For anyone reading this, italicized statements are from the article, regular print is my response/analysis.







Complete and total nonsense. What else can I say. Virtually every sentence that tries to make a statement in that article is false, or at least making huge assumptions that don't appear to make any sense.



"We are quickly moving to the point where the damage will be irreversible



What? We know for a fact that there have been temp. changes in the recent past (geologically speaking) that were far, far more drastic than what is now being claimed as catastrophic now. In the order of 100 times faster change. That didn't kill everything off, and it obviously was reversible or we wouldn't even be here!



In fact, the latest scientific reports indicate that global warming is worsening. Unless we act now, the world will be locked into temperatures that would cause irreversible harm.



and



Studies over the past decade have shown that the warming trend continues. "The five warmest years in recorded weather history have taken place over the last six years," noted WRI's president, Jonathan Lash.



What? Global temps. have been below average for the past 10 years in row. At least according to the most recent and accurate data







The administration of former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites) signed the Kyoto Protocol, but President Bush (news - web sites) withdrew the U.S., which currently emits about 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, from negotiations over Kyoto's implementation



It is known that the Clinton administration had been lobbied by Enron to sign the Kyoto Protocol. Enron could make billions if it was enacted. (Due to Enron's natural gas production abilities and the fact that that would be the only feasible replacement for the coal burning energy plants now in operation.) This was obviously done to try and discredit Bush (who didn't sign it) and give credit to Clinton (who did sign it). But why didn't Bush sign it, when he is in bed with the large energy corporations like Enron, like all the libeals claim?



WRI researchers estimate that greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide rose 11 percent over the last decade, and will grow another 50 percent worldwide by 2020. Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites), the international agreement that sets out specific targets to follow up on the treaty, 38 industrialized countries were supposed to reduce their emissions by an average of seven percent below 1990 levels by 2012



While I highly doubt those numbers, considering that global warming from green house gasses is caused about 95% by water vapor and only 5% by CO2 (according to scientists). And considering that the environment produces far more CO2 than man does, a 50% increase of CO2 by 2020 would only mean a temp. increase of about .00001 degrees. And that is assuming you believe their assumption that the Earth is warming! (.28% of earths warming times 1.5 = .42% -------- .42% times the actual warming they are claiming, is a very very small amout!



Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?



It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not



http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html



And why are non-industrialized countries not affected, like industrialized countries, by the Kyoto protocol? Especially when industrialized countries are already producing far less pollution, compared to their output, than non-industrialized countries. You don't think it is political and based on the fact that it would be very difficult for countries like the U.S. to compete internationally due to unreasonably high anti-pollution measures that these other countries wouldn't have do you? You don't think these non-industrial countries would vote for the Kyoto Protocol just to get an enormous advantage over us economically do you? You don't think Russia came to the same conclusion do you?



The Kyoto Protocol grew out of the UNFCCC when it became clear that plans for voluntary reductions would not meet the initial targets, and as climate and atmospheric scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have become increasingly convinced that the rise in global temperatures of about one degree Fahrenheit over the last century is due primarily to artificial emissions, notably the combustion of fossil fuels, including coal, oil, and gas.



What? Most scientists don't believe that there is global warming or that we are the cause of it! But I won't bother to go over all that evidence again. (Multiple polls of environmental scientists, climatologists, petitions, etc.)



"The ten warmest years in recorded weather history have taken place since 1987. Whether it's the retreat of glaciers, the melting of the permafrost in Alaska, or the increase in severe weather events, the world is experiencing what the global warming models predict," he said.



Again, what? Take a look at NASAs chart of the most accurate info we have on global warming. The last 10 years have all been below average, not above! And as for glaciers, I've looked into that too. Why haven't they mentioned all the glaciers that are know to be growing? Like in California or Norway's glaciers growing at record pace, or the Alps, etc. Just do a search of "Glaciers growing" to find more examples!



Even if climate change is more gradual, recent studies have argued that as many as one million plant and animal species could be rendered extinct due to the effects of global warming by 2050. A recent report by the world's largest reinsurance company, Swiss Re, predicted that in 10 years the economic cost of disasters like floods, frosts, and famines caused by global warming could reach $150 billion annually.



Notice the use of the words could, if, may, etc. both in this statement and elsewhere in the article. Notice how they don't tell you about increased growing seasons in colder climates if there is global warming? Notice how they don't tell you that there would be more overall food production in the world since there is more land mass that is in these colder areas that would benefit from warming? And while I doubt those numbers, what's $150 billion? The U.S alone spends many trillions every year! That's a drop in the bucket! And this "alarmist" statement is based on a prediction?



I predict that insurance company will be out of business within 10 years!-LOL (What good is a prediction really, when it is just a guess of what might happen?)



I could go on, as there are tons of other falsehoods in this article. But I think that is more than enough to show what a load of _(*&*&^)^ that article is.



-------------------------



On a side note, I heard a very interesting conversation on talk radio a few days ago, on a show that primarily deals with science. It went something like this.



Caller said, "Why is every change believed to be bad? If the earth is cooling by one degree is bad, wouldn't warming by 1 degree then be good? Why do we always assume that the current temps. are ideal? Why do we assume that the Earth is currently a balanced system, and any change is catastrophic? Why do we believe that any imbalance is caused by us?



Talk show's response, "If you don't make everything sound like a crisis, an emergency, etc. you can't get funding/donations for your particular organization. It's all about money, not the truth, or science, or what's best for the world."



That is so sad, but true. And most people will demonize the corporations that provide both the jobs and goods we need, but they won't critically look at any organization that uses catch words/phrases like "environmental", "ethical", "reform" etc. They become immune to scrutiny and thus open to fraud. Political correctness at it's worst!





Rodney

[ Show Entire Thread ]