Archive for Saturday, March 28, 2009

Global warming propaganda

March 28, 2009


The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted a “finding” to the White House Office of Management and Budget that will force the Obama administration to decide whether to limit greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. If adopted, new laws and regulations will likely follow that have the potential to change our lifestyles and limit our freedoms. None of these laws and regulations will be preceded by debate; they will be imposed on us by fundamentalist politicians and scientists who have swallowed the Kool-Aid and declared global warming as fact; end of discussion.

On the Discovery Channel last week, Tom Brokaw hosted a special called “Global Warming: The New Challenge.” While promoting the piece, Brokaw declared, “there is a growing consensus that global warming is real and getting worse.” Actually, there is a growing body of opinion that global warming is a fraud perpetrated by liberal politicians and their scientific acolytes who want more control over our lives.

Whenever politicians declare a crisis, or an emergency, watch out. Chances are this means they want to impose something before the public discovers the truth.

One of the definitions of consensus is “general agreement or concord; harmony.” Any honest assessment of scientific opinion leads to the conclusion that there is significant disagreement on global warming within the scientific community among those with expertise in climatology and related fields. Yet many politicians want us to believe all of science is on board with manmade global warming and that we must act now to save the planet and ourselves from catastrophe (catastrophe is another word politicians like to use when imposing their agendas).

You know something is up when prominent apostles of global warming, especially former vice president and Nobel laureate Al Gore, refuse to debate or discuss the issue with any scientist who takes a contrary view. Some religious fundamentalists impose various codes of behavior and dress on their adherents and threaten expulsion (if not death) for those who fail to acquiesce to their dictates. Is it not fundamentalist science to ignore any evidence that casts doubt on global warming? For a treasure trove of information that debunks the “science” of global warming visit

For global warming fundamentalists, no amount of contradictory information will dilute their faith. Science makes mistakes, as did NASA when it published data on global warming trends in an effort to gauge the warmest years in U.S. history. Their temperature statistics were flawed. The year 1998 was not the hottest year on record, as NASA originally stated, it was 1934 — the year Wiley Post discovered the jet stream.

In New York earlier this month, more than 600 scientists, economists, legislators and journalists from many nations met for the second International Conference on Climate Change. Numerous presentations debunked with documentation what they called the pseudoscience and dictatorial intentions promoted by the UN, the European Union and the Obama administration. If there was media coverage of the event, I missed it.

The keynote speaker at the gathering was Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic and the European Union. Klaus described environmentalism as a new collectivist religion that doesn’t just want to change the climate, but us as well. Klaus rejected the executive summary published by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as all politics and environmental activism, “not science.”

The Australian newspaper recently reported on three senior Japanese scientists who separately engaged in climate-change research and “have strongly questioned the validity of the manmade global warming model that underpins the drive by the UN and most developed-nation governments to curb greenhouse gas emissions.” One of the scientists, Kanya Kusano, told the newspaper, “I believe the anthropogenic (manmade) effect for climate change is still only one of the hypotheses to explain the variability of climate.”

Shunichi Akasofu, founding director of the University of Alaska’s International Arctic Research Centre added, “Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth.”

Truth is sometimes inconvenient, as Al Gore likes to say. But that cuts both ways. Truth can also be inconvenient when it shines light on propaganda. Not to allow for a full-fledged debate on global warming is censorship, a popular practice in totalitarian societies and many fundamentalist religions and cults.

— Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Media Services.


RoeDapple 9 years, 1 month ago

I'll give them my SUV when they pry it from my cold, dead hands. (With apologies to Charlton Heston)

jaywalker 9 years, 1 month ago

More grist for the mill from Cal.
I read a recent report on the melting of Antarctica. The conclusion was that it was a natural, periodic climate shift that's occurred 4 or 5 times in the last 50 million years. Every one of the past shifts included high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, can't remember the ratio exactly, but basically 400 parts per whatever. Currently we supposedly sit at 360 or 380 and rising, and they concluded that man-made emissions were helping that number to go up but was in no way the stimulus for the shift. That's a theory that's in line with what I believe, but in the end who really knows? I'm never a fan of the propoganda of fear, and that's what our country is spoon fed every generation; communism, nuclear war, drugs, radical islam, and now global warming. Always have to be scared of something, danger is always imminent. But there are two truth's to take from the current episode: man cannot stop a global climate shift, it'd be like holding the ocean back with your hands. And 'going green' can't be anything but a good idea.

Richard Heckler 9 years, 1 month ago

Who's telling americans to blow off global warming concerns? The oil industry and their bought off meteroligists.

Who on the other hand is suggesting global warming is a concern and will change our lifestyles like it or not? Union of Concerned Scientists

Who is ignoring Global Warming Concerns? Our local governments who continue supporting developers who love to develop expensive sprawl growth that which in and of itself contributes huge to global warming and nickle dimes our wallets to death. Isn't this a bit stupid?

Two Billion Cars: Driving Toward Sustainability, by Daniel Sperling and Deborah Gordon

The Premise of Two Billion Cars: Driving Toward Sustainability

Transportation experts Daniel Sperling and Deborah Gordon set out to explore the premise that there are now roughly a billion motor vehicles in the world and that number is set to double within twenty years. Largely a consequence of China's and India's explosive growth, developing nations are becoming car-centric cultures following in wheel tracks of America, the leading emissions culprit. With greenhouse gases already creating climate havoc and violent conflict in oil-rich nations on the rise, how might effective, realistic solutions be found?

Root causes and eco-friendly solutions

Sperling and Gordon expose the roots of the problem-- the resistant auto-industry, dysfunctional oil markets, short-sighted government policies, and unmotivated consumers. They zero in on reforming our gas-guzzling culture, expanding the search for low-carbon fuels, environment-friendly innovations in transportation planning, and more. Promising advances in both transportation technology and fuel efficiency together with shifts in travel behavior, they suggest, offer us a realistic way out of our predicament. Ironically, the authors contend that the two places with the most troublesome emissions problems--California and China-- are taking the lead in developing effective strategies that can help wean us from our reliance on conventional, petroleum-fueled cars. California's embrace of eco-friendly policies, which Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger discusses in the foreword, and China's willingness to confront the twin environmental and energy crises wrought by an exponential growth in cars, suggest that if they can develop ingenious and effective solutions, then there really is reason for hope.

jonas_opines 9 years, 1 month ago

Cal Thomas has no business chastising anyone else for either swollowing or promoting questionable propaganda.

Richard Heckler 9 years, 1 month ago

The Effects of Sprawl & Poorly Planned Development

Sprawl lengthens trips and forces us to drive everywhere. The average American driver spends 443 hours per year - the equivalent of 55 eight-hour workdays - behind the wheel. Residents of sprawling communities drive three to four times as much as those living in compact, well-planned areas. Adding new lanes and building new roads just makes the problem worse - studies show that increasing road capacity only leads to more traffic and more sprawl.

Scattered development creates crowded schools in fast growing communities while other schools close. New development puts more children in suburban schools, but does not pay for the new schools that inevitably must be built. According to Florida's Department of Education, 17,738 temporary or trailer classrooms are currently in use in that state, and a report by the Conference Board claims that 20 percent of school kids in California learn in temporary classrooms. In Montgomery County, MD during the course of 10 years the county closed as many schools as it built in new areas.

As sprawl increases our reliance on cars and driving, it makes our air dirtier and less healthy. Cars, trucks and buses are the biggest source of cancer- causing air pollution, spewing more than 12 billion pounds of toxic chemicals each year, or almost 50 pounds per person. Our wetlands - nature's water filters - are also under attack. Each year more than 100,000 acres of wetlands are destroyed, in large part to build new developments. Since wetlands can remove up to 90 percent of the pollutants in water, wetlands destruction leads directly to polluted water.

Poorly planned development destroys more than one million acres of parks, farms and open space each year. This threatens America's productive farmland, and turns our cherished parks and open spaces into strip malls and freeways.

Sprawl wastes our tax money. Our tax money often subsidizes new developments, rather than improving our existing communities. Sprawl costs our cities and counties millions of dollars for new water and sewer lines, new schools, and increased police and fire protection. Those costs are not fully offset by the taxes paid by the new users. Instead, poorly planned development forces higher taxes on existing residents.

Sprawl increases the risk of flooding. Development pressures lead to building on floodplains and the destruction of wetlands, natural flood-absorbing sponges. In the last eight years, floods in the United States killed more than 850 people and caused more than $89 billion in property damage. Much of this flooding occurred in places where weak zoning laws allowed developers to drain wetlands and build in floodplains.

Bob031800 9 years, 1 month ago

What a timely article with ice and sleet on the ground, and a Spring snow storm on the way. With April around the corner...Global Warming, I wish... =)

Scott Drummond 9 years, 1 month ago

Only a fool would look back across the last 100 years of human impact upon this planet and conclude that scientists warning of the dangers of our unsustainable lifestyle are the problem.

Chris Ogle 9 years, 1 month ago

Hi merrill.... How are you and mouse doing today?

Fugu 9 years, 1 month ago

fundamentalist scientists... haha.. Good one.

johnadavies 9 years, 1 month ago

I guess the bus with the lunatic fringe onboard got in on time; well maybe it was just a stretch SUV! Global warming upsets the weather patterns making some places warmer and some places colder in the short run. Climatologist's can show you data on this if you are able to read and pay attention. It's happening whether you believe it or not!

RoeDapple 9 years, 1 month ago

john - you can find a site with enough experts to support whatever you choose to believe. Some drive SUV's, some ride bicycles. Al Gore rides a 747. What's his "carbon footprint"?

Fugu 9 years, 1 month ago


Did the site of experts you go to tell you to refute AGW based on Al Gore's carbon footprint? If so, you better find some better experts.

jaywalker 9 years, 1 month ago

Geez, Marion, mix a few prunes in for breakfast. And read the entire post, pretty obvious I'm not a member of the 'global warming crowd' that you're referencing. I believe we're experiencing a global climate shift, not that we're killing the planet or making our lifestyle unsustainable as Scott proposed.

devobrun 9 years, 1 month ago


Nose rings for everybody.

Modern liberal thinkers do not. Modern liberals are not. Modern liberals are sounding more and more like their parents all the time.

Philosophical terms for open-minded dogma escape me. Hypocrisy? Confusion? How can demonizing evil things defined by you be anything but dogmatic? CO2 has been demonized. It is not. Dogmatic adherence to that which is the common wisdom is not liberal. What happened to open-minded liberals?
Where did you go? Why has liberalism and the left become so single-minded regarding carbon? Its like listening to fat men with black horned rim glasses telling us that we will rot in hell for our sins. Wake up to yourselves CO2 demonizers.

Don't forget to turn your lights off this evening precisely at 8:30. I plan on attaching my oscilloscope to the power mains to see the voltage spikes that will ripple through our continent. Oh, I'll turn off all expensive electronics not connected via a ups. I suggest you do to.

Practicality 9 years, 1 month ago


I am starting to like you. All of your posts are usually practical and rational. Even if I don't agree with all of them. They do have a realistic logic that I can appreciate. I am starting to think that you must not be from Lawrence.

Kudos to you sir.

Scott Drummond 9 years, 1 month ago

Unsustainable lifestyle? Indeed. We can argue over global warming, but here's another, and in my mind more grave, impact our overpopulation and consumer lifestyle is having:

"Human beings are currently causing the greatest mass extinction of species since the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. If present trends continue one half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in less than 100 years, as a result of habitat destruction, pollution, invasive species, and climate change.

A majority of the nation's biologists are convinced that a "mass extinction" of plants and animals is underway that poses a major threat to humans in the next century, yet most Americans are only dimly aware of the problem, a poll says.

The rapid disappearance of species was ranked as one of the planet's gravest environmental worries, surpassing pollution, global warming and the thinning of the ozone layer, according to the survey of 400 scientists commissioned by New York's American Museum of Natural History.

The poll's release yesterday comes on the heels of a groundbreaking study of plant diversity that concluded than at least one in eight known plant species is threatened with extinction. Although scientists are divided over the specific numbers, many believe that the rate of loss is greater now than at any time in history.

"The speed at which species are being lost is much faster than any we've seen in the past -- including those [extinctions] related to meteor collisions," said Daniel Simberloff, a University of Tennessee ecologist and prominent expert in biological diversity who participated in the museum's survey. [Note: the last mass extinction caused by a meteor collision was that of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago.]

Most of his peers apparently agree. Nearly seven out of 10 of the biologists polled said they believed a "mass extinction" was underway, and an equal number predicted that up to one-fifth of all living species could disappear within 30 years. Nearly all attributed the losses to human activity, especially the destruction of plant and animal habitats."

bearded_gnome 9 years, 1 month ago

Actually, there is a growing body of opinion that global warming is a fraud perpetrated by liberal politicians and their scientific acolytes who want more control over our lives.

very well said. not one of the believers in the fundamentalist anthropogenic global warming mythology even tried to disprove one of Cal's points. that's very telling.

jayhawker, "going green" is not without risks: "low flow toilets" have to be plungered more. the proposal now before the UN is admitted to have a massive impact if accepted, on first world employment, and will drive more jobs overseas.
CFL's put dozens of little lights into your honme, each with mercury in it. the background mercury exposure will go up and cause all kinds of trouble, such as increased autism?

quiet cars pose a very serious safety threat to pedestrians who are blind, children, elderly.

there are many more available examples of greenie wheenies' actions harming people.

Scott5150, that would include some of the same scienticians and environuts who were all in arms warning us in the 70's about "global cooling," now wouldn't it.

jaywalker 9 years, 1 month ago

bearded gnome,

Never said going green doesn't have hiccups, but anything we do does and will. This ain't low-impact camping we're talking about.


'Preciate the thought.


I read ya on all that, but I don't necessarily agree that it's our lifestyle that's the issue. I think it's simply over-population and the recent trend of migration to large cities that's the root cause and biggest threat. Too many of us. The entire world population could be fit, shoulder to shoulder, inside the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida (or so it's been reported), and that doesn't seem so immense, but we're one highly influential animal. And I'm not one to buy that half the fauna and flora will be extinct in the next 100 years or whatever that number was. We still discover more new life each year than goes extinct, and they've even found a number of previously believed extinct species to still be around.
We need the third world countries to stop having unprotected sex as their only diversion and for communities to spread out. Not done willingly and it'll happen due to sweeping disease, the Earth's equalizer.

Scott Drummond 9 years, 1 month ago

"Scott5150, that would include some of the same scienticians and environuts who were all in arms warning us in the 70's about “global cooling,” now wouldn't it."

Perhaps, bearded gnat, (many scientists prominent in the 1970's, I assume, are no longer with us or perhaps in retirement,) but do you deny the disappearance of vast numbers of species? You can argue the earth's climate is not changing because there are so many complex variables, but I don't see how anyone can deny we are killing off God's creations at an alarming and increasing rate. Perhaps you've drunk enough of the anti-knowledge, republican Koolaid.

Scott Drummond 9 years, 1 month ago

Yahoo Answers. Whew, what an unimpeachable source of information. When Wikipedia is too rigorous......

llama726 9 years, 1 month ago

Yes... Releasing toxic fumes into the environment has ABSOLUTELY no negative impact on said environment. GIVE ME LIBERTY (By liberty, I mean the ability to do whatever I want without regard to the consequences, including poisoning our own atmosphere) OR GIVE ME DEATH

BigPrune 9 years, 1 month ago

What happened to the mother of all storms yesterday? Weren't we supposed to get 8" of snow? The scientists cannot even predict what will happen tomorrow with the weather, so why should everyone be believers in this so-called man made global warming? What about the increased sunspot activity that correlates with climate change?

tin 9 years, 1 month ago

I'm glad to see that our new president is setting the example. I'm sure jet setting to the Jay Leno show, and having to go to Denver to sign the stimulus package was worth the impact that his jumbo jet and entourage has on the environment.

Lead by example comes to mind.

RedwoodCoast 9 years, 1 month ago

In all fairness, there could just as legitimately be a column published with the title, "Anti-Global Warming Propaganda." Somewhere in all the propaganda coming from both sides--and it is--lies the truth of the matter. In one corner, we have conservative Al Gore-haters and in the other, we have liberal GWB-haters. Take away the anti-liberal and anti-conservative elements from the debate and we might actually make some progress with regard to responsible environmental stewardship. It is a non-political issue that has been politicized into some sort of hideous, polarized, mutant debate.

RoeDapple 9 years, 1 month ago

But RedwoodCoast, who will fiddle while Rome burns?......

Scott Drummond 9 years, 1 month ago

"What state has a slavish devotion to “green” and global warming this and global warming that? That would be California. What state has the worst economy in the US? That would be California? What state is going to tax the bejesus out of all things vehicle to try and dig out of its mess? That would be be California.

Who wants to live like California lives; the most liberal and consistently troubled state in the US?"

Uh, not exactly. All the bottom dwellers seem to be quite red in their political tendencies. No surprise as far as I am concerned. The dumber and poorer a state, generally, the more republican it is.

RedwoodCoast 9 years, 1 month ago

Who will play fiddle when Rome burns? Probably people who don't post their propaganda on these forums.

lwctown 9 years, 1 month ago

Even if man made global warming is false the remedys for global warming are the right move. For example... -reducing dependence on fossil fuels. -reducing dependence on non renewable fuel. -investment in sustainable clean fuels. -eco-friendly living. Anybody who thinks that the world can continue the way the earths population is living has their head in the sand.

jumpin_catfish 9 years, 1 month ago

I feel so used. I thought I could trust the media and the government. ha ha haaa ha. The end is near sooner or later.

Brian Laird 9 years, 1 month ago

Pilgrim2 - You are being dishonest. Here is the actual Schneider quote from Discover magazine - including the crucial last sentence that you "conveniently" omitted.

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. "

Chris Golledge 9 years, 1 month ago


Cal needs to learn some basic science before commenting on the same. It would not hurt a few others posting here either. Start with the thermodynamics of black body radiation; if that is too difficult for you, then please resign yourself to the fact that you aren't qualified to speak on the subject. I don't like elitism or even the appearance of it, but really, the answer to this puzzle is in the science, and no one above, including Cal, has mentioned anything related to science in refuting the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

Hoax? Conspiracy? Tens of thousands of people involved, across dozens of countries, and no one is talking? That's amazing!

Cal spews a lot of vague information; there is only one statement which can be pinned down as a fact, and it is wrong.

"The year 1998 was not the hottest year on record, as NASA originally stated, it was 1934"

It does not look like 1934 was warmer on this graph.

Answers to common myths about global warming, if you are interested,

Chris Golledge 9 years, 1 month ago

"...more than 600 scientists, economists, legislators and journalists.... If there was media coverage of the event.."

Hey Cal, how many of the 600 were scientists with climate work published in a peer-reviewed journal?

Why should we care what an economist or a legislator think about climate science?

So, journalists are included in your count of who was there, but there was no media coverage? Run that by me again.

Blog entries

Commenting has been disabled for this item.