| Subject: Re: "Debunking hot hysteria" |
Author:
Duncan7
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09:04:25 01/15/07 Mon
In reply to:
Curmudgeon
's message, ""Debunking hot hysteria"" on 10:48:00 01/14/07 Sun
The cows did it.
>"But the Cassandras, who claim that every time there's
>a hurricane, tsunami or heat wave, the direct and sole
>cause is man-made global warming, usually have a
>political agenda or don't know what they're talking
>about, or both."
>_______________________________________________________
>____
>
>Debunking hot hysteria
>Political agendas, massive misinformation fuelling
>climate debate
>By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN
>
> Here are some things you probably haven't heard in
>all the recent hysteria being spouted about global
>warming by too many politicians, media and
>environmental activists. To keep this controversy in
>perspective:
>
>1. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old and has
>experienced many protracted periods of global warming
>and cooling that had nothing to do with human beings
>because we weren't yet alive.
>
>Glaciers melted and ice ages locked the Earth in their
>grip long before we existed.
>
>Scientists say there have been near-extinctions of
>life on Earth five times because of climate change and
>other factors, the last one occurring about 65 million
>years ago.
>
>FOREST FIRES
>
>None of them had anything to do with post-industrial
>man putting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases
>into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels like oil
>and coal. Erupting volcanoes unleash huge amounts of
>greenhouse gas. So do forest fires and decomposing
>plant life.
>
>2. Claims by some environmental activists and media
>that this year's mild winter or hurricane Katrina were
>caused by man-made global warming are simply
>irresponsible.
>
>Serious researchers stress that while climate change
>obviously affects weather, no single weather episode
>can be blamed solely or conclusively on global warming
>caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
>Scientists know that if they start to make this claim,
>they'll be asked how, since they can't predict the
>weather two weeks from now, they can predict it
>decades or centuries into the future.
>
>In fact, predicting climate change and forecasting
>weather are different issues. Unfortunately, too many
>politicians, environmental activists and media who
>often have a political agenda to ram through the Kyoto
>accord, are deliberately blurring this important
>distinction.
>
>This is understandable because the UN treaty is highly
>controversial.
>
>Many Kyoto critics charge it is more concerned with
>transferring wealth from the First World to the Third
>World than seriously reducing man-made greenhouse
>gases.
>
>3. While there is widespread agreement the world is
>going through a sustained period of warming, from the
>1940s to the 1970s we experienced a period of global
>cooling, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere. Back
>then, Time, Newsweek and others ran stories predicting
>a possible new ice age. Oops.
>
>Many scientists believe this cooling period was
>partially the result of post-industrial man injecting
>pollutants into the air. These pollutants reflect the
>sun's rays back into space, unlike greenhouse gases
>which trap heat.
>
>Ironically, as we continue to clean up these
>pollutants, as we should, some think this will
>contribute to global warming.
>
>4. The real debate on global warming is about whether
>man-made greenhouse gas emissions are causing it to
>happen at an accelerated rate that risks, over time,
>cataclysmic climate change. Most climate change
>scientists believe this. A minority don't or argue the
>man-made effect is not significant. Serious
>researchers do not hysterically shout down as "global
>warming deniers" anyone who disagrees with them.
>
>Rather, they argue, there is very strong evidence --
>many say it's conclusive -- based on both scientific
>observation and computer modelling that man-made
>greenhouse gas emissions are causing a rapid increase
>in global warming that cannot be explained by any
>natural causes.
>
>They say it is prudent to err on the side of caution
>and reduce these emissions now because of the possible
>catastrophic climate changes that may result over the
>coming decades and centuries.
>
>5. One can be skeptical about all this, and Kyoto, and
>still agree with the argument it makes sense to
>conserve non-renewable fossil fuels like oil and coal
>and reduce our reliance on them. But the Cassandras,
>who claim that every time there's a hurricane, tsunami
>or heat wave, the direct and sole cause is man-made
>global warming, usually have a political agenda or
>don't know what they're talking about, or both.
>
>By the way, without greenhouse gases like water vapour
>and carbon dioxide, we'd all freeze to death.
>
>
>
>href="http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldste
>in_Lorrie/2007/01/14/3362249-sun.html">http://www.toron
>tosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2007/01/14/3
>362249-sun.html
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 