Guys...... might I suggest you stop listening to the conservative doctor shopper or at least on occasion listen to a non-neo-con media, maybe something balanced like NPR. just a suggestion.
NPR is
balanced?
I'll leave that one alone; it's hilarious enough as it stands.
what if they are right? is it posible in your wildest imagination? can you at all see it? something causes smog in LA, burning high sulpher coal is pretty much accepted as a bad idea,
Speaking of balance: This is all that the "The Sky May Not Be Falling" crowd, of which I am one, want. It
may be happening, and it
may be largely due to human activity. If so, it is a very serious problem and we should be taking steps to prevent or ameliorate it. And with such an important subject, all scientific evidence, both pro- and con, must be heard.
However, global warming has now both moved firmly into the political arena and spawned a multi-billion $ industry, so that even eminent scientists questioning the "accepted truth," or advancing evidence to the contrary, are ignored, mocked, or in some cases called Hitlers, Nazis, "as bad as holocaust deniers" and even fired from their jobs.
Contrary to what you read in the overwhelmingly left-leaning media, and from Algore and his clique, climatological and environmental scientists worldwide do
not universally agree about either the degree of global warming, its implications (is it 20 feet of sea rise or two inches?) or man's responsibility. Far from it. I started some research last month of noted, even famous scientists in this field who disagree, or demand more evidence, and stopped when by the letter C I had a total of over 80.
A couple of months ago, schools in the UK were showing Gore's
An Inconvenient Truth without any discussion of a contrary point of view, so a high court judge asked a group of scientists to review it. Their conclusion was that virtually every one of the claims made in the film were bogus, exaggerations, based on faulty interpretation of data, or presented only one piece of evidence and ignored the contrary (e.g: while arctic ice is undoubtedly melting [but we have no effect on sea levels, since it already floats on the sea], Antarctica is adding hundreds of thousands of tons each year; while the film shows receding and disappearing glaciers in one part of the globe, it ignores those that are growing longer and deeper).
Here is just one of the judge's statements:
"Mr. Gore’s spokesman and 'environment advisor,' Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented 'thousands and thousands of facts.' It did not: just 2,000 'facts' in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate."
Even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit the film did not represent mainstream scientific opinion. The judge ordered that schools must present a contrary point of view and a rebuttal of Gore's claims where necessary. Why is this not the same over here?
I have the complete report by the judge. It is much too lengthy to cite here, but if anyone cares to send me a PM or email, I'll be happy to send it. It's an eye-opener and should be read by anyone who thinks that Algore really deserved the Nobel Prize.
Some fundamental facts that all the global warming "experts" (many of them non-scientists, and many of whom pognosticated a New Ice Age 30 years ago) ignore, evade or distort:
1) CO2 increases
follow global warming, they don't cause it.
2) The biggest increase in CO2 levels occurred during the 30 years 1940-1970 (coincident with the immense industrial proliferation for rearmament 1940-45, and consumer goods 1946-70), during which time global temperatures actually decreased.
3) The much-trumpeted NASA figures showing that the four hottest years occurred since 2000 was found, by a NASA researcher, to be based on faulty data. NASA quietly reversed itself and changed the four hottest years to the 1930s. I believe the whistle-blower at NASA lost his job for that. Did you see any of that in the media? Of course not.
Incidentally: Two months ago, China officially passed the USA as the world's worst polluter. Chinese coal-fired power plants emit more sulfur dioxide (the main cause of acid rain) and mercury than any other country. China is the leading importer of illegally harvested timber (there go the rain forests and their ability to absorb CO2). Most of the airborne sulfur and mercury entering the USA from the west coast originates in China. China adds 14,000 new cars to its roads each
day (5.1 million per year), each a potent greenhouse-gas emitter. 70% of its non-transportation energy comes from burning 3.2
billion tons of coal each year, but that's nothing. China and India are building, or planning to build, 2,200 new coal-fired power plants by 2030. 775 are planned to be on line in four years. China alone is opening three per week. China is the biggest polluter of the Pacific Ocean.
However, China, India, and other high-polluting 3rd-World countries like Brazil and Indonesia (whose logging of their rain forests produces 20% of the world's CO2), are specifically excluded from the provisions of the present Kyoto Accord, one of the reasons why we have refused to sign it. Another reason is that Kyoto is simply irrelevant: The planned reduction in CO2 will be totally negated by China's and India's new power plants:
Only the USA, and certain other western countries, are targeted. Kyoto is like the United Nations - just another useless forum where they can bash America.
