Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
This is an interesting blog discussing some of the recent conversations suggesting that people who do not “believe” that global warming is caused by humans should stand trial for the equivalent of environment crimes against humanity. I need to file this under ridiculous. There is far too much evidence that questions this position as well as too much evidence that we don’t know enough about the climate to adequately take an educated position on the matter.
How was I to know that things would get goofy on an unimagined scale? How goofy you ask? There is now a call to try Global Warming Skeptics for War Crimes. Or should that be “thought crimes”?
CBS News – February 22, 2007
This opinion column deals not so much about the causes or truths of global warming but rather the way people deal with the situation. The article discusses that we have not evolved to react to a slow moving danger but rather we evolved to react to swift dangers. The obvious conclusion here is that we either ignore slow moving dangers or we react to them as if they are soon to be upon us. This explains the hysteria of some and the willingness to ‘wait and see’ of others.
…as much as you would like to think that your opinions on the risks and realities of climate change are based entirely on your rational and purely objective assessments of scientific evidence, they aren’t. They are shaped by primordial human brain wiring and anthropological patterns of behavior.
Edmonton Sun – February 22, 2007
I need to put this article into “The Ridiculous” category. I almost couldn’t stop laughing when I read it. The author says that if the average world temperature increase 3-4 degrees Celsius, there will be a major shift in where grapes are raised.
First, I know of no study that is concerned with this dramatic level of increase in the next 100 years. Also, while I am sure that Italy would be bothered by this, wouldn’t the more northen latitudes welcome this change?
A study by Florence University linking the effects of rain and temperature to wine production found that increasingly high temperatures and intense rains are likely to threaten the quality of Tuscan wines. Italy’s farmers’ association warned the cultivation of olive trees, which grow in a mild climate, has almost reached the Alps
This is simple animation of the greenhouse effect and how it is effected by greenhouse gases. The animation gives no proclamation of the source of the gases. Great animation if you don’t understand the basic concepts.
The greenhouse effect is the natural process by which the atmosphere traps some of the Sun’s energy, warming the Earth enough to support life.
Herald Sun – February 22, 2007
I have a problem with this one. This article claims that global warming causes fevers in children! While I am sure that when it is warmer outside, children are more likely to overheat but remember that most experts say that the earth has only increased 0.6 deg C in the last century. It varies more than that during the course of an hour in the US midwest where I live! I really try to have an open mind on global warming because the science is really not well researched yet BUT GIVE ME A BREAK!
I find this to be a perfect case of 2 unrelated findings being related together because it makes good press or someone has a hidden agenda.READ MORE
Free Internet Press – February 19, 2007
This blog talks about the IPCC report that recently came out recently and focuses on the melting ice caps and glaciers. Within the article itself, it cites very little scientific evidence since it is discussing an existing report.
New studies of Greenland and Antarctica have forced a United Nations expert panel to conclude there is a 50% chance that widespread ice sheet loss “may no longer be avoided” because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
…would raise sea levels by four to six meters (12 to 18 feet)…
The melting process could take centuries, but increased warming caused by a failure to cut emissions would accelerate the ice sheets’ demise, and give nations less time to adapt to the consequences.
The Tribune – February 21, 2007
This is a quick article that resulted from an interview with William Cotton and Dennis Ojima as they spoke at the 16th Annual Colorado Agricultural Outlook Forum at the Double Tree Hotel in Denver. There are not a lot of hard facts in this article but instead some very interesting observations, which as the title implies, we really don’t know the cause of the recent increase in temperatures globally.
Cotton said a growing population worldwide has had its effect on the climate, but said there is some data that indicates there was a period in the 1400s that was as warm or warmer than it is at present.
Human Events.com – February 20, 2007
This site is not known for balanced reporting but that does not mean that its statements are not true. This article is a compiled listing of the thoughts espoused in the book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism ” is a pretty strong listing of opinions. Many of the opinions have some scientific backing – others do not.
The U.S. rejects the Kyoto Protocol’s energy-rationing scheme, along with 155 other countries, representing most of the world’s population, economic activity and projected future growth. Kyoto is a European treaty with one dozen others, none of whom is in fact presently reducing its emissions.
Herald Sun – February 19, 2007
This article is based on an interview with Susan Solomon of US NOAA. Susan was a member of the IPCC that issued the report in Paris on climate change.
The article is short on new facts. It is basically Susan’s enthusiasm at the reception of the news issued by the IPCC. Thankfully, she allows people to not fully understand the issues, citing that it is complicated and “You can’t see it, you can’t smell it, you can’t taste it.” But then she also say that the evidence is unequivocal (which this blog is trying to refute).
Harry Clarke – February 20, 2007
This is an interesting blog entry. The article discusses the costs of preventing a catastrophic danger. It starts out with a discussion regarding a theoretical asteroid hit that might happen in 3 decades but then starts to deal with the costs of avoidance of preventing global warming.
What the entry does not explore is the concept of lost opportunity cost. If the global economy spends 1 trillion dollars preventing or reversing global warming, what could we have done with that money and was it as good of an investment. To continue that thought, what good would occur if we only spent half of that money? Would that be enough to do 90% of the 1 trillion? Difficult issues, I grant you, but issues that must be discussed.READ MORE