Search
Polls
Forum Login
RSS Feed: Local News
RSS Feed: Sports
RSS Feed: Voice
| Global warming is misinformation |
|
| Written by Tracy Press/For the Tracy Press | |
| Wednesday, 23 May 2007 | |
|
A letter from Bob Hendricks I would encourage Town Crier columnist Laura Hagler (“It’s not easy being green,” May 12) to educate herself more on the so-called global warming issue. A propaganda film put out by a failed presidential candidate with no background in environmental issues might not be the best starting point for an education. In the 1970s, the same crowd who is crowing about global warming was shrieking about a pending ice age. It was covered extensively in Newsweek magazine in April 1975. The purpose of this commentary is not to disparage Hagler, but to uncover and discuss other sources of information on the subject. The Earth has been warming and cooling since the beginning of time. The largest contributor to temperature on our planet is, surprise, the sun. The sun does not burn at a constant temperature, and therefore any planet within the sun’s influence is going to experience fluctuations in temperature as the sun warms and cools. Evidence shows that there is warming on Mars. And while 2 percent of Antarctica is experiencing warming, temperature readings across Antarctica have actually have declined the past 35 years and the continent has experienced a net increase of snow mass in the past century. The simple truth is that Al Gore and his ilk are charlatans who spread half-truths about environmental issues to spread their alarmist hysteria. For more informative reading, see “Global Warming: Fact, Fiction and Political Endgame,” published by the Patriot Post (patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.aspid-=520). There is also an excellent documentary that counters Gore’s horror show. It is called the “Great Global Warming Swindle.” This documentary includes interviews with numerous scientists who peel away the rhetoric to get to the facts. There are plenty of real scientists who can study the data and review it without getting their hearts aflutter. This documentary demonstrates that the worldwide environmental movement is not an environmental movement, but a political one. So-called “disbelievers” are treated as heretics and “unenlightened fools.” There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. We humans, and Americans in particular, have to realize that we are not the cause of all of the world’s ills. In fact, we are the good guys. Nobody has done more to reduce their emissions than Americans. Our latest attempts, for all of their good intentions, are causing more problems than the ones that they are supposed to solve. Take, for instance, ethanol. While burning ethanol will reduce emissions of certain pollutants from our automobiles, it will cause increases in others. Specifically, the emissions of the carcinogens benzene and butadiene are reduced while emissions of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde will increase. Burning E85 also increases ozone, which will create more smog. If the carcinogens and the smog are not bad enough, we cannot harvest enough corn to produce the volume of ethanol that would be needed if we wanted to switch completely. Already, corn prices have increased significantly. The price of corn will impact everything from our corn flakes in the morning to the feed that is used to raise livestock and poultry to put food on our table. One commentator recently stated that “we might be the first nation in the history of mankind to burn our own food supply.” He’s not too far off the mark. In our own state, we have the California politburo, um, Legislature forcing restrictions on incandescent lighting. This ignores the problem that fluorescent lighting poses, namely the mercury that is in the fluorescent bulbs. There isn’t an effective means for disposing of these bulbs, yet everyone will have to use them. This is akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face. The bottom line is that there is plenty of information readily available, but not often reported that explains away much of the daily hysteria. We are all stewards of the environment and should not be reckless in the way that we treat it any more than we should be reckless in any other area. But take heart — lighting up the barbecue won’t bring about Armageddon, either. Bob Hendricks is a small businessman who has lived in Tracy since 1990. Trackback(0)
Comments
(27)
Instead of telling us that we are doomed, politicians an other "leaders" try to scare the crap out of us to push their agenda further. Society will not react to "a small meteor may enter our atmosphere in the next 500 years"; we react to "a meteor the size of Texas is heading our way... tomorrow!". Scare tactics like these are not new; whether it be scaring us into believing that if we dont believe in God we will go to hell, or that second-hand smoke and marijuana (i do not smoke either cigs or marijuana btw) are killing millions of people. same tactic, new issue.
oops, let me rewrite that first sentence:
Instead of telling us the truth, politicians and other "leaders" try to scare the crap out of us to push their agenda further.
Also worth mentioning is the disastrous impact of biofuel markets on the tropical rainforests. Environmentalists in particular should be horrified by the deforestation over the past few years to make room for biofuel plantations. Tropical rainforests have declined from 8.0 million square miles only 100 years ago to less than 3.0 million today. There is a growing chorus of scientists who believe climate models to-date have not taken into account the impact of tropical deforestation.
While it is very hard to get accurate estimates of the extent of tropical deforestation for the purposes of growing biofuel, it is clearly the primary cause over the past 5-10 years, with no end in sight - most estimates suggest there are already over a half-million square miles of former tropical rainforest given over to plantations to grow sugar cane (ethanol), oil palms (biodiesel), and the like. It isn't totally clear why environmentalists are ignoring this catastrophe, or, for that matter, why the IPCC is underplaying the impact. One reason biofueled destruction of our rainforests is being ignored is because these people are hoping biofuel will replace petroleum - which in-turn ignores the fact we would be far better off to develop a few thousand square miles of heavy oil sands for more petroleum than if we destroy a few million square miles of climate regulating tropical rainforests for biofuel plantations. The other reason rainforest destruction is being ignored is more sinister - it is, as the author claims, that both the scientific community and the environmental community has become politicized - and their anger at Bush and the oil companies overwhelms their reason, or their concern for the environment.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Yes Bob, educate yourself. Here is a good place to begin http://www.realclimate.org/
Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs/CFL's contain a minuscule (4 milligrams) of mercury which is perceived by many scientists as harmless.
How is it, you can get almost the same number of scientists to line up equally representing both sides of any argument? Or, why would someone need to travel to a third world country just to prove corruption and neglect exists everywhere? Is there such a place where politicians don't spin intimidation and repetition to further their agenda? The fact is we are consuming 60% percent more gasoline due to the addition of 20% more vehicles produced by-in-large over the previous twenty years. Even with the mandated air-pollution standards (can you now imagine if there were none?)we are still running behind. While it may be difficult to trust entertainers, politicians, media-moguls and the captains of industry whose hypocrisies - know no boundaries: What I got from Laura's article (and she went so far as to caution her readers, "despite being opinionated, I have never been much of an activist") was; It starts with (us), the individual, to make personal choices (perhaps compromise, sacrifices and additional personal effort) and if I may use the the vernacular of the times, by "cleaning-up our own house -first."
Recent observations of warming support the theory that greenhouse gases are warming the world. Over the last century, the planet has experienced the largest increase in surface temperature in 1,300 years. The average surface temperature of the Earth rose 0.6 to 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.08°F to 1.62°F) between 1906 and 2006, and the rate of temperature increase nearly doubled in the last 50 years. Worldwide measurements of sea level show a rise of about 0.17 meters (0.56 feet) during the twentieth century. The world’s glaciers have steadily receded, and Arctic sea ice extent has steadily shrunk by 2.7 percent per decade since 1978.
This report was put out by NASA. I don't think they are holding hands with Ives, Tucker, and Pombo.
Yo Tryan2bfair, why don't you mention that 12,000 years ago Greenland warmed up 15 degrees in 10 years and globaly 7 degrees in 20 years. Very little human activity then.
If you are going to make the claim of being fair, you need to add a few more data points to your point.
tryin2bfair,
can you please post the website you copy and pasted that from? not saying it isnt true, but you should not post the info as if those are your words.
tryin2bfair
"The average surface temperature of the Earth rose 0.6 to 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.08°F to 1.62°F) between 1906 and 2006, and the rate of temperature increase nearly doubled in the last 50 years." I would really like to see the data on this. Since the very first object placed in orbit, Sputnik, didn't occur until October 4th, 1957 and thermal measurement techniques to measure ground and water temperatures still doesn't have much more than a two degree accuracy at any given point in time, I wonder how we can make and substantiate such claims reaching back to some 51 years before the first satellite was even launched? BTW, Sputnik was pretty primitive. Nothing much more than a radio beacon in space that beeped so antennas on the ground could track it. I would also like to see the hard data that substantiates the claim of glacial, Artic and Antarctic ice shrinkage. Don't get me wrong, I am not totally disputing the claims. But I would like to see the data to determine their validity.
http://www.realclimate.org/... go to this website, they provide lots of data Jerry provided the website above and I cut, pasted, and copied the info from NASA section. Very thought provoking datas from greatest minds.
Alternative...I did not say anything about human activity? None of the words I cut and pasted were mine, I just copied the facts of the warmings done by NASA among others. Jerry, thank you so much for providing the website. There's wealth of information to educate people like me trying to get at the truth of the matter.. maybe it will educate others if they're inclined to add the datas from that website??? Blake, have you gone to the website. You will see that I have cut and copied the paragraph. Check out the bases before you jump to criticize. Also, if you read this blog carefully, Jerry provided the website and I went there after researching so many datas, it was available hand. Read more slowly.
tryin2bfair,
your first post on this forum was not cited. why is it my responsibility to "read more slowly" when you are not taking the time to cite your sources? you are assuming that everyone is following the links that someone puts up...not true. a simple quotation mark or inserting the web address is all it takes...
you are correct, I should have stated that Jerry provided (he is in the blog, look way up) the interesting website with lots of information. I was just contributing the data I read in hopes it would answer some problems but alas, it does not answer yours, it just rankles you.. so I am gonna move on and find out more on my own and keep mum.. is that better for you? Blake?
I am thinking about Industrial Revolutions, and the clear cutting and the the Rainforest being destroyed... it did not happen on its own... seeing other angles. Gonna surf now on those subjects....
Although the entire world shares the blame for the accelerated greenhouse gases, the emissions are growing the fastest in China, India and other countries with developing economies. They accounted for 43 percent of CO2 emissions in 2004 and 73 percent of the ’04 growth.
The U.S., which produces 25 percent of the world’s CO2 emissions with just 5 percent of the population, shouldn’t wait for China and India to cap their emissions (although China is seeking a pact with Japan to supply the Chinese with the necessary technology). And California and other states don’t want to wait for our federal government. A recent Supreme Court decision appears to give them permission if the EPA won’t act nationally. President Bush’s executive order for studies on the threat of greenhouse gas emissions and what to do about it, due just days before he leaves office in January 2009, are meaningless unless you are a dinosaur automaker, an antiquated coal plant operator or a big oil refiner. from todays Tracy News paper this keeps getting more and more interesting!
OOPs.. here it is
Time’s a wasting on emissions waiver Tracy Press/ Wednesday, 23 May 2007 Press editorial
tryin2bfair, what cause the very rapid global warm up 12,000 years ago? What are the implications of the Milankovitch cycles to today's warm up?
you mean this? "The Earth's axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years". I know about that, 26,000 years ago there were no industrial revolutions, no clearcuttings and thousand acres of Amazon forest are being depleted, that sobering thoughts were not factored in. I read reports of ice samples in the artic and the antartic of the deposits made in the soil, there were no fossil fuel spewing into the air... I have not seen him include these factors in his report. Like I said it could be combination of factors. If you have information based on 2007 instead of Milutin Milanković's time of his theory I welcome it. Thanks Alternative for showing me another angle... but I know about it, ok?
tryin2bfair
To assist you in your quest for attaining knowledge about the topic of Global Warming, and I assume you are looking at both sides of the equation, you might find the below link interesting. http://www.canada.com/national...04feb71047 In the middle of the article you will find numerous links, references too and comments made by credible and established scientists, recognized experts in their field, who disagree with the concept that man has very little effect on the global warming issue and agree we are going through a period of global warming caused by effects from our own sun. When examining these various sources of information you also want to keep in mind of the most unpredictable element around all of this and that is the human element, to borrow a line from National Geographic. Always remember the universities and agencies most of these people work for have another interest and that is to gain grant money to conduct their research. Not a small chunk of changes and these guys take their competition as seriously as the Republicans and Democrats do when trying to control Congress. 
You got that so right on about the competition in researches on the global issues and the grants they go after, however, my big concern is how much of the true story was buried due to big interest groups. Common sense tells me, by simple observations, heck yes, there are changes, wildlife is vanishing at rapid speed, lands getting contaminated, clearcutting and the burning of old forest, water getting polluted,affecting fish and the wildlife that depends on water ... and surely the air is affected. It is sobering thought. Thanks David for the assist in my search.
The claim of same crowd/volume/evidence, for the 70s global cooling speculation - is false. Martian warming is likely caused by the albedo effect and an eliptical orbit. Comparing it to AGW is lame straw-grasping.
Talking about snow mass in Antarctica is distracting - precipitation isn't the subject, it's about temperature. Pointing out local stable Antarctica temps should make you more, not less, nervous. If you're going to recommend the Global Warming Swindle mockumentary, make sure you do a search on rebuttals - and be ready to read some actual science. The Swindle actually admitted to twisting testimony and using obsolete data - for the sake of controversy. EU countries have done more than America about AGW. The statement that the 'other side of the argument' isn't well reported, well represented, or somehow suppressed, is false. It is over-reported. The same usual suspects show up with the same lame pseudo-science and distractions. It's whack-a-mole as old rebutted stuff reappears. The article's conclusion decries hysteria ... and then relates a BBQ to armageddon. That's weak and self-serving in a strawman way. Please try and grasp this - the issue is about super-charging the greenhouse effect with human-sourced pollution. The air-conditioning is breaking down. Please stop twisting this into locals, rainfalls, and my favourite martian stories. Start dealing with the issues. This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
|
|
| Last Updated ( Wednesday, 23 May 2007 ) |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
After having been in many third world countries and developing nations, I can honestly tell you that our nation is by far, cleaner and less polluting.
Perhaps some of these people like Laura Hagler should spend six months or more in a "developing" country like I did, and then they can appreciate what has been accomplished here.