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: 2964
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 # 97.
#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.
Insects True, winter kills them and they generally like the warm weather, but adaptability is in our favor, not theirs. Your mention of the pine bark beetles means we have some work to do (harvest the pine and plant alternatives). A good analogy is the storm of 1962 which took down 15 billion board feet ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Day_Storm_of_1962) The pine bark beetle kills a few billion board feet at most. In 1962 we didn't throw up our hands, we did something: built roads and harvested the wood. spindly plants You are going to have to be more specific. There are numerous commercial greenhouses with double the normal CO2 getting thicker growth and 30-40% greater yields. the natural environment is jam-packed with humans Not a warming issue at all and not an argument against more fish and game. With less winter kill and more vegetation there will be more game. tundra is eroding Permafrost is melting, but tundra is not eroding more since the surface always thaws regardless of GW. If you are talking about along the Arctic Ocean, that's a small area and is manageable. Everyone's quality of life is diminished How? reduced risk of catastrophe if there is cooling (e.g. large volcano) Something like the supervolcano Toba 70k years ago would wipe out most of humanity. Our puny global warming would not help. But there are much more likely eruptions that would cool the planet a degree or two C for a few years. Those would wipe out crops with summer frosts. GW would help blunt the impact of such an event. Note that there are not similar catastrophes on the warm side, there is no such thing as "volcanic summer" or "nuclear summer". Global Warming phenomena is removing clean, natural water capabilities and capacity around the world Not really. Where glaciers have melted the same precipitation (or more) falls and can be dammed. The Great Lakes dropped for a while, but now they are rising again since 2008. Increased warming means increased precipitation, plain and simple. Where it falls might chance, but that's what dams and pipelines are for. Are you saying that a denser population group distribution creates additional personal liberties and freedoms? Less dense since we can spread out more easily. Do you want to live in Minnesota? I didn't think so, for one thing your solar electric would stink there As for your solar projects, you have spent considerable more money (including my tax money) than I have, but I have some solar electric. I also have two new passive solar heating boxes and am making plans for a third for upstairs. I also painted my foundation black. I have done many things to save energy (and stay warm) and I have not spent one dime of taxpayer's money doing it. Edit: I should also add that I don't believe I should have the right to sell my solar power back to the power company. It doesn't save money because the peak use is later than peak solar. Now if you actually maintain batteries, use them to supply your own peak power and sell back peak power to the electric company, then I applaud that. Otherwise you are just wasting everyone else's money.
Not true. In Canada the Bark Beetle has created even more CO2, felling the forests as the tree stubs rot on the ground. Please read your own comment, commercial greenhouses as though these resources feed 6.7Bn people around the world. An incredible analogy with backyard watering hoses and constant human manicure operations within a contained greenhouse of exquisite academic quality. I disagree with you. Are you arguing that sustainability is achievable with increasing human population growth? How is, "management" going to ensure sustainability concepts towards your world-wonder? You claim that the Canadian/Alaskan perma-frost line is diminishing what about in Norway, Russia, Finland? Too many people with too little resources while government extracts my tax dollars to fill the differences. Catastrophes are one thing. Mother nature calls on all of us. Yet, the changes around the world must be addressed with responsive understanding that each and everyone of us is capable to modify the environment. Wrong! Fresh water supplies are falling precipitously. Are you saying that a denser population group distribution creates additional personal liberties and freedoms? Less dense since we can spread out more easily. Do you want to live in Minnesota? I didn't think so, for one thing your solar electric would stink there. I don't know what you mean by this question. Are you saying I should read a book by Ted Nugent?
Here's a graph that will help you understand why your solar power is useless. http://www.caiso.com/outlook/outlook.html Since it is from Calif, it is directly applicable. First look at the red line, that's your power usage and everyone else's. If you are a typical user you will use power mostly from 5PM to 10:30PM. How much power are your solar cells generating then? Zero. Next look at the green line, that's power available to the system. Note how 28000 MW can be supplied during the middle of the day when your solar cells are working (except when it is cloudy). Note how only 23000 MW are being used. How much power does the system need from your solar cells? Zero. How much are you being paid for your unneeded power? Full price. It is simply an unrealistic subsidy for your political correctness. Another thing to think about. Where does your neighbor get his power? From your solar cells? Well only when they are working. Suppose a cloud comes along, then where does you neighbor get his power? From the grid which includes whatever they need to generate power when no solar is available (e.g. a storm) Final step: when you are using your power from 5 to 10:30, where does it come from? Did you store it during the day in batteries? No you leech it from the grid at low prices. It comes from coal, gas and oil. You have done nothing to save the environment. There is the same amount of coal, gas and oil capacity and when you "supply" power to the grid you are not saving any coal, gas or oil since, as I pointed out above, your power is unreliable. You can, of course, change the entire equation by disconnecting from the grid. But I doubt you will do it since you are getting a subsidy for supplying politically correct, but actually useless electrons. Plus you get power at cheap rates when it is most expensive to generate. That brings up the other possibility, if you want to do something good for the environment, use no (zero) power from 5 to 10:30 in the evening. But I don't think you will do that either.
There are no replies to Comment # 97. End Trace Mode for Comment # 97.
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
#54. To: buckeroo (#36)
(Edited)
#63. To: purpleman (#54)
Insects True, winter kills them and they generally like the warm weather, but adaptability is in our favor, not theirs. Your mention of the pine bark beetles means we have some work to do (harvest the pine and plant alternatives). A good analogy is the storm of 1962 which took down 15 billion board feet ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Day_Storm_of_1962) The pine bark beetle kills a few billion board feet at most. In 1962 we didn't throw up our hands, we did something: built roads and harvested the wood.
spindly plants You are going to have to be more specific. There are numerous commercial greenhouses with double the normal CO2 getting thicker growth and 30-40% greater yields.
the natural environment is jam-packed with humans Not a warming issue at all and not an argument against more fish and game. With less winter kill and more vegetation there will be more game.
tundra is eroding Permafrost is melting, but tundra is not eroding more since the surface always thaws regardless of GW. If you are talking about along the Arctic Ocean, that's a small area and is manageable.
Everyone's quality of life is diminished How?
reduced risk of catastrophe if there is cooling (e.g. large volcano) Something like the supervolcano Toba 70k years ago would wipe out most of humanity. Our puny global warming would not help. But there are much more likely eruptions that would cool the planet a degree or two C for a few years. Those would wipe out crops with summer frosts. GW would help blunt the impact of such an event. Note that there are not similar catastrophes on the warm side, there is no such thing as "volcanic summer" or "nuclear summer".
Global Warming phenomena is removing clean, natural water capabilities and capacity around the world Not really. Where glaciers have melted the same precipitation (or more) falls and can be dammed. The Great Lakes dropped for a while, but now they are rising again since 2008. Increased warming means increased precipitation, plain and simple. Where it falls might chance, but that's what dams and pipelines are for.
#97. To: buckeroo (#63)
Replies to Comment # 97.