See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Rhymes With Right
2. UniversalUpdate.com
3. Pirate’s Cove » >>Americans Never Quit » The Goracles Cynical Concert
4. Turning 25 » Blog Archive » AITW: Live Earth’s carbon footprint
5. JammieWearingFool
6. Things that make you go “BULL$#!+!!!!!!! | BitsBlog
7. Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
8. Skilletfan-My first blog
9. Julie’s Fresh Air » “Live Earth” … or Rather … Earth to Gore

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #101908
   On July 7th, 2007 at 9:40 am, MikeB said:

   Good people of this site, First, I am not a scientist and some on this site are more educated/experienced with environmental science than I am. However, I don’t understand what level of proof some of you need. My point about man-made CO2 is that it is not naturally occuring like photosynthesis. The biosphere was not created to accomodate our energy use. Yes, biospheres have great abilities to adopt. But how much damage have we done so far?

   This what I am interested in. Not whether one celebrity or politican is a hypocrite. Discussing those things don’t advance the argument.

2. #101924
   On July 7th, 2007 at 10:51 am, graysonret said:

   As long as there is money to be made, and power to obtain, this “global warming threat” will continue. I remember the “we’re all going to freeze to death” warnings back in the 80s. Today we have “we’re all going to cook to death” warnings. Would you believe I”ve seen the “we’re all going to freeze to death” warnings coming back? Yeah…sunspots. Wish they’d make up their minds. I’ve gone from sweater hoarding to t-shirt hoarding back to sweater hoarding now.

3. #101937
   On July 7th, 2007 at 11:47 am, Yashmak said:

   My point about man-made CO2 is that it is not naturally occuring like photosynthesis. The biosphere was not created to accomodate our energy use. Yes, biospheres have great abilities to adopt. But how much damage have we done so far?

   This is a reasonable question. One that I wish we had an answer to. But there are such contradictions in the science behind global warming that I don’t think an accurate answer has been arrived at. Take this bit of information for example (taken from a California State University geological study page):

   Scientists estimated that Pinatubo’s eruption added more aerosols (light gases and particles) than all human-caused ‘greenhouse gases’ since the industrial revolution. A reduction of up to 1°C in the Earth’s average temperature was recorded by NASA satellites within a year of the main eruption. This cooling effect persisted for about two years, temporarily more than offsetting any global warming effect.

   We can see a couple of interesting things here. 1st, is that a totally natural volcanic eruption which occurred recently contributed as much or more greenhouse gasses than all human activity since the industrial revolution. 2nd, it says that as a result of the eruption, temperatures fell. I assume this is due to ash blocking sunlight. But the gasses it released didn’t just go away when the ash fell, did they? There have been MANY volcanic eruptions (although none quite as violent as Pinatubo) in my 35 year life, and many more than that since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and many more than that (including several way larger than Pinatubo) since man started burning/mining coal. How does our contribution stack up against those eruptions? I don’t know that anyone has even attempted to quantify those numbers.

   But it seems to me that if just this one eruption equalled all mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions since the start of the industrial revolution, it’s likely that the cumulative effect of the eruptions dwarfs mankind’s contribution to global warming.

4. #101943
   On July 7th, 2007 at 12:29 pm, chow said:

   I know this is off topic. But the fine reading of MM’s commenter’s is one of the reasons I am elated that comments have been enabled.

5. #101951
   On July 7th, 2007 at 1:16 pm, otcconan said:

   Yashmak:

   Not to mention this.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa

   The 1883 eruption ejected more than 25 cubic kilometres of rock, ash, and pumice [1], and generated the loudest sound historically reported: the cataclysmic explosion was distinctly heard as far away as Perth in Australia (approx. 1930 miles or 3100 km), and the island of Rodrigues near Mauritius (approx. 3000 miles or 4800 km).

   Pay attention…you might miss this:

   David Keys and others have postulated that the violent eruption of Krakatoa in 535 may have been responsible for the global climate changes of 535-536.

   And then, THIS:

   In the year following the eruption, average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius.[1] Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.[1] The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere which was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfuric acid (H2SO4) concentration in high-level cirrus cloud. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation.[4]

   This is one, cataclysmic eruption from a single volcano. A single event like this could reverse the entire increase in temperature that is currently attributed to man-made causes.

   Conclusion: The Earth has its ways of balancing all things, us included.

   200 years of our current actions, if the global warming alarmists are right, would be reversed by one, or two, Krakatoa events. Considering that Krakatoa itself has a cataclysmic event every 500 years or so, and considering the volcanic activity of other areas, it is reasonable to assume that even then there is very little reason for alarm.

   As for the ozone hole? I’ve really not seen it mentioned anywhere else, but for those not familiar with it, I would like to point out that the ozone hole appeared over Antartica, which is the worlds most volcanically ACTIVE continent.

6. #101952
   On July 7th, 2007 at 1:25 pm, otcconan said:

   I highly reccommend this, by the way. I read it two years ago and it was fascinating.

   http://www.amazon.com/Krakatoa-World-Exploded-August-1883/dp/0060838590/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3020464-3618511?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183829050&sr=8-1

7. #101969
   On July 7th, 2007 at 4:31 pm, bear1909 said:

   On July 6th, 2007 at 10:45 am, lgm said:

   1. The fact that some environmentalists are a little nutty does not make environmentalism wrong. It does not mean that global warming is not happening.

   2. There are nutty environmentalist conservatives — hunters. These are people who enjoy nature’s abundance of wildlife by killing it. A tiny fraction of hunters actually eat what they kill.

   Hunting can be sport. Hunting can be a primary source of nutrition. The tiny fraction comment is baseless.

   Second point: there is ample evidence to suggest the contrary to global warming is happening. Sun researchers have been delving into the *SOLAR SYSTEM* wide effects of Sun spot and solar flare activity. The longer term trend is toward another ice age. Most of us and 2 more generations will not live to see the beginning of it. In addition, there has been polar shift research going on since 1945 that has plotted the shifting of the north pole. Hang on to your bonnet if that turns into some kind of radical shift. It will rearrange the magnetic orientation of our brains as North becomes East and South becomes West and San Francisco ends up on the North Pole. (Gavin Newsome frozen like a mastodon!)

8. #101970
   On July 7th, 2007 at 4:43 pm, bear1909 said:

   I’ve heard the opinion I am about to share from sources more erudite than myself. Dr. Jack Wheeler for one. He engineered Ronald Reagan’s rise to power and predicted the fall of the Soviet Empire two years before Gorbachev came to power.

   I believe that it is the very secular belief system of the Left that has given rise to this “Save the Earth” nonsense.

   They have no Spiritual sensibility. They crave it. So they dress in African cloth, or practice Buddhism (conveniently ommitting the harder aspects), do yoga, and eat Thai food. You know the drill.

   They befriend 3rd world dictators who say they are for the people. They think every indigenous person on the planet is a genius and could never be dishonest.

   They look for love in all the wrong places and make their mistaken enfatuations seem like a crusade of the soul.

   THey cannot believe in any Christian or Judaic principles because then they would have to be accountable for their sexual proclivities and manipulation of other peoples reality with their “good work”.

   So they claim to be pagans and witches or furbies or whatever else they can concoct…anything but be accountable to a moral code that has withstood the test of time and the weakness that is human desire.

   And after all this time in “rebellion” the little children are at the end of their ropes blaming their parents, as they put their own in rest homes (”i cant deal with the hassle of taking care of my mom and dad”), and put their own kids on Ritalin (or let the school counselor do it as they wash their hands of the decision).

   So now it is time to be punished and for repentance.

   Who better to punish the lemmings than Big Mama Earth herself. “NO! MAMA! NO! We’ll be good! We’ll save you! Watch!”

   It is the same old Myth written in non-secular language and politically correct speech. While ya make some moolah on the side.

   I say this to this “tribe”: Mother Earth will heal herself. She is bigger than anything a human can conceive of and, what is more, She sustains life as She “chooses”. And as our scientists tinker with Her secrets, more and more are realizing that She is more than the sum of Her parts.

   Al Gore is urinating into the wind and insists on telling us it is raining.

   May a pox be upon him the rest of his days.

   A Patriotic God-Fearing Mole in
   Pagan-Wiccan-Anything-But-Jesus
   Berkeley

9. #101971
   On July 7th, 2007 at 4:57 pm, Rick Moran said:

   Bear:

   You make some excellent points. There is some scientific evidence that humans are genetically disposed to believe in a higher power. And since, as you point out, the left eschews religion, what better way to fill the emptiness in their soul than with psuedo religions like worshiping the environment or the Whole Earth.

   It’s all part of this “New Age” belief system where lefties believe in astrology, the magic power of pyramids, and wacky “homeopathic” remedies for illness (some homeopathic treatments are slowly being accepted by the medical community).

   I guess it’s better than nothing…

10. #101985
    On July 7th, 2007 at 6:37 pm, BOB said:

    John Mayer was OK.

11. #102028
    On July 7th, 2007 at 11:04 pm, Yashmak said:

    Hey, I eat Thai food. It’s freaking GREAT. Doesn’t mean I’m a leftist

12. #102033
    On July 7th, 2007 at 11:43 pm, freaksloan said:

    All I have to say to believers of Man Made Global Warming is prove it.

    You haven’t and you can’t.

    Michael Crichton speech:

    “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to
    be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

13. #102037
    On July 8th, 2007 at 12:40 am, JohntheChristian said:

    Haha, I’d just like to see Al gore fly coach and use public transportation.

14. #103778
    On July 12th, 2007 at 6:42 pm, Yashmak said:

    Final word on this topic, especially concerning the specious “Universal Consensus”. This is a quote, taken directly from members of the IPCC, whose report Gore took most of the material for his “An Inconvenient Truth”. What do THEY have to say about the so-called “consensus”?

    “In general, the certainty with which this chapter presents our understanding of abrupt climate change is overstated. There is confusion between hypothesis and evidence throughout the chapter, and a great deal of confusion on the differences between an abrupt “climate change” and possible, hypothetical causes of such climate changes.”

    http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/article.cfm?artId=21579

    In other words, no matter what Gore says, the jury is still out.