Global Warming 1

Off-list…

The word “deny” is such a loaded word in this context because it tags someone as being on par with a Holocaust denier.

Science is based on being a Sceptic.  Does “Global Warming” exists?  Maybe (and that is a HUGE maybe).  The month of February here in the US was one of the coldest on record.  Last spring the Global Warming alarmist were in an up roar that the summer of 2006 would see the destruction of the eastern seaboard do to increased Hurricane activity brought about by the supposed warming.  Did it happen?  Not hardly.  Did they apologize for their Chicken Little impersonation?  Of course not.

It would help the debate and the actual science (not that Hollywood fantasy of Al Gore’s) if Scientists were allowed to actually practice science.  You asked the question did any Oil companies contribute money to the making of that documentary?  If they did so what?  Do you hold the other side of the debate to the same standard when “Greeny” groups provide funding to their documentaries and “research”?

Are there other benefits to reducing CO2 emissions?  Sure.  Should we pursue reducing them for the other benefits?  Sure.

Those that scream the loudest for a change in human activity should lead by example.  If the idea is to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions then we should reduce them.  Not purchase indulgences from some snake-oil salesman in the name of “carbon credits”.  If doing that is ok then I should be able to buy my Brother-in-law’s unused emissions since he is driving a Honda Insight (to drive in the carpool lane in LA and NOT to reduce CO2) so that I can drive my big block 454 powered Suburban guilt-free.  Of course un-like Al “hypocrite” Gore I won’t be owning the company that I buy the carbon credits from.  Neat how his ability to claim he is “carbon neutral” is really an advertisement for the “snake-oil” saleing that his “carbon credit company is doing.  Basically Al get’s to buy his carbon credits from himself.  I did replace ALL the incandescent light-blubs in my own house with those mini florescent bulbs about three years ago but that was to get lower utility bills due to some scare about an ice sheet melting.

(http://www.livescience.com/environment/070131_ap_climate_trendy.html
…The carbon neutral trend “tries to make money from tapping into consumers’ guilt,” said Jutta Kill of SinksWatch, an environmental group that monitors such projects. “It’s worse than doing nothing. … Those who are in a role-model function like Al Gore do not do the movement for effective action on climate change a favor by promoting carbon offsets…”)

Of course Al also screamed that Global warming is going to melt the ice caps and flood little ole ladies out of their retirement villages in Florida.  Has there been a reduction in the ice sheets around Greenland and Antartica?  Sure. But what Al, the Press and Global warming fanatics don’t tell you that that the build up of the thinkness of the interior ice on Greenland has been even greater than the loss around the edges.  So somehow actually increasing the amount of ice in Greenland and the Antarctice is going to lead to flooding somewhere?

(http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/ice_sheets.html
…In Greenland, the survey saw large ice losses along the southeastern coast and a large increase in ice thickness at higher elevations in the interior due to relatively high rates of snowfall. This study suggests there was a slight gain in the total mass of frozen water in the ice sheet over the decade studied, contrary to previous assessments…”

Of course there is a downside.  Since the “developing” (read China and India) world is exempted from all the negotiated solutions (read Kyoto) they won’t bear the economic brunt of the effort.  However the undeveloped world (read Africa) is not exempt so that get to stay in poverty.  Sure seems fair.

No as for the sham that is Kyoto not a single country that has signed onto this piece of scrap paper has even come close to their goals and in fact I think all of them have actually seen their emissions increase.  Now have them increased at a reduced rate?  Not sure.  In Washington speak a reduction in planned growth would be seen as a cut.  But then it really wasn’t cut.

The EU (who’s member states are not meeting Kyoto themselves) are thinking about taxing US imports with a carbon tax since we won’t sign Kyoto.  Sure seems like increasing the cost of US goods and services sold in Europe would be a measurable downside in both Trade deficit and the resulting costs in US productivity do to decreased markets.

Also the US turning corn into fuel is driving up the cost for tortillas in Mexico.  Will this in turn cause more illegals to cross the border since they cannot afford to feed their families?  Seems like another downside.

The problem with the Global warming crowd is that they fail to address the warming and cooling cycles that the planet has continually gone through.  They are like a little child.  Everything is about them. They have no perception of what life was like before they graced the Earth with their presence.

At 05:26 PM 3/12/2007, you wrote:

The problem with trying to deny that global warming exists or that it is
caused by mankind is that if you don’t do anything about it and it turns out
that it was true, you are screwed. 

On the other hand there is no downside to doing our best to minimize it even
if it does turn out to be wrong.  We end up no worse off for our efforts.