevent suffering and excess mortality.

      Your argument, thus, is either breathtakingly cynical or just plain silly. Especially when you consider that, as you point out, the Earth's population of 6.5B people is not just going to up and relocate if our resource base evaoprates or the global climate is no longer conducive to the survival of such a large human population. If projected climate changes take hold, it is entirely likely that the 21st century WILL in fact see a mass die-off of our species.

      But no environmentalists that I know of are saying that this is something we should actually DO. In fact, what scientists ARE trying to do is to make people aware of the looming catastophe so the worst effects of climate change can be forestalled, prevented. You're the one who's suggesting population control–in expressing your barely concealed fears of the Islamizing of Europe–not we environmentalists.

    39. victor dulerain, new says:

      Dr. Watson,

      You asked what proof I would consider acceptable, before I wholeheartedly signed on to cap,n,trade.

      1) the proof would have to come from an absolutely independent source -zero strings attached (pretty tall order?)

      2) the findings would have to be confirmed by no less than two other scientific bodies- with no socio-political, cultural, socio-economic or consciptual attachments with the CFR, TLC, WMF, the Bilderberg Organization, or any United Nations Organization or their affiliate of any kind.

      Please realize that this would be an impossible (Not Herculean) task. The point I'm trying to make here, is please stand back, look around and try to understand YOU ARE BEING USED. THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!! not man made anyway. the idea of taxing CO2, which is a gas you, I, and every other denizen of this planet emit as a result of aerobic respiration – IS LUDICROUS!!!!!!!!! I am at my limited wits end trying to explain this to you. I may be a moron but you sir a robot straight out of "WESTWORLD". If you must, go peddle your wares on "maloy Spaskoy" this a street in kiev, ukraine Ido wish you the best of luck.

    40. Will Watson, Ph.D. M says:

      Mr. Dulerain: If you want to have global warming theory affirmed by "an independent source" and "two other scientific bodies" you're in luck; every major scientific body on the planet has issued statements saying that AGW is happening and serious. By that, I mean almost every single professional disciplinary group–of chemists, biologists, geologists, astrophysicists etc.–has agreed that global warming is real and manmade. I also mean that every national scientific institute of every nation on earth has signed on. This includes NASA and the Royal Soceity of the UK. Here's the url to a wikpedia article that will link you to the statements of all these "scientific bodies".

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_o

      I suspect that these are not enough to convince you because I see, behind your statements, a suspicion that these is some sort of vast sinister conspiracy of all governments and all scientists to trick people into belief in global warming. However, although this might surprise you, I agree: there really IS a vast international conspiracy working to shape attitudes on global warming. What is it? Exxon and other oil and coal company lobbies, which have billions of dollars at their disposal and have been successful in buying American senators and Congressmen and flooding the media with disinformation about the subject. They have fooled you, Mr. Dulerain. You are the one who has been fooled, and your children and grandchildren are going to inherit the legacy of your foolishness: an overheated, worn out and devastated planet very different from the one on which humans have developed in the last 10K years.

    41. V Wilkinson, UK says:

      THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!! not man made anyway

      Victor Dulerain. You need to reveal your own credentials as an expert on environmental issues. “THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!! not man made anyway”. You fill me with hope if what you say is true. What is your evidence and where is the data that supports your assertion of the innocence of humanity in the global warming debate.

      Dr. Watson talks in truly impressive ways about the evidence and data. Any scientific debate here must be about interpreting the evidence for and against the hypothesis “Human activity has no effect on the global climate”. At the moment there is a lot of political ideology and mumblings about left wing communist conspiracies. Before deciding whether it is right or wrong to tax or sanction CO2 production or any other activities which affect the environment, the above hypothesis needs proving. So please, add to the debate and let us all into the data which supports your statement.

    42. Will Watson, Ph.D. M says:

      Mr./Ms. Wilkinson: being from the UK you might be missing the most salient thing about this discussion (?). Most Americans believe as Mr. Dulerain does: that global warming, if happening at all, is not manmade. I'm with you; the possibility that Mr. Dulerain is right would, IF it were credible, "fill me with hope" too. Like many who are aware of the science, my usual feelings alternate between rage and despair. But Mr. Dulerain is merely typical of the largely mystified, science-illiterate American populace.

      Oil and coal companies in the USA have mounted a truly impressive disinformation campaign, having been caught sleeping by "An Inconvenient Truth". But they've made up for lost time. They more or less own entire Congressional delegations; they produce slick mass-media disinformation, such as the "Clean Coal" advertisements; they back phony grassroots organizations that supposedly protest global warming abatement measures; and they fund fraudulent "think tanks" (such as Heritage Foundation and Competitive Enterprise Institute), which disguise anti-environmental propaganda as legitimate-appearing, yet utterly phony science.

      It's also easy for American to believe that global warming is some left-liberal scam because for the last 30 years the dominant American political ideology, "neo-conservatism", has encouraged a profound, abiding fear of liberals and liberal reforms. Basically the main tenet of this ideology is that America is and has always been right, that, as Bush 41 put it, "the American way of life is non-negotiable", that liberals "hate America" and are trying to destroy it by continually criticizing our failures to deal equitably with racism, sexism, ecocide, homophobia, greed, imperialism, etc.

      The environmental movement fits comfortably into this paranoid worldview since it would compell a more or less radical economic restructuring as the cost of saving the planet. Mr. Dulerain is typical of the type of American who fears the world that, ironically, American prosperity and power have created. In response to those fears they hold fast to a kind of myopic pro-capitalist patriotism that, too often, dehumanizes anyone who is in favor of reining in the excesses of the corporations and of the American government.

      Anyhow, enough. I want global warming to not be happening too, but, man, the science is staggering. Global warming is probably the most studied phenomenon is the history of science. If that much science is as wrong as Mr. Dulerain and his ilk want to believe . . . I don't know. It would mean a major paradigm shift in human thought. To what, neither I nor anyone else is prepared to speculate.

    43. V Wilkinson, UK says:

      Dr Watson, an apolitical stance in relation to environmental issues is essential. We have to look seriously not just at climate change, but at how human interaction with complex ecosystems is resulting in catastrophe for countless species, of which we know little and seem to care less.

      In the UK, since Margaret Thatcher (much admired and courted by conservative America) raised the issue of global warming, politicians across the political spectrum nearly all acknowledge the evidence. This situation is reflected across Europe.

      The major difficulty humanity faces in making significant progress on the causes of global warming is that no one wants to be the first to sacrifice their wealth and prosperity with nothing more than hope that other countries will follow. This problem became evident with the Bush administration refusal to participate in the Koyoto protocol. It was a real bar on achieving a meaningful global consensus. This position (which eventually began to yield under the weight of evidence) has already caused delay in achieving some level of useful action.

      India and China look to both Europe and America for the first move. Given their economic situation this is understandable as they have huge populations living on or below the poverty line. Expecting them to suffer for our prosperity would be a flagrant breech of natural law.

      A global consensus is required urgently. Cap and trade may not work. It does have one possible benefit that must be considered. The development of a global trade in CO2 and other greenhouse gases will form a framework for future initiatives that may be more effective.

      Global climate change, destruction of the environment and the ecosystems they support. The over-exploitation of resources and insatiable appetite the western world has for progress are inextricably linked.

      We are ever more rapidly using up the finite resources earth provides. Edward O Wilson offered one of the finest thought provoking analogies to describe the position mankind currently faces.

      We are taking water from the pool. It takes 30 days to empty. Each day we draw twice as much water from the pool as the day before. On which day is the pool half empty?

      Those who would cloud the arguments with politics, nit pick at the periphery of the body of evidence now growing annually need to think carefully about how their actions will be judged in the future. We need the earth, the earth doesn't need us.

    44. Will Watson, Ph.D. M says:

      Mr/Ms Wilkinson: you're the first person to post to this blog in two weeks who's voiced reasonable and well-informed ideas about AGW and the human impact on the environment. I hope, for all our sakes, that my countrymen/women can become as well informed and reasonable.

      But the fact is that there is a well-intrenched global warming skepticism in the USA and it is relatively unique in both its reach and its depth. This is not a coincidence; the reason, I've posted to this Heritage Foundation blog is that this organization has been instrumental in spreading anti-environmental propaganda and disinformation about AGW among Americans. Yet because it has been able to disguise it prevarications as genuine scholarship and expert policy ideas, it has been very successful in converting my countrymen, who are not notable for their civic literacy, to a kind of reflexive anti-environmentalism.

      The work of Heritage and others has made it difficult to even HAVE a debate in the USA about how to save ourselves from, as one of your countrymen, James Lovelock put it, the revenge of Gaia on our species. I will, however, take a certain hope from having found, even here in the belly of the denialist beast, at least one like-minded soul, Perhaps the times are not so dark after all. Best Regards, Will Watson.

    45. Will Watson, Ph.D. M says:

      Oh, the pool would be half emptied towards the end of the fifth day and completely drained before the end of the sixth. Hah! What is that, an exponential progression, right?

    46. V Wilkinson, UK says:

      Dr Watson. US scepticism presents profound difficulties in forming a global consensus to tackle CO2 emissions.

      UK emissions are half the emissions per capita of the USA. We both exceed per capita emissions for China and India by a large margin. The high rates of consumption of commodities in the west and the large geographical area of the USA will more than likely provide reason for the size of the American footprint.

      US scepticism is a global issue not just a domestic one as I'm certain your realise. I've found views expressed in the Heritage web site particularly disturbing with wholesale misinformation and misinterpretation of data and facts.

      You argue your points exceptionally well! Use the strength of your conviction to carry on as a voice of reason. If you can at least induce one more person to THINK for themselves and investigate the evidence, you have achieved a victory worth celebrating.

      As for myself, I try where I can to draw attention to the facts and not the spin. The corporations will never like this. Keep up the good work…

      Vince W.

      P.S. Assuming a pool capacity of 354000 litres; 0.007e^(0.568t) gives a good approximation!

    47. Gerald Jones, Missis says:

      The global warming theory was formulated from gathered evidence. The evidence, accepted by most of the world's academies of science, most civilized governments, most of the world's scientists, and the military leaders of the United States, Russia, and Canada, suggests that man-made global climate change is occurring. If this is a conspiracy, it is the most widespread in history.

      If you don’t like the scientific evidence though, you can just look at what people and governments are doing. Russia is suing to establish the limits of its continental shelf so as to have access to oil lying beneath the Arctic Ocean. The United States is planning to open a new Coast Guard base on the northern coast of Alaska to facilitate more patrols in case any of the increasing numbers of fishing vessels and cruise ships get into trouble. (USCG) Royal Dutch Shell is preparing to do exploratory drilling off the northern coast of Alaska. Alaskan coastal villages, once protected by ice shelves, are collapsing into the sea from tides that have never touched the land before. (geology.com) Canadian botanists and biologists are seeing southern species of plants and animals in the north that have never been seen before. Greenland’s citizens are planting potatoes, carrots, and broccoli for the first time and grazing more sheep than they ever have in the past, as well as selling leases to oil companies eager to drill on the warming subcontinent. (The Independent)

      All of these groups don’t believe global warming is a hoax.

      One would hope that you do not reject, out of hand, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, and the theory of relativity, just because they are theories.

      As for Al Gore's investments in green stuff, if I had the money I'd be doing it too. It would be a smart thing to do.

    48. Lebanon says:

      Good afternoon. No great improvements in the lot of mankind are possible until a great change takes place in the fundamental constitution of their modes of thought. Help me! It has to find sites on the: Norco home page. I found only this – http://www.ultrapetfood.co.nz/Members/Norco/maver…. Norco, ctu another mystery for geometry. But it will now work most bikes, like it managed city of them present delay, norco. THX ;-), Jorell from Lebanon.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×