See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Facts conveniently brushed over by the global warming fanatics
Source:
SMH.com
URL Source: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit ... ng-fanatics-20100131-n6fr.html
Published: Feb 1, 2010
Author: staff
Post Date: 2010-01-31 12:23:41 by buckeroo
Keywords: None
Views: 3296
Comments: 115
Here are 10 anti-commandments, 10 selected facts about global warming which have been largely ignored amid the orthodoxies to which we are subjected every day. All these anti-commandments are either true or backed by scientific opinion. All can also be hotly contested. 1. The pin-up species of global warming, the polar bear, is increasing in number, not decreasing. 2. The US President, Barack Obama, supports building nuclear power plants. Last week, in his State of the Union address, he said: ''To create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.'' 3. The Copenhagen climate conference descended into farce. The low point of the gridlock and posturing at Copenhagen came with the appearance by the socialist dictator of Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez, whose anti-capitalist diatribe drew a cheering ovation from thousands of left-wing ideologues. 4. The reputation of the chief United Nations scientist on global warming is in disrepair. Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is being investigated for financial irregularities, conflicts of interest and scientific distortion. He has already admitted publishing false data. 5. The supposed scientific consensus of the IPCC has been challenged by numerous distinguished scientists. 6. The politicisation of science leads to a heavy price being paid in poor countries. After Western environmentalists succeeded in banning or suppressing the use of the pesticide DDT, the rate of death by malaria rose into the millions. Some scholars estimate the death toll at 20 million or more, most of them children. 7. The biofuels industry has exacerbated world hunger. Diverting huge amounts of grain crops (as distinct from sugar cane) to biofuels has contributed to a rise in world food prices, felt acutely in the poorest nations. 8. The Kyoto Protocol has proved meaningless. Global carbon emissions are significantly higher today than they were when the Kyoto Protocol was introduced. 9. The United Nations global carbon emissions reduction target is a massively costly mirage. 10. Kevin Rudd's political bluff on emissions trading has been exposed. The Prime Minister intimated he would go to the people in an early election if his carbon emissions trading legislation was rejected. He won't. The electorate has shifted. None of these anti-commandments question the salient negative link between humanity and the environment: that we are an omnivorous, rapacious species which has done enormous damage to the world's environment. Nor do they question the warming of the planet. What they do question is the morphing of science with ideology, the most pernicious byproduct of the global warming debate. All these anti-commandments were brought into focus this past week by the visit of the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, better known as Lord Christopher Monckton, journalist by trade, mathematician by training, provocateur by inclination. Last Wednesday a conference room at the Sheraton on the Park was filled to overflowing, all 800 seats sold with a standing-room only crowd at the back, to see the Sydney public appearance of Monckton, a former science adviser to Margaret Thatcher. At the end of his presentation he received a sustained standing ovation. Monckton is the embodiment of English aristocratic eccentricity. His presentations are a combination of stand-up comedy, evangelical preaching and fierce debating. Almost every argument he makes can be contested, but given the enormity of the multi-trillion-dollars that governments expect taxpayers to expend on combating global warming, the process needs to be subject to brutal interrogation, scrutiny and scepticism. And Monckton was brutal, especially about the media, referring to ''all this bed-wetting stuff on the ABC and the BBC''. There has also been a monumental political failure surrounding the global warming debate. Those who would have to pay for most of the massive government expenditures proposed, the taxpayers of the West, are beginning to go into open revolt at the prospect. Last week the Herald reported that Monckton told a large lie while in Sydney. On Tuesday it reported: ''He said with a straight face on the Alan Jones radio program that he had been awarded the Nobel, a claim Jones did not question.'' The Herald repeated the accusation on Thursday. It was repeated a third time in a commentary in Saturday's Herald. In 2007 the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the former US vice-president Al Gore. The prize committee, in citing its selection of the IPCC, said: ''Through the IPCC … thousands of scientists and officials from over 100 countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of [global] warming.'' Thousands of people were thus collectively and anonymously part of the prize process. So what lie did Monckton tell about the prize? Despite the gravity of the accusation, the Herald never published the offending remark. Here, for the record, is what he actually said: Monckton: ''I found out on the day of publication of the 2007 [IPCC report] that they'd multiplied, by 10, the observed contribution to sea-level rise of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet. By 10! I got in touch with them and said, 'You will correct this.' And two days later, furtively, on the website, no publicity, they simply relabelled, recalculated and corrected the table they'd got wrong.'' Alan Jones: ''But this report won a Nobel Prize!'' Monckton: ''Yes. Exactly. And I am also a Nobel Prize winner because I made a correction. I'm part of the process that got the Nobel Prize. Do I deserve it? No. Do they deserve it? No. The thing is a joke.'' Poster Comment: Still global warming phenomena is an undeniable FACT!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 75.
#13. To: buckeroo (#0)
I like this article and your comment didn't ruin it because I already knew your view. And still, although mankind's impact on the environment is undeniably bad, warming the earth a bit is one of the good things. It is also an undeniable fact that my house is too cold today despite full sunshine and running my wood stove.
Really? Name a few .. please place your ideas into bullet-item format with simplicity so that others can sense your personal viewpoints at a glance.
The biggest is cost savings, I live in Northern Virginia which is relatively mild, but I use $450 worth of wood in a season frugally (I cut about 1/3-1/2 of it). In contrast, I paid about $10 per month for A/C last July and less in June and August (my total electric bill is never over $35). Contrast that to a family nearby that just paid $700 for one month of electric heat with a relatively modern system. Here are some more items
Similar to yourself, I have taken advantage of alternate methods of energy for my home. In my case I chose methods not relying on carbon dependence or known further CO2 gas release into the ambient environment; my home is totally solar powered via photo-voltaic cells; it has fully double paned glass with little comfort leakage conditions requiring purchased energy of any sort. My attic is embedded with attic fans so as to release the heat particularly during a HOT Summertime day in Southern California. I generate about 35KWhours a day on a South facing roof on 2300 foot home with no known carbon emissions. In California, I am now being paid for the excess abundance I accumulate; we have ample solar capability as the sunlight shines more than many other areas of the nation. Thank you for your observations concerning global warming. Your comments are encouraging to me; we need intelligence, such as yours to help change the world around us; and with that same compliment towards yourself, I want to challenge your earlier remarcks. So, here goes: There is plentiful fact about your point. But I want to remind you that photo-synthesis requires ample clean water to ensure the same; clean water around the globe is decreasing. And the hotter temperatures are creating diminished crop production because of further infestation of annoying insects. There is some truth (also) about great technological strides in chemical engineering for and about water-tolerant and insect resistant crops. So far, the measured abundance in recent times is about spindly plants not capable of the nutrients that mankind requires for dietary needs. And the cost per acre is going up and as a result the cost per nutient is going up to feed a worldwide increasing population base that is striping away at the environment. This is a common claim. It is unfounded as the natural environment is jam-packed with humans, all competitively achieving the demise of the same. Not true. The tundra is eroding. Bark Beetles are migrating Northward eliminating vast swaths of forests as the ambient temperatures are heating up. That may happen as Everyone's quality of life is diminished and the affordability for private and mass transit transportation methods creates very inexpensive alternative methods. You will have to explain this one. Not true at all. Global Warming phenomena is removing clean, natural water capabilities and capacity around the world. Why on Earth do you see more world-wide desalination techniques? Like what? Are you saying that a denser population group distribution creates additional personal liberties and freedoms? Please discuss this issue because you are diametrically opposed to the truth about this same perspective.
the hotter temperatures are creating diminished crop production as a result the cost per nutient is going up to feed a worldwide increasing population unfounded as the natural environment is jam-packed with humans further infestation of annoying insects. Are you saying that a denser population group distribution creates additional personal liberties and freedoms? You won't have to worry about that when the oceans rise and So. Cal. goes underwater. Actually GMO crops are diminishing crop production around the world. Nutrients are decreased via GMO frankenseeds. The nutrients would return with small scale organic farming. Again, the insect infestations are increasing due to GMO crops that are chemical altered to deter both insects and weeds. It has been proven that the weeds and insects evolve and become more sturdy in response to attempt to annialate them. Again the problem is over population then, not global warming. Mother Earth has her own ways to curb the population problems and no amount of expensive intervention will stop her Buck. Invest in clean water, maybe the anti depressant market would be good to curb all the worries about global warming. You keep interchanging your worries about over population and global warming. If, in fact, your global warming theory is correct we can rest easy that the population of the planet will be culled, which may result in MORE personal liberties and freedoms for the lucky who survive. Either way, it's a win with a decrease in over population, right?
They are intertwined factual concerns; so, you are correct. As a simple example, do you note that the US government continues to clamp down on personal liberties and freedoms while the population base is soaring? And this is true around the world.
It is only soaring because the goobermint refuses to address the illegal alien plight. Send them home and we will have instant population decrease along with massive tax savings. Win-win. The birth rates are decreasing for all ethnic groups in the US (not all over the world). What we have is an INCREASE in life expectancy. People aren't allowed to die like they used to Buck. The base would stop soaring if we could increase those death rates. I think Obama has a plan to decrease life expectancy and cull the numbers. Personally, I don't think that the decrease in personal liberties and freedoms is due to an increase in population. IMHO, it is due to an increase in apathy and ignorance.
That is only one of the issues confronting Americans. You haven't addressed the continuing rape of our tax-payer dollars which is a MUCH larger issue: the goobermint as you call it, must limit natural resources through common distribution methods thus appeasing the greater masses.
The two are interlinked. The illegals sucking off the taxpayer teat is just one of the many ways that We the People allow for a continually raping of our taxdollars. Globally, the empire is culling the masses on a regular basis Buck.....of course that requires a massive waste of resources too. Oh, and a massive waste of tax dollars.........but we allow it to go on year in and year out. Seriously, the goobermint MUST limit natural resources? Look at the track record on that one Buck. The goobermint has ENCOURAGED waste of natural resources throughout history, subsidizing massive waste to line corporate profits. Now, you want to trust them to "limit natural resources through common distribution methods"? Do you invite burglars to housesit when you take a vacation?
Yes. At one time the California Central Valley was the hallmarck of agricultural accomplishment for the world; it was popularly said, California feeds the World. Today, this isn't so. Why? Let me tell you why. The US government has limited the fresh water supply and this same action has reduced the Central Valley to a dust bowl. Ask farmfriend as she fully understands this issue. But, beyond the FACTS, why is government limiting natural resources? To be objective on these issues you must reflect about the under-currents within the natural resource capabilities America has at it's disposal. America's natural resource capabilities are stripped away.
Yes, and the theft is conducted by the government. So, why would you insist that the thieves and morons in DC, or even at the state level for that matter, be granted the responsibility to limit natural resources? They are already limiting water in the Central Valley.......do you like the results? How is that working for you? I can't fathom handing over more power to instutions with a track record of EPIC failure. These are the same people that allow for massive growth to line their pockets with campaign contributions from developers, ignoring natural resources such as water. These are the same morons that refuse to end the insanity of illegal immigration......no matter the loss of resources. Seriously, Buck, why would you want to give them more power to limit natural resources? Haven't they done enough damage?
I don't. I have NEVER encouraged any government to limit our respective individual rights, liberties and freedoms. I think I am on record to say this again and without rebuttal. The political ideas for and about controlling environmental issues are a joke. Governments, no matter the level and how well-intentioned NEVER have solutions.
Thanks Buck. You had me worried there for a minute. I can't tell when you are serious or joking sometimes. Maybe a little smiley face would help? : )
I don't make fun of serious issues. Like yourself, some threads need to be viewed with a sense of respect about the world around us and maybe ... and by golly or good luck, we can find solutions; but leaving our lives to government for solutions? Please give me a sense of respect.... I do have a sense of dignity about myself, you know......
Didn't you just say your were joking about government intervention? Which is it Buck? You can't have your global warming cake and eat it without the government regulating the oven that it was cooked in and the units of carbon produced in the baking process.
The greatest prosperity of men and women has been without government of any kind. You can read this same point on just about any chit-chat website. Today, the advertised government slogan is "carbon units" to make you free. What makes you think that the slogan, tomorrow won't be "your blue-eyes"? What will happen to you when the government has ultimately claimed you are a carbon deficit?
They can only accomplish this feat with the rally cry of folks like you spewing the government mantra that CO2 is the culprit. I agree with the 31,000 plus scientists who have signed on to the petition claiming this entire global warming is a farce, a scam, a blatent attempt to implement global control over the people. 31,486 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research Most scientists have a detailed knowledge of their own narrow field of specialization, a general knowledge of fundamental science, an understanding of the scientific method, and a mental model that encompasses a broad range of scientific disciplines. This model serves as the basis of their thoughts about scientific questions. When a scientist desires to refine his understanding of a specific scientific subject, he often begins by reading one or more review articles about that topic. As he reads, he compares the facts given in the review with his mental model of the subject, refining his model and updating it with current information. Review articles do not present new discoveries. The essential facts given in the review must be referenced to the peer-reviewed scientific research literature, so that the reader can check the assertions and conclusions of the article and obtain more detailed information about aspects that interest him. A 12-page review article about the human-caused global warming hypothesis is circulated with the petition. To view the entire article in html, 150-dpi PDF, 300-dpi PDF, 600-dpi PDF, Spanish or figures alone in powerpoint or flash, click on the appropriate item in this sentence. The factual information cited in this article is referenced to the underlying research literature, in this case by 132 references listed at the end of the article. Although written primarily for scientists, most of this article can be understood without formal scientific training. This article was submitted to many scientists for comments and suggestions before it was finalized and submitted for publication. It then underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing journal. The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy. Purpose of Petition The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis. Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency. It is evident that 31,486 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,486 American scientists are not “skeptics.” These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth. How Petition is Circulated This petition is primarily circulated by U. S. Postal Service mailing to scientists. Included in this mailing are the petition card, the letter from Frederick Seitz, the review article, and a return envelope. If a scientist wishes to sign, he fills out the petition and mails it to the project by first class mail. Additionally, many petition signers obtain petition cards from their colleagues, who request these cards from the project. A scientist can also obtain a copy of the petition from this Internet website, sign, and mail it. Fewer than 5% of the current signatories obtained their petition in this way. Petition project volunteers evaluate each signers's credentials, verify signer identities, and, if appropriate, add the signer's name to the petition list. Here's the link to the petition: http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php Al Gore is crying big crocodile tears. You can now dispute the petition and the 31,000 plus scientists Buck. You worry about carbon deficits.......I won't.
I didn't.
That is your choice. However, you often comment that the factual basis of the hypothesis has been determined and that there is no debate. This is not true. There is plenty of debate. Some scientists are even debating the effects of the SUN on the climate. Imagine that--the sun having a correlation with temperatures. Some scientists are returning to previously held views regarding global cooling, which was the big fear spewed in the '70's. Many find the notion that CO2 is to blame ridiculous. Do the views of these scientists within this field of expertise have any merit Buck? Do they have no say in the debate that was supposedly settled?
Yeah ... Kepler's epicycles are convincing the world and finally demonstrating the world towards methods of energy conservation.
There are no replies to Comment # 75. End Trace Mode for Comment # 75.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestStill global warming phenomena is an undeniable FACT!
#29. To: purpleman (#13)
warming the earth a bit is one of the good things.
#30. To: buckeroo (#29)
#36. To: purpleman (#30)
* longer growing season
* along with more CO2, increased crop yields
* more game and fish
* more use of unusable Canadian land (since GW favors colder climates)
* more people walking and biking to work since it won't be too cold
* reduced risk of catastrophe if there is cooling (e.g. large volcano)
* less strife over water resources (GW = more precipitation)
* best of all, more comfort for a greater number of people
#40. To: buckeroo (#36)
to release the heat particularly during a HOT Summertime day in Southern California.
#41. To: abraxas (#40)
You keep interchanging your worries about over population and global warming.
#43. To: buckeroo (#41)
(Edited)
As a simple example, do you note that the US government continues to clamp down on personal liberties and freedoms while the population base is soaring?
#44. To: abraxas (#43)
It is only soaring because the goobermint refuses to address the illegal alien plight.
#45. To: buckeroo (#44)
That is only one of the issues confronting Americans. You haven't addressed the continuing rape of our tax-payer dollars which is a MUCH larger issue: the goobermint as you call it, must limit natural resources through common distribution methods thus appeasing the greater masses.
#46. To: abraxas, farmfriend (#45)
Seriously, the goobermint MUST limit natural resources?
#47. To: buckeroo (#46)
America's natural resource capabilities are stripped away.
#49. To: abraxas (#47)
So, why would you insist that the thieves and morons in DC, or even at the state level for that matter, be granted the responsibility to limit natural resources?
#50. To: buckeroo (#49)
The political ideas for and about controlling environmental issues are a joke. Governments, no matter the level and how well-intentioned NEVER have solutions.
#53. To: abraxas (#50)
Maybe a little smiley face would help?
#58. To: buckeroo (#53)
I don't make fun of serious issues
#69. To: abraxas (#58)
You can't have your global warming cake and eat it [too] without the government regulating the oven that it was cooked in and the units of carbon produced in the baking process.
#72. To: buckeroo (#69)
What will happen to you when the government has ultimately claimed you are a carbon deficit?
#73. To: abraxas (#72)
31,486 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
#74. To: buckeroo (#73)
I didn't.
#75. To: abraxas (#74)
Some scientists are even debating the effects of the SUN on the climate. Imagine that--the sun having a correlation with temperatures.
Replies to Comment # 75.