Ingrid Langerud, the leader of European Youth (Europeisk Ungdom), has a piece in Dagbladet on the tactics of the anti-EU movement. She warns that the EU opponents are making plans for a dark campaign of fear and prejudice, to frighten people away from her own organization's nuance and "visions of the future". Her proof is a statement by the new leader of No to EU (Nei til EU), who supposedly has made an ominous boast that "fear is our weapon". European Youth thus inadvertently reveals a tactic of their own: Dishonesty.

And so it is confirmed: The no-movement's recipe for the coming EU fight will be to spread fear and prejudice. "Fear is our weapon", was among Heming Olaussen's first words as the newly elected leader of No to EU recently. This does not bode well for all those who have wished a more nuanced EU debate.

What Olaussen actually said in November, though, was this:

My dear union opponents, you are a nightmare. To Jens Stoltenberg [Labor] and Erna Solberg [Conservatives], that is. We will prove unbeatable also in a third referendum. The yes-side is afraid to attack us, they fear another defeat. The fear is our weapon.

In context, Olaussen clearly says that the no-movement is so strong that the EU supporters are afraid to risk a rematch. As he says to Nationen, "I feel certain that the lead the yes-side has in polls is too weak for them to start a fight right now". This makes sense. EU supporters will not want to risk a rematch until they feel certain that they have a good chance of winning, for they won't get another chance for years, and the political cost of a rematch will be considerable, (broken coalitions and voter unpopularity). That makes them afraid to go on the offensive, and risk a premature confrontation. EU opponents can exploit this fear by going on the offensive themselves. Or so I read Olaussen. The phrase "fear is our weapon" is clumsy, but I see no way to honestly interpret it as Langerud does.

Nor is this the only dishonest argument in her piece - there is, in fact, not a single fair argument to find. She follows the out of context quote with a straw man attack:

The no-side has used fear as a weapon before. In my office I have a newspaper clipping from the EU struggle in 1994. It hangs there to warn about what me may expect in scare tactics and cheap arguments from the EU opponents. "The EU will kill children and the elderly", is the title of the article, which is about a book Anita Apelthun Sæle and Finn Jarle Sæle published during the EU struggle, where they claim that "the EU commission is working with laws for mass extermination of children in our hospitals (abortion), and mass murder of old people (euthanasia)". This is an example of where argumentation based on fear will lead to in the worst case.

And this is an example of where argumentation based on dishonesty will lead you. The Sæle couple is on the fringe of just about everything - they're fringe as Christians, fringe on the Middle East, and fringe on the EU. In the early 90's, Sæle's newspaper Dagen was known to publish "prophecies" from its readers, connecting the EU to the Beast in Revelations. I happen to believe that Finn Jarle Sæle has a rational side, but the intersection of EU and Christanity has never been it. He's not representative of any significant group. There is no honest way to use his views as an "example" of anti-EU fear mongering - this is a classic straw man attack.

And what better way to end a shameless and non-factual attack on EU opponenents than by contrasting the wicked ways of her enemies with the noble motives of her own organization?

We on the yes-side will promote visions for the future instead of playing on fear. Prejudice and fear will have to be the no-side's domain. Knowledge is one of the yes-side's strongest cards: The more people learn about the EU, the less power to the fear that No to EU wants to spread. The no-side is loading the shotgun of fear. .. Those who are more attracted to fear than to visions of the future may join No to EU.

Is it possible to use a phrase like "visions of the future", and actually mean it? No real person speaks like this. Taste it: "We have visions for the future - our opponents just play on fear." Langerud must have been taking notes during the American election. Not that this kind rhetorics is new to Norway. EU membership always brings out the trench war soldier and the shameless partisan in us, to an extent our seven-party system rarely does.

And I'm not saying that the anti-EU side is much better. They really do play on fear and nationalism, and dishonesty is one of their many weapons too. And one of the things Heming Olaussen did say in the speech Langerud misquoted was this:

Defense Minister Kristin Krohn Devold (Conservatives) wants to send Norwegian boys and girls into war on command from Silvio Berlusconi and Tony Blair. This is an insane proposal we must fight against.

I'm an EU opponent, (I believe we should wait and see), but if Olaussen wants my approval he'll have to keep his socialist paranoia under lid. But I have no hope that he will, or that any of this will seem unusual when both sides get warmed up.

Fear? During the campaign in 1994, the Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry (the main employers' organisation) claimed that Norway would loose 100.000 jobs if we didn't join the Union (if my memory guides me well). Since then, the Norwegian economy have actually created more than 250.000 jobs, corresponding to just below a 15 per cent increase, which is better than the EU. And if/when another debate is coming up, it will be even more dirty than the last one.

This is how I see both sides in the EU debate, too, Bjørn. I don't look forward to a new referendum.

I am pretty much pro the Rome-tract EU, mostly positive to Masstricht EU, but mostly against the "constitution and Euro" EU. I agree we should wait and see. We don't need to join.

Jan Haugland: I am pretty much pro the Rome-tract EU, mostly positive to Masstricht EU, but mostly against the "constitution and Euro" EU. I agree we should wait and see. We don't need to join.

Yes. I'm also positive to the idea of open borders and markets, and I'm not against abandoning sovereignity. Sovereignity is not important, it's local government that matters. A small state can have a strong central government, just as a large state can have good local government, and in either case the type of government is more important than the geographical size. Unfortunately, the type of government the EU is building looks unnecessarily centralized, although it's still possible to prevent this.

As for lying activists, this is a good opportunity for Norway's bloggers to show what we're good for, and take a hard, anti-bullshit, pro-debate line. Those idiots will tear us apart, with fear, paranoia, spin, lies and hyperbole, and we should do our part in exposing them.

--Sovereignity is not important, it's local government that matters.--

And when your local government is dictated by the unelcted brusselsprouts?????

They're going to stick their finger into every nook and cranny.

Don't do it.

And if Norway's oil comes under the brusselsprouts' control?

From Freedom and Whisky (Scotland) over 2 years ago:

Wednesday, October 23, 2002
We are the masters now

It looks as though EU plans could result in the Scottish fishing industry being wiped out at a cost of 20,000 jobs. In an earlier report in Tuesday's Daily Mail, I read that EU proposals for deep-sea fishing off our North-West coast would give France 80% of the quota, another 18% split between Ireland and Spain leaving 2% for Scottish fishermen. And Scottish taxpayers would have to fund the policing of this arrangement which covers areas that are entirely within UK territorial waters. Will our politicians do anything about this? Of course not.

Mark my words. It's only a matter of time before the EU lays claim to North Sea oil.

---

After all, your oil is for the "greater good of Europe."

Sandy P: And when your local government is dictated by the unelcted brusselsprouts?????

That's not a local government, that's a local branch of the central bureaucracy. What I mean by local government is the principle of having decisions made at the lowest level possible. A central authority should only concern itself with very important, very general laws. Everything else should be left to local authorities if necessary, or preferably the individual.

It's not going to happen. What happens if you make the "wrong" decision????

They'll just keep making you vote until you "choose" the "right" decision.

Didn't that happen to Ireland, IIRC?

Sandy P: They'll just keep making you vote until you "choose" the "right" decision.

I'm talking about how it should work. I know the EU doesn't work like that, and that's why I'm skeptical.

What happened to Ireland (over the Nice treaty?) is not likely to happen in Norway. EU membership is so divisive that if a referendum is held and the majority says no, there won't be another one for at least a decade. Many things can go wrong or right in a decade.

For the EU to work long-term in a democratic way, its citizens MUST be able to vote for the decision makers in regular elections.

In the U.S. we are saddled with large bureaucracies, as are large countries everywhere. However, slowly the voting process allows a certain amount of turnover among the decision-makers (not necessarily the everyday officeworkers). That's what a lot of the Democratic vs. Republican fighting is about at both the state and national levels.

You probably already know this, Bjorn, but lots of Europeans don't seem to have much understanding of the U.S. system. I hope more Europeans will take a look at the U.S. system before making major changes that will take away their sovereignty but not allow changes by voters of the officials at the top.

Also, you don't want to have any really big and unsolvable disagreements. That's what we had re slavery, and it resulted in our very destructive Civil War. Any such war today would be more than catastrophic--the Civil War was fought at the very beginning of modern warfare technology.

It's hard to see how the Civil War could have been avoided. Many college papers have been written on this subject. It was truly a "clash of civilizations." Today we tend to forget that it occurred, but it did occur and it was major.

Just a warning to the wise.....

Samizdata's also covering this topic.

EU Referendum is an interesting site.

"Sæle's newspaper Dagen"

Did Sæle control "Dagen", too? I know that he redacted "Norge i dag", and I think he founded it too, but I've never heard of his name in connection with "Dagen". "Dagen" is not as bad as "Norge i dag". The former represent traditional norwegian fundamentalists, the latter represents fundamentalists firmly rooted in the USA, so they have disgusting political views as well as religious :-(

Takke meg til Vårt Land.

Bjørn, this is a digression, but:

I heartily agree with your sentiment that decisions should be made as close to the affected as possible. But when thinking about how truly local government could be implemented in practice, I run into this problem: Who gets to decide what's a local affair and what is not?

Harald Korneliussen: Did Sæle control "Dagen", too? I know that he redacted "Norge i dag", and I think he founded it too, but I've never heard of his name in connection with "Dagen". "Dagen" is not as bad as "Norge i dag".

Not today, but 10-15 years ago, it was a mad house. End time prophecies, EU prophecies, prophecies about Israel's inevitable conquest of the Middle East, rock'n roll conspiracies. Their chief rock'n roll nut was Lars Thoralf Storstrand, who claimed - and, being young and dumb, I believed him - that Satan could posess you through rock music, and that the entire music industry was consciously dedicated to Satanic ideas. He was convinced that Paul McCartney had died and been replaced by a look-alike, and even had a story of someone witnessing his ghost or something. A real wacko.

Finn Jarle Sæle was editor of Dagen at the time. I believe he was kicked out in the late 90's. Their current editor, Odd Sverre Hove, is not so bad. I got in touch with him after I reviewed his book, and he expressed regret over some of the earlier things Dagen had published, (such as a large map of the prophecized future borders of Greater Israel).

But when thinking about how truly local government could be implemented in practice, I run into this problem: Who gets to decide what's a local affair and what is not?

I don't know, but the goal should be to limit the amount of harm a politician is able to do. Which means that only very important responsibilities should be handed over to a central authority.

We all have dreams. When the nay-sayers dream about the yeah-people they see an army of suit-and-tie-clad Young Concervatives (or possibly Progress Party people) who claim to be fighting for "solidarity" (which they sometimes do claim), while they are in fact fighting for the freedom of capital that they love so much.

This dream is even halfly true - some yeah-people do make cheap shots at supporting the EU as a "solidarity project", as the same time as they have never supported it for that reason. But it is halfway true in pretty much the same way as the yeah-peoples dream about the nay-sayers as racist, nationalist freaks (possibly Progressive Party people, too, everyone loves to hate them, yours truly included).

Anyway, we all have got our problems. Central people in the pro-Euro-movement who are socialists. People like me, who (know) live in Belgium, work in Hell itself (that is: Brussels), enjoy the blessings of the euro (no francs, no guilders, no stupid liras), but still oppose the European Union, and still retains scepticism to the whole currency idea, too (common currency = common finance politics = less influence nationally and locally).

The world simply isnt as simple as it should have been. But soon the trench war of the third EU-battle (an American journalist working in Norway once described it as the closest he had ever been to war journalism) is likely to begin. Maybe I should just stay in exile?

After all, it is not all bad down here in the Animal of the Revelation...

Øyvind

Øyvind: Maybe I should just stay in exile?

Or you could help. We all remember how this went in 94. This time, let's do our part to keep this fight clean. Get out the message that it's ok to be for, and ok to be against, but there's no excuse for deceiving and flaming.

After all, it is not all bad down here in the Animal of the Revelation...

Hm, okay, just be sure to read up on what to expect when the Anti-Christ takes over.

Bjorn,

Harald asked "Who gets to decide what's a local affair and what is not? "

This is THE question. If you understand the US at all you must understand that the purpose of the US Constitution is to answer this question. It defines the limits and scope of the central government. Granted that any document that is so general must include some ambiguities. This is where the Supreme Court comes in, and is why fights over appointees to that court can be so bitter. There are a couple of places, such as the "elastic clause", which are particular susceptible to interpretation and the Supremes get to expand or contract (rarely) central power. Liberals are primarily on the expand side and conservatives on the contract side.

To quote the tenth amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This is, AFIK, missing from the EU constitution. Therefore the central government has control over whatever it wants to control. If this is true, good luck 'cause you're going to need it. This way lies tyranny.

In any case, I don't see what the sin is with "fear". If you have a sincere and reasonable belief that policy change X will lead to sharply negative consequences, what on earth is wrong with saying so?

But when thinking about how truly local government could be implemented in practice, I run into this problem: Who gets to decide what's a local affair and what is not?

---------------------------------------------

I don't know, but the goal should be to limit the amount of harm a politician is able to do. Which means that only very important responsibilities should be handed over to a central authority.

---------------------------------------------

The United States, in very general terms, laid out that division in the Constitution. What is easy to miss is that the organic structure of United States political organization also addresses that issue by pitting competing interests against each other.

To clarify... on the national level the executive branch obviously represents the Federal view, the Senate represents the individual States interests, and the House of Representatives is more county oriented (each representative represents a small district of one to three counties).

Underneath that are the individual States (although technically Massachusetts calls itself a Commonwealth). Each State, in some form or another, has the same Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches.

At the lowest rung are the county governments broken into the Boards that run them, the Sheriff Offices, Clerks of the Local Courts, Tax Collectors, Property Appraisors and, off to the side that great bastion of insane local politics, the School Boards. Americans love to vote for people, so their are a lot of little oddball positions that are elected... for example my county has an elected Mosquito Control Officer.

The courts run from the county level to the State court. Layered on that is the Federal Court system which has several districts (each encompassing several states). Above that sits the Supreme Court which is the final arbiter.

Politics flows up in the US. For example, you might consider a Representative to have a Federal outlook, but he or she is a local glad-hander that has to consider themselves very much a creature of the county they were elected from. US Senators generally come from State legislatures and are incumbent upon the good will of the State political parties support. Being a Governer is the most likely path to the Presidency.

It is mixing all these levels, and balancing their demands, that tends to set the ever shifting line between what is a Federal, State or County concern.

Jan Haugland: I am pretty much pro the Rome-tract EU, mostly positive to Masstricht EU, but mostly against the "constitution and Euro" EU. I agree we should wait and see. We don't need to join.

Yes. I'm also positive to the idea of open borders and markets, and I'm not against abandoning sovereignity. Sovereignity is not important, it's local government that matters.

I oppose the EU socialist state currently being constructed, but I would support state sovereignity (which is spelled Sovereignty), open markets, and I support the Euro as the common currency.

Bjørn wrote: Or you could help.

Yeah. I would love to see a more balanced and careful debate. The question is, of course, how to achieve this. I have tried the same with the debates on both America, Israel and Islam - but there seems be hordes of people that like to see everything in black and white out there..?

So, how should we move forward to create a sober debate on the EU?

A debate without the scarecrows? Is it enough to be guarding once own side in the conflict and criticize the worst morons?

Or should we do more? Any ideas? Starting up the organization Somewhat Reluctant?

Øyvind ,

I would think that in a forum you would find all kinds of opinion if you get enuf input from a large enough universe of participants you will still get a normal curve distribution ...majority will give you your sober debate ( which could well be a sitting on the fence kind of opinion with pros and cons supported by factual data excluding the emotive factor?) ..and a small percentage will be extremes on both side of the issue. The problem is you cannot predetermine your respondent type.

I am curious as to how you define "balance" and "careful" when qualifying a debate?

If you discuss israel and have a way to target your polling audience in exclusively arab countries - i guarantee you will obtain a very skewed debate LOL.

Kim Sook-Im

Øyvind: So, how should we move forward to create a sober debate on the EU?

Didn't have anything organized in mind, just holding people on both sides to high standards. The moment the third EU fight gets started, there will be a lot of people who will value being on the right side over being fair and factual. All we have to do is fight that idea with its opposite, that it is more important to be fair and factual than to be on the right side.

You're right, we have all failed to achieve this in other debates. But they're old debates, with well established front lines. The EU debate starts fresh, to some extent, making it less difficult to shape it. The activists will be more than happy to shape this new debate on their own, establish the usual front lines between two kinds of dishonesty. We shouldn't just sit and watch as they do it.

--Politics flows up in the US.--

THANK YOU, JIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've been trying to explain that for at least 2 years, too bad Isaac(?) from the USA didn't get it either, IIRC.

OT: Via the Blogfather, Instapundit:

UNSCAM UPDATE: According to U.S. News, the oil-for-food scandal is "about to come to full boil."

You have GOT to be kidding me.

Via Rantburg:

Brussels intends to do away with the cruet - that set of salt and pepper and in southern Europe, olive oil and vinegar - on restaurant tables. This act of cultural and culinary terrorism shows the very worst side of Brussels' regulatory mania and is an insult to those devoted to Mediterranean cuisine....

...Now the E.U. decides that the cruet set is anti-hygienic. Why? After it has been in use for so many centuries as part of each and every lunch and dinner table around the Mediterranean, the population seems to have survived this dangerous piece of equipment.
---

And so it begins......

Kim Sook-Im, Sandy-P:

This is getting annoying. It's beorns blog, but I'll say it without asking him whether he thinks the same as me.

This thread was meant to be about the dishonesty in debates about joining the EU.

As soon as someone in the thread was stupid enough to mention the _word_ Islam, you two abuse it to twist the entire thread into a totally off-topic discussion. Not every fucking thread is about Islam, Muslims, UN-SCAM, and so forth. This thread was about the EU.

Damn!

Rune-Kristian Viken: This is getting annoying. It's beorns blog, but I'll say it without asking him whether he thinks the same as me.

You're right. But then again, this is something a lot of people are interested in, and which there isn't always an available active thread for. So here's what I've done: I've created an open thread about Islam, which will be permanently linked to from the front page. Anything about Islam that is off-topic elsewhere should be posted there. I've moved the off topic comments above to that thread.

Bjoern ,
Great of you to create the open thread about Islam. I could not find the link on the front page though?

RUNE KRISTIAN VIKEN,OSLO: "......Not every fucking thread is about Islam, Muslims, UN-SCAM, and so forth. This thread was about the EU.

Damn!"

Please note that there was no malicious intent ( and i assume the same could be said for Sandy P )to contaminate your precious thread regarding the EU debate. I had clicked on the latest post and was inspired to write thusly in response to the last couple of posts which happened to touch on the topic of Islam . My mistake was in not scrolling up to check the heading of the thread. O.K. fifty lashes with very wet noodles for me.

You are entitled to your neaderthal indignations, but please note that it is unnecessary to resort to the "F" word as in "f--king". A simple reminder such as " please adhere to the topic of this thread and refrain from posting off-topics " would suffice. Whatever happened to basic cybernetic decorum?....a modicum of politeness goes a long way in this already violent world!

May Allah silence your tongue O' ye who art foul of mouth !!!!

Princesssssssssssssss Bhagavatam

--RUNE KRISTIAN VIKEN,OSLO: "......Not every fucking thread is about Islam, Muslims, UN-SCAM, and so forth. This thread was about the EU.--

And how they affect the EU and the EU affects them, so yes, all those topics are pertinent.

Peruse Vodkapundit, it's getting to the point Europe as we know it is over.

And since this all ultimately affects US, I'm not leaving, cos you guys just don't get it.

Bjorn . . .

Thanks for having an open thread on Islam. However, I hope you won't squash your readers' natural enthusiasm. I read your blog to get a transatlantic conversation going. If I just wanted to speak to other Americans and Canadians-Brits-Australians (Anglosphereans??), I wouldn't check your blog very often. You are popular because you are a meeting place for people from all over who stumble here out of the electronic darkness.

That being said, take a look at Sandy P's reference to Vodkapundit.com (January 18). This would make a great discussion thread if you would just quote a paragraph or two frrom it--something about Europe's future being that of Bosnia would do.

Yes, you're right. I'm being slightly sarcastic here--but not really. It's important that Europeans and Americans, etc. start talking TO EACH OTHER about their common futures. We DO have one together, don't we? Don't we?

Check out the comments under Vodkapundit's posts, too. I especially like the one about the "giant puppets."

Regarding the EU, it looks like a miniversion of the UN. Am I wrong? It also seems to be devoted to starting a trade war as well as undermining U.S. security concerns. Am I wrong? Rune Kristian, any thoughts? I hope my posts and questions are on-topic enough for you.

Hei Bjørn !

I just checked the front page but still do not see the link to the open thread on islam...or as Mr. Ruin Christian Viking would say

"......where is the Ø-----g thread LOL "

Sister Teresa Kim
Convent of the sisters of petty decorum

Kim Sook-Im: It's to the right - not in the 'main' column, but in a box labeled 'Open threads:'. About my use of emphasises language. I tend to think that swearing emphasises your point. Only a select few will understand subtle sarcasm or criticism - while everyone understands how strongly you feel about something when you swear in their face.

Sandy: No. Islam is absolutely not relevant in a topic about dishonesty in the norwegian EU debate. In a general debate about the EU - yes - but not in a debate about the specific topic about dishonesty by norwegian movements when it comes to the EU debate.

What's more is that I actually enjoy the Islam debates. I do however have interest in other topics too, and I find it ludicrous when they are spammed with Islam-debates - as they are _totally_ off-topic in that regard.

To try and get the thread on-topic again. My views on the debate.

I've been friends with several members of the "Yes" movement, in addition to being 'Yes' myself in 1994. Today, however, I'm not so sure.

The view within the 'Yes' movement is that increased knowledge about the EU will eradicate the fear of the EU. They seem to know quite a lot about the EU, and have quite a few seminars about it. One of the main problems, however, seem to be that they only focus on the positive sides of the EU, and the negative sides of not being a member. They do not discuss the negative sides of the Union at all - as far as I've discovered. Lots of them have never been faced with real critical arguments about it.

They also seem to lack any knowledge about the 'No' movement - who of course focuses on the negative aspects of the EU. An important difference, however, is that the 'No' movement have no problems admitting the positive aspects of the EU - but they see greater problems.

So, my thoughts about the movements are that the 'No' side actually knows quite a bit about the EU, but is more politically mixed (both right and left wing people) - while the 'Yes' movement mainly is right-wing people. At the same time, the 'No' movement tend to look at both sides of the issue, and not only the positive sides.

http://www.jibjab.com/lowband/default.htm

Thought you all would get a kick out if that jibjab animation.

There's something in it for everyone.

The cleavage in the norwegian electorate on the EU question is cutting right through the normal left-right axis. The "left" is equally divided as the "right" is.
The explanations to this cleavage in the electorate is made up by the center-periphery debate in norwegian politics, the parties does not have a tight controll over the local branches. There are room for diverging local party decissions.
The Norwegian "Yes" movement can not use the widely used economic argument; the country is filthy rich.
By norwegian standards the debates on EU is based on economics and not values.

By the way; I share most high educated norwegians dual views on the EU.

Once again off topic posts abound again. I’m sure Bjoern could post an article or statement about the breeding habits of the common mole rat, which would no doubt somehow be forced into a debate about the evils of islam yet again, by a minority of the posters here.

As for the EU, the concept of a supranational state, is not a new one, nor is necessarily bad. Certainly the German nation didn’t rise to such prominence and economic prosperity until all the little states that make it up federated into one under Bismarck.

However much depends on precisely what policies and actions are taken by the leaders of such a conglomerate. Some policies of the major countries within the EU, such Germany and France, if applied on a supranational level can not help to have unfortunate consequences.

A good example of this is the Germany Gov policies at a time when they have record unemployment and small business failure, they decide to tax those companies which fail to employ enough apprentices. What excuse will they use once still more companies collapse under the weight of such burdens.

I'm not sure that it would be wise for Norway to join the EU, unless you guys want to subsidise the development of other poorer EU members the way Deutschland does.

Cheers,
Dave.

So, what about the jackboot rapid response team formed in opposition to those who don't want a supra-state?

Eh, cheer up, the frogs are so depressed they might vote "non."

Solves the problem.

Found it at The Scotsman, via Lucianne - a good site, conservative but you don't have to read the comments of headlines and bits of articles:

Self-doubt leaves French feeling down in the mouth

Sandy P:

I'd appreciate actual links.

Knows the cruel reality from an oil producer country under a socialist government,http://www.albacom.no/

Herut Bardezani,

The Relevance of your post pls???

OT:

BUT

We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it," al-Zarqawi said.

---

At some point in time, when are some actually going to take what they've been saying for years seriously????? And act? Join US?

Anyone???

Bueller????

Hello!!!

Well, this should start some conversation, via Bros. Judd and others:

OT:

Humans 'may have saved world from ice age': HUMANS may have unwittingly saved themselves from a looming ice age by interfering with the Earth's climate, according to a new study. (John von Radowitz, Irish Examiner, 1/24/05)

The findings from a team of American climate experts suggest that were it not for greenhouse gases produced by humans, the world would be well on the way to a frozen Armageddon. . . .

The research showed that without the human contribution to global warming, Baffin Island would today be in a condition of "incipient glaciation".

"Portions of Labrador and Hudson Bay would also have moved very close to such a state had greenhouse gas concentrations followed natural trends," said the scientists.

The experiment had probably underestimated the amount of ice that would exist today in north-east Canada without human interference, they said.

Sandy P,

Its good to see that you that you have a keen eye for science as well as politics :-)

I've also heard another theory (from some scientists who also believed that we were living in an ice age, held off only by global warming), who believed that ironically the same man-made effects which produce global warming may alternatively interrupt normal weather patterns and hence cause a global cooling (the movie "the day after tomorrow" was based on this).

It has something to do with the way the earth transfers heat around the globe.

Cheers
Dave.

Global cooling, like was proposed in the 70s???

An old idea is new again?

In short, they don't know, but we're going to spend billions to fix a problem which might be saving us?

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1519