Monday, June 18, 2007

Just when I thought the global warming hysteria couldn’t get anymore ridiculous, I read this article about the Darfur crisis. The UN Sec General seems to think that global warming is now part of the reason behind the genocide that’s occurring in Darfur. Yes, that’s right, something about the Indian Ocean being too hot and the monsoons diminishing and a butterfly flapped it’s wings somewhere in Malaysia and that becomes the mass murder of 200,000 people.

Oh, I see. I’m glad the UN cleared that one up, because for the longest time I thought that the UN’s lack of action in actually stopping the genocide was a major contributor to the violence, but that seems to not be the case. It’s actually global warming that caused it all. I’m sure the UN has a perfectly good explanation for why they sat by for the past 4 years and did nothing. But something tells me that explanation will be a long time coming. After all, I’m still waiting to hear why the UN sat idle while 800,000 people were killed in Rhuwanda, and over a million were killed in Cambodia. I’m sure they have their reasons.

So with Ban Ki-Moon’s recent statement, it appears we will continue to get more of the same from the UN…excuses, inaction and incompetence.

On the same subject, here is some information quoted from Professor Bob Carter, an environmental at James Cook University, as published in an Australian news source citing some fairly interesting climate statistics.

"The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion ($60 billion) on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one.

Yet that expenditure will pale into insignificance compared with the squandering of money that is going to accompany the introduction of a carbon trading or taxation system."

Hmmm, interesting. If there has been no global increase in temperature since 1998, then how could that have caused 200,000 dead in Darfur in the past 4 years? And if we go into a cooling trend in the next few decades, will Al Gore make a movie about that?

10 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

"Carter is a member of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, and a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs.

Beware your source.

Robert M. said...

Oh come on. Source bias or no, how the heck does global warming cause genocide? Is there any theory liberals will admit is a little crazy?

Dan Trabue said...

I was making no commentary on the Darfur theory. The Carter portion of the post was not really related to the Darfur portion. And I'm not even discounting Bob Carter out of hand.

Just saying that John could probably do better with sources other than yet another rightwing expert, IF he's interested in having other people accept the validity of your commentary.

On the point that we ought to be doing something more about Darfur, I agree fully. It is a disgrace that we (the global community) have no system in place for dealing with such atrocities.

John Washburn said...

Dan, I'm well aware of Carter's position. And I'm also well aware that it has nothing to do with the statistics that he cited. He cited the IPCC's OWN numbers. Does that make him biased? Is the IPCC right wing?

Using your same logic, I could discount Gore's entire movie simply because he is a member of a left-wing think tank. Would that be appropriate in your eyes?

This is typical of the Left. When there is no answer to the message, you attack the messager. Obviously you have no response to the points Carter made, so you attempt to discount those points by calling him right-wing. Isn't it time we got past the partisan stuff if we really want to solve all the problems we face?

Robert M. said...

No offense Dan, but I don't care a whit about Darfur. That's not our problem. Why did you guys seize on that particular country anyway? Not to be snide, I'm just curious.

And I have to say, John has a point. Al Gore isn't exactly unbiased. And his movie shows that. I've seen it. It's very slanted.

Dan Trabue said...

You are correct to say that Al Gore isn't unbiased. You'd be just as wrong to rely upon Inconvenient Truth as you would be to rely upon Bob Carter's stuff as your sole source of info.

But you should always be especially wary of those who get paid to have an opinion. With Gore, at least, you have a "freelancer" if you will. He's not being paid to have the opinions he has.

As to Darfur, we are our brothers' keeper. And even if we don't care a whit, it is to our own benefit to have a care.

Robert M. said...

What benefits? Darfur has virtually no strategic value, nor natural resources. They're also not much of an ally. How is it our business?

Dan Trabue said...

If you're a person from a Judeo Christian faith tradition, we've been commanded to care.

If not, but you're concerned about terrorism, you ought to be concerned because such hopeless poverty and oppression is a breeding ground for terrorism and other criminal behavior.

Ignoring such injustice has a way of coming back to bite us in the butt, seems to me.

Robert M. said...

Just because the Bible says something doesn't mean we can govern it. That'd be theocracy. The Bible is pretty debatable anyway.

And I can't see Darfur becoming any great terrorist breeding ground soon. That's more of the Middle East's game.

True, helping sometimes helped us, but generally when we protected our trade partners. But when we tried to help other countries we had no connection with, like say Vietnam...

Robert M. said...

And yes, I know the Sudan is near the Middle East, but I'm talking culturally, not geographically.