Bush takes jabs at candidates during press dinner

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush poked fun at his potential successors Saturday night, expressing surprise that none of them were in the audience at the White House Correspondents’ Association annual dinner.

“Senator McCain’s not here,” Bush said of GOP nominee-in-waiting John McCain. “He probably wanted to distance himself from me a little bit. You know, he’s not alone. Jenna’s moving out too.”

Bush then referred to scandals that have dogged the campaigns of the two remaining Democratic candidates, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, in explaining their absence: “Hillary Clinton couldn’t get in because of sniper fire and Senator Obama’s at church.”

Global Warming? An Open Letter to John McCain

 

Published: April 28, 2008

Global Warming? An Open Letter to John McCain

Raymond S. Kraft


 

Dear Mr. McCain

 

It seems that some leading Republicans such as yourself, Newt Gingrich, and even President Bush, have accepted the premise of Anthropogenic Global Warming – that man is spewing millions of tons of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere each year, and that this is causing an unprecedented rise in earth’s temperature that threatens us all. And, if we spend enough money to reduce CO2 emissions, we can change it.

 

I urge you to reconsider. More than 19,000 scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition to protest the Kyoto accord, and declare their opposition to the theory that man’s CO2 emissions are causing Global Warming (the Global Warming Petition at http://www.oism.org/pproject/). Written and sponsored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, the Petition reads:

 

Global Warming Petition

 

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

 

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases, is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of Earth’s climate. Morever, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide [willl] produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” 

 

There is certainly no “consensus.”  The IPCC Report on Global Warming (2007) from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that it was “reviewed” by 600 authors from 40 countries, and over 620 experts and governments. The 19,000 scientists who have signed the Global Warming Petition outnumber those who have “reviewed” the IPCC report by more than 15 to 1.

 

The illustrations below are from www.GlobalWarmingArt.com, a website created to graphically illustrate the evidence for Global Warming Theory, and since they were created by proponents of Global Warming Theory, I will adopt them, and stipulate to their accuracy, and explain very simply why this evidence produced by the Global Warming proponents proves them wrong.

 

The Global Warming theorists always point to rises in temperature (by fractions of a degree) within the last 200 years, or the last 1,000 years, but such a small sample of climate history is not historically representative, and is not a large enough data set to be scientifically meaningful. It’s cherry-picking the evidence. To be intellectually honest, we must look at all the evidence we have, not just a small fraction of it. To be scientifically meaningful, we must look to the long history of climate changes, as shown in the six illustrations below.

 

Exhibit 1. Holocene Temperature Variations: The IPCC Is Wrong

 

Here we see that the present Warm Era (the Holocene) began almost 12,000 years ago. It peaked circa 8,000 years ago at 1.5 degrees above the baseline, a full 1 degree warmer than now, at the beginning of what climatologists call the Holocene Optimum.

 

According to the IPCC Report on Global Warming, rising CO2 causes Global Warming, and CO2 now is higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years. If this were true, then it would be warmer now than at any time in the last 650,000 years. But it is not.  8,000 years ago, CO2 was 120 parts per million lower than now, and the climate was warmer than now.  Now, CO2 is higher, but the climate is cooler. Thus we know that the IPCC’s global warming theory is false. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is wrong. Openly and obviously wrong. Clearly and conspicuously wrong. Irrefutably wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We also know that prior to 12,000 years ago, sea level was 400 feet lower than now. Most of that water was bound up in vast glaciers on the northern continents, in some places as much as three miles deep. From 12,000 to 6,000 years ago, there was so much glacial melting that sea levels rose 400 feet to their present level. That is, before the present era of Global Warming began, 12,000 years ago, sea level was 400 feet lower than now. 

 

Before Global Warming began, twelve thousand years ago, you could walk from Alaska to Siberia on the Bering Land Bridge, or Beringia, a thousand miles of dry land, north to south, as large as Australia, now under the cold ocean of the north Pacific, the Bering Sea. You could walk from England to France on dry land under what is now the English Channel.

 

Exhibit 2. The Surface Temperature Record

 

Here we see the recent trend line rising 1/2 degree (0.5 degrees) from 1980 to present, with temperature spiking circa 1998 to 0.7 degrees above the 1980 benchmark, and cooler since then. One half a degree. In San Francisco, the temperature can rise or fall by half a degree in a minute. And, for most of us, a half degree change in temperature is too small to notice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 3. Reconstructed Temperatures: Last 1,000 Years

 

While this looks fairly “dramatic,” this is only because the scale of the graph is so narrow. It is only 1.6 degrees from the bottom to the top of the chart, barely enough climate change for most of us to feel. From the benchmark of 0 at 1,000 CE (for Common Era, or AD, as we used to say, one thousand years ago), the chart only shows a range of 0.6 degrees up, and 1 degree down.  Since 1,000 years ago, global temperature fell 0.9 degrees to the bottom of the Little Ice Age, four hundred years ago, and then it began rising, and has risen about 1.3 degrees to reach 0.4 degrees above the benchmark of 0 from 1,000 years ago. Thus, we see that our climate today is a trivial 0.4 degrees warmer than it was 1,000 years ago, before the Little Ice Age.  Less than one-half of one degree.  And a full degree cooler than at the peak of the Holocene Optimum, eight thousand years ago (Exhibit 2).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 4. Ice Age Temperature Changes

 

Let’s look at some more history. Over the last 450,000 years we see five episodes of “Global Warming” above the 0 baseline. The previous four eras of Global Warming, approximately 120,000 years, 240,000 years, 330,000 years, and 400,000 years before now, were warmer than now, with very long intervening ice ages much cooler than now. The next ice age will be disastrous for agriculture in the northern half of the northern hemisphere. And, unless the long natural cycle of global warming and ice ages is somehow broken, the coming of the next ice age is a matter of when, not if. Perhaps we should be grateful for Global Warming while we have it.

 

It won’t last forever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In order to be credible science, Global Warming Theory must explain (a) what caused the last 5 eras of Global Warming, and (b) what caused the last 5 eras of Global Cooling. If it does not do so it is not good science, but merely opinion, merely speculation, an unproven hypothesis, that would not be admissible as evidence in any court under the Federal Rules of Evidence.  To my knowledge, it does not do so.

 

To be admissible evidence in court, scientific evidence must be “generally accepted in the scientific community,” as the U.S. Supreme Court held in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 US 570 (1993). Otherwise it is deemed too speculative and unproven to be reliable, and therefore inadmissible. Since there are many thousands of scientists who reject Global Warming Theory, it cannot be seen as “generally accepted science.” It is highly disputed science, a highly disputed, unproven theory. It is my opinion that this theory, and the crystal-ball computer models that purport to predict the future, the future of global climate changes, are not admissible as evidence to prove that they are true, unless they can first be proven to be “generally accepted science.”

 

Are we to base national climate and energy policy on a theory that is not even sufficiently proven and accepted to be admissible as evidence at trial, in a judicial proceeding, in a court of law?

 

If we were to do a computer model of future climate changes based on extrapolations and inductions from historic patterns and cycles of climate change, it would very likely tell us that the earth will soon enter another long era of Global Cooling, another periodic Ice Age.

 

Exhibit 5. Five Million Years of Climate Change

 

Looking back five million years, we see that (a) there have been dozens of cycles of  global warming and global cooling over the past five million years, (b) the swings between the extremes of global warming and global cooling in each cycle have been growing more dramatic, and (c) there has been a steady long-term cooling trend over the last five million yearsEarth’s climate, in the long trend, is growing colder, not warmer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 6. Sixty Five Million Years of Climate Change

 

Here we see (below) that over 65 million years global temperature has risen and then fallen dramatically from the Eocene Optimum, some 50 million years ago, not in a straight line, but in a general, long term cooling trend. Unless this long trend is somehow reversed, the earth is slowly cooling, not warming.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thus it becomes clear that:

 

(a) The present era of Global Warming (the Holocene Era) began some 12,000 years ago, long before human civilization or modern technology.  It was warmest circa 8,000 years ago, and has been slowly getting cooler every since, with some short term warming cycles, but a long term cooling trend.

 

(b) The present era of Global Warming is right on schedule in the long cycle of Global Warming and Global Cooling approximately every 120,000 years.

 

(c) The present Global Warming is cooler than each of the four previous warm eras, and the climate has been on a long-term cooling trend since the Eocene Optimum, some 50 million years ago.

 

(d) We see per the IPCC report that CO2 is higher now than in the last 650,000 years, yet during that time there have been at least four (4) eras of Global Warming with temperatures higher than now.

 

This fact conclusively disproves the hypothesis that rising CO2 causes global warming.  If the premise that CO2 causes global warming were true, then the climate now would be warmer than at any other time in the last 650,000 years.

 

But it is not.

 

Let us also note that the CO2 rise from 280 ppm (parts per million) to 380 ppm at stated in the IPCC Report is a rise from a mere 0.028% of the atmosphere to a mere 0.038% of the atmosphere. Our atmosphere is more than 99.9% nitrogen, oxygen, and argon, and less than 0.1% everything else. At 380 ppm, or 0.038%, CO2 is less than 4% of 1% of the atmosphere.

 

Over the last 100 years, the increase in CO2 has been a trivial 0.01% of the atmosphere, or 1% of 1% of atmospheric composition, one part in ten thousand. To visualize this, imagine that you have a swimming pool that holds 10,000 gallons of water. Then you add one gallon. That is how much atmospheric CO2 has increased in the last 100 years, according to the IPCC. Not much.

 

The earth’s climate has been changing continuously for millions of years, as far back as we can reconstruct it, and doubtless long before that, for as long as the earth has had a climate to change. Nature changes continuously everywhere we look. Nothing in nature stays the same.  Our contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is truly trivial, less than one part in ten thousand, less than 1% of 1% – even if we assume that all of the CO2 increase in the last 100 years has been due to us, which may not be true. Has it been proven?

 

Before the United States makes enormous changes in public policy and spends hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars to “stop climate change,” don’t you think we should demand some pretty convincing proof that the climate change we see is not natural? Is the climate change we see really man-made, and can we really change it? Or is it the unchangeable natural cycle of Global Warming and Global Cooling?

 

 

Liveblogging Wright at the National Press Club: The “black church” is under “attack;” “I am open to being vice president;” defends his AIDS conspiracy-theorizing, “God damns,” “Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy;” don’t be dissin’ my mama or my faith

Netherlands: Radical imam teaches to hate infidels

Destroy Iran’s nukes to save our cities

McCain Says Hussein Statement Makes Reverend Wright Fair Game

Ayres and Obama:It’s Not the Crime, It’s the CoverUp

Ayres and Obama:It’s Not the Crime, It’s the CoverUp

Clarice Feldman

Tom Maguire pokes around a bit and discovers that Obama’s ties to terrorist Bill Ayres are far more substantial than Obama has yet admitted to:

 

(1) It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up – why can’t Obama manage to deliver a clear answer about his relationship with Ayers?   It has long been reported that they both sat on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago.  We now also know that Ayers helped found the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Fund, with Obama as the first Chairman of the Board.  We also know that Obama, Thomas Ayers (Bill Ayers father) and John Ayers (Bill’s brother) all served on the Leadership Council of the Chicago Public Schools Education Fund (described here as “the successor” to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge project).
That is a lot more of a connection than Obama has admitted in two recent appearances on national television or at his websites “Fact Check“.  At the Philadelphia debate, Ayers was described as
… a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from.  He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.   
In Philadelphia, it was left to Hillary to mention the Woods Fund board overlap.
And on Fox News, Obama seemed utterly hazy as to what board he was on with Ayers, [snip]
(2) The second emerging theme in this Ayers drama is, what about shared values?  OK, so Barack was eight years old when Ayers was blowing things up.  But Ayers brings a very, hmm, progressive mindset to his educational agenda, or so I glean from the Ayers website (or this panel presentation).  So, does Barack share these views?  Seems like a fair question, since Ayers helped found a group Barack promptly chaired.

 

It’s well-documented. Read it all.

A New Environmentalism

A New Environmentalism

By Victor Davis Hanson
The Washington Times | 4/28/2008

Tuesday was Earth Day, and it reminded us how environmentalism has helped to preserve the natural habitat of the United States — reducing the manmade pollution of our soils, air and water that is a byproduct of comfortable modern industrial life.

But now we are in a new phase of global environmental challenges, as billions of people across an interconnected and resource-scarce world seek an affluent lifestyle once confined to Europe and the United States.

No longer are the old environmental questions of pollution versus conservation so simply framed. Instead, the choices facing us, at least for the next few decades, are not between bad and good, but between bad and far worse — and involve wider questions of global security, fairness and growing scarcity.

One example of where these diverse and often complex concerns meet is the debate over transportation. Until hydrogen fuel cells or electric batteries can power cars economically and safely, we will continue relying on gasoline or similar combustible fuels. But none of our current ways of addressing the problem of transportation fuel are without some sort of danger.

We can, for example, keep importing a growing share of our petroleum needs. That will ensure the global oil supply remains tight and expensive. Less-developed, authoritarian countries like Russia, Sudan and Venezuela will welcome the financial windfall, and keep polluting their tundra, coasts, deserts and lakes to pump as much as they can.

Rising world oil prices ensure that Vladimir Putin, or his handpicked successor, can continue to bully Europe; that Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez can intimidate his neighbors; that Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can promise Israel’s destruction; and that al Qaeda and its affiliates can be funded by sympathetic Middle East sheiks. Such regional strongmen and terrorists cease being mere thugs and evolve into strategic threats once they have billions of petrodollars.

The United States, in taking advantage of a cheap dollar, may set records in exporting American goods and services this year. But we will still end up with massive trade deficits, given that we import every day more than 12 million barrels of oil, now at a cost of over $100 each on the world market. It takes a lot of American wheat, machinery and computer software to pay a nearly half-trillion-dollar annual tab for imported oil.

An alternative is to concentrate more on biofuels. American farmers now are planting the largest acreage of corn in more than 60 years. But the result is that fuel now competes with food production — and not just here, as Europe and South America likewise turn to ethanols.

One result is higher corn prices, which means climbing food bills for cattle, pigs and poultry, and thus skyrocketing meat, pork, chicken and turkey prices. Plus, with more acreage devoted to corn, there is less for other crops like cotton, wheat, rice and soy — and the prices of those commodities are soaring as well.

Americans’ increasing use of homegrown ethanol seems to be raising the price of food for the world’s poor, just as our importation of oil enriches the world’s already wealthy and dangerous.

What, then, is the least pernicious alternative — and the most environmentally, financially and ethically sound?

Unfortunately, for a while longer it is not just to trust in promising new technologies like wind and solar power. For decades to come, these will only provide a fraction of our energy needs.

Instead, aside from greater conservation, we must develop more traditional energy resources at home. That would mean building more nuclear power plants, intensifying efforts at mining and burning coal more cleanly — and developing more domestic oil, while retooling our vehicles to be even lighter and more fuel-efficient.

Nuclear power poses risks of proper disposal of radioactive wastes. Coal heats the atmosphere. But both can also cut our need to import fossil fuels to run our generators, while offering electrical energy to charge efficient and clean cars of the not-too-distant future.

No one wants a nuclear plant in his county. But, then, no one wants to leave the country bankrupt paying for imported fuel, or vulnerable by empowering hostile foreign oil producers, or insensitive to the price of food for the poor.

It is also time to re-evaluate domestic oil production in environmental — and moral — terms. The question is no longer simply whether we want to drill in the Alaskan wilderness or off the Florida or California coasts. Rather, the dilemma is whether by doing so, we can mitigate the world’s ecological risks beyond our shores, deny dictators financial clout, get America out of debt and help the poor afford food.

We may not like oil platforms off the beach or mega-tankers in Arctic waters, but the alternatives for now are far worse — in both environmental and ethical terms.



Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and the author of “A War Like No Other” (Random House).

McCain’s War Words: Obama’s Relations with Wright Beyond Belief

Monday morning engine-starter: Jeremiah Wright, racial phrenologist

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers