Tuning in to Rush Limbaugh's radio show today really got my temperature to rise. He mocked Al Gore's recent blog in which Gore stated that the situation of Arctic ice melting may be worse than we thought. Limbaugh took issue with that and declared that this unusually cold and snowy U.S. winter is proof that there is no global warming. He also called those who believe in climate change "suckers."
I think it is proof that Rush Limbaugh is narrow minded and short sighted. He is looking at the world from his local, limited perspective with blinders on, not seeing the big global picture. Either that or he doesn't want to see it.
The truth as told by meteorologists is that there are some northern places in our hemisphere that are having a "warmer" than usual winter (ask Vancouver, British Columbia where the rain instead of snow has wreaked havoc on the current Winter Olympics). That "warm" air is pushing the colder air south to middle and eastern American states. That and El Nino, which is caused by "warm" temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, are creating a string of low pressure areas that are moving across the country in a southeasterly flow and then are swept up the east coast as nor'eastern storms in the form of snow.
Places like Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington DC are experiencing record breaking seasonal snow totals. Even the worst of climate change skeptics would have to admit that something is going on this winter. It's only the middle of February and Philadelphia has already surpassed the record of 65 inches in 1996 by over 10 inches (75.5). This is their snowiest season in over 100 years.
Combine these winter blizzards with the record number of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, wildfires, mud slides, tsunamis, glacial melting, and earthquakes the globe has seen in this past decade and it doesn't take a genius to see there is a climate change happening. With all due respect to Climategate, we don't need climatologists and scientists to tell us that.
Who are we going to believe on this subject? Al Gore, who has dedicated his life to researching global warming and the environment or Rush Limbaugh, a pawn of big business and the financial backers of former President George W. Bush who did nothing to fight climate change for eight years? Perhaps these "fat cats" feel green energy will cut into their profits.
I would take Al Gore's opinion over Rush Limbaugh's in a New York minute. Problem is we may not have many minutes left if we keep debating this issue without taking action to solve it. We need to wake up now and stop polluting and start supporting green energy. Not only will this serve the environment, it will help our economy which has been drained by having to finance states to rebuild after being damaged by years of natural disasters brought on by climate change. Besides saving ourselves, Mother Earth and Nature will thank us for it.
From the Right Climategate should cool believers of 'climate change'
Climate change threatens fog and redwoods -study
Does the Huge China-Australia Coal Deal Square With the Copenhagen Accord?
"Who are we going to believe on this subject? Al Gore, who has dedicated his life to researching global warming and the environment or Rush Limbaugh, a pawn of big business and the financial backers of former President George W. Bush who did nothing to fight climate change for eight years? Perhaps these "fat cats" feel green energy will cut into their profits."
Al Gore is Chair of Generation Investment Management and on the board of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Both are heavily invested and leveraged in "Green" technologies and Carbon Credit trading.
He personally stands to become a billionair if Cap and Trade is passed and goverments continue to pour money into AGW.
I have trouble accepting as Gospel, the opinion of one man that has that much of a vested interest tawards the issue. Especially when recently there is so much emerging information regarding the credibility of the "Man Caused" portion of climate change thoery.
That's the issue though, isn't it? There's no verifiable research that proves that carbon emmissions caused by mankind are hurting the planet. You don't KNOW that it will help. Neither does Al Gore whom you put so much faith in even though he stands to gain as much or more than any single person in the world, financially.
You want our government to commit to trillions of (tax) dollars of spending on something that may not even be a problem. If you believe that the carbon tax will just reduce corperate profits without affecting thier customers, you're mistaken. There are already several published studies stating that the current Cap and Trade bill could cost the average household $580 or more per year, and would likely increase faster than the rate of inflation.
Increased warming means higher temperatures and therefore less snow. But increased warming means more water vapor in the atmosphere. Therefore more precipitation. Therefore AGW can cause big blizzards. So too little snow or too much snow is an indication of global warming.
More warming can mean glaciers will shrink. But more precipitation means glaciers can grow. Therefore if glaciers are growing or shrinking it means global warming.
More warming means more energy for hurricanes and therefore more and stronger hurricanes are in the future. But more warming also means more wind sheer which cuts off hurricanes. So global warming can mean fewer hurricanes. So more or fewer hurricanes means global warming
More water vapor means more clouds and more precipitation. More clouds and precipitation means more cooling. Therefore global warming can mean global cooling. So if it is warming or cooling it means global warming.
No wonder Al Gore says the science is settled. It predicts everything that has and can happen.
It isn't that science can't be trusted, but that you don't understand what they are saying. You have three critical mistakes. (1) You are trying to over generalize which makes false universals. (2) You are generating circular arguments. Global warming is indicated by increases in temperature, not its effects on glaciers, precipitation, and storms. You have cause and effect backwards. Therefore, (3) if you desire is to refute global warming, you need to address the data which supports it.
This is better than prior versions of the talking point, but still needs work. I've added corrections in brackets.
Increased warming means higher temperatures and therefore less snow. But increased warming means more water vapor in the atmosphere. Therefore more precipitation. Therefore AGW can cause big blizzards. So too little snow [because of above freezing temperatures] or too much snow [because of additional water vapor ] is an indication [may be the result] of global warming.
More warming means more energy for hurricanes and therefore [an increased likelihood of] more and stronger hurricanes are in the future. But more warming also means more [vertical] wind sheer which cuts off hurricanes [but to a lesser degree]. So [the effects of] global warming [are somewhat balanced and in some situations] can mean fewer hurricanes. So more or fewer hurricanes [of less predictable intensity can be the result of] means global warming.
[This one is too wrong and weird to be fixed]
More water vapor means more clouds and more precipitation. More clouds and precipitation means more cooling. Therefore global warming can mean global cooling. So if it is warming or cooling it means global warming.
[The science is settled because there is no data to support falling global temperatures.]
No wonder Al Gore says the science is settled. It predicts everything that has and can happen.
The beauty of the information age is that knowledge is no longer the privilege of the rich or well-connected. Knowledge can no longer be secreted away in the ivory towers of academia. It is available everywhere -- to everyone -- no matter what their background.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42
The individuals inside are:
Dr. Claude Allegre
Bruno Wiskel
Dr. Nir Shaviv
Dr. David Evans
Dr. Tad Murty
Dr. David Bellamy
Dr. Chris de Freitas
Dr. Reid Bryson
Hans H.J. Labohm
Tim Patterson
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski
Dr. Ian D. Clark
Dr. Jan Veizer
It was a pleasure serving you.
Since Professor Jones is a scientist and climatologist, it stands to reason you would.
Who should we believe on this subject? Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh? How about neither one? How about if we believe Phil Jones, who is the scientist at the center of the "ClimateGate" scandal?
In a weekend interview with the BBC, Jones indicated that there has not been any statistically significant warming since 1995. In addition, when asked whether the "science is settled," his response was "I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this."
Another insight from the interview:
Q. Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998
A. Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period.
Here is the link - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
I agree we need to "clear the air" as you indicate, however, CO2 is odorless and colorless. Clearing the air requires a reduction in particulate matter (which we are doing), sulphur dioxide (which we are doing), and ozone.
What have we got to lose by cutting CO2? As is turns out - plenty. The Danish scholar Bjorn Lomberg has studied the problem and its costs. Here are his findings:
"Fully implementing Kyoto protocols would cost $180 billion per year, but for $52 billion per year we could prevent 28 billion malaria infections (and 85 million deaths) over a century, instead of Kyoto's avoidance of 70 million infections (and 140,000 deaths). There would be one billion fewer people in poverty instead of Kyoto's one million fewer, and 229 million fewer people would suffer from starvation rather than Kyoto's two million.
Many other issues are much more important than global warming." Malaria kills more than one million people each year, and some four million die from malnutrition, three million from HIV/AIDS, 2.5 million from various air pollutants, and nearly two million from lack of clean drinking water. Solving these problems would save more lives and do more to improve the human condition than spending money on global CO2 reduction."
His conclusions are outlined in his book, "Cool It."
Is any further explaination necessary?
Also yes I would believe Al Gore over Professor Jones. Gore has spent his life researching the topic. Jones is just one scientist. He doesn't speak for everyone.
-- continuation --
* NOTE: The often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie concerning Milankovitch Cycles is wrong. They stated that, "Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years." They dealt only with the Precession Cycle and totally ignored the Eccentricity, and Axial Tilt cycles.
Berger and Loutre argue in their Perspective that WITH or WITHOUT human perturbations, the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years. The reason is a minimum in the eccentricity of Earth's orbit around the Sun.
Berger A, Loutre MF (2002). "Climate: An exceptionally long interglacial ahead?". Science 297 (5585): 1287"1288. doi:10.1126/science.1076120. PMID 12193773.