…,meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.
“Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey,” said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.
[…]
The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming. In contrast to Bancroft’s 1986 trek across the Arctic with fellow Minnesota explorer Will Steger, this time she and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted.
Via Drudge, who has this teaser –
NY TIMES PLANS HIT ON GORE, NEWSROOM SOURCES TELL DRUDGE: ‘Scientists argue that Gore’s warnings are full of exaggerated claims and startling errors’… Reporter William Broad filing the story, ‘A CALL TO COOL THE HYPE’… Developing…
Update: Article is here.
Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.
“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.
Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.
“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”
In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”
If you have the time, it’s also worth your while to check out Charles Adler’s show from today for one of the most intellectually vacant dismissals of global warming skepticism I’ve yet heard, from journalist Michael Harris. It’s deserving of transcription, if only to serve as a formal example of the art of cheap shot namecalling as rebuttal.
And for those of you who have left this link (see below) in nearly every comments thread over the past three days – The Great Global Warming Swindle.
Speaking of which: these Blog Policy notes
I don’t link or feature every item that rolls over the blogosphere just because it’s rolling over the blogosphere. Or heading up every newscast. Or the front page of the Globe. There are only so many hours in a day, and more importantly, there are only so many posts readers have time for. If you’ve seen something mentioned two or three times in the comments, and nothing on the main page from me about it – consider it a hint. I either don’t have the interest, I think it’s redundant (which the “Swindle” video is, considering the wealth of detailed posts archived here on that very topic) or its already been beaten to death and I have nothing more to add.
Now, as you were.
That left deadtree, aka NewYorkSlimes, is whispering to the Goreacle: “Cool it”. [Irony intended.] The “it” is the hyper-flatulence-spiel re carbon offsets, etc. Why?
Is the left embarr-assed now that the CO2 hoax-swindle has been exposed? Is the Goreacle now cast as a snake-oil salesman? Is the left guilty of buying into a pig-in-a-poke? Yes, yes, and yes. Suckers.
The psychotherapist bought into the swindle; could not see the Gestalt, especially the Law of Pragnanz. She was riddled with Fear-Guilt; mesmerized by the hype, she bought into the indulgences. Notice the word “atone”. A fool and his money is …
More exposure of the GW-CC poseurs:
“Carbon confusion
Buying emission offsets is a challenge for consumers
BARNET, VT. — Sara Demetry thought she had found a way to atone for her personal contribution to global warming.
The psychotherapist clicked on a website that helped her calculate how much heat-trapping carbon dioxide she and her fiance emitted each year, mostly by driving and heating their home. Then she paid $150 to e-BlueHorizons.com, a company that promises to offset emissions.
But Demetry’s money did not make as much difference as she thought it would. …
Moreover, the project received a “dirty dozen” award from a New England environmental group in 2004 because…” …-
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2007/03/13/carbon_confusion/
From the NY Times article:
He (Gore) said that after 30 years of trying to communicate the dangers of global warming, “I think that I’m finally getting a little better at it.”
It must have been really frustrating 30 years ago to try and communicate the dangers of global warming with up coming ice age and all.
You would think the lefties would like some of the benefits of global warming. All that beach front real estate under water and the capitalist pig owners losing a fortune. Talk about redistribution of wealth.
enough
SDC:
You are right about Harris on CFRA Ottawa, Monday to Thursday 1PM to 3PM. He really should seek psychiatric therapy for his obsessive hatred for George Bush and he also has a problem with Harper, lumps him in with Bush because of Iraq War.
It’s rather sad, he’s otherwise a very talented and
decent guy but got off the rails on this issue.
I can’t listen to him any more either most days.
Liz J
I think his hatred is about SSM. He’s a one issue guy just like Andrew Sullivan. Too bad , both of these guys are talented.
Climate change is a reality. It has been for thousands of years. It will happen no matter what we do. Even the IPCC report concedes ( in one of the biggest ass covering statements ever)that even if we do everything they advocate, the effects wont be seen for centuries.
So, in view of all that, lets not lose sight of those issues that we can do something about, the results of which might be realized in our lifetimes.
Heres some:
-clean water in our communities.
-City smog
-Mercury pollution
-poisonous substances
-sewage treatment
-add your own
Anyone recognize these issues?
Minister Ambrose had a good handle on them.
Gosh according to the eco-wackos like AL GORE and GREENPEACE they should have gotten heat stroke instead of frost bite too bad green nuts but there is no global warming just a over abundence of HOT AIR and as the old margerine ads used to say ITS NOT NICE TO FOOL MOTHER NATURE so like in the old ads she made a big snow storm and gave the eco-weenies frost bite
ken melrose: I agree, I always fail to understand how people with a certain political view should hold all views in common – why are people with conservative politics (like me) routinely branded (by the left) as “bible-thumpers”, etc. I have been a fan of Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), and agree with much of what he writes, however it only takes about 2 minutes on his website to realize that if you personally do not have religious outlook on life, you are also supposed to be socially liberal, and completely “buy into” the anthropogenic view of global warming. I don’t understand at all – if you believe the theory of evolution, if you believe that the earth is 2,000,000,000 + years old, why must you necessarily also believe that the recent changes in climate are man-made? Can anyone explain?
albatross39a – how do stories about recent weather events, the most extreme in the 150 years or so that we have been tracking such things, lead to an unshakable belief that humans are the cause? See previous comment about the earth being over 2 billion years old
tomax 7 – I agree that the big issue is pollution – clean up our air (pollution, not CO2), clean up our water. I live in Alberta and we are developing our oil sands at break neck speed. Is there any debate that oil, and all fossil fuels, are non-renewable resources? What’s the rush? I hope that we are searching out alternative energy sources, not because I think we are causing catastrophic climate change, but because I think that the future of civilized society could still be at stake (if we are caught off guard when the oil runs out, whenever that may be!)
Vitruvius – I loved your quotes, and in particular the one from Bertrand Russell – “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” I do not presume to call myself wise, but sometimes I feel that I am guilty of over-analyzing things. It seems that in the context of the topic of climate change, if you have an absolute belief in the role of humans in global warming, I personally think that you have had to ignore a lot of scientific evidence to the contrary, e.g. ice core evidence, fossil evidence, medieval warming period, the list goes on. It also seems to me that the people on this side of the argument resort to a lot more name-calling (flat-earth believers, holocaust-deniers, etc) than the people on the other side. Is this evidence of the weakness of their argument?
Jose – I have spent time reading on realclimate.org. I agree a more scientific debate than a lot of sites, and they try to keep the debate civil (less derogatory name-calling), which I like. I still think it seems they are on the whole very quick to dismiss any evidence which might disprove the point of view which they clearly possess.
Concluding, I guess I would have to say that I wish I could believe the AGW argument wholeheartedly, because then I could believe that if we caused the changes we are seeing in our climate, then of course we could do something to turn things around (even if it took a long time). We could ensure the future of the planet, and ensure our survival as a species, if we could control the climate. That has to be a powerful force motivating people who truly believe (in AGW). Humans feel a need to be in control – this subject is no different.
I have not seen the gore movie, but I would like some questions answered by those that have. When this movie is shown in schools, is there any mention that the info in it was based on facts/reason/lies that were supposed common knowledge up to and including the dates of filming. Is there any mention that some of these facts/reason/lies have been disproven in the years since this movie was made. Is there any mention that some of the experts quoted in said movie have since come out and said that they were misrepresented. Is there any mention that gore has founded carbon credit companies and is buying credits from himself, and invests the money in companies that he owns. I am sure the answers to the above questions will be a resounding NO.
I think the whole concept of this film is it was based on an inconvenient lie, trying to con the public that it is truth.
I would compare it to someone going to the Southern states and expecting to see life as it was portrayed in Gone With the Wind.
Kevin Jaeger 8:59
A well-balanced post. I’m very much of like-mind. The climate change fanatics have overstated their case, but that doesn’t mean that there’s not some truth to their hypotheses. IMHO, the biggest danger is as nomdenet stated, “Our institutions are failing us.. that’s the climate change that worries me the most.” The fact that usually-reliable institutions are pretty obviously being politicized should concern us all. If the enviro-fanatics ever get it through their heads that the Earth’s/humanity’s best interests will not be served through excess alarmism, we would be making much better progress towards solving the most pressing needs of our time. I wonder how much money has been wastedly thrown at each of these enviro-fads that are dropped as soon as their shock value fades? I have a lot of hope for humans to solve the problems that face us, but only when we’re not being distracted by people with other agendas (AIDS funding far out of proportion to cancer funding, for example, comes to mind).
Albatros – do you have a blog/e-mail such that we could continue some of our earlier discussion on our own? You could stop by mine, and/or drop me an e-mail through my site (I think it’s listed there). I started reading realclimate.org, as per your request.
On a related note, I read how realclimate discussed the temperature/CO2 lag. First of all, they recognize that it is real. Second of all, they accept that ‘something else’ causes the first 800 years of warming, before CO2 rises, and then attribute subsequent warming to the risen CO2 levels. I haven’t read all the details, but it seems foolish to me to say that something else causes a temp rise for 800 years, at which point that ‘something else’ stops causing warming, and then CO2 takes over (I realize I’m oversimplifying it, but is it really that far off from what they’re saying?).
The worst part of the whole debate about GW is that it distracts us from a much more imminent and critical global problem, that is the depletion of fish stocks in the ocean. Not only is this happening much faster and is more widespread than most people are aware of (eg the east coast cod industry was virtually wiped out in less than a decade), but we can actually do something about it (such as creating preservation areas in which no fishing takes place to allow stocks to replenish). Unfortunately, the world’s politicians are focusing on the wrong crisis!
These ice deniers, were probably rescued by ice fishermen.
Ancedotal evidence (whoa spelling) for sure, but, I’ve stood outside on two frozen lakes a week since ice up in Ontario, and it’s extra cold out there this season.
Global warming has tucked it’s tail, and is cowering under the porch this winter.
Cochrane was minus 38 without the wind chill one day, and we fished outside all day.
These ladies were one more equipment malfunction away from death.
They must have done all their research via AL Gore’s documentary and Suzuki’s dreams.
“They were experiencing temperatures that weren’t expected with global warming,” Atwood said. “But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability.”
Are these people idiots? If I was planning an arctic hike i think i would have done some homework ahead of time….nah, pack your swimsuits kids we’re goin to the beach!!
Tim Ball never met a microphone or camera he didn’t like.
http://www.themeliorist.com/?q=lawsuit_filed_against_professor_board_of_governors_and_n
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/tim_ball_update.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/09/tim_ball_sues_for_325000.php
Point being, this guy does anything for attention, (especially when it leads to cash) which leaves me sceptical about any death threats that he has recieved.
When the whole global warming hysteria was getting really wound up, I decided for myself that this was apparently a sufficiently serious issue that it was worth investing some time and energy in trying to get as much reliable information as possible on the subject in order to make up my own mind. Having been educated in science I didn’t feel at all intimidated in going back to the original scientific articles used as the basis for the IPCC reports which in turn are the basis for the Kyoto treaty. The articles aren’t particularly difficult to understand. What I read left me absolutely astounded — not by the supposed proof of man-made global warming, but by the utter lack of it. It’s not that I’m against controlling pollution, (we recycle at our house), or that I’m insensitive to environmental concerns (I used to work as a Park Ranger and Outward Bound Instructor), it’s that I’d rather see billions of tax payers’ dollars spent on environmental/development issues that are real and may actually make a difference to the well-being of the planet and human beings less fortunate than ourselves. “Swindle” is a valuable resource, not for introducing anything new, but for recapitulating in layman’s terms what is known and which appears consistent with my reading of the scientific literature. It’s a much needed sober reflection on what has been an unrelieved drumbeat of hysteria from the bureaucratic and special interests advocating the squandering of billions of dollars on utter nonsense.
Ban AL GORE from the north pole his HOT AIR will surly thaw it out and ruin it
These proponents that claim carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for climate warming, and that humans are a huge factor in causing this increase, should not be called liars and idiots, but we should pity them because they are only people ignorant of the truth and the facts.
There are only so many hours in a day, and more importantly, there are only so many posts readers have time for.
Fine…
If you’ve seen something mentioned two or three times in the comments, and nothing on the main page from me about it – consider it a hint.
What if the commenter “didn’t have time” to read the comments? Why are commenters being scolded for commenting anyway???
I either don’t have the interest, I think it’s redundant or its already been beaten to death
O.K, we get how you feel about the lame comments.
and I have nothing more to add.
I wish you felt the same way about the last part of this post.
So, Albatross, what exactly is your point? Humans have only been keeping climate records for about 150 years. The earth is millions of years old. Only a fool would use climate records to back up climate change. BTW, how do you explain the warming that appears to be occurring on Mars? Ah, of course, it’s being caused by the human race!
It appears that the recent Channel 4 and More4 documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” has left many viewers doubting that today’s climate change is largely humanly caused. In this email, anyone so affected by the programme is urged to view the following information:
1. An introduction to the flaws of the programme. http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-great-channel-four-swindle/ (or Google “climate denial”, go to 9 Mar post.)
2. How a similar docu on Channel 4 by the same director Martin Durkin in 1997 was rapped by the ITC, in particular for misleading four featured interviewees and distorting their views. See Parags. 8-11 of http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2001694,00.html
3. Prof. Carl Wunsch says: I was misled and misrepresented in the ‘swindle’ documentary http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece
4. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=414 (or Google “Realclimate”, go to 9 Mar post.) Climate scientists’ view of some of the key flawed or discredited claims made by the programme (some of which you may have seen elsewhere). A site praised by Scientific American, with explanations for the medieval grapes, why Thames stopped freezing, and loads more.
5. http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3268874#post3268874 – with THAT graph clearly explained, plus a clear guide to the links of some of the interviewees.
6. Royal Society and science academies around the world joint statement on climate change: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=3226 (or via Google “Royal Society”).
7. A blog discussion on the programme, including details of apparent breaches of the Broadcasting Code, and how to complain. http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1820 (or Google “Climate Campaign Portal”.)
I’ve been told by two people that the Swindle video is no longer available on Google viddeo.
tranio…
Swindle is still on Google Video. How do I know? I went and looked. See how that works?
(Via free republic):
Vanity on Frostbitten Global Warming Trek
The moonbats that got frostbite searching for global warming have gotten such a deluge of global warming deniers on their blog that they’ve closed it down to new posts. And they’ve censored several posts that gave specific scientific information and links for the kids to read. Frostbitten Moonbat Blog
This is apparently being followed by a large number of school children, so its an excellent place to post the truth. Suggest you all bookmark this site and revisit it in a few days, weeks, months.
http://www.bancroftarnesen.com/explore/ArcticOcean2007/msgBoardClient.jsp?a=show
Sample message:
Borge Ousland from Norway:
Leit å høre Liv, fort gjordt i minus 50. Velkommen hjem igjen. Hilsen Børge
KP
>Humans have only been keeping climate records for about 150 years.how do you explain the warming that appears to be occurring on Mars?
And in other news..
9th coldest February in 137 years; 4th snowiest since 1929: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0702270141feb27,1,5871706.column?coll=chi-newslocalchicago-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
February was coldest in 28 years
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/188324
I just tried Kate’s link to the google video, and can’t access it. Anybody have an alternate?
I suggest that you watch this – it has both nothing and everything to do with climate change … think Mann.
http://ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=p_donnelly
Shane O,
Go to video.google.com and do a search for Global Warming Swindle … pick the one thats about one hour 15 in length.
The Exposure of the Charlatans, The big Lie, can hardly wait for the headlines.
We need more balance with information from people on both sides.
The truth lies buried in all this over the top hype by people like Gore who maybe needed something to do and became the spokesperson for this political activist movement called Global Warming.
His refusal to appear on talk shows with people of
opposing views tells us he may not know his stuff.
Ural – thanks.
MANY PEOPLE HAVE DIED BECUASE ENVIROMENTALISTS HAVE LIED
Spurwing – I expect, as you do, that some environmentalists know that what they’re pushing is pseudoscience, at best. However, the vast majority of people pushing the latest enviro-fad, I suspect, are well-intentioned, concerned citizens. I had my coming of age in the 70’s, after the global cooling scare/ice age scare (as a young teen, I was terrified). I now approach every enviro-fad with a skeptical eye. There are many people who want to believe that anyone pushing an environmental message are being completely honest, even as they froth at the mouth about how bad things are. I think it should be pretty clear to anyone with a non-biased approach that human history shows that when people first enter an area/exploit a resource, we tend to degrade the environment (at first). After our economy gets going, we use some of our (now superfluous) resources to then improve the environment. This is what has happened pretty much across the board in the developed countries. We have the opportunity to help some of the developing countries leap-frog some of the environmental degradation phase. That would be a far more useful environmental expense (if it can be done in a way that doesn’t just hand money to corrupt governments to spend as they please) than even upgrading our own environments. Barring that, pollution control is probably our best local expense.
FYI:
There is good reason why atmospheric CO2 increase is caused by increasing (oceanic) temperature and not the other way around — it is quite soluble in water, and that solubility is very dependent on temperature and pressure — increasing with lower temperature and/or higher pressure. Here is a table, I copied from a website on CO2 properties:
Temperature (oC) 0 10 20 30 40 50 80 100
Solubility(cm3 CO2/g water) 1.8 1.3 0.88 0.65 0.52 0.43 0.29 0.26
Old Chemist, the ocean is but one source of CO2 and is lessened when ice covering. The result is a lag in atmospheric CO2 levels during a natural warming. However, as I’ve said before, past climate changes were missing one thing, man’s influence.
CO2 causes global warming, on planets like Venus and Mars where the atmosphere is mostly CO2 and without a planetary mass of hungry photosynthetic life.
Who can ever get sick of watching leftists impale themselves on this issue?
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/14/video-edwards-says-global-warming-will-make-world-war-look-like-heaven/
The ocean is the largest source of CO2, when its waters FIRST heat up – through other mechanisms than CO2 increase (realclimate admits as much).
You seem rather certain of man’s influence on climate – I don’t see what you base your confidence on, even after having perused realclimate.org.
By the way, have you watched the GGWS yet? I’m just watching it right now.