Zach LarkinsKYOTO VIII (a) (cont'd)
I'm going to step aside from the regular articles concerning Kyoto and global warming for a bit to address some concerns that have recently arisen. On another blog there are comments from readers espousing the danger we all face in this nefarious thing that is Making Al Gore more newsworthy than he deserves to be.
These commenters have swallowed his line along with his hook and sinker. They claim to have university educations, but you'd never know it by the way they write. I only have a college education but I don't need to pump myself up to the level of self importance that these people do. They claim to talk to scientists, but don't tell you what esteemed genius gave them the ‘facts' they spout. Of course, these people are just bloggers, the same as me, so if you consider the source, they are no more informed than I am. However, it is my intention to list the CV's of those people who have made this series possible and the sources I have used to garner the information. I have not spoken to any of these scientists, but they are well respected, published people, which is more than I can say for the detractors who claim to ‘talk to scientists'.
One fellow wrote in to discredit the global warming Deniers by saying they were funded to the tune of $10,000 each by Enron to refute global warming. If this fellow had done even the least bit of research, he would have known that Enron was a company brought into bankruptcy years ago and is nothing more than a reminder of corporate greed today. Exxon was the one who originally offered the money and then withdrew the offer when they saw how the optics could work in favour of Gore and his tribe. The scientists were never put on Exxon's payroll. They worked under whatever grants the government gave them, and we all know that can be a mere pittance at times.
Another commenter threw out the old bone of sea levels rising and flooding great areas of the coast if global warming was not dealt with immediately. He cited the Third Assessment Report which gave figures of an 88 cm rise. Had he bothered to do any research, he would have known that the Fourth Assessment Report takes the absolute worst case rise in sea level by 2100, assuming uninterrupted rapid economic growth and continued heavy global reliance on fossil fuels, and estimates it at 59 cm. In an arguably more plausible future, where alternative energy sources enter the picture more aggressively, the range is between 21 cm and 48 cm, numbers that scarcely summon up visions of gondolas in Trafalgar Square or a Cape Breton Atoll.
These commenters don't, or can't, see the glaring error they make when they claim that all the science is in and it is conclusive. When the IPCC summaries state empathetically that what once was ‘likely' and now has been upgraded to ‘very likely', that doesn't mean it is a closed issue. The fact that man-made emissions are ‘likely' or even ‘very likely' to cause global warming does not mean it is so. The commenters also refuse to acknowledge that the IPCC presented a summary of findings to the UN before the findings had even been printed. How does that work? Maybe in the world of Gore/Suzuki and these pathetic commenters it makes sense. But not to anyone with a working brain.
One commenter made reference to the increased number of tornadoes and hurricanes and blamed it on man-made influences. The new IPCC summary has been more categorical in stating that it is "more likely than not" that human contributions to global warming have already made Atlantic hurricanes more intense. Again, this is not proof positive. They fail to tell you what Christopher Landsea of the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory had to say on the subject. The IPCC called on him to be an author in the "Fourth Assessment Report." This report would specifically focus on Atlantic hurricanes. Kevin Trenberth of the IPCC held a press conference called "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity." Dr. Landsea took exception to this as, although being an invited author, he had not done any work that substantiated this claim. Nobody had. As perplexing, none of the participants in that press conference were known for their hurricane expertise. In fact, to his knowledge, none had performed any research at all on hurricane variability. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability showed no reliable upward trend in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes. Not in the Atlantic basin. Not in any other basin. To add to the utter incomprehensibility of the press conference, the IPCC itself, in both 1995 and 2001, had found no global warming signal in the hurricane record.
So where these commenters come off as being the ones who know it all is beyond me. I've invited them to read my blogs on this subject, but I don't think they will. They have no ammo to fight with. Only Gore and Suzuki's word. And those words are more than questionable.
Sources: Lawrence Solomon - The Deniers - The National Post
S L Bradish - Aussie Imbeciles - The Political Brief
These commenters have swallowed his line along with his hook and sinker. They claim to have university educations, but you'd never know it by the way they write. I only have a college education but I don't need to pump myself up to the level of self importance that these people do. They claim to talk to scientists, but don't tell you what esteemed genius gave them the ‘facts' they spout. Of course, these people are just bloggers, the same as me, so if you consider the source, they are no more informed than I am. However, it is my intention to list the CV's of those people who have made this series possible and the sources I have used to garner the information. I have not spoken to any of these scientists, but they are well respected, published people, which is more than I can say for the detractors who claim to ‘talk to scientists'.
These commenters don't, or can't, see the glaring error they make when they claim that all the science is in and it is conclusive. When the IPCC summaries state empathetically that what once was ‘likely' and now has been upgraded to ‘very likely', that doesn't mean it is a closed issue. The fact that man-made emissions are ‘likely' or even ‘very likely' to cause global warming does not mean it is so. The commenters also refuse to acknowledge that the IPCC presented a summary of findings to the UN before the findings had even been printed. How does that work? Maybe in the world of Gore/Suzuki and these pathetic commenters it makes sense. But not to anyone with a working brain.
One commenter made reference to the increased number of tornadoes and hurricanes and blamed it on man-made influences. The new IPCC summary has been more categorical in stating that it is "more likely than not" that human contributions to global warming have already made Atlantic hurricanes more intense. Again, this is not proof positive. They fail to tell you what Christopher Landsea of the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory had to say on the subject. The IPCC called on him to be an author in the "Fourth Assessment Report." This report would specifically focus on Atlantic hurricanes. Kevin Trenberth of the IPCC held a press conference called "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity." Dr. Landsea took exception to this as, although being an invited author, he had not done any work that substantiated this claim. Nobody had. As perplexing, none of the participants in that press conference were known for their hurricane expertise. In fact, to his knowledge, none had performed any research at all on hurricane variability. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability showed no reliable upward trend in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes. Not in the Atlantic basin. Not in any other basin. To add to the utter incomprehensibility of the press conference, the IPCC itself, in both 1995 and 2001, had found no global warming signal in the hurricane record.
So where these commenters come off as being the ones who know it all is beyond me. I've invited them to read my blogs on this subject, but I don't think they will. They have no ammo to fight with. Only Gore and Suzuki's word. And those words are more than questionable.
Sources: Lawrence Solomon - The Deniers - The National Post
S L Bradish - Aussie Imbeciles - The Political Brief
Real Crash
the Kyoto accords really suck. It's like you were going to legislate science. There is sunspot activity, there is the cycle of when (100 to 400 years many say) the next Ice Age is coming. Also, historically CO2 levels have been much higher. Then there is the guy, Sherwood Idso, who wrote the book, "Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition", about the many benefits to plant growth and forests and agriculture of a higher CO2 level. He also minimizes any potential general sea level rise. Climate is local, it was found in Southern India that growing many trees helped moderate the climate (less super hot) significantly.
The ONLY solution to long-term CO2 dangers/fears is nuclear power, fission and fusion, preferably fission high temperature gas reactor that could immediately be safely deployed all over the world for sea water desalination and hydrogen fuel synthesis. If you play games with bio-fuels (or bio-fools like Al Gore) you will only create food shortages, water shortages (from producing all that corn for fuel) that will kill 2/3rd or more of the earth's people. Bio-fuels is just another neo-con plot to have some fuel for the "beautiful people", in case the M. East oil is blown up by them. We have to try to see all the connections to all activity in a Platonic way. You'll miss the forest for the trees if you just grab some issue or Aristotlean turd.
Those that feel that humans cause global warming let them go live in caves and forage for food like their cave ancestors!
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
No sweat on the plug, S L. I just figured the whole thing was so far off your original article that I'd tell folks where to read the ravings of these close minded people. They won't read what I've written as their minds are already made up, but at least I can try to get the message out to people who can still think for themselves.
Don, Gore has lost so much credibility I can't believe he's up for a Peace Prize. I can understand the lunatic fringe in Hollywood nominating him for an Oscar, but then again, their claim to fame, at present, is endorsing Obama over Clinton.
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Real Crash
Real Crash
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern