Here is another interesting article refuting some of the claims mad by Al Gore in his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”.
The article, Linked Here, is entitled:
Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny
Minnesota State Senator Tom Neuville
Serving District 25 Counties of Rice, Le Sueur, Sibley and Scott
-
State Senator Tom Neuville
-
Subscribe to Feeds
Weblog RSS Feed
Bloglines -
Ray Cox
How many successive ‘500 year floods’ and drought induced forest fires must we endure before the partisan position on global warming is abandoned and we begin to work together to solve our environmental problems? When will American conservatives decide to stop being manipulated by the AAPG and join the world’s struggle to reduce our petroleum usage? It is in everyone’s best interest! Our petroleum dependence continues to fuel our enemies’ economies while the GOP seems oblivious to scientific consensus regarding the causes of our environment problems. Please, Please stop making this a partisan issue! Conservative naysayers seem to being ignoring the cognitive dissonance of the GOP energy policy which is anti-petroleum and the AAPG’s pro-petroleum stance on global climate change.
Dave, don’t turn this into a partisan issue. There are many Republicans that are leaders on the fight to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, California and Minnesota are the two lead states in the country on global warming issues at least significantly in part due to the aggressive leadership on these issues by their Republican Governors, Swarchenegger and our own Governor Pawlenty.
I didn’t read anything reagarding partisanship in that article. I appreciate Senator Neuville’s article, I feel it gives a little more clearing to the (quoting from President Reagan’s 1992 GOP speech) “rhetorical smoke” coming from hypocritical Green Liberals. I don’t think the “sky is falling”, nor do I believe we should burry our heads in the sand reagarding the issue of global warming. If this gives more proof against global warming then shouldn’t we accept that for what it is, whether you believe it or not? I don’t believe in people who twist the truth to their own gain whatever party they represent. In this case Gore was wrong, so he should be corrected. These facts like any other should be looked at also.
Tom:
I’m glad to see you’re still thinking about this topic, open to feedback, and watching for new news and analysis.
You’ve recommended web links in the past that direct readers to sources which claim that global warming is not substantially caused by human-produced carbon emissions, but by the sun. Here’s a very recent article that seems to refute this position:
New analysis counters claims that solar activity is linked to global warming
· Study undermines climate sceptics’ arguments
· Correlations ‘inconsistent’ with temperature rise
James Randerson, science correspondent
Wednesday July 11, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2123573,00.html
Also, here’s an email-letter from Republican U.S. Senator Norm Colman (others I know received the same letter). Senator Coleman seems to disagree with your position, Tom:
…………………
Dear Paul :
Given your strong interest in climate change, I thought I would take this opportunity to share with you my latest efforts regarding a comprehensive, mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reduction program. I share your concern about greenhouse gas emissions - climate change is not a problem we can leave to our children to solve. That is why on May 21 st , I reached an agreement with Senator Joe Lieberman ( I D-CT) to prevent climate change while securing protections for American jobs and our poor.
As you may know, a preponderance of evidence from the scientific community finds that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, have contributed to an increase in the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide by 36 percent from pre-industrial levels, contributing to an increase in global average temperatures of almost a degree over a similar period. According to NASA, 2005 was the warmest year since readings began in 1880 - and eight of the last 10 years are among the warmest years on record. It is disturbing to think that since 1979, more than 20 percent of the polar ice cap has melted away.
Thankfully, we are a nation of innovators, of entrepreneurs, of individuals with bold initiative. The technologies necessary to stabilize our atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases in time to prevent a dangerous increase in temperature are right at our fingertips - from biofuels and plug-in hybrid vehicles to nuclear energy and carbon sequestration for coal plants.
Congress must provide the strong market signals and incentives necessary to push forward these technologies, but Congressional action must not put America ’s workers at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world or send manufacturing jobs overseas. Moreover, a greenhouse gas reduction program must not put Americans out of work or drive more hardworking families into poverty; we must carefully consider the effect legislation will have on those struggling to get by.
Accordingly, in an agreement with Senator Lieberman I have cosponsored his Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (S. 280), and Senator Lieberman agreed to work for the economic protections outlined in a sense of the Senate resolution ( S.Res . 212) I introduced with Senator Lieberman’s cosponsorship . S. 280 would cap greenhouse gas emissions of the electric power, industrial, transportation, and commercial sectors of the economy at year 2004 levels by 2012 before lowering the cap gradually to achieve one-third of 2004 emissions by 2050. Meanwhile, S.Res . 212 states that any comprehensive, mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reduction program enacted by Congress should include a mandatory Congressional review if other countries are not taking comparable climate change action, and a review would be triggered if unemployment and poverty in the U.S. is increasing due to the U.S. program. Finally, S.Res . 212 builds on my clean energy portfolio standard concept by rewarding utilities that increase the percentage of electricity they produce from clean energy sources.
I believe that the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, with the protections outlined for the economy and assurances to reward utilities for using clean energy, will provide the economy-wide signals necessary to protect our climate for future generations, while defending the most vulnerable Americans and securing our global economic competitiveness from any unintended consequences.
Thank you once again for contacting me. I will continue to look for innovative solutions to our environmental challenges. If I may be of further assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me again.
Sincerely,
Norm Coleman
United States Senate
P.S. While my son and I were out running errands yesterday, he was surfing radio stations, and we heard Sean Hannity giving what I’m told is his usual line of reasoning about the sun, “it’s the sun, stupid,” etc. Even if irrefutable scientific evidence contradicts Hannity’s talk-show position, we might assume he’ll keep holding his line.
But for those of your readers who are not Republican and not global warming skeptics, I might note that if one doesn’t listen to Hannity or Limbaugh or Coulter, and doesn’t watch FOX news, it might seem too easy, too much a “no-brainer,” to accept the growing scientific (and US government scientific) consensus about global warming.
For the sake of your conservative Republican readers who do listen to conservative talk-radio, and do watch FOX news regularly, it must seem as if all this (so-called) “hype” about global warming is a liberal conspiracy intended to destroy the American economy and turn us into a socialist nation.
While these battle lines are being drawn, we need leaders who can be good, objective listeners, and exercise clear judgment.
We also could benefit from citizens who are aware of how these battle lines are being drawn. Your liberal readers should not assume that conservatives come to their position simply through long independent reflection and prayer, but that conservatives often become global warming skeptics because they are too influenced by the conservative media and (Exxon-funded) think-tanks.
Just a thought. Please keep an open mind, Tom, as this issue evolves and as more sources and analysis come to light. It still surprises me that you’re still a skeptic, when many Republicans like Bush, Rove and Coleman have accepted the scientific analysis of those who are concerned about carbon and global warming.
Karl Rove, in fact, is pushing for carbon sequestration and more nuclear power as the solution. My son and I didn’t hear Hannity mention that.
If things get worse globally, and if you are still an elected offical, you many hear more voices asking you to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
Thanks for keeping up the debate, for now. If you’re thinking of changing sides, you don’t have to take a Democratic position. You could say Coleman convinced you. It’s an option.
Tom, please pardon this third comment in a row, but I noticed the by-line at the end of this article to which you provide the link:
“James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute.”
Please note that the conservative Heartland Institute is one of those think-tanks that received a portion of the 16 million in donations from Exxon, whose profits may stay higher as long as many some are led to believe they should keep driving big vehicles and use as much energy as they please.
Mr. Taylor is not an independent, unbiased voice, and may be cherry-picking his research, in other words.