The green/environmental agenda, with its concomitant propaganda and politics, is worming its way into everything in an extremely irritating manner. The sainted David Attenborough, who one would like ot think above such things, shows himself to be of the same BBC mindset as usual. Last week Life on Earth showed a Polar bear struggling across melting ice in search of food, then showed it trying to find a walrus dinner and paying the penalty for trying to attack something the size of a parcel truck. Now, every year large areas of the sea around the Arctic freeze, and every year they thaw. A Polar bear struggling across melting ice is not going to be an uncommon sight. Also, an animal trying to bite off a bit more than it can chew is not uncommon either. It’s called nature, and nature is not kind, it is ruthless and unforgiving. However, whilst displaying these films clips, Attenborough had to wax cringingly bathetic and deliver his BBC-approved homilies about man-made global warming.
This week we saw a grass fire that ‘consumes everything in its path including the old and young’ at which point we were shown the skeleton of a gazelle lying on still-smoking ground. Right, so this fire, which consumes everything in its path, consumed the animal’s flesh, fat and internal organs, but selectively left clean white bones? You also have to wonder how long the BBC film crew had to hang around to wait for a grass fire: “Get those cameras ready, guys – I’m just going for a smoke.”
Back to AGW: My parents bought me a year's subscription to Scientific American, which has had some interesting stuff in it. A recent issue I had to bin, however, since it seems wholly an AGW propaganda pamphlet. I think the article that finished it for me was the one about aircraft vapour trails contributing to global warming i.e. the trails hold in planetary heat during the night. The emphasis was all on that, not on the other point, which was quickly glossed over, about vapour trails reflecting sunlight during the day, thus reducing warming.
AGW believer take note of this.
This week we saw a grass fire that ‘consumes everything in its path including the old and young’ at which point we were shown the skeleton of a gazelle lying on still-smoking ground. Right, so this fire, which consumes everything in its path, consumed the animal’s flesh, fat and internal organs, but selectively left clean white bones? You also have to wonder how long the BBC film crew had to hang around to wait for a grass fire: “Get those cameras ready, guys – I’m just going for a smoke.”
Back to AGW: My parents bought me a year's subscription to Scientific American, which has had some interesting stuff in it. A recent issue I had to bin, however, since it seems wholly an AGW propaganda pamphlet. I think the article that finished it for me was the one about aircraft vapour trails contributing to global warming i.e. the trails hold in planetary heat during the night. The emphasis was all on that, not on the other point, which was quickly glossed over, about vapour trails reflecting sunlight during the day, thus reducing warming.
AGW believer take note of this.
12 comments:
For perspective on Monckton's article, you might want to see an article on RealClimate (where there is much substance in the comments as well as the article itself).
Inuit and satellite imagery are reporting much less ice coverage in the summer than historically, and increasing trend over the last few decades. You can deny that it isn't caused by human activity, but there is no doubt that it is happening.
As for Mr. Monckton's article, aside from his deep knowledge of historical chinese naval activity, his math is wrong.
Neal:
I still think the same way you do on this issue of "global warming." But last week, I'm sure you saw it too, how within 50 years man would have over fished the oceans to the point of marine extinction. What provides oxygen to the atmosphere? It isn't trees it's alga in the ocean caused by fish etc in it. When the fish run out and the alga vanishes, this planet is doomed.
"Global warming" is such a side issue compared to this tragedy caused by man not by nature. We have a brief widow of opportunity to correct this, researches give us 10 years to do something but when you go to the store and a can of Tuna costs $20 bucks, you'll know why.
We are on the verge of deep trouble
unless we do something soon. I'm trying to train my wife to boycott fish. Old habits are tough to break.
Jim
Neal,
I'm sure I've seen you following that guy with the placard that reads "The end of the World is nigh!" with yours saying, "No it's not!
I still think you should start a new party... The Polity Party... has a nice ring to it! :)
Bob
Undoubtably there is a rising of fear levels re: Global Warming, and a certain amount of scarmongering is going on.
But its a bloody big thing to get wrong. Just because you don't agree.
The Stern report puts it down to econmics and what it will cost. Not the government, but you and me. In Tax. I know Neal is a big lover of taxes.
You can pay now, and pay for something that may never happen, or pay later if something does happen. If it does, then its going to be big money and will dwarf the tax you pay now.
Me personally, I would prefer gradual change. Design more efficient cars, hybrid etc. Fuel cells tech is moving along nicely. As is the use of capacitors as batteries again, due to improvements in nano technology. All this industry creates jobs, in design and manufacturing, etc etc. Your money/tax is just going to other companies.
The reason the american government is now more concerned... is not so much about global warming, but more to do with their Energy Security. If they use less oil, then their exposure to foreign governments, middle eastern, south american, russian is alot less. Small changes to their petrol makeup (5% use of ethanol etc, makes a big dent in their imported oil total ... oh yes and is good for the environemt, ... lucky that).
Also alot of companies ... the oil giants, energy companies etc are now interested, since they see big money in it (+ tax breaks).
There will be change, since the remote chance that they are correct about the climate is a risk not worth taking.
Skar
Oh yes and I would happily put a wind turbine on the side of the house.
If it saved me paying money to the Electric company.
Just need the designers to comeup with a cost effective battery which can store my excess energy, so I have plenty for myself and only sell back to the electric companies, when my backup is full up.
Oh yes ... and the environment gets a break as well... lucky that.
Skar
I dunno where you live Neal but it's not the weather in the north pole that scares me, it's north britain. This year the weather up here has been weird. Really weird. Ever year it gets a little more weird. I dunno what is causing it but it's happening. Hell my garden exploded into a field of mushrooms! I almost got a tan in Glasgow. I think you might soon have to face the fact that our lifestyle may just make the world uninhabitable for humans. So unless you got a anisble stashed in the basement I think we got the right to try to take action.
Yes, Max, I've looked at that website with interest before. Remarkable how every article there bangs the tambourine for AGW.
Now, everybody, go and find out what AGW stands for then compare it to just 'global warming'. Then, once you have worked out the difference, try to stop your knees jerking.
As an aside, climatologists are trying to encourage the use of the term "Global Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming" because it seems that adding more energy into the mix and shaking will result in some places getting colder rather than warmer as circulation effects change.
Does AGW stand for Anti-Global Warming?
Neal - the vocal majority are for the most part to the political left of you. Is it possible that that fact is colouring your view? I imagine you have asked yourself the question before, but I must admit that I am puzzled by your staunch belief that we aren't suffering from a climat change largely driven by human activity.
Pacanukeha, maybe you were joking, but just in case you weren't, AGW stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Yes, most of the AGW believers stand to the left of me and this does colour my view. It is coloured by the fact that most of these vocal believers are (as someone one the Asimov's message board pointed out) impeached witnesses.
In light of growing evidence, and throughout a process of sorting through the left-wing political dross, I have changed my opinion. I did not accept that there was global warming. I now do (with reservations) but I don't reckon it to be as drastic as supposed, not do I reckon the larger proportion of it can be blamed on human activities. There are too many inconsistencies, too many exaggerations, there is too much vested insterest and too many downright lies. Ask any AGW believer and they will tell you it all down to western capitalist greed and CO2 produced by cars. Well, water vapour is the major greenhouse gas (which rather screws the idea that hydrogen powered cars will save us) and cars are not the major producer of CO2. Just one example. There are many more.
Take a look at this: http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/003370.html
Ah, so using the technique employed by those who like to deride those who are not 'believers': I see that the authors of the Realclimate website are also those who produced the disproven 'hockey-stick' graph. Interesting, that.
Post a Comment