Wednesday, January 31, 2007

More Thoughts On Global Warming

At the time of this writing, it's a whopping 5 degrees Fahrenheit outside my doors. That makes it quite tough to think about global warming, much less discuss it. But alas, the majority of the science community are still obsessed with it. The UN is being pressured to have a summit on it.

The U.N. environment agency pressured Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday to call an emergency climate summit amid dire reports about the risks from global warming.


That's great. People are dying in Darfur in the here and now, and the bureaucracy at the world body is more concerned with potential events that may or may not occur, hundreds of years from now. Iran is threatening to get a bomb and wipe out Israel, in the near future. And they are obsessed with the events that may occur hundreds of years from now. Yay Rah!! Go team go.

But that's not all. Congress is obsessed with it too.

Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) are among the speakers addressing global warming, taking up an open invitation from Sen. Barbara Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment Committee.


Again, we see the most pressing problems that we face in the here and now, pushed aside for something that may or may not occur in hundreds of years. As the world and country go down the tubes, we see the narrow focus of our so-called leaders.

But thankfully there is one scientist that is not afraid to say, "the emperor has no clothes".

Dr. Fred Singer presents a strong argument on global warming. His claim is that it is a natural event, not man made, and certainly not tied to CO2 levels. Read his work here. It's lengthy, but has some very relevant information that helps put this phenomenon, into better perspective. But realize this, you may not accept what he says, if you are easily drawn into the hysteria that this topic has been whipped into. But if you seriously want all views to formulate a sound opinion on the topic, I recommend reading it.

9 comments:

L'Amerloque said...

Hello LASunsett !

An excellent post – just in time for the "lights out for five minutes – save the planet protest" scheduled for 01 February here in France (http://www.lalliance.fr/). (smile)

As Amerloque posted some time back chez Superfrenchie:

//…/… The whole issue reminds Amerloque in many ways of the hysteria surrounding the "Club of Rome" (CoR) in the 1970s (aamof, he worked with one of the honchos … not in the CoR, but in another GONGO … ).


The CoR was present in the papers and the magazines and the airwaves much as the "GW crisis" is today. Yada yada yada in the magazines, papers, schools, univertsities, everywhere one looked. Basically, the CoR asserted that economic growth "could not continue indefinitely" because natural resources were "limited". It said that if things continued without change, "the people" would, in twenty years, be dining on roots and living in caves. (Amerloque exaggerates, of course, -grin- but is quite sure onc can see what the CoR meant – resources would run out and so on …). Scientists of every stripe and every discipline were drafted to spread the word … (Wiki CoR = http://tinyurl.com/hmqrw ).


Of course, nothing of the sort happened. (sigh) Moreover, there are more exploitable resources now than there were then, apparently, and, in some cases, the cost of some of the resources is less now than it was then, even with inflation factored in.


From "The Skeptical Environmentalist" to Michael Crichton, there are those who disagree with the receved wisdom. They are drowned out by the politically correct proponents of GW.


This won't be the first time – nor the last – that political theorists short of concrete arguments have moved the goalposts. Now that the USSR and "successful communism" are history, perhaps some of them have latched on to "the environment" to push their ideas.


Once the Pandora's Box has been opened, it can't be closed. The west should probably be building more nuclear reactors, not fewer, so as to do research and improve them: Germany has it a$$-backwards. The gov'ts should probably be throwing billions into research projects to figure out what to do with the nuclear waste (besides burying it and/or shooting it off into space). One thing is clear, though: France, which was once again in the lead in nuclear technology, risks losing its advance, because of the European Union, which has mandated that such and such a percentage of energy should come from "renewable" resources by such and such a year. Instead of investing a max in nuclear, maintaining its lead, and breaking new ground, France will try to play catch-up ball in wind and solar. France, once again, will be shafted by the EU. The race to the bottom continues.

Do note that while he is a big skeptic about GW, Amerloque has a wind generator at his country house to make electricity, and heats some of his water out there with solar panels. He took advantage of no gov't program, nor did he receive any gov't subsidy or tax break. He put the devices in to learn about them. //

Since that post chez SuperFrenchie, Amerloque has been looking into the whole GW hysteria in far more detail. Two book, to be recommended, are by one Patrick J. Michaels:
"Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming" and "Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media". As the titles indicate, he attempts to throw some perspective into the debate .. (grin) …

One issue that no one seems to have addressed in the depth it really deserves (at least in Amerloque's mind): ok, global warming is here, ok, temperatures rise, icecaps melt, and whatnot… temps rise in Siberia, too, where exploration for and extraction of ores and minerals have heretofore been heavily limited by permafrost and frozen ground and bitterly cold winters … how quickly will this impact geopolitically in Eastern Europe, and, by ricochet, in Western Europe ? Is this why Russia (peopled by chessplayers who plan ahead) is already cracking down on its oligarchs, and concentrating mining – and oil - interests in the hands of the state ? Sure, in Alberta there is a rush to extract oil from the sands … but what about in Russia now … when the climate "heats up" ? What about China, with its huge population and relative lack of raw materials ? That border at the Amur might be "heating up" faster than expected …

Best,
L'Amerloque

Greg said...

Careful guys - the thought police are going to come for you....

LASunsett said...

Hi Amerloque,

//Do note that while he is a big skeptic about GW, Amerloque has a wind generator at his country house to make electricity, and heats some of his water out there with solar panels. He took advantage of no gov't program, nor did he receive any gov't subsidy or tax break. He put the devices in to learn about them.//

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Zero, zilch, nada.

And I might add, just because I do not subscribe to the mass hysteria, does not mean that I think there's no cause for protecting the environment and conserving energy. We installed a ventless fireplace furnace that is far more efficient than our gas furnace. It uses about a third less gas and uses no electricity, because there is no blower. We still use our gas furnace at night, as it disperses the warm air into the bedrooms better. But during the day we use the fireplace furnace, because it is located in the center of the house and that is where we spend most of our waking hours at home.

One funny point I'd like to present is, many people on the island of Nantucket have taken the bait on this and are true believers in the current GW dogma. But, they also fight windmills coming to the island, for aesthetic purposes. Another hypocrisy is the amount of attention GW gets from Kennedys, Kerrys, and others that have enormous amounts of money. None of them have any problems with hopping onto their private jets to travel, though.

LASunsett said...

Greg,

//Careful guys - the thought police are going to come for you....//

(Gasp) The thought police? Oh my, I forgot about them. Do you think they know what I am thinking right now?

;)

L'Amerloque said...

Hi Greg !

/*/Careful guys - the thought police are going to come for you..../*/

Ah, the Renseignements Généraux (RG) ? Will they fill out a "fiche" or two ? (wide grin)

Amerloque thinks that they might have other fish to fry, somewhere. (smile)

Best,
L'Amerloque

A.C. McCloud said...

Dr Singer and his pals don't have those cheesy AMS seals to worry about, but they do have degrees and AMS memberships. Wonder what Ms. Cullen of the Weather Channel wants to do with them?

The US govt (NOAA) is now taking the official position that humans are contributing to the recent warmup. However, Singer's theories seem to better fit the warming of the early 20th century, which neither Al Gore or NOAA have any opinion about. It's a new definition of "political science".

LASunsett said...

//Wonder what Ms. Cullen of the Weather Channel wants to do with them? //

In keeping with good tradition of people that think the way she does, she probably is advocating a summary execution, at dawn.

BabyHair said...

The United States should invest in renewable sources of energy such as wind power, solar power and hydroelectricity. We need more battery powered or charged automobiles. We must become energy independent. If we become energy independent, we won't have to send troops to the Middle East to fight these stupid wars that only make the rich richer and bury the poor.

Anonymous said...

Why why do we as a country constantly keep doing this? We must spend all of our time ignoring facts instead of looking at the overwhelming evidence and accepting the reality of a situation. Global Warming is real and it is something that needs to be addressed. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't also be focusing on things in the here and now...we are a large, strong nation with enough resources to deal with multiple issues. This is supposed to be a centrist blog no? As centrists, we usually take positions such as 'Global warming is a pressing and real phenomenon. However, we need to find practical solutions to curbing its effects and encourage developing countries to start getting their acts together as well'. That, IMHO, is the general, reasonable centrist point of view. Neither to deny nor to buy the argument that we're all doomed...I am somewhat dismayed that you haven't taken a more balanced view here...