Saturday, October 5, 2013
The CO2 - Global Warming Theory Deconstructed, Addendum
"As for the 2 periods, 1910-1940 (a miniscule percentage of man-made CO2 emissions having occurred during this time-frame), and, 1975-1998, the warming rates are not statistically significantly different." Phil Jones, University of East Anglia............Boy, do I ever enjoy slaying these bastards with their own damned words or what.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Will: I consider myself a pragmatic Progressive and a moderate. I will state for the record that the effects of Anthropomorphic Climate change have been overstated and there are flaws in the computer models that project climate changes...I think these folks have even admitted as much. Radiosonde and satellite data DO show variability in the climate...parts of Canada and the Artic are getting warmer whereas significant parts of North America do show cooling...I have come to see that in this debate using terms like "Alarmist", "Denier", or even "Bastard" tend to be incendiary and add nothing to the debate but I understand your passion and the reasons for it...What I don't buy is that pumping "copious amounts" of CO2 in the atmosphere is somehow a benefit. You might say this is somehow beneficial to agriculture...again CO2 is CO2...even so I think there IS a difference between naturally occurring CO2 and that which comes out of an auto exhaust pipe, an industrial smokestack, etc...Its gotta be tainted with other elements and isn't so benign(e.g. Coal fired Power plants, especially in China.)...For these reasons I support the development of cleaner energy sources but with some sensible caveats of which we have discussed personally...
I agree with you that there's a lot of nasty stuff coming out of smoke stacks (soot, mercury, sulfur dioxide, etc., especially in China) but one of them isn't the CO2. CO2 is one of the major building blocks of life on earth and and a doubling of it would probably have more of a positive effect than a negative one (Princeton physicist, William Happer, has done a series of very persuasive lectures on this) for life on earth.
And there are a lot of trade-offs to be made here. Yes, coal is by far the dirtiest of the fossil fuels but it is also cheap and plentiful, and it has literally drawn hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the last century. The harsh reality is that the world is probably going to have to burn not less but more coal well into the future, in that that is the only way that these 1.6 billion Africans, Asians, and Latin-Americans are going to be able to lift themselves out of THEIR poverty and secure even the basic essentials of running water and electricity. The fact that the Western world is more concerned about a trace gas (an essential one at that - plant food) than the abject misery of these poor people is a absolute indictment in my opinion.
Post a Comment