DuckSouth.com

Money wrote:

Money wrote:

Tell him to go work at his deer camp or something!

ANYBODY BUT ME NOTICED THAT ITS A LITTLE HOT LATELY?

WHERE ALL THE NAYSAYERS THAT WANT TO REPUTE THE OFFICIAL POSITIONS OF 13 FIVE STAR GENERALS, THE PENTAGON, THE SUPREME COURT, NASA, THE CEOS OF MOST OF THE FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES, THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, THE US SENATE, 15 US STATES, THE UNITED NATIONS, THE DOZENS OF COUNTRIES THAT HAVE SIGNED THE KYOTO PROTOCOL, THE NOBEL SOCIETY, THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, THE US COUNCIL OF CHURCHES AND OF COURSE, LAST BUT HOPEFULLY NOT LEAST, YOURS TRULY, THE HAMMER?

Not that I put stock in temperatures in MS in August as an indicator of GW...Nope I rely on CO2 percentages, temperatures in the Arctic and Antartica which are rising off the charts way faster than any scientist predicted even 5 years ago and the work of legitimate scientists (as opposed to oil industry stooges) all over the world....All scientific studies of any validity indicate these rising temps are very, very far outside natural parameters and in fact, based on solar radiation, temps should be falling, not rising...

For the sake of your credibility relative to ANYTHING scientific that is EVER discussed on this board, now is the time for you naysayers to come forward and admit that you are biased against the truth about GW because you dont like the enviros who first trumpeted this issue, including mostly old Stiff Neck hisself, VP Al Gore.

Admit it. The truth will set you free.

I heard it was 103 Deg. at the North Pole today and Elvis is STILL DEAD!

Well, considering that five star Generals of the Army George C. Marshall, Douglas MacArthur, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, and Henry "Hap" Arnold have been dead for over 25 years now, I kind of doubt that they have taken any kind of stand on global warming.

I am also pretty sure that the DEAD five star Fleet Admirals of the U.S Navy - William Leahy, Ernest J. King, Chester Nimitz, and William F. "Bull" Halsey - have not taken a stand on global warming either.

And just to cover my bases, I'm pretty sure that the only two U.S military men to hold a rank higher than five stars - Generals of the Armies of the United States George Washington and John J. Pershing - have not come back from the dead to chime in on global warming.

I mean, COME ON! If you can't even get the "little" facts right, is it any wonder that we don't buy your other "facts?"

I STAND CORRECTED...IT WAS ONLY 11 GENERALS AND ADMIRALS AND THEY WERE ONLY 3 AND 4 STAR (NOT 5 STAR AS BR/GH HAS POINTED OUT)...SO LETS BE SURE AND THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER AND MAKE SURE WE HID BEHIND A SLIGHT MISSTATEMENT TO DENY THE OBVIOUS BIGGER PICTURE:

ACCOMPLISHED MEN FROM ALL WALKS OF LIFE ARE ACCEPTING THE REALITY BUT THE NAYSAYERS OF MS DUCKS PERSIST IN KEEPING THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND

WASHINGTON, D.C. (April 16, 2007) Global climate change presents a serious national security threat that could affect Americans at home, impact U.S. military operations and heighten global tensions, according to a study released today by a blue-ribbon panel of retired admirals and generals.

The study, “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,” explores ways projected climate change is a “threat multiplier” in already fragile regions of the world, exacerbating conditions that lead to failed states—the breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism.

The CNA Corporation, a nonprofit research and analysis organization, brought together eleven retired four-star and three-star admirals and generals to provide advice, expertise and perspective on the impact of climate change on national security. CNA writers and researchers compiled the report under the board’s direction and review. The full report will be available on SecurityAndClimate.cna.org.

The Military Advisory Board members come from all branches of the armed services. The board includes a former Army chief of staff, commanders-in-chiefs of U.S. forces in global regions, a former shuttle astronaut and NASA administrator, and experts in planning, logistics, underwater operations and oceanography. One member also served as U.S. ambassador to China.

“Climate change is a national security issue,” retired General. Gordon R. Sullivan, chairman of the Military Advisory Board and former Army chief of staff, said in releasing the report at a Washington news conference. “We found that climate instability will lead to instability in geopolitics and impact American military operations around the world.”

“People are saying they want to be perfectly convinced about climate science projections,” he said. “But speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield.”

Military Advisory Board members said they remain optimistic that climate change challenges can be managed to reduce future risks. The first step recommended in the study is for the national intelligence community to include comprehensive assessments of climate change in future security plans, just as agencies now take into account traditional but uncertain threats.

As part of its five specific recommendations for action, the Military Advisory Board stated that “the path to mitigating the worst security consequences of climate change involves reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.”

“There is a relationship between carbon emissions and our national security,” General Sullivan said recently. “I think that the evidence is there that would suggest that we have to start paying attention.”

“Carbon emissions are clearly part of the problem,” he added.

“We will pay for this one way or another,” stated retired Marine Corps General Anthony C. Zinni, former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East. “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or, we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll.”

Retired Navy Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, a shuttle astronaut and former NASA administrator, said in the report that “unlike the challenges that we are used to dealing with, these will come upon us extremely slowly, but come they will, and they will be grinding and inexorable.” Truly also notes that “maybe more challenging is that climate change will affect every nation, and all simultaneously. This is why we need to study this issue now, so that we’ll be prepared and not overwhelmed by the required scope of our response when the time comes”

Environmental Threats Have Security Implications
The report recognizes that unabated climate change could bring an increased frequency of extreme storms, additional drought and flooding, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and the rapid spread of life-threatening disease. While these projected effects are usually viewed as environmental challenges, the Military Advisory Board has looked at them from the perspective of national security assessments and has identified them as serious risk factors for:

– massive migrations
– increased border tensions
– greater demands for rescue and evacuation efforts
– conflicts over essential resources—including food and water

Such developments could lead to direct U.S. military involvement, the board found.

“Climate change can provide the conditions that will extend the war on terror,” said retired Admiral T. Joseph Lopez, former commander-in-chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe and of Allied Forces, Southern Europe. “Rising ocean water levels, droughts, violent weather, ruined national economies—those are the kinds of stresses we’ll see more of under climate change.”

“In the long term, we want to address the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit,” Admiral Lopez said. “But climate change will prolong those conditions. It makes them worse."

Hammer wrote:
Not that I put stock in temperatures in MS in August as an indicator of GW...Nope I rely on CO2 percentages, temperatures in the Arctic and Antartica which are rising off the charts way faster than any scientist predicted even 5 years ago and the work of legitimate scientists (as opposed to oil industry stooges) all over the world....All scientific studies of any validity indicate these rising temps are very, very far outside natural parameters and in fact, based on solar radiation, temps should be falling, not rising...

Wouldn't this be considered Regional Warming?? Not trying to be a smart &#^ but We are not breaking record temps here in MS or around the country for that matter. Most of the Record Highs happened 3 or 4 Decades ago..

Hammer wrote:ANYBODY BUT ME NOTICED THAT ITS A LITTLE HOT LATELY?

Chester Springs Weather
Today Scattered Strong Storms High: 88° Low: 70°
Tomorrow Mostly Sunny High: 85° Low: 58°
Sat Sunny High: 78° Low: 56°
Sun Mostly Cloudy High: 78° Low: 60°
Mon Showers High: 73° Low: 63°

Like I said, I dont put stock in day in and day out temps...It is global average temps that are rising due to CO2 concentrations taht are higher than at anytme in the last 1MM years and possibly as far back as 30 MM years and that cant be explained by natural causes....There is no debate about this- it is scientific concensus all over the world yet the naysayers on MS Ducks persist....

The further you get from the equator the higher percentage increases you are seeing in temperatures...That is why the melting of sea ice in the Arctic and Anarctica is so pronounced...That and the fact that these are the poles which brings in all sorts of physics, geology, etc that I cant begin to explain but you can readily read about with a simple Google of "global warming impact on the Arctic"...

We are in deep do do and hunters should have been out front in noticing the changes in nature and raising hell about it. Instead, we are so busy with our baubles and trinkets, our smoke and mirrors, we miss the forest for the trees. That is the point of this entire thread- hunters ought to be close enough to nature to observe these things. Instead, hunters have been coopted by political philosophy and other senseless BS that prevents them from seeing the obvious or, more importantly, getting mobilized to do anything about it.

If you think shooting does to prevent over population of a deer herd makes you a "conservationist" you are out of yoru frigging mind. If you think joining DU or DW and going to a banquet makes you a "conservationist", you are again out of your mind. The standard is signficiantly higher than that and most hunters are coming up way short. Hunters? Yes. Conservationists? Not even close. The bell is ringing and we are not answering.

your talents are wasted here.

YALL DIDNT REALLY THINK I WAS THROUGH WITH YOU?

UNLESS YOU ARE EVEN DUMBER THAN I THINK YOU ARE, IT OUGHT TO START OCCURRING TO YOU THAT BRITISH COLUMBIA AND MANITOBA IS STARTING TO HIT HOME (IE DUCK PRODUCTION)

HINT: WAIT TILL YOU SEE MY NEXT POST- IF YOU HAVE THE STONES TO READ IT, YOU WILL BE SHOCKED AND AWED

North America states, provinces announce GHG goal

New York, 23 August: The Western Climate Initiative (WCI), a group of eight US states and Canadian provinces, yesterday set a regional target to reduce greenhouse gases by 15% by 2020. They pledged to establish market mechanisms within a year to help them reach their target, which is measured against 2005 emissions.

The WCI members did not set longer-term goals, but stated that "science suggests" that lowering the risk of dangerous climate change "will require worldwide reductions between 50% and 85% in carbon dioxide emissions from current levels by 2050".

The WCI members are the US states of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington, and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Manitoba. Their efforts are being observed by four US states (Colorado, Kansas, Nevada and Wyoming), as well as three provinces (Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan) and one Mexican state (Sonora). They may look to join the WCI in the future.

All WCI members have already set individual goals and the regional goal reflects their "combined impact", the states said. Other entities seeking to join must have economy-wide GHG goals "consistent with the regional goal", the WCI stated.

WCI members will participate in a regional GHG registry. By the end of August 2008, they will establish "multi-sector" market mechanisms, including power and industrial plants, energy supply, transportation, agriculture, forestry and waste management. In contrast to that economy-wide approach, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), involving 10 north-eastern US states, will focus only on power plants when it begins in 2009.

"Climate change is another important national and international issue where the US federal government is choosing to delay action," said Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano. "It has been left up to the states and provinces of North America to recognise the critical need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide the solution not just rhetoric. WCI members are leading the fight against climate change."

THIS IS WHY I HAVE INVESTED THE TIME AND ENERGY IN DERIDING THE NAYSAYERS ON GLOBAL WARMING:

HUNTERS HAVE TO BECOME TRUE CONSERVATIONISTS OR WE ARE TOAST...SIMPLE AS THAT...STICKING YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND ON THE BIGGEST CONSERVATION ISSUE IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY IS NOT MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

TAKEN FROM http://WWW.MADDUCK.ORG
"SILENCE OF THE BEES" BY HOWARD ELFMAN
JUNE 5, 2007

"...Yet that is the equivalent of what we are told. Express no disagreement or even a question. Follow the leaders quietly, even when they lead over the cliff of disaster, because pointing to a safer, more prudent course creates argument and comforts our enemies. Thus, do those who would gag dissent invoke the image of the circular firing
squad, played out to the delight of our adversaries, the anti-hunters, who supposedly take comfort and energy from our failures as managers and as conservationists. As conservationists, for that is the key. Unless we are so perceived, the general population will shut us down someday. That is the principle – conservation as applied to our field – for which our science should serve as handmaiden. Just as the Hippocratic oath enjoins doctors to first: “Do No Harm,” prudence dictates that we adopt the same approach to our birds. But if we want to preserve our sport, we have an even more compelling reason today.

It is worthwhile to note that when I started practicing law in 1960, the
environmental movement did not exist. Certainly, the mosaic of statutes, regulations and court decisions that we have today would have been unthinkable then, utterly beyond the imagination. I work in that field, dealing with regulations that apply to land use, conservation, endangered species, water law and related matters. And from the perspective of 47 years of total immersion, I can testify to a key fact. We are in the midst
of a profound cultural shift – a tipping point as Malcolm Gladwell described the phenomenon in his brilliant and seminal book

Urban planners today emphasize “the new urbanism,” development concepts that promote in-fill, mixed use, pedestrian friendly projects and discourage those traditional forms that rely on the automobile. Air and water quality regulations become more stringent by the year, riding the wave of general consensus. Corporations like Pepsico – a company that makes billions of dollars selling colored water and salty snacks – militantly advocate for “green buildings,” designed for energy efficiency, reduced water usage and emissions, even though such concepts have absolutely nothing to do with its core business.

Pepsico is far from unique in this. The business section of the May 19, 2007 New York Times carried a front page story about a 100 mpg hybrid that GM hopes to introduce by 2010. The executive who made the announcement was none other than Robert Lutz, “Maximum Bob,” the promoter of the muscle car. As recently as three years ago, he derided the Prius as a “publicity stunt,” soon to be discarded, and praised the Corvette as the best car in GM’s line.

The same section contained another front page story on a major development concern going back into sugar cane for ethanol on Maui – and commitments by big city mayors to adopt global warming regulations whether the national administration acts or not. Every day, the craze for organic food intensifies. Outfits like Whole Foods insist on controlling the temperature in their lobster tanks to reduce stress on the animals in their last hours before they meet the pot. Humane treatment of laboratory animals has become the province of the main stream, not just the radical fringe.

What do these circumstances and events tell us? The customers, employees and citizens demand these actions. Those who provide goods and services feel the shift in the wind because their livelihoods hang in the balance. More and more of our citizens militantly demand such things, just as they have become hooked on the threat they perceive in global warming and the need to promote alternative energy. Farmers rush into
corn for ethanol. Corn was a money-loser as recently as two years ago. Wind farms sprout on ridges where local zoning recently prohibited such development. If you want a Prius or other hybrid, you go on a waiting list for many months. Even muscle car advocates like Bob Lutz can see the writing on the wall, bending to the new market imperatives for the most basic of reasons – survival of the corporation he helps run.

Only time will tell if all this makes sense – but that is not the point. The point is an inflamed, activist mentality sweeping the land as never before. We have become more and more a nation of professed conservationists, people who think in those terms every minute of every day and demand that those around them do so as well, people who are not shy about foisting their world view on others through legislation – by initiative and
activism, if the elected representatives are a bit slow on the uptake.
If you disagree, think back 10 years. Think of the restrictions on smokers that exist today and did not exist then. Why? Because of increased sensitivity to “pollution” and health risk.

If you wanted to invest in a mutual fund that held only “green” stocks, could you do it ten years ago? Perhaps two such funds existed then. They were small, considered “cute,” slightly bizarre, primarily for the surviving unreconstructed ‘60s hippies. You have dozen of choices today, in the mainstream, promoted by most of the major companies in that business – and they manage multiple billions. Did anyone other than a gaggle of far-out scientists talk about global warming a decade ago? Now we have front page articles and features on the television news on a daily basis. (How much higher would Dubya’s approval ratings be today if he had embraced global warming two years ago? Will he ever overcome his legacy of disdainful denial?) And then, of course, there’s gasoline at $4.00 per gallon, sending its message to the place where it hurts the most, every week for the vast majority who need autos in daily life.

What does this have to do with waterfowl and our sport of hunting them? Simply this: if we, as waterfowlers, are not seen by the general public as conservationists, as true stewards of the resource, we can expect to be overwhelmed and lose our sport at the hands of the non-hunting majority fired up today as never before on a simple, conservation message that our well-heeled adversaries will be only too happy to promote. We cannot afford to be perceived as insensitive to the concerns of the non-hunting public.

And yet our leaders seem dedicated to muzzling that conservation message as applied to us, concentrating instead on kill, longer seasons, higher bag limits, “hunting opportunity,” striving to slake the avarice of the commercial interests that serve that segment of our numbers. We make no effort to educate hunters to the importance of sportsmanship, fair chase, our traditions, avoiding the practices conducive to crippling and avoiding gross and boorish offense to public sensibilities that include heightened concern for the welfare of animals in a personal and humanistic sense. Wrongheaded as that sensibility might be in its more extreme manifestations, it is a fact of life today. It seems ever more clear that to suppress the conservation ethic in this day and time within our circles is like the Captain of the Titanic telling his lookout to shut up about that damned iceberg.

Specifics? Join me in this little nightmare. Something like a televised tame
buffalo hunt or one of those obscene goose shoot videos we all have seen aired on 60 Minutes. The anti-hunters use it like a match in the gasoline of current environmental sensitivity. “Those Neanderthals kill for the fun of it. They’re killing birds that belong to all of us, defenseless, innocent creatures. They’re using electronics and modern technology to assist them in the slaughter, depriving the birds of any chance, etc., etc.
They cripple close to half the birds they shoot – and those terrified victims fly off or swim off to die slowly in agony. They call it ‘fair chase’ but it would only be fair if the birds could shoot back, etc., etc.”

What’s our answer? A recitation of the compensatory kill theory? The creed of the nineteenth century English patrician: “we gave the birds life (through support for habitat, etc.,) so their lives belong to us?” Good luck with that. Those arguments have traction, if ever, only among a segment of the hunting fraternity. They would play with the general public only when nobody notices. If not over yet, those days soon will be. When the public worries about the stress caused to captured lobsters due to the
temperature in their tank at the supermarket and yell at anyone who lights up in public, our story plays to a tougher and tougher audience.

People often ask me why I write these pieces and take the flak they produce, some of it personal and borderline violent. It may be a form of insanity but I can’t sit quiet and watch a birthright, a phenomenon that I have passionately enjoyed since the early ‘50s, be profaned by leaders too shortsighted to see how they and their views are perceived in a
world of rapidly changing values. I work in a field where I see and feel those changes every day and have to deal with them at a practical level, trying to navigate the shoals for people whose businesses and livelihoods hang in the balance. It’s a real tsunami of change out there today that has to do with the way people view reality. It is a matter of
sociology and group psychology, not waterfowl management or science.

When our skies and our marsh become as quiet as the beekeepers’ hives, and/or the public at large rebels against hunting in general, it will be too late to save any vestige of what we will have lost. On that day, I won’t grieve for my own loss – for I have seen and enjoyed skies that no younger person can even imagine.

No. I will grieve for the passing of a better day, for a pastime and phenomenon that made it better – and for my young friends who will have suffered a loss more profound than they will ever realize. Whether the silence of the bees is a true bellwether, only time will.

"The WCI members did not set longer-term goals, but stated that "science suggests" that lowering the risk of dangerous climate change "will require worldwide reductions between 50% and 85% in carbon dioxide emissions from current levels by 2050". "


But, I thought we only had about 5-10 more years to live before disasterous climate change would take place? So, why are you and anyone else making plans that extend to 2050?

"science suggests" that lowering the risk of dangerous climate change "will require worldwide reductions between 50% and 85% in carbon dioxide emissions from current levels by 2050".


"Science suggests"??? What science? What scientists? And why "suggest" as opposed to state, dictate, compel, etc. ? Anyone making a prediction like this should be willing to publicly take full credit for it.

My prediction. As we proceed in our normal lives, and the years pass by without climate change calamity, the deadline dates given for needed change and specific percentages stated for such change, will continue to change, increase and be pushed further out in time. Any contradictory evidence will be treated as temporary aberrations and mere distractions by nonbelieving heretics. And at some point, the doomsday crowd preaching this new gospel will be like the boy who cried wolf too many times --people will stop listening and realize that they have been had. At that point, the gig will truly be up, despite efforts by these doomsday scientists/proponents to save face, take credit for saving the world and suddenly proclaiming that all the progress must have worked. Until then, we have the HAMMER to preach the gospel of GW and show us the way!!!!!

Is this post still alive??? Holy cow, this horse is long since dead and has just about been processed at the glue factory!

Po, I couldn't agree more with you on your latest comment. As the next few years come and go and the world continues without "earth-shattering calamity," the "global warming" (and the newer and more nebulous "climate change") hysteria will have died down. Folks and "scientests" will then move on to the next big thing, and our kids will vaguely remember this whole issue--much like I remember in the 70's (and very early 80's) when the "scientific community" was so fired up about the next "Ice Age" that was imminent in the new few decades. It's amazing how supposedly the earth was getting too cold, then now too hot, and then even more recently too "changy." Whew, I just get confused thinking about all this stuff.

I must say that Hammer is definitely passionate about his position and is not afraid to speak his mind. However, calling those of us with a dissenting opinion dumb, stupid, or whatever words of similar meaning he has typed in his thousands of words in this post has definitely not helped his credibility with me or probably with a lot of folks reading this never-ending post. Having apparent double-talk in various posts also doesn't help much in the credibility category. Example (since I know the barrages are coming): "Like I said, I dont put stock in day in and day out temps" yet just a few posts before, "ANYBODY BUT ME NOTICED THAT ITS A LITTLE HOT LATELY?"

It is interesting the number of times that news reports, etc. addressing "global warming" talk about how hot things are but invariably state it by saying something similar to "This is the third hottest summer in recorded history." Hello, what about the previous decades that were actually hotter. Since there was not machinery and the populations were significantly less, what was putting off all the CO2, etc. to make it so hot (since that is basically the only argument being given for global warming)? Also, it sure is interestig that the past hurricane season and this one, so far, have been less serious than in the past years--wait, didn't "All Knowing and All Wise" Al Gore tell us that these two hurricane seasons would be the worst in history?

Hammer, just keep on doing your thing but please keep the personal attacks off those who do not agree with you. On a non-related note regarding your posts regarding your "true hunter" mentality/ethic/motto and how you apparently disdane those you don't perceive do it as well as you do, please remember we all have limited time and resources that we must allocate. I don't know if you are married, have kids, or what type of job you have (and really don't care), but I do know you make choices, too. When I was in my 20's and single and even after getting married, I was hard-core, too, and have "been there, done that, and got the tee shirt" on a whole of occasions--so I don't need to try to tell the world about my exploits or justify my manliness. Especially since the Lord granted me a wonderful wife and three of the greatest kids in the world (2, 4, and 6), I have re-adjusted some things. I still duck hunt about 12-15 days a season and usually have a long weekend of pre-season prep work, but I have made the decision to do somethings differently because of some conscious choices I have made. Does that make me less "old school" and somehow not worthy of a hunter's respect? I would hope not, but, if it does, well then I guess I can live with that. My life and kids know that I LOVE to duck hunt and the family farm where I hunt, but hopefully they know (most importantly) that I love the Lord the most and them second.

I'll strap on the flak jacket now...

Agency's revision of U.S. data has implications for world

MICHAEL FUMENTO

12:00 AM CDT on Sunday, September 2, 2007


You should have known there'd be trouble when those responsible for the space shuttle program were put in charge of tracking U.S. temperatures. So it shouldn't have come as a big surprise when it was revealed that NASA committed a bit of a faux pas regarding data constantly used for its shock value by the mainstream media and other global warming proponents.

Data from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies now show that the hottest U.S. year since 1880 was 1934. 1998 dropped to second, while the third-hottest year was 1921. Indeed, four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s; only three were in the past decade.

Contrary to popular opinion, the real 15 hottest U.S. years are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before the chief manmade "greenhouse gas," atmospheric carbon dioxide, began its sharp rise; seven afterwards.

This is not evidence that global warming itself is "a scientific hoax," as some have declared. Conversely, global warming hardliners are just as wrong to claim the new revelation should be relegated to a game of Trivial Pursuit. This includes officials at GISS and its head, global warming guru James Hansen. They're wrong, in part because of the importance of the data and in part because of what some are calling a cover-up.

In pooh-poohing the revision, the GISS ignores the tremendous emotional impact it's had in practically claiming that each year is hotter than the one before. Instead it stresses that because the U.S. accounts for merely 2 percent of the world's land mass, a relatively small adjustment in its figures doesn't meaningfully impact the global picture.

But, notes Canadian mathematician Stephen McIntyre, who exposed the false figures, "the Hansen error ... has a significant impact on the GISS estimate of U.S. temperature history." Why is this important? Because we have a far more sophisticated system of temperature monitoring than countries with far larger land masses and that therefore affect the global warming data much more than do American data.

"Many of the stations in China, Indonesia, Brazil and elsewhere are in urban areas," observes Mr. McIntyre. This can produce hotter temperatures, yet some of the major trackers of the data from these countries, including that of the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, make no attempt to adjust for monitor placement errors. Now look at the relatively minimal warming in the U.S. since the 1930s and compare it with the pronounced trend in the rest of the world.

Thus if the U.S. model, by far the most accurate one, became the model, it would be a gut punch to those claiming we must take drastic, horrifically expensive measures immediately to ameliorate warming.

For the GISS to say this "only" affects the U.S. data is like a used car salesman insisting, "This automobile defect is trivial; it only affects steering."

Then there's the issue of how the revised data came about and came to light.

Mr. McIntyre discovered an error in GISS records for 2000 through 2006. In simplest terms, temperature monitor readings hadn't been adjusted to compensate for the location or time of day. It was Mr. McIntyre who made the adjustment and then notified the GISS, though later Dr. Hansen admitted the error was "easy to fix." Mr. McIntyre published the data on his Web site and then got the agency to admit it was wrong and post new figures.

Yet the GISS made no effort to alert anybody to them. This, though it has published five global warming press releases so far this year, all alarming. It took the blogosphere and radio talk show hosts to publicize the new figures, even as the mainstream media initially ignored them.

It is by no means trivial that the government body we trust to provide data pertinent to the greatest environmental issue of our time appears to be little more than a tool of its activist administrator.


Michael Fumento is a science, health and military writer in Washington, D.C. His e-mail address is fumento@pobox.com.