The Wahington Post reckons the central debate around climate change has shifted from whether humans are causing global warming to whether its too late to do anything about it.
There has been quite the line up of highly respected climate scientists to broach the "tipping point" scenario recently. James Lovelock, developer of the Gaia hypothesis, claims in his new book The Revenge of Gaia that global warming is now irreversible. Sir Crispin Tickell, the man who convinced Margaret Thatcher that global warming was real, predicts that the human population will drop from 6 billion in 2006 to 2.3 billion people in 2206. James E. Hansen, longtime director of the NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and leading authority on the earth's climate system has been trying to say his piece but is being methodically silenced by the Bush Administration who are intent on controlling the message the US public gets to hear.
There has been quite the line up of highly respected climate scientists to broach the "tipping point" scenario recently. James Lovelock, developer of the Gaia hypothesis, claims in his new book The Revenge of Gaia that global warming is now irreversible. Sir Crispin Tickell, the man who convinced Margaret Thatcher that global warming was real, predicts that the human population will drop from 6 billion in 2006 to 2.3 billion people in 2206. James E. Hansen, longtime director of the NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and leading authority on the earth's climate system has been trying to say his piece but is being methodically silenced by the Bush Administration who are intent on controlling the message the US public gets to hear.
The debate has been intensifying because Earth is warming much faster than some researchers had predicted. James E. Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, last week confirmed that 2005 was the warmest year on record, surpassing 1998. Earth's average temperature has risen nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, he noted, and another increase of about 4 degrees over the next century would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet."So what should we expect to happen in the forseeable future, if we waste the next ten years and assuming it is not already too late to do something?"It's not something you can adapt to," Hansen said in an interview. "We can't let it go on another 10 years like this. We've got to do something."
There are three specific events that these scientists describe as especially worrisome and potentially imminent, although the time frames are a matter of dispute: widespread coral bleaching that could damage the world's fisheries within three decades; dramatic sea level rise by the end of the century that would take tens of thousands of years to reverse; and, within 200 years, a shutdown of the ocean current that moderates temperatures in northern Europe.Tags: Global+Warming, Climate+Change, CO2, Energy, Science, News, Politics, Bush, Sustainability, Tipping+Point
For a long time Greens have been relentlessly promoting the idea that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. They have been able to convince most Americans of it. In schools, universities, and especially in the media, global warming has been largely taken for granted. The goal of the Greens' global warming campaign has been to make cuts in energy production gullible to the public.
ReplyDeleteThere is no real evidence for global warming claims. Quite to the contrary, experiments conducted during the last two decades indicate a slight cooling of the globe.
Radio measurements taken around the globe by 63 weather balloons, as well as microwave measurements taken by satellites orbiting the earth, showed an average cooling of 0.16ºF in the lower atmosphere since 1979. The data determined a cooling trend of 0.09ºF per decade. The data is undisputed, though global warming advocates often ignore it.
The evidence debunking global warming is indeed so forceful that 17,000 U.S. scientists signed the 1998 "Oregon Petition," declaring that "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
The only measurements apparently supporting the global warming theory are surface temperature records from urban areas. This data, however, was collected in cities that cover only a tiny fraction of the earth's surface, and therefore is not representative of global temperatures. Because cities are mostly covered by concrete and pavement, which absorb lots of heat, temperatures in cities rose through the years as they sprawled. But this is not global warming--it is merely urban warming.
The whole case for global warming actually rests on dubious results from computer models, not facts. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows it, and explicitly admits their lack of knowledge about climate factors used in their computations. Even so, they made the wild prediction that global temperature will rise by 10.4ºF in the next century. They weren't even bothered by their own recognition that they have only "low" or "very low" scientific understanding for nine of the twelve factors used in their models. The truth is that much research is still needed to establish the poorly understood causes of global climate.
Also poorly understood are the consequences of an eventual global warming. All things considered, it would not be unreasonable to expect that a warmer climate may end up doing more good than harm. Scientists know as an experimentally demonstrated fact that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would boost global agriculture and all forms of plant life, which feed on the stuff.
In sum, there is no credible evidence supporting the theory of global warming, and the best evidence available shows the theory to be false. Thousands of scientists are convinced that global warming is not happening, and many among them say that even if it were, its effects might be beneficial. Should we cut down energy production and progress under these circumstances?
Carbon dioxide emission control is just another Green attempt to cut back energy production and to eventually shut down modern industry. Greens have already succeeded in choking power production in California. Will they succeed in choking it all over America?
If environmentalists get away with passing the new legislation, Americans will soon find themselves in darkness, suffering through a nationwide energy crisis that will make California's recent experience pale in comparison. The House and the Senate must support President Bush and reject the Greens' legislation for the same reason that Americans must reject the Greens' ideology: because America's progress and prosperity depend on that.
Relax my friend. It was David Lovelock, who I have blogged about, and his ilk who alerted the world about anthropomorphic warming. At the time he was working for an oil company. Hardly a green.
ReplyDelete