The First Rule of Fighting Climate Change: Don't Talk About Climate Change
Republican pollster Frank Luntz—the brains behind Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America" and the man who coined politically potent phrases like the "death tax"—wants to help environmentalists in their push for legislation to combat climate change. His advice? Stop talking about climate change.
The environmental community is "fighting the wrong battle," Luntz announced on Thursday at an event to mark the release of a new report by his polling firm, The Word Doctors, outlining strategies to help marshal public support for a climate bill. "The least important component of climate change is climate change."
Luntz's report, "The Language of a Clean Energy Economy," finds that the majority of the public across the political spectrum is convinced that global warming is happening and caused at least in part by humans. But, Luntz says, talking about the problem won't win support for the legislation that would solve it. Among both Democrats and Republicans polled by his firm, addressing climate change was the least important reason to support a cap-and-trade policy.
So what should environmentalists say instead? Luntz suggests less talk of dying polar bears and more emphasis on how legislation will create jobs, make the planet healthier and decrease US dependence on foreign oil. Advocates should emphasize words like "cleaner," "healthier," and "safer"; scrap "green jobs" in favor of "American jobs," and ditch terms like "sustainability" and "carbon neutral" altogether. "It doesn't matter if there is or isn't climate change," he said. "It's still in America's best interest to develop new sources of energy that are clean, reliable, efficient and safe."
Luntz isn't the first public opinion expert to suggest this course of action—but until recently he was better known among environmentalists for furnishing the GOP with sophisticated strategies to kill any prospect of climate action during the Bush years. In 2002 Luntz authored an influential memo advising Republicans to green their public image while sowing public confusion about global warming. Republicans should "continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate" because otherwise, he warned, "[s]hould the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly." Two Bush initiatives that were vintage Luntz: the timber-industry-friendly "Healthy Forests Initiative" and the "Clear Skies Act" that loosened restrictions on polluters.
Many Republicans still seem to be working from Luntz's playbook. But he acknowledged at Thursday's event that the effort to muddy the public discussion over the science of climate change had failed. "It doesn't matter whether you call it climate change or global warming," he said. "The public believes it's happening, and they believe that humans are playing a part in it." In fact, Luntz warned that if Republicans continue to dispute climate science it could hurt them politically. Instead, he said, the GOP should be engaging in the debate over to solve America's energy problems. "You have to do something new, and you have to do it better," he said. "If you are representing the polices of the past, you will be kicked out."
Now that Luntz has changed course on climate, is his advice to environmentalists any better than his former counsel to the GOP? As it happens, many advocates of climate legislation have already started moving in the direction that Luntz is proposing. The cap-and-trade bill that passed the House last year is titled the "American Clean Energy and Security Act," and the version currently circulating in the Senate version is called the "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act." (The Senate bill even eschews any talk of cap-and-trade, though Luntz balked at the Democrats' alternative term—"Global Warming Pollution Reduction and Investment"—because it uses the words "global warming.") President Barack Obama rarely talks about climate, focusing instead on jobs and economic growth. So far, though, all the positive spin hasn't made the hard task of passing legislation any easier.
Comments
Breaking News: Luntz Pursues Emerging Market - Democrats
Wow.
"It doesn't matter if there is or isn't climate change," he said.
What does it say about our culture that our leaders believe it is immaterial for citizens to be informed or understand the issues that affect their lives? It's simply enough that politicians learn how to manipulate our thoughts and behaviors for our own good.
And this is from the party that sells the notion that the "elites" are the enemy of the "real America". I wonder if Joe the Plumber knows what his own party's key strategist really thinks of him?
I suppose it's wonderful that Frank Luntz has become an environmentalist, since he has proven to be one of the most effective propagandists of our age. Still, I worry that his Orwellian methods may gain bi-partisan acceptance through a single progressive issue. It sure would expand his client-base.
His words do work. But propaganda and group-think methods have always worked (see: Germany, China, North Korea) when citizens suspend their faculties of critical thought and meaningful debate.
Just because it works doesn't make it right.
Keep in mind...
It is entirely possible to pursue alternative energy sources without addressing climate change. It seems obvious to me that this is the start of a campaign to repaint things like increased reliance on coal as a "green" move. Afterall, if you remove any reference to CO2 making the Earth unfit for human habitation, clean coal is rationally the way to go. Make no mistake; this is simply another way to deny and ignore global warming.
i hate war and some flight in this world
i hate it and hope there will be less flight cource in this world..and also hope people will lead hopeful live
http://www.ecougg.com
http://www.ecougg.com
http://www.ecougg.com
http://www.ecougg.com
http://www.ecougg.com
http://www.ecougg.com
Luntz it providing excellent advice. It is unwise to ignore it.
The love affair with automobiles offers a surprising opportunity to make coal and oil obsolete.
Difficult to believe new energy systems are under development. They can turn future cars and trucks into power plants when parked.
Very small amounts of ordinary water is likely to become the fuel of choice for hybrid cars, trucks and buses. One gallon may move a car 1,000 miles.
Rowan University has validated a new energy source: fractional Hydrogen. GEN3 Partners, who advise Fortune 100 firms successfully repeated the experiments. They can readily be repeated by other laboratories.
They demonstrate that a barrel of water can equal 200 barrels of oil.
Prototype power plants have been announced by BlackLight Power for this year. Within a couple of years they claim they will demonstrate megawatt scale systems. 8,000+ megawatts are the subject of power purchase Agreements with utilities including PacifiCorp and Conectiv.
Our firm is also developing fractional Hydrogen - with one objective being hybrid engines. Vehicles powered by small amounts of water may pay for themselves.
See http://chavaenergy.com Look under the heading how? and read about ECHO - Energy from Collapsing Hydrogen Orbits and SPICE - Self Powered Internal Combustion Engines.
Radically new technology, coupled with the love affair with cars, can speed society beyond fossil fuels faster than any visible alternative.
A 24/7 development program will accelerate the process!
Do you know how much energy
Do you know how much energy it takes to break a water molecule apart? I don't either, but I am certain it's lots and lots of ergs. That is the problem with hydrogen: it is found attached to other elements and those bonds are hard to break. So "energy from water" becomes just a step in a larger process: breaking bonds between hydrogen and another element. You really haven't solved anything by coming up with hydrogen technology.
BLP and fractional hydrogen
This so-called technology violates the laws of physics.
As far as Blacklight Power is concerned, they've been claiming this "breakthrough" for the past 20 years and haven't produced even a milliwatt of electricy--let alone thousands of megawatts. There's also no evidence that PacifiCorp and Connectiv have signed power purchase agreements. (In fact, from what's on BLP's website, there's no evidence that 6 such agreements have been signed. There are press releases for the first, second and sixth. None for the purported third, fourth, and fifth. One wonders why.) And finally, with regard to "verification" by GEN3 Partners, according to BLP's website, the Chairman of GEN3 Partners sits on the BLP Board of Directors. Now, do think they might have a vested interest in "proving" the "technology" works?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Neither Mr. Goldes nor BLP have provided anything close to proof. And the laws of physics say they never will.
Fair Warning
Before anyone fails to laugh at Mark Goldes' fantastic claims (read plea for funding), please do a quick Internet search on his name. In moments you'll find that he's been trolling the Internet with similar nonsense claim looking for investors (read shills)for many many years.
Bogus Hydrogen Energy Claims
I've been reading about this for some years. Somehow those promises seem to stay just over the horizon. 8000 megawatts of power contracts? Somehow I think that would have made news on the mainstream media. Maybe even Fox.
BlackLight Power and 8,000+ megawatts in Purchase Agreements
An excellent article filled with facts about BlackLight Power and fractional Hydrogen appears on this website.
Frank Alinsky?
Gad! Don't just change the subject, stick it under a barrel.
"The love affair with automobiles . . .
It's not a love affair, it's an infrastructure.
Can you walk to the grocery store from your house?
No one
No one who is serious doubts that there is climate change - there has always been and always will be. The only question, and it is definitely not "settled" science is to what extent, if any, man affects climate change. Period.
My first thought is that this
My first thought is that this is a great idea. Frankly, too much of the language used in discussing climate change invokes images of stereotypical, uber liberal environmentalists. At times, it can be difficult to accept the seriousness of someone protesting mountaintop removal because it endangers a rare type of frog or woodpecker. Its even more difficult if said protestor is wearing artsy designer glass frames and expensive outdoorsy clothes. Thats not to say I don't care about preserving rare species, I do. But when it comes to the majority of Americans, they see jobs as their number one priority and that the creation of decent paying jobs as being the number one of priority of the federal government. So, the discussion has to be framed in a way that entices the average person.
Look at it like this. If you ask a collection of people if they support welfare, the majority will say no. However, if you replace welfare with assistance for the poor, then the majority will indeed support it. Language is a powerful tool. Luntz sees that and will never, EVER be without a job!
Luntz
I feel equally disturbed by the fact that Luntz is asking for a smokescreen on wording. Bush did this thing for years where he used the uncertainty of science to push the debate against whether anthropogenic global climate change actually existed or was just some anomaly supported by 90% of scientists as being true.
The tune contiunes as Sarah Palin, a populist stamp of vestigial ativism, malleable under corporate influence, uses the same jingoistic language Regan did back in 1981 upon his Inaugural Address equating Government to elitism. That kind of distraction and word aversion isn't opening the public dialogue.
We all (US citizens to begin with) need to be up to speed on the current issues, not circulating in some slap-stick cat-and-mouse game.
But maybe Luntz is right, in order to achieve the greater good selling GCC legislation as clean energy and American job bolstering is the most effective approach. Many people want to hear what they want to hear and are too busy to contemplate the alternative.
The Word Doctor is a Quack
I don't disagree with all of Luntz's conclusions - but it doesn't take an expert to figure out that framing the issue in terms that are familiar and understandable to most Americans is smart.
It's good that it doesn't take and expert, but Luntz isn't one. He was reprimanded by the largest organization of professional pollsters for refusing to produce data supporting his results. Another prof group called Luntz's technique a "parlor game," not social science.
And yet, a credulous media continues to report on his "findings" as if he's a serious pollster. He's a huckster. A very successful one, but a huckster nonetheless. He's the story, not the false studies he peddles.
Here's his history: http://bit.ly/87URyb
Sounds like Luntz is now
Sounds like Luntz is now giving the same advice as Ted and Michael over at The Breakthrough Institute. What a strange world we live in.
Spin designed to keep you ignorant
Oh, it doesn't matter that global warming has the potential to be the end of human civilisation then? Just use the right words to lull the general public into believing all is okay.
These spin doctors earn their living telling people how to pull the wool over your eyes and get you to vote for them, buy this, do that. If the environmentalists go the way of Mr Luntz is suggesting, then they too become part of the campaign which at its base is to not tell the truth and to call global warming anything else except what it is. Ultimately this serves the politicians and others to keep control over you and for you to remain ignorant.
Global Warming, in the sense
Global Warming, in the sense of the apocalypse is upon us unless we put the entire planet's ecosystem under a leash because it's all our fault, is bullshit. Tea partiers know this, and will not be suaded by some gobbledygook doubletalk from spin doctors. The hockey stick chart and the story there will never be forgotten. We're onto you fucks.
No Warming for last 10 years
Even when the IPCC's leading scientists (in those infamous Climategate emails) lament how horrible it is that global warming has not occurred for the last 10 years - you nut-bag ideologues just keep chanting like a bunch end-of-the-worlder Jim Jones cultists.
The arctic ice is re-freezing. Most of the glaciers are growing again. The drought in the South Western US has turned into floods.
Ski slopes all across the US are getting massive snow coverage.
Record cold temps are being recorded around the world.
The AGW computer models are junk and failed to predict this current cooling trend - which is occurring even as CO2 continues to go up.
Oh yes, desperate AGW clingers say CO2 warming is just temporarily on hold due to unforeseen climate influences.
OK, then how many other "unforeseen" influences are in play that AGW computer models don't account for - that might over-ride any impact from CO2?
But now it doesn't matter what the truth about the climate is because of all the other righteous causes that have jumped on the climate change wagon?
So science is no longer interested in the truth? More into research grants and politics?
Pathetic. We need some more REAL scientists to grow a pair and stand up to the "climate change" thugocracy.
Oh, and nice name change (to "climate change"). Can someone please point me to a time in history when world climate hasn't been changing?
Climate Panel Admits Glacier Gaffe
Pachauri dismissed talk of his resignation over
the error in the 2007 IPCC report [EPA]
The head of a United Nations panel of climate scientists has said that a prediction in one of the Nobel-prize winning panel's reports that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 was "a regrettable error".
Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on Saturday dismissed talk of his resignation over the claim, but promised to tighten research procedures.
"I am not resigning from my post. There has been an error but we will ensure greater consistency in every [future] report," he told reporters in New Delhi.
"I am not brushing anything under the carpet."
The prediction was included in a 2007 UN report on global warming, in which scientists said the probability of glaciers in the Himalayas melting "by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high".
Exaggerated claim
The IPCCÂ now says it took the exaggerated prediction from a 2005 report by the WWF environmental group.
The error was compounded by the accidental inversion of the date - 2035 instead of 2350.
On top of that, the WWF based its report on a single comment made by Syed Hasnian, an Indian glaciologist, in a 1999 article that appeared in the New Scientist magazine.
Speaking to Al Jazeera on Saturday, Hasnain said that he had been misquoted.
"It is a journalistic substitution. It has nothing to do with my research because it's not reflected in my research papers, it's not reflected in my reports," he told Al Jazeera by phone.
"So how can it be an authentic thing? It can't be. I'm not as astrologer to predict the demise of the glaciers and it's not possible."
The UN panel says a team of climate change sceptics uncovered the error, which could cast a shadow over the panel's climate change research.
english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/01/2010123125937664296.html
The First Rule of Fighting Climate Change
NASA is breaking his rule by declaring the last decade the warmest in recorded history.
At least they called it global warming instead of global climate change though.
Global Warming
Global warming is non-linear. I.e., the warmer it gets, the faster it'll warm. So, small, immediate CO2 emission reductions have as much impact as larger later ones. This is due largely to arctic tipping points, like methane and albedo increases, and that warmer water absorbs less CO2.
Re: a) Albedo - as arctic sea ice diminishes, sunlight reflecting back to space diminishes because open ocean is several times darker than ice. b) Methane release - thawing arctic peat bogs will eventually release millions of tons of methane, which is 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. Cows already produce enormous amounts of methane.
While we could use a national super-grid and people like Bill Gates invest in integral fast nuclear reactors, don't be fooled by those with limited foresight and agendas. Fluorescent bulbs, power strips, weather-stripping, insulation, bundled shopping days, car pooling, consuming less beef and cow milk, etc., are things we can implement cheaply, easily, and quickly, AND they're all meaningful.
Is global whining REAL?
Is it a fabricated crisis, or will New York harbor soon become inundated with little orange/tannish-white fur-covered 'icebergs' that used to roam the icy polar wastes in search of fish and slow-moving Caribou, along with a couple water-logged caribou, thus impeding the daily flow of shipping etc? Further, if global whining IS real, is there really anything that can be done about it, or does the global economic inertia of 6.8 billion people carry such energy that any honest attempt at regulation is a moot and futile gesture, in other words, if there's going to be an ecological crisis, are we halfway down the waterfall, and only now trying to make notes, observations, and changes?
I think Mother Nature has a lot more to do with our climate than we do, although I think there's merit in studying human impact on the environment, if we're serious about the whole thing, then it's conservation time. But, honestly, realistically, do you expect people to get out of their limos/high-priced autos/airplanes etc. and (dramatic gasp) WALK?!?!?!? Hardly. Not gonna happen.
No, I think attempts at environmental legislation are doomed to failure, or at least doomed to be a lot less effective than some people envision, because entire countries, entire economies, depend on the production and use of consumer goods, the production and provision of foodstuffs, and of course, the energy necessary to make all this modern unsustainable 'magic' happen. In other words, for the moment, we're kind of stuck. However, that doesn't mean that we can't put our heads together, and use some applied engineering to address some of this stuff, and also some applied research to come as close as we might in spite of being human and fallible and biased and stuff to the God's Honest Truth About The Environment, because people can be crafty, and inaccurate, and kind of deluded and ignorant, and the only way to really tell what's going on is to put on the parka and the snow shoes, and really go find out how thin the ice is, and whether any/all ice-thinning anywhere is really as big a problem as the experts seem to think it is. I don't know about you, but I don't have enough spare change on me to mount a polar expedition.
All this says is how we have
All this says is how we have failed to educate the public conerning the real dangers, and now its too late. We may have to wait a decade for nature to catch up to us because of the solar minumum cycle. Do we have that time? Possibly if we can get carbon sequenstration movements moving after 2020. I do like the jobs suggestions. The American public is selfish and narcissistic, and it is in pain because of the recession cum depression. Lets say American jobs for American workers when referring to these Green jobs to keep the focus on jobs, because everyone's focus is on jobs and the economy. As sad as it is, we need to step up the short term propaganda war with maximum force if we are going to save this situation. We must save Obama before 2012 or we may wake up in a very, very, very scary place come 2012 rather than just a scary place.
Unfortunelty with the media in corporate hands the prospects for the survival of this nation are not looking especially rosy as the real reformers simply cannot get the word out to the people. What's in our future? Marshall law, choas, constitutional crisis, and worse. Will our world survive? Yes, perhaps with a lot fewer of us humans. Will democracy survive? Only if people desire for it to. Will our way of life survive? Thankfully not, though perhaps with some renewable energy we could maintain most of it without destroying the planet. Its all a matter of timing because when the chaos goes critical, it probably means its the end game and its too late for reform so the choice becomes anarchy or fascism. Neither is palpable to the intelligent peace loving individual.
Having thought about it for awhile, running or confronting the chaos, I'm generally for staying flexible because I have a message. If you don't have a message I suggest finding a reliable and dependable source of security and protection against angry looting mobs with a quick escape route just in case. Is there anywhere you can hide from your self though? Nope. So, take it as it is, breathe deep (its very important to your sense of well being you know), and as unpopular as this may sound, smoke em if you got em. Sweet, bring on the apocalypse.
Thanks for reading!
"The American public is selfish and narcissistic, . . .
Just like President Obama! Imagine that.
Tactics and strategy in this debate
MikeSteers, I think you may be missing the larger point here. Either that, or I am, always a possibility of course, though I did go back and re-read the article before beginning this comment. That is, you commented, in part, "What does it say about our culture that our leaders believe it is immaterial for citizens to be informed or understand the issues that affect their lives? It's simply enough that politicians learn how to manipulate our thoughts and behaviors for our own good."
I don't think his point was to urge that leaders malevolently manipulate us, but a deeper truth that a majority of people think global warming is occurring, though not as many are convinced that humans are playing a role in that warming -- and that for environmentalists to blunder in language choice might drive those numbers down.
Put more simply (or starkly, if you prefer), *how* we say something is critical in people's perceptions of our underlying point(s). At least it does sometimes, with some audiences, i.e., audiences that don't buy into jingoism from either side. Of course, some audiences do, as famously illustrated by the outcry last year over "death panels," which was a completely different phrasing from what the Democrats had in mind, of course, and a completely different sort of panel than they had in mind, too. There was also the Democrat Congress Critter who accused the Republicans of having a health care program aimed at getting us to "die quickly," which was an equally stupid accusation.
But Mr. Luntz is, I think, speaking of the Great Middle, those Americans who are sometimes more thoughtful than those well to the right *or* the left (and who decide elections, by the way).
I believe he's saying to put the position in terms that mean something to an individual directly. Yes, that individual may have a job, but odds are very high he or she knows at least one, and probably several, who don't. Saving a polar bear may not -- probably won't -- mean as much to that person as seeing the unemployed get back to work.
Sure, maybe green energy can save polar bears and so on, if it ever gets going in a big way. But right now at least, it appears Mr. Luntz recommends to cast this as energy independence for America -- a patriotic note -- and getting fellow Americans back to work -- another patriotic note with a strong dash of humanity for good measure. And an environmentlist might be arguing for precisely the same thing but confusing which way is best to convey his message to *this particular audience.*
If we want to talk to PETA about hunting animals, we'll cast the message one way, maybe opting to focus largely on animal rights. But if the next day we make a speech to the N.R.A., whoa, hold on right there: we'll need to recast *how* we say the message -- but that doesn't mean changing the message itself.
Again -- maybe I'm the one missing out on something here, and if so, apologies to you and Mr. Luntz both.
Global warming vs. global cooling
Anti-anti, unless you hold the position that the vast majority of the world's scientists are wrong, liars, in conspiracy with the Al Gores of the world, or so, and me combination of the three, there is little serious doubt that (1.) something's going on with the climate that (2.) we're influencing to one degree or another [no pun intended], and that the Earth has either held fairly steady in temperature -- that's what the skeptics argue -- or gotten warmer -- as the GW folks argue. Buried in that is even *skeptics* aren't for the most part, saying the Earth's cooling.
Record cold in the U.S.? Which covers about 1.5% of the entire planet? Okay, how about record highs in Australia -- about 109 (F) or so in Sydney was fine, recent, summer day in Sydney, for instance? The two pretty much cancel each other out, either way.
Some months back I scoured the Internet for well over a week, hours daily, reading sources from all over the world and of all types: government agencies, public and private universities and research institutes, corporations, environmental groups, lobbyists of all persuasions, etc. With a few predictable exceptions on both sides, the preponderance of the reporting was that climate change -- a better term than "global warming" (to which I'll return momentarily) -- is occuring and that we're likely the single most significant factor, NOT in climate change overall, but in pushing the planet towards a tipping point. Sort of the principle of "Give me a long enough lever and I can move the world."
Back to "climate change" and "global warming." The latter implies, particularly to newcomers to the subject, that every square inch of the planet is going to get hotter and hotter -- which it isn't, not anytime soon anyway. It means only that taking temperatures from all over the planet, they're creeping upward -- on average. According to what I've read, one of the most significant lines to look at is the drift *upward* in overnight lows. Still, record-cold temperatures are likely to be set not just every year or every month, but every single day, somewhere in the world -- several somewheres, in fact.
Is there natural climate change? Of course there is; the evidence for at least six or seven major Ice Ages (not like the "Little Ice Age" a few hundred years ago in parts of the world) and the warmer periods between them is beyond any serious scientific dispute. But the last Great Ice Age, for instance -- the one we can best measure across time -- took a few *thousand* years to end, and for the Earth to warm anything like it has just since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Less than 200 years. Further, in most climate models, and not just those involved in "Climategate" and the "Gore Panel," as it's sometimes derisively called, if human activity is subtracted out, then what scientists (of whom I'm not one) see is pretty much what they would expect in the absence of human activity over the past 150 or so years; plug that activity in, and we tend to see, well, what the scientists do see.
And back to those scientists for a moment: can *anyone* seriously argue, say, that the Chinese Academy of Sciences, which, like everything else in China, falls under the baleful eye of the Chinese Communist Party, would be warning of climate change just because Gore says it's happening??? (And I did look up some of the CAS's stuff, in translation of course.)
On a more individual level, I live in Bangkok, some few hundreds of miles away from the nearest point of that island nation, which drops rapidly south, away from Thailand, before curving back east. Yet forest fires, both accidental and deliberate (slash-and-burn farming) regularly blanket the *entire region* with enough smoke for health alerts to be issued. The incredibly fine dust of the Mongolian and Russian steppes finds its way to remote places such as L.A. -- partly because deforestation has increased the amount of dust.
I grew up about 40 miles of Dallas, Texas. When I was a kid (I'm 58), I could see the buildings in downtown Dallas, on a clear day. Today, even on a "clear" day -- weather-wise -- it's a rare day indeed I can see the present-day buildings, some of which are much bigger than any during my childhood. Why? Smog. A smog dome covers the entire Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex and beyond. And that's repeated around the country and around the world.
Doesn't have any effect though, I guess. will be swallowed by the Sun in a few billion years anyway, so if we hang around that long, our gooses will quite literally be cooked, if we haven't moved elsewhere.
Finally, and arising directly from what I just said about smog, let's say Al Gore and hundreds of thousands of scientists have it all wrong, whether on purpose or through plain error. I live in downtown Bangkok, and I'd like to see the Sun when the weather folks say the skies are clear -- something I can't always count on, because of the incredible pollution here. That's enough reason itself, given the health impact smog has (and no one argues that these days), makes it worth trying to clean things up.
After all, what good's it for industry to make oceans of money . . . if we're choking to death?
I thought web pubs never get stale-dated
"the public believes that clim-change is happening..."
Really?
Isn't the current moral panic among the over-class that the public is no longer sufficiently hysterical about this entirely phantom problem `global warming'.
this sounds like something written in 2006.
Basic science was and is ignored
It is quite obvious that Mr. Frank Luntz does not know basic science in respect to global warming. It is also very obvious that he is not alone in that regard. Luntz is a political animal and that is what he is very good at and it is truly his main concern. He also has done a great deal of harm for everyone, as global warming is far more serious an issue than he or most undertand.
First of all global warmng or global cooling are caused by one thing. Just one. That "thing" is the greenhouse effect of our far upper atmosphere. The thin blanket of greenhouse gases, Co2, methane, are the primary greenhouse gases, is what makes Earth a living planet.
Earth IS a bio-spere because of that very thin greenhouse blanket. Without it, we would not be able to survive here. When Co2 amounts in parts per million are low, global cooling begins. When the Co2 levels are high, global warming ensues. That is how it works, and how it has always worked. That is well proven science and is taught from the fifth grade thru college.
What is low and high? Well when the Co2 levels are near the 300 ppm, that is near perfect. When they drop much below 290 ppm or the (minus) side, goobal cooling takes place. Above 335 -340 ppm, the (plus) side, global warming begins. When it was in the 335-340 ppm range a few years back, global warming began, but not so bad as to cause a great deal of trouble. Now the Co2 level in the atmosphere is near 390 ppm and it has climbed steadily to that leve lfrom 340 ppm in just two years of time. Now we have a serious problem.
It is serious because it is steadily rising and every year from here on out the level of Co2 in the atmosphere will increase much faster, the train is now moving down hill fast and it will be far warmer every year from now on.
Do not be at all surprised to see record high temps all across the nation this summer, temps in New York city may soar to the 120 degree F range, it will be like living in Yuma, Arizona. It may take two years for that to happen but it will happen. A runaway feedback cycle has already begun. Australia is now having the second year in a row of record high temps.
Now I realize that no one wants to hear that, but when reality is reality, we'd better pay attention and not deny the obvious. Can we do anything to help. __ No. We have waited far too long. _ Here is why. Any Co2 that gets into the atmosphere, by burning coal or starting an engine emits Co2, that Co2 will be in the atmosphere for at least 100+ years. The current Co2 level of 390 ppm will be rise above 390 ppm. It will increase, not drop, because of the runaway feedback cycle we have allowed to begin by doing nothing but talk about it for the past several years. That is how it is.
We coudl all, everyone on the planet, put our vehicles on blocks, move into tents or cardboard boxes and shut down every coal and oil fired plant in the entire world tomorrow, and it would not stop global warming or the runaway feedback cycle. The reason for that sad state of affairs is, the huge Arctic area of Earth is now very rapidly thawing and the 400 billion tons of methane gas there is releasing into the atmosphere as the ice melts.
That is enough Co2 to increase the 390 ppm to (1,170,000 ppm). That one million plus figure is not a typo. That will give us a very nice thick greenhouse blanket. We will have gone from a sheet to a wool filled quilt, __no, two or three qults. That can occur within five years of time at the present rate of the Arctic ice melting. Maybe less. We will very soon find out what gobal warming really means, and so will Frank Luntz.
Why did I write this doomsville blog? I wrote it because it is true, it is happening. Here is a three minute read link and what the author wrote and warned us all of five years ago, is now happening, just (exactly) as he warned us it would. He was absolutly correct an no one listened to him and I am sure that no one will listen to me either. And that is how it is.
Nice Re-Cap
Climate Flimflam Flaming Out
Posted 01/25/2010 07:02 PM ET
Environment: The United Nations makes a claim that can't be supported by science, and U.S. researchers ignore temperature data from frigid regions. The crack-up of the global warming fraud is picking up speed.
With so much of the science behind climate change coming under attack, especially among scientists, it's been a harsh winter for the global warming crowd:
• In late November, thousands of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were leaked to the public. The evidence strongly suggests that researchers colluded to prove the global warming scientific "consensus" by rigging, burying and destroying data that ran counter to their political agenda.
• Last week, the public learned that claims made by the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change were not based on science, but on speculation. Specifically, the IPCC's 2007 report said the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035 due to man-made global warming.
The claim, used at the U.N. Copenhagen climate change conference in cold and snowy December to rush through a restrictive greenhouse-gas-emissions treaty, was not based on a scientific study. It was based on a telephone call that a reporter had with a scientist who was speculating.
The IPCC has withdrawn the claim. Murari Lal, the scientist who included the contention in the U.N. report, admitted that he knew it wasn't based on peer-reviewed scientific research.
• Also in the last week, it was revealed that U.S. researchers working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are excluding temperature data from cold regions for a database used by the U.N. in its global warming scare campaign.
Canwest News Service, a Canadian agency that also owns a chain of newspapers, reported Friday, "In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.
"Worse, only one station — at Eureka on Ellesmere Island — is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.
"The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada."
Canwest also reports that Americans Joseph D'Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, say that the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies has "reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database" and has "cherry-picked" the stations.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=519049
The "Warmers" are finished
I do believe you are correct Marshabar.
Meanwhile the Arctic's methane gas is still spewing out into the atmosphere with no slowdown in sight, wait until the warm weather sets in.. We will all see soon enough.
Your words here __ "Flaming Out" __ are very appropriate, except they will have a far different meaning than you intended.
Greenhouse effect
Greenhouse effect is the gradual warming of the air surrounding the earth as a result of heat being trapped by environmental pollution.
PALLET RACKING
To sum up - we need to SCARE
To sum up - we need to SCARE more of the sheep by telling them the sky is falling (or its warming, either one), their precious polar bears are dying, or their redneck cabins on the Jersey Shore will be underwater. It seems a few still remain unmoved. Once we have the Government promoting our useless green-energy widgets, and everyone trading carbon credits on the exchanges we own, then there will be no stopping us!
Thank you and Best Regards
General Electric / Goldman Sachs
Hydraulic Tools Wholesale
Hydraulic Tools Wholesale
http://www.fivestar-tools.com/Recommend-Products/
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
