My name is Fred and I am a gay conservative living in Ottawa. This blog supports limited government, the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security, and tries to expose the threat to us all from cultural relativism, post-modernism, and radical Islam. I am also the founder of the Free Thinking Film Society in Ottawa (

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Al Gore Continues to Come Apart...

Part of the transcript of the Glenn Beck show on CNN...
Joining me now is one of the scientists exploding in the "Times" piece, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, Don Easterbrook, and also Patrick Michael, senior fellow of environmental studies at the Cato Institute.

Don, let me start with you. You haven`t taken a dime, right, from oil?

DON EASTERBROOK, EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF GEOLOGY, WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: That`s right. I have never had any contact whatsoever with any oil company or any industrial firm. My research has been either government funded or university funded.

BECK: OK. And you say that we are on the verge of a global cooling cycle now?

EASTERBROOK: Right. My research has been in looking at cycles of climate change over the last 15,000 years, and especially in detail about the last 500 years.

And what we find is a recurring pattern which is entirely predictable and my projection is, rather than the soaring global warming that`s been predicted by the IPCC, that we are actually likely to incur a 30-year cooling period starting anytime between now and about 2010.

And by the end of the century, instead of having a ten-degree climate warming, it`s more likely to be less than one degree.

BECK: Just in the last few centuries, we have had global warming cycles that were far worse than that. I read in "The Times" piece today that there have been several times in the last, I think it was 15,000 years, where there have been cycles that were 20 times worse than this right now. True?

EASTERBROOK: That`s correct. Most of those that were of that magnitude occurred about 10,000 to about 15,000 years ago, and the ones that have occurred in the past 8,000 years or so are not as profound as that.

The big ones were then, but nonetheless, there have been at least ten times when global warming and the rates of global warming have been greater than we`re seeing right now.

BECK: So Patrick, let me go to you. And the U.N., I mean, I`ve never found the U.N. a source of credibility on very much, quite honestly, except when I was 6 and I was carrying the little UNICEF box around on Halloween.

This is not the full story of science from the U.N., and yet they`ve been deemed the source of truth on this.

PATRICK MICHAEL, SENIOR FELLOW, CATO INSTITUTE: Indeed. And in fact, if we look at that U.N. report, it says specifically that there is no basis in the scientific literature existing at this time for these claims of massive sea level rise. That`s the U.N. saying that.

BECK: So how come this has -- how come this has been so wildly spun in hype? I mean...

MICHAEL: It`s an amazing story, Glenn. I challenge you to search through the scientific literature. You know, my heart yearns for reason on this debate, and it is so nice to see, you know, that "The New York Times" finally comes out and says, "Hey, here`s a headline, folks. Mr. Gore is exaggerating something."

BECK: Don, the -- the scary thing for me has been -- because I`m a guy who, you know what, look, if we`re hurting the planet, I want to do my part. I really will. I will sell my SUV and drive a Prius if that really would help. I want to know what`s going on.

But you can`t even question -- I mean, "The New York Times" coming out and doing this piece is a milestone here, because they have created a culture of fear where you are not even allowed to question this. It`s being taught in schools now as absolute fact. How frightening is that for you as a scientist?

EASTERBROOK: It`s disturbing as a scientist, because there`s definitely a move today in the direction that anybody who doesn`t sign on to CO2 as the cause of global warming is somehow either stupid or has some political reason or just some financial reason for saying that.

And it is true that scientists are being discouraged from putting out anything which is contrary to the CO2 version of global warming.

DOBBS: You say that CO2 doesn`t cause it?

EASTERBROOK: That`s correct. If you look at the last century, the warming is about one degree. But for the first 45 years, there was no rise in CO2, so you can`t blame half of it on CO2.

The big rise in CO2 was in 1945 to the present and during that time, during the first 30 years, the global climate actually got colder, when it should have been getting warmer. And it`s only in the last 30 years where global climates have warmed in concert with rise of CO2. Otherwise, CO2 is totally out of phase.

BECK: Patrick, what needs to happen for the hype to balance this out? I mean, how do you balance this from where we are right now?

MICHAEL: You have to stop the incentive for the hype. And unfortunately, my profession doesn`t seem to have any inclination to do this.

BECK: What`s the incentive for that?

MICHAEL: The incentive is $6.2 billion in funding a year. That`s a heck of a lot.

Think about the way things work here in Washington, D.C. Issues compete for each other for our money, which means they have to be presented in extremely shrill terms. If you don`t say, you know, if you don`t give us this money for global warming, your children are never going to grow up, you`re not going to get the money.

And guess what? Then the political process says, "Your children grew up. See, I saved you. Vote for me."


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home