Home subscribe manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

Opinion
Sep. 23, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Getting warm

Contrary to what Al Gore, his pals in Hollywood and the uber-liberals say, the global warming issue is far from settled.

Hundreds of scientists contest the notion that industrial emissions are responsible for an imperceptible increase in the Earth's average temperature over the past 100 years. Recent revisions to NASA temperature calculations have cast serious doubts about the viability of models used to predict humanity's demise. And even Mr. Gore acknowledges that if Western nations abandoned their automobiles and shut down their economies, China, India and other developing countries would pump more than enough pollution into the sky to make up the difference in the decades ahead.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • LETTERS: Professor needs to get with the program
  • LETTERS: Washington loves rewarding failure
  • FROM OUR READERS: We can't do worse than country's current leadership
  • LETTERS: Trickle-down economics is dead
  • EDITORIAL: Tip jar
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Shall we save the economy ... or the government?
  • LETTERS: Don't expect district to cut waste
  • EDITORIAL: Sending the right message
  • EDITORIAL: A tiny bit of good news?
  • EDITORIAL: 'A cautionary tale'



    • Such facts make it all the more disturbing that some state government officials are among the truest believers in cataclysmic global warming scenarios. Politicians are increasingly using the power of their offices to bully business. Heretics are drawn and quartered by vindictive regulation, which makes the public pay twice through higher consumer prices and higher taxes.

    Last week brought two news stories indicative of the dogmatic global warming policies undertaken by bureaucrats. One offered a glimmer of hope for those who challenge the alarmist rhetoric of doomsayers. The other revealed how far these followers will go to impose their will.

    First, the bad news: the New York attorney general's office subpoenaed Dynegy, a company that is partnering to develop badly needed coal-fired power plants in Nevada and other states, because prosecutors "are concerned that Dynegy has failed to disclose material information about the increased climate risks Dynegy's business faces," Special Deputy Attorney General Katherine Kennedy and investor protection bureau chief Matthew Gaul wrote.

    Their letter warns that tougher state and the federal regulations on carbon dioxide emissions are on the way, and they will add huge costs to the planned power plants. Dynegy, the letter asserts, is legally obligated to disclose to investors that global warming is real and indisputable, and that energy companies can expect higher production costs and taxes as a result.

    The free-speech and economic ramifications of such a policy are staggering. Not only must publicly traded companies subject themselves to indoctrination, they must be able to predict exactly how government will make them squeal like pigs sent to slaughter. What might New York prosecutors do next? Require Dynegy to change its name to "Deniers"?

    Now, the good news: U.S. District Judge Martin J. Jenkins threw out a lawsuit brought by California's attorney general against six major auto manufacturers.

    The lawsuit alleged "there is clear scientific consensus that global warming has begun and that most of the current global warming is caused by emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel combustion." The state also alleged that cars are partly to blame for rising sea levels, reduced snow packs, flooding, hurricanes, etc. "Scientific debate is over," the lawsuit said in seeking billions of dollars in damages for causing irreparable harm to the environment by warming the atmosphere.

    Judge Jenkins correctly ruled that the courts can't possibly settle the argument over global warming and to what degree cars might be responsible for it. We hope more judges have the common sense to trash the coming wave of ill-conceived lawsuits against heavily regulated, law-abiding industries.

    Make no mistake, elected officials will continue to try to use global warming fears to increase their own power. The public must insist that this debate take place in venues of their choosing, not in the back rooms of heavy-handed government bureaucracies.



    Leave Your Comment 33 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Mark Schaffer wrote on October 12, 2007 05:02 PM: There are no references to primary literature in this opinion piece. Why do you think that is Jon? Also, Why are you not listed as an employee at Sandia?


    Jon Hamel wrote on September 26, 2007 12:56 PM: Mark,

    This is an August 2007 presentation, by S. Fred Singer Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia that directly speaks to human caused global warming. It was sent to me by a Research Scientist that I work with at the Sandia National Laboratories. To Summarize, S. Fred Singer said that the evidence shows that humans are not the cause of Global Warming.

    http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=08


    Mark Schaffer wrote on September 24, 2007 08:18 AM: So much misinformation to respond to it is hard to know where to start. If any of the principle participants are still reading this please respond so I may know I should be engaged or we could meet face to face if you prefer.


    kim wrote on September 24, 2007 03:42 AM: The global temperature is most affected by clouds. They are determined by cosmic rays, which are determined by the earth's magnetic field, determined by the sun's magnetic field, determined by the distance of the sun from the center of gravity of the solar system.
    Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas, with trace effect, mostly as fertilizer. Gerlich and Tscheuschner have shown that the IPCC's model for greenhouse warming is unphysical, basically it requires a warmer upper stratosphere to warm a troposphere through an intervening cooler lower stratosphere. Ain't gonna happen; it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
    ========================


    c.blake wrote on September 23, 2007 08:34 PM: SCIENCE Magazine Aug 10,2007
    CLIMATE CHANGE:
    Humans and Nature Duel Over the Next Decade's Climate
    Richard A. Kerr

    "Rising greenhouse gases are changing global climate, but during the next few decades natural climate variations will have a say as well, so researchers, including a team reporting on page 796 of this week's issue of Science, are scrambling to factor them in."

    TALK ABOUT A SCIENCE IN ITS INFANCY...IT HAS YET TO EVEN QUANTIFY NATURE (NATURAL CLIMATE VARIATIONS) SO HOW CAN THEY QUANTIFY HUMAN EFFECTS ON GLOBAL WARMING???THAT'S THE QUESTION.


    Brandon Callahan wrote on September 23, 2007 07:41 PM: Hello,
    Im am writing your for my Communication merrit badge.
    Im am also glad to here the side of the story that is not drilling the fact that global warming is going to kill us or what ever they say. It good to let people know that there is not allot that we can to stop the raising temp. of the earth.
    Thanks for the story.


    Mike Sorensen wrote on September 23, 2007 06:07 PM: A study in the May 17 issue of Nature shows that CO2 levels were much higher in the past.

    The studys authors constructed a 300-million-year record of CO2 concentrations using "stomatal abundance from fossil leaves of four genera of plants that are closely related to the present-day Gingko tree." Two periods of low (meaning less than 1,000 ppm) CO2 concentrations were discovered, which corresponded to two known ice ages. During most of the Mesozoic era (the period from 65 to 259 million years ago), CO2 levels were between 1,000 and 2,000 ppm, with occasional peaks that reached levels higher than 2,000 ppm.

    http://www.globalwarming.org/node/388


    DaveR wrote on September 23, 2007 04:49 PM: Analysis of Antartic ice cores, drilled to a depth of three kilometers, reveals new research confirming the relationship between carbon dioxide (CO2) levels and temperatures over the last 740,000 years. CO2 consitently fluctuated between 200 parts per million (ppm) during the ice ages and 270 ppm during the warm intervals.

    When the Indusrial Revolution began, the atmospheric CO2 level was roughly 270 ppm. The 377 ppm registered for 2004 is not only far above any level over the last 740,000 years.
    Source: PlanB 2.0; UK Chief Scientific Advisor Sir David King and EPICA Community Members and Oak Ridge National Laboratory.


    Randy wrote on September 23, 2007 04:32 PM: The Mark's of the world really do want to run your life, because they think they know best.

    Mark a knife cuts both ways.


    Mark wrote on September 23, 2007 04:24 PM: The Randy's of the world really do want to run your life, because they think they know best.


    Read All Comments