6 Responses for "Neal Boortz on Global Warming"

1. Michael C February 5th, 2007 at 8:20 am 1

   I fixed the link.

2. DavidShiffman February 5th, 2007 at 10:10 am 2

   I’ll respond to as many of these as I can.

   While some of Boortz’s points have some validity, you guys must admit that many are ridiculous and paranoid.

   A recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which consists of work by 1000’s of scientists from almost 100 countries, just came out and said that humans are “very likely” a contributor to global warming. Of course, these 1000’s of people with actual training are wrong and a conservative is the one whose right…right?

   Boortz answers this with a ridiculous complaint. He says that all other countries are anti-U.S. and would engage in any activity to stop the U.S. So, no matter what anyone else in the world (even EVERYONE else in the world) says, they’re wrong and we’re right. Yikes.

   Here’s this garbage about a warmer sun again. It’s just not true- the sun is not measurably warmer than it was 100 years ago, but the Earth is. If the sun warmed up that quickly, we’d be in trouble.

   It was NOT warmer in the 1930’s than it is now, that’s an outright lie.

   Can “one degree” of warming make a difference? Sure. The larval stages of many fish and crabs (which, when they grow up become the daily food source of approximately a billion people) die with a .75 degree change in water temperature. Why? Because they’ve never had to deal with such rapid temperature change before. The ocean is a big place and it takes a lot of energy to warm it at all.

   The ice cap on the Antarctic isn’t getting bigger all around. It’s fluctuating more. It’s bigger in the winter than normal, and smaller in summer. It’s the smaller in summer part that’s worrying.

   This one is just a ridiculous logical leap. “There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.” They’ve never been visited or measured… but Boortz can tell you all about them.

   “Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?” That’s just not true, there are billions of dollars in grant requests every week around the world on this topic. It’s “settled” that we have a serious problem here, it’s not yet settled how exactly to fix it.

   “During the last 20 years — a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels — global temperatures have actually decreased. That’s right … decreased.” Also just not true, temperatures have increased. That’s right, schmuck, increased. Although it’s been cold the last few weeks, this is one of the warmest winters on record through early January.

   As Boortz says… I could go on…

3. Michael C February 5th, 2007 at 11:41 am 3

   OK David, in order to have civil discourse on this issue you will need to provide citations, not just refutation based on your opinion. At least give us a thoughtful opinion on why you disagree. Calling it lie does not educate nor does it convince.
   
   “A recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which consists of work by 1000’s of scientists from almost 100 countries, just came out and said that humans are “very likely” a contributor to global warming.

   You’re right they did say say humans may contribute to global warming. But this does not say they do. This is a UN group that has its own bias and agenda. That must be taken into account.
   
   “It’s just not true- the sun is not measurably warmer than it was 100 years ago, but the Earth is.”

   You are mistaken here. In the 1980’s Scientists across the globe found that that the amount of sunlight reaching the earth had decreased by 4-6% since 1960. Indicating a cooling trend. Then suddenly in 1990’s scientists reported the trend reversed. Then yet another group of scientists reported the heating trend reversed in the time between 200-2004. Scientists speculate the cause could be varying degrees of cloud cover, volcanic activity, or a reduction of pollutants. But then again we have scientists who speculate just the opposite. Source: LiveScience.com.My point with all this is simply we do not know.

   “It was NOT warmer in the 1930’s than it is now, that’s an outright lie.” This argument compares the 1930s to the 1990s. The 2 hottest decades of the last century. It was hot in both decades, in one study I found on Helsinki, Finland, the 1930s were in fact had higher mean temp of 6C compared to 5.9C in the 1990s. I found this in a 5 second search on Google. The point here is not necessarily that it was hotter in the 30’s but rather why are you so adamately against the possibility of it being so? This data challenges the idea of man-made global warming.

   No one denies the earth is getting warmer, not even boortz. We just differ on what the cause is.

   “It’s bigger in the winter than normal, and smaller in summer. It’s the smaller in summer part that’s worrying.”

   Why?
   
   “That’s just not true, there are billions of dollars in grant requests every week around the world on this topic. It’s “settled” that we have a serious problem here, it’s not yet settled how exactly to fix it.”

   Yes but the money dries up for scientists who do not blame man for the cause. Why is that?

   As for your last paragraph you are both right. The cooling trend from the 40’s to 1988 is significant. As stated before the 90’s were hot. but the eighties were cool. I am not going to split hairs here.

   Conservatives are pushing back on this issue because the environmental left has not been truthful about the who or what causes global warming, or if we can do anything about.

   The same report you mentioned citing 1000’s of scientists from hundreds of countries, also states that their is little we can do to reverse global warning.

4. Becky February 5th, 2007 at 11:31 pm 4

   That’s just not true, there are billions of dollars in grant requests every week around the world on this topic. It’s “settled” that we have a serious problem here, it’s not yet settled how exactly to fix it.”

   Yes but the money dries up for scientists who do not blame man for the cause. Why is that?

   Wait, you’re saying that scientists who refute global warming are having trouble getting money? Have you seen this story about oil lobbying groups offering money to those willing to refute that global warming is caused by man?

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2004230,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11

   I’m sorry, but I have trouble following the reasoning above. So the global warming - carbon monoxide link is supposed to be some paranoid liberal environmentalist conspiracy? Come on. What’s the motivation for thousands of scientists worldwide to come to the same conclusions? As compared to the motivation of those making millions of dollars off carbon fuels? (ie, oil companies).

   Instead of dragging our heels, why not tackle global warming by concentrating on what scientists are 90% sure is causing it? The oil is going to run out someday, and someday sooner if we don’t start conserving resources. Why not prepare now? It’s not like it’s going to hurt our economy to create new businesses and invest in new science and technology.

5. xandra February 6th, 2007 at 6:21 pm 5

   So you’re saying, “Well, we’re going to die sometime… Why not tomorrow!?” Okay, buster. You can kill yourself but don’t you drag me down with you!!!! grrrr.
   Disclaimer: don’t kill yourself. I didn’t mean that. Just venting.

   One point this blogger tries to pass off is global warming on Mars? Well, not exactly. It’s just springtime in the southern hemisphere. The axis is now tipping the south cap towards the sun and it is melting. Nuze misconstrued the data to poke fun at our actual global warming. Try again.
   I really wish I could help more, but I must study. :o( Later.

6. xandra February 6th, 2007 at 6:21 pm 6

   I’m done with emoticons…