Thursday, May 08, 2008

From a recent article in Nature (May 1 issue), the UN IPCC has apparently begun to conjure up explanations for why their doomsday forecasts for the earth aren't actually panning out. After adjusting the IPCC's climate model to reflect actual sea surface temperatures of the last 50 years they came to the following conclusion:

"global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations … temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."

So the IPCC now says that global warming may not actually happen in the next ten years because mother nature will temporarily correct the problem. How convenient. Just to be clear, the IPCC says that man (especially those in America) is destoying the planet. They say that things like the Kyoto Treaty (which would weaken America) will help solve the problem. They have spotty evidence at best to support their claims, and now they say that even though the danger is imminent we may not see evidence of it over the next ten years. But we should all take their word for it. This looks a lot like a street corner shell game to me.

So following this reasoning, I am apt to beging advocating for more carbon admissions. It seems that mother nature is hell-bent on cooling the planet and the only thing that is stopping her is man's greenhous gas emissions. I don't want another ice age, so maybe we should crank up those coal-burning power plants. That's IF we want to follow the IPCC's reasoning, which we would be foolish to do. My guess is that the enviro-whacks will eat this up and soon add a note of gratitude to their message of doom..."thank goodness mother nature has granted us more time to fix the problem." I just wonder what they will come up with ten years from now when things still aren't falling in line as predicted.

I've long given up on global warming as an actual scientific issue. In my mind, just like anything else, it is a political issue. The global warming fanatics are really anti-capitalism more than they are pro-environment, or else they would be targeting China more than America for their demonizing. Global warming is the "cause" they manipulate as an effort to weaken America, which is why the third-world-dominated UN is so adamant that we (ie, America) take action right away to offset the crisis, and any action short of reducing our GDP and slowing down our economy is simply unacceptable. This is the only way to explain why "global" warming is really America's problem more than it is the globe's.

Until the UN and the enviro-whacks begin focusing their efforts on China and India as they do America, and acknowledge the simple fact that the evidence of man-made climate change is lacking, I will continue to consider this nothing more than politics as usual. I see no evidence that man is capable of actually altering the earth's climate. However, I see plenty of evidence of the earth's third-world countries looking for ways to topple the last-remaining super power. They can't do it with military might, so their weapons of choice are biofuels and carbon credits.

11 comments:

TexasFred said...

In other words, the U.N. is full of sh*t??

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Dr John,

You may wish to review Raymond Kraft's "Open Letter" on Global Warming. The scientific data is significant. See S/H May 1st Post. reb
________________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com

Dan Trabue said...

I see no evidence that man is capable of actually altering the earth's climate. However, I see plenty of evidence of the earth's third-world countries looking for ways to topple the last-remaining super power.

You suspect thousands of scientists and millions (hundreds of millions?) of regular people around the world and in the US of being part of a plot to overthrow the US and its capitalistic ways?

For what it's worth, most folk that I know who have looked into the topic are not making the claim that "Humans are causing Global Warming!!!" but rather, they're noting that many scientists think that there's a possibility that humans are negatively impacting climate and such studies would recommend the prudent (conservative) wisdom of being cautious about further pursuing the current policies which might be causing such damage.

Certainly, as with any sufficiently complex topic, there are others who hear a little information and translate that to the simplest possible message (ie, "Humans are causing Global Warming!!"), but that does not necessarily represent the informed position of others who are, it should go without saying, NOT part of a global conspiracy to overthrow the US economy.

John Washburn said...

The IPCC is the predominant driving force for the global warming theory. You'd be hard-pressed to find an "expert" who endorses human-induced climate change that is NOT affiliated with this organization in one way or another. Anyone who offers alternative theories are quickly shunned by this "scientific" community.

The IPCC is a UN affiliate, and the UN is dominated by the third world and has thus become an organization whose primary mission is to counterbalance America's power. So, no, I don't believe in a conspiracy of millions of people, but I do believe that the UN has bought into global warming predominantly to offset America's economic and industrial might. I don't see any other way to explain why they simply ignore all evidence that contradicts their blessed theory.

The UN is arguably the most corrupt organization in the history of man, so anything they endorse is likely a scam.

As for the "possibility" idea, I've studied science long enough to know that just about anything is theoretically possible. The difference in me is that I am not willing to risk our economy on a possibility. We're talking about lots of jobs here, this is someone's lifestyle at stake. You'll have to show me more evidence before I support Kyoto or anything else that will cripple our industry.

But, Dan, the global warming fanatics don't say this theory is "possible". They accept it as hard fact and attack anyone who disagrees without any willingness to actually listen to alternative evidence. This is difficult for me to understand, unless there are other motives at play. You've apparently interacted with "believers" who are more reasonable, which is impressive. I've yet to meet someone like that. Open-mindedness is not a typical characteristic in the global warming believer. At least that's been my experience.

Dan Trabue said...

As for the "possibility" idea, I've studied science long enough to know that just about anything is theoretically possible. The difference in me is that I am not willing to risk our economy on a possibility.

And if climate change were the only reason being proffered as to why we ought to change our ways, I might agree with you. But it is merely the latest in a long string of more serious reasons (although climate change is potentially quite serious as well - devastatingly so) for changing.

Peak Oil is probably the largest reason for changing our ways. We've built a system that is wholly dependent upon a finite resource and that resource is going away as a cheap, abundant resource. Once you remove those pillars on which the world economy is built (cheap oil), one can only reasonably expect a crash. It was large scale foolishness to do this and we're already beginning to pay the price.

There are other reasons, as well, for changing our ways. Economic reasons, justice reasons, morality reasons, environmental reasons. Having a 100 year oil orgy was just stupid and the looming possibility of problems associated with climate change is just another in the long list of reasons why change is needed. And coming, like it or not.

Anonymous said...

Gentlemen,

Of late I have been contemplating the prospect that the U.S. may no longer be a superpower, or at least the one we were.

I speak not in military terms but in economic terms.

This is a disquieting thought.

TLGK

Dan Trabue said...

I agree that this is a potent reality. He who lives by the capitalist sword, dies by the capitalist sword. I suspect that we will be hoisted on our own petard, but not without a fight.

I think President Obama is facing some difficult days ahead and if he were wise, he'd let Clinton or McCain have the office. I'm thankful that he's not doing that, though, as I think he's the best to deal with these hard times. But gee, what a tough row to hoe for whoever is our next president...

John Washburn said...

Um...

The US has BY FAR the largest economy in the world. The closest to us is China, whose GDP is only 18% of ours. Just because the news says we aren't doing well doesn't make it true. We are still THE world superpower. This hasn't changed and likely won't change for a long time.

Sorry Dan, but we aren't going to "die by the capitalist sword" anytime soon.

Dan Trabue said...

Hey, I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm just pointing out that when one nation's corporations can produce stuff more cheaply and sell more stuff more effectively than another nation's corporations, then the more effective capitalists will "win."

Of course, in today's reality, the corporations are multinational and they're the "winners," and not any particular nation.

Anonymous said...

Dan and Doc.

My concerns about our economy are in part as follows. I think something like 2/3s of it is based on consumerism. In my opinion, the housing market, which I do not believe is included in that figure, is another form of consumerism, w/ the object of purchase being the largest purchase in most people's lives.

As compared to 30 or 40 years ago, we manufacture much less.

I have yet to read Kevin Phillips' new book, "Bad Money" but his his thesis is that most of our economy consists of packaging and selling and reselling debt.

Look at the subprime mortgage fiasco and ask yourself. "How did that happen?" Money was lent to people who could not pay it back; then the debt was packaged into securities; given ratings it did not deserve; then sold and resold worldwide.

I do not believe that our economy s going to go belly up. I do have big concerns b/c our economy is not particularly diverse and the effects of a single influence, i.e. rising fuel prices is having an adverse effect.

FYI, the Chinese government subsidizes the price of fuel, keeping it artificially low which is why the Chinese economy has been going great guns. Inflation, howver, is now becoming a factor there.

TLGK

Dan Trabue said...

I do have big concerns b/c our economy is not particularly diverse and the effects of a single influence, i.e. rising fuel prices is having an adverse effect.

Welllll, that's because we've built our economy around that single finite resource, which was not particularly wise in the first place.