Now, aren't you glad that the Obama administration is taking
politics out of science? That's what enables energy secretary
Steven Chu (nicknamed "Big League" by Obama) to make sober and coldly rational assessments like this;
height is in great peril. If you look at, you know, the Bay Area, where
I came from, all three airports would be under water. So this is —
this is serious stuff. The impacts could be enormous,"
So,
everyone, run out and buy an electric car right now! Form a drumming
circle, ceremonially break all your conventional light bulbs and
replace them with fluorescents! Drink your own bathwater! Most
importantly, though, be sure not to do anything reckless and
irresponsible like having children, because they will suck up resources
that could be better spent on spotted owls and snail darters and such.
Now,
it's true that none of these actions will impact global warming at all,
but they will make you feel better – will give you a vague sense of
having contributed to something – and anyway, that's the way the herd
is going. Polls show that people are concerned about recent polling on
attitudes toward global warming. The voters have spoken!… and as we know, democracy is never wrong… just look at Palestine, and the Weimar Republic… and lemmings (an example from nature, which is also never wrong).
Unfortunately, while President Obama and his sycophantic minions
cabinet valiantly attempt to keep reason science and politics in completely
separate, hermetically sealed envelopes, there are still divisive and
radical voices trying to ruin everything;
"Secretary
Chu still seems to believe that computer model predictions decades or 100 years from now are some sort of 'evidence' of a
looming climate catastrophe, said Marc Morano, executive editor of ClimateDepot.com and former top aide to global warming
critic Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.
"Secretary Chu's assertions on sea level rise and hurricanes are quite simply
being proven wrong by the latest climate data. As the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute reported in December 12,
2008: There is 'no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise.'"
Morano
said hurricane activity levels in both hemispheres of the globe are at
30 years lows and hurricane experts like MIT's Kerry Emanuel and Tom
Knutson of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration "are
now backing off their previous dire predictions."
He said Chu is out of date on
the science and is promoting unverified and alarming predictions that have already been proven contrary.
The interesting thing to me is that there is a perfectly good reason for conserving energy that has very little to do with global warming: national security. Oil money funds Venezuela’s Chavez; oil money funds the Saudi’s export of Wahhabist Islam to U.S. mosques (and not just American ones).
Does conservation carry a cost? Sure. But so does defense, and not every conservation measure is going to dry up the economy tomorrow.
Unfortunately, you won’t hear that argument from this administration. Sadly, we didn’t hear it from the previous one either.
Peace,
–Peter
More urgent is the concern about water pollution. It has been said that by the time the Misissippi reaches Louisiana, it has gone through several toilets, and while the US has some serious problems, they are not nearly as serious as in other parts of the world.
Where I live, we have a water pollution “expert” telling us how bad things are here, while we are finding that the Steelhead Trout, once almost extinct locally, is making a comeback because we are making strides in keeping our waterways cleaner.
This “expert” was imported from India. He probably knows a lot about polluted rivers. Can you say “Ganges”? Maybe he should take care of problems back home before coming here to tell us what’s wrong. A recent list of the worlds most polluted rivers was topped by the Ganges with six of the ten in India, China, Indonesia, and other parts of Asia. The Queen’s Thames was on the list, too.
Just this morning, our local weatherman said, “Not so fast” concerning the global warming bandwagon. He said that the lastest scientific evidence shows that the ice caps are thickening, not melting. Of course, I live in Oklahoma, a fairly conservative state, Inhofe and Coburn being my senators (and thank the Lord for them).
This is quickly becoming the religion of the left, the Church of the Holy Global Warming.
The ice caps are definitely not thickening. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aYtW2IeY868Q&refer=australia
Well you’re clearly a bunch of holocaust deniers.
/sarcasm
I agree the one good thin likely to come of this is greater support for technologies that will bring greater energy independence. Also it helps us get a head start on technology to replace fossil fuels for when, many years from now, it does start running out (or rather, becoming too expensive to be worth extracting). Of course there is also the danger that it discourages domestic oil production.
In related news, apparently Vatican City is going to go totally solar. Solar’s not really the best thing for the environment because of what it takes to produce and dispose of solar panals (though it’s better than it was) and it feeds into the whold Global Warming thing, but I like the idea of the Vatican getting more off the grid.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7642811.stm
“I agree the one good thin likely to come of this is greater support for technologies that will bring greater energy independence.”
See, that’s the thing… I have no problem AT ALL with “treading lightly upon the earth”, or with living more simply (which we need spiritually), or with energy independence. Pollution is a bad thing.
I have no problem with electric cars, really, except that right now they would do almost nothing to reduce emissions (except in hydro-power areas), which means they are not worth the trouble and increased expense.
The ones that get the electricity they need to run from coal-fired power plants will actually be using that energy far less efficiently than if they just ran on coal (what with transmission loss, and all). It is kind of humorous that people think these electric cars will run on electricity that is magically generated right in the wall socket.
But wait… environmentalists hate hydro-power too, don’t they?
“The ones that get the electricity they need to run from coal-fired power plants will actually be using that energy far less efficiently than if they just ran on coal (what with transmission loss, and all). It is kind of humorous that people think these electric cars will run on electricity that is magically generated right in the wall socket.”
Tim, most of the people campaigning for electric cars realize this, which is why they’re against coal power as well, and for wind and solar power. (Some of them might even be pro-hydro power too. I can’t say for sure because I live in an area where wind and solar are far more viable.) It’s fine to disagree, but insulting the intelligence of your opponents is not necessary, nor does it do you any favors.
Peace, Pax!
I don’t consider proponents of electric cars my “opponents”, I just wish they would openly acknowledge up front that – in areas where electricity comes from coal, which is MOST of the country – electric cars won’t have any real impact on emissions at all.
If you want to eliminate coal, you are looking at nuclear, because wind and solar can’t begin to fill the needs of the power grid, and hydro projects are becoming less politically viable, as well.
Large scale wind and solar generation have their own environmental drawbacks. Though they may not create carbon emissions, they have definite impact on the environment. Nuclear is by far the most bang for the environmental buck. Look at France… 90% nuclear.
It may surprise you to learn, however, that I am very much for everyone reducing the amount of energy and resources they use, across the board. I just reject trumped-up global disaster scare-mongering.
Wake up, Catholics! You do more harm than good by demonizing the environmental movement. Good scientific research shows the drastic increase in global carbon dioxide levels and the probable results, which will affect the poor in other nations way before us.
As Catholics, we need to be prudent supporters of efforts to keep this beautiful world, a gift from God, from harm. Catholics need to work with environmentalists to advocate for MORAL solutions to global climate change.
If Catholics stick their heads in the sand regarding this issue, those who believe that the best way to solve the environmental crisis is to promote radical population control will prevail.
This is quickly becoming the religion of the left, the Church of the Holy Global Warming.
Fortunately, this Catholic has not stuck his head in the sand – it is a pity more people don’t listen to him.
Pope Benedict’s address to the United Nations General Assembly 18 April 2008 [my emphasis]
“Indeed, questions of… CLIMATE, require all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law, and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet”
And this contradicts the substance of my post how, exactly?
A agree completely with the Holy Father that, on QUESTIONS of climate, international leaders must show a readiness to work in GOOD FAITH, respecting the law and promoting SOLIDARITY with the weakest regions of the planet, etc…
Scaring people with unfounded tales of climate disaster in order to justify increased governmental control of everything, and increased trans-national interference in the affairs of sovereign nations is NOT acting in good faith or promoting solidarity with developing countries.
Marc Morano is making a straw man argument. Chu said nothing about the rise in the sea level accelerating. He was talking about what would happen if the sea level continues to rise at the rates as predicted by the IPCC. IF the IPCC predictions are correct, then certain things will happen. The question is, is the report correct?
Here is a link to one of the researchers who prompted the KNMI (the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute) to modify their sea level reporting. As you can see, the report does not say the sea is not rising, but that it is not accelerating. It urges sober, slow changes in dealing with the climate crisis. It also notes that the IPCC predictions have been smaller in each of four successive reports, but it does not say that the prediction of even a constant rise in sea levels has been denied.
One may say that Chu is an alarmist, perhaps, but one cannot say either that he said that the sea level rise is accelerating nor that the sea level isn’t rising. Morano is not addressing the point of the speech – sea levels are rising and this may have dire results.
Personally, I am all for a measured response. Act in haste, repent in leisure. If I were a bookie, however, I would lay odds on which is more likely to happen first: the earth to undergo a drastic climate change or the earth to undergo a nuclear war (a different type of climate change, to be sure).
The Chicken
Tim J.,
You wrote:
Form a drumming circle, ceremonially break all your conventional light bulbs and replace them with fluorescents!
Fluorescents??? Everyone knows the cool kids use LED lights! Here is a site for people (such as I) who are addicted to flashlights. or lights of any kind. Many neat reviews.
The Chicken
Tim
I did not have your comments at the front of my mind when I made my last post.
But I think that you and the Pope differ on the practical judgement of whether and to what extent human activity is contributing to climate change.
This transcript of Prof Chu’s statement has a different tone to the Fox report.
More on Prof Chu
See, that’s the thing… I have no problem AT ALL with “treading lightly upon the earth”, or with living more simply (which we need spiritually), or with energy independence. Pollution is a bad thing.
I have no problem with electric cars, really, except that right now they would do almost nothing to reduce emissions (except in hydro-power areas), which means they are not worth the trouble and increased expense.
The ones that get the electricity they need to run from coal-fired power plants will actually be using that energy far less efficiently than if they just ran on coal (what with transmission loss, and all). It is kind of humorous that people think these electric cars will run on electricity that is magically generated right in the wall socket.
I agree completely. It’s almost as bad as the corn-ethanol scam, and solar power in the 80s. Hybrid cars are a good thing though, and trains even better.
But wait… environmentalists hate hydro-power too, don’t they?
Well, considering that dam they built in China is probably one of the main things that drove the Chinese river dolphin over the edge to probable extinction you can hardly blame them for that, at least in some cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baiji
I attended a lecture today on the probable results of Global Climate Change on boreal and tundra mosses, and the resulting changes in the role of peatlands as carbon sinks and methane sources and that sort of thing. The whole thing was just an exercise in how to stretch “no one has any clue” out for an hour and still suggest that we are on the brink of disaster if we don’t cut carbon emissions immediately. The one actual field study showed no significant changes as a result of higher CO2 levels, though this experiment didn’t include increased temperature. What is a possible real concern is what will happen due to nitrogen pollution, which had a very significant effect in the same experiment. I’ve been getting the increasing impression, confirmed today as well, that the whole world is going crazy over carbon when the real danger is nitrogen.
The other point I don’t want missed in all this is that making prudent preparations for possible climate shifts is not a bad idea, either. Having some idea what could happen, and what measures might be taken to prevent loss of life or livelihood would be altogether praiseworthy.
The problem is, again, in insisting that we KNOW mankind is causing Global Warming**, and in forming public policy based on that assumption, especially given the lengths to which some are eager to go, including submission of our energy policy to the dictates of an unelected trans-national political body.
**Oops! They’re calling it Climate Change, now, given that recent data has shown that the globe has not warmed at all in the last ten years.
**Oops! They’re calling it Climate Change, now, given that recent data has shown that the globe has not warmed at all in the last ten years.
I also think it is very arrogant, as well as ignorant to think that we can control the weather when we are helpless in 100 mph winds.
Even solar & wind power aren’t the panacea they’re made out to be. As mentioned above, solar panels take an enormous amount of energy to produce (the last time I asked an environmentalist who was knowledgeable about the subject, solar panels took more energy to produce than they could ever save over their lifespan).
And wind farms, at least over the waters, create disturbances in the aquatic life around them. When you block winds, you change the downstream wind patterns, which change currents, which, in the case I’m thinking of (can’t remember where) created a huge dead zone around the wind farm.
So when I heard King Obama the other day mention how generously he was offering “federal waters” for random folk to come in with wind farms, I couldn’t help but think it’s akin to opening up ANWR to whoever wants to drill. The toll on the aquatic life will be enormous.
The fact is, we can’t run on ANY of these alternative energies without a reduction in our consumption. They ALL run out; they ALL require a toll on the environment around them (and eventually, the whole world). The first R is REDUCE. Our disposable, consumerist lifestyles are what are driving us under.
And every time I hear an environmentalist bemoan the sinking of Florida, I think, “But what a gain for Greenland!!!”
During the Little Ice Age, Greenland was GREEN on the edges – lush valleys that today are barren, frozen fjords. The natural warming & cooling cycles of the Earth ARE harsh – coasts WILL be lost in warmer areas in warming cycles – heck, think of the inland sea that once covered much of North America! what if that cycle returned now?! – but what’s harsh in a warming cycle for one region is a great boon to another region, and vice versa during a cooling portion of the cycle.
LOL, not that anyone else has read this after my last comment, but allow me to correct my obvious wrong comment above. It’s always hard to think clearly when babes are crawling all over you. 🙂
*BEFORE* the last “Little Ice Age,” Greenland was green. Then it got cold, and icy. As the Earth enters another (relatively) brief warming cycle, Greenland will regain some green space, even as Florida loses some coast. It was never a massive crisis before (well, the cooling killed off the Greenlanders), but now that we’ve constructed large cities on these environmentally sensitive spots (like Miami & New Orleans), suddenly it seems leagues worse than when this happened before.
Actually, according to some predictions, Europe and northeastern United States may actually get colder because of global warming due to changes in the Gulf Stream. That’s one of the reasons people are calling it “global climate change” now; it’s more complicated than just the world getting warmer and icecaps and glaciers melting. Of course, I dare say the lack of global-level warming for the last several years has something to do with the name change as well.
What exactly is supposed to happen to Greenland, I’m not sure. Is it supposed to get colder like Europe and the Northeast, or warmer like the rest of the arctic? I would guess warmer since part of the reason for the change in the Gulf Stream is supposed to be an influx of fresh water into the North Atlantic from melting arctic ice, but I’m not sure since I thought Europe and Greenland’s Little Ice Age was mainly caused by a similar southward shift of the Gulf Stream. Who knows, it may even be something like it would get warmer at first and then colder later. Or it wouldn’t surprise me if, like most things about this subject, it’s something nobody really knows.