An Inconvenient Science Fiction

Patrick J. Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media, has written about An Inconvenient Truth in NRO. I call global warming a hoax, Michaels, great last name, calls it science fiction. Some highlights:

According to Al Gore, unless we do something serious, 630,000 cubic miles of ice on Greenland will melt and by 2100, sea levels will rise over 20 feet. Michaels writes:

According to satellite data published in Science in November 2005, Greenland was losing about 25 cubic miles of ice per year. Dividing that by 630,000 yields the annual percentage of ice loss, which, when multiplied by 100, shows that Greenland was shedding ice at 0.4 percent per century.(emphasis added)

Science published another paper showing that the recent acceleration of Greenland’s ice loss from its huge glaciers has suddenly reversed.

Al Gore wants us to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Michaels writes:

The Kyoto Protocol, if fulfilled by every signatory, would reduce global warming by 0.07 degrees Celsius per half-century. That’s too small to measure, because the earth’s temperature varies by more than that from year to year.

I love this: Michaels writes that President Bush proposes we reduce gasoline consumption by 20% over the next decade by converting corn to ethanol.

But it’s well-known that even if we turned every kernel of American corn into ethanol, it would displace only 12 percent of our annual gasoline consumption. The effect on global warming, like Kyoto, would be too small to measure, though the U.S. would become the first nation in history to burn up its food supply to please a political mob.

See here my post about Ethanol, Another Boondoggle!

An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore Patrick J. Michaels Greenland Ethanol Corn Mover Mike

17 Responses to “An Inconvenient Science Fiction”

  1. Your comments attack the writer rather than the information he presents and does nothing to move the conversation along. What say you to: “…Greenland was shedding ice at 0.4 percent per century.

    Science published another paper showing that the recent acceleration of Greenland’s ice loss from its huge glaciers has “suddenly reversed.”

    Or the difficulty of switching to ethanol.

  2. You said Patrick Michaels of Cato wrote an aticle for National Review Online? Of course, he would say it was “science fiction” as he has big businesses to protect and wallstreet republicans to shill for.

    The boyz at CATO have been writing fiction for some time. Ironic that they are accusing someone else.

  3. Are you saying that global warming is not a problem, am I fighting for nothing? Or are you saying that there is an exageration of global warming? And is this quote trying to mock the political system of the United States? “…though the U.S. would become the first nation in history to burn up its food supply to please a political mob.” Are you saying that we are only trying to appease to those who believe in global warming. In just two days I have to take a stand on global warming, the information is so confusing that I do not believe there is in fact a side to take. Hoax? Or truth?

  4. Twinkletoes117, yes and yes and yes and yes. It’s all a hoax, baby!

  5. Thank you for your help, although I do have a few more inquiries. Do you believe that as human beings we have in no way hurt the Earth, not refering to global warming, but rather in general, such as landfills, and so forth. And do you see the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as no problem?

    Are you also saying that we are in no way right to make energy efficient cars, or say, cars safer for the environment, even if we are in some small way hurting the earth? Now even more confusing, how do explain drowning polar bears? And do not tell me it is because their brains are so small that they do not want to rest on an ice floe, but would rather drown. This situation is very frustrating to me, I am having trouble finding facts to support that global warming is or isn’t a problem, every where I have checked there seems to be some loop hole, or something unexplainable that allows the opposing side to slip in and fight back for what they believe whether that be global warming is or isn’t a problem. I’m guessing that you are a republican, not believing in our political system as it is right now, but then who did you vote for when Gore was against Bush?

  6. Twinkletoes117, you need to do research. Read what both sides are saying. How can you jump from landfills to CO2? It is a hoax. When did I say anything about the right to make energy efficient cars. Of course we have a right to make energy efficient cars, just that ethanol doen’t solve the problem. If the price of gasoline goes high enough, many solutions will appear almost as if by magic. Check your facts about polar bears. It is all a hoax. Repeat after me: It is all a hoax. One more thing, don’t presume you know who I voted for or will vote for.

  7. Do you believe humans have impacted the earth at all? Like pollution of rivers?

  8. Twinkletoes, what has the question to do with my post? Did you read my post? Did it have no impact on you?

  9. Yes it did. Just wondering, I’m not that smart maybe I missed the point.

  10. Twinkletoes, as to your question, sure. Have you seen ar read what the Russkies did to the Aral Sea?

  11. No

  12. It is easy to find out. Just do a little googling and you’ll see they have completely ruined a beautiful body of water and ruined fisherman’s lives.

  13. We always return to ruining our own lives, the lives of humans I mean, what about the fish? What about the “animals” that the fish supported?

  14. You may have noticed I put the beautiful body of water first and the fisherman’s lives second. That may mean all that that body of water supports, like the fish and the animals that lived on the fish and that the fish lived on. The fisherman are cognizant of the fish. If they over fish they have no livlihood. The bureaucrats who ruined the lake cared for neither.

  15. Useage of words the English language may be flipped and flipped…more than anything when people talk about global warming it is mostly about how we will save ourselves, not that it was our fault. We are only saving the Earth because it is where we live, our only home mostly in the interest of humans. If we could I bet we would move to another planet instead of fixing what we’ve done.

  16. You’ve gone in a circle and it’s as if I never wrote anything that you added comments to.. I don’t accept the premise that global warming, if there is such a thing, is man’s fault.

  17. Ok…and good-bye…I am only in seventh grade.

Discussion Area - Leave a Comment




Copyright © 2007 Mover Mike. Design by Anthony Baggett.