|6 Dec 2006 @ 03:22, by John Ashbaugh|
As you are driving down the street this afternoon,
please pay special attention to the messages being delivered
to the shoreline of your ocean of thoughts.
Principal and Intermediate arteries of the urban labyrinth
are saturated with messages appealing for our undivided attention. Industrial society has been living in the billboard jungle for quite some time now and we are rather acclimatized to the progression of images that unfold every time we venture forth towards the street of shops with its signs beyond number.- - - - -.-
After the methane hydrates have dissolved and the South polar ice cap has melted into the ocean, the underlying continent, whatever of its mountain ranges and plateaus remain above sea level, may turn out to be the only habitable environment available for the continuation of the hominid experiment.
Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live - literally
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
02 May 2004
Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the Government's chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, said last week.
… . . .Yet the Government is considering relaxing limits on emissions by industry under an EU scheme on Tuesday.
Sir David said that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - the main "green- house gas" causing climate change - were already 50 per cent higher than at any time in the past 420,000 years. The last time they were at this level - 379 parts per million - was 60 million years ago during a rapid period of global warming, he said. Levels soared to 1,000 parts per million, causing a massive reduction of life.
"No ice was left on Earth. Antarctica was the best place for mammals to live, and the rest of the world would not sustain human life," he said.
Sir David warned that if the world did not curb its burning of fossil fuels "we will reach that level by 2100"
Sir David King and his ilk are apparently not everyone’s cup of tea.
“The British delegation was led by Sir David King, chief scientific adviser to Her Majesty's government. Sir David has gone on record as saying that, "Global warming is worse than terrorism." As far as Sir David and Tony Blair's government is concerned, there should be no need for any further scientific debate on global warming. They have taken the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and cheerfully conflated it with the debatable argument that it will be catastrophic for mankind unless we suppress energy use now. . . .
In equally medieval fashion, adherents of the environmentalist religion have launched an inquisition against scientific views that they consider heretical. Hence, Sir David's outrageous behavior at the Moscow conference. On learning of the program arranged by the Russian Academy, he proposed a different program that would censor the voices of scientists who do not believe global warming is a worse threat to the world than terrorism.
The writer of the above is Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute,
Which just so happens to be the subject of a current Wall Street journal editorial.
Today’s lead editorial in The Wall Street Journal, “Global Warming Gag Order—Senators to Exxon: Shut up, and pay up,” hits Sens. Olympia Snowe and John D. Rockefeller IV’s letter to ExxonMobil telling the oil company to stop funding “global warming deniers” like the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
CEI, the Senators seem to believe, almost single-handedly has kept climate change proposals from being enacted. We particularly like these words from the editorial:
“We respect the folks at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, but we didn’t know until reading the Rockefeller-Snowe letter that they ran U.S. climate policy and led the mainstream media around by the nose, too. Congratulations.
“Let’s compare the balance of forces: on one side, CEI; on the other, the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, the U.N. and EU, Hollywood, Al Gore, and every politically correct journalist in the country. We’ll grant that’s a fair intellectual fight. But if the Senators are so afraid that a handful of policy wonks at a single small think-tank are in danger of winning this debate, they must not have much confidence in the merits of their own case.”
While CEI has previously responded to the Snowe-Rockefeller missive, we welcome the Journal’s defense of free scientific debate—and our role in it.
So, my goodness, what are we to make of all of this?
Sir David King apparently has some good credentials.
Looks like he knows some stuff.
Think he’s got a Political agenda?
“Now we're entering what might be described as the first hot period, because the carbon dioxide level has been oscillating, in an ice age from 200 parts per million, and in a warm period, 260-270 parts per million, in line with the greenhouse effect. But we've now, by burning fossil fuels, increased the level to 379 parts per million, and we must anticipate, with rising temperatures, further loss of ice on earth. If the Greenland ice sheet alone should all melt, sea levels will rise by 6 to 7 meters. That's not going to happen overnight. That's certainly not the day after tomorrow. It's going to take quite a while. But nevertheless, we could reach a point where we begin irreversibly to lose all of the ice on Greenland.
We're already seeing a very significant loss of the Arctic, and for the first time, a few years ago, a ship was actually able to go over the North Pole because of the loss of Arctic ice. That ice is not land based, so it doesn't cause a significant change in the sea level of the oceans, but any land-based ice will raise sea levels. Sea levels are also rising because hot water occupies a bigger volume, so there's two reasons for sea levels to rise. That's just one set of impacts.
If I could just comment on another one, we're very heavily dependent in our living conditions on the particular weather conditions that each of our countries is used to. If we have a rapid change, and by rapid I mean 50 to 100 years in weather conditions, it's going to be very difficult for us to adapt to these rapid changing conditions. The one example I would take is the Indian monsoon. In India, if the monsoon is 10 percent less intense one year, then the agricultural food crop can be so severely low that they face starvation. If the monsoon is 10 percent higher one year, they have massive floods and fatalities arising from that. So, the Indian population has set up a system of living that is very sensitive to a particular, narrow band of monsoon activity. But if we change the climate, we've got to anticipate massive changes in monsoon behavior. That is just one example.”
Maybe, just maybe, Sir David doesn’t want to be wasting his time arguing about something that is staring him in the face.
Well, anyway, gonna be driving up that street tomorrow.
Checkin’ out them signs.
***0***0***- - - -
8 Dec 2006 @ 04:48 by : Actually,
sir, they've made a mis-take. If you get the time please google: Global Dimming and ''pan evaporation." It's worse than the touted ''global warming," There are some things that the "Board of Behavioral Sciences just do not want you to know. Are you familiar with the method and apparatus for chainging brainwave frequency? Operation Often? ORD? The house on Washington Street? Scottys Castle? Adrenalchrome? Human Engineering? Fritz? SERE? The Lizard King? The Exterminating Angel? The Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology?
In the Woodpecker Grid
Riding the light
Naval Ordinance Test Station
Naval Weapons Center
China Lake, Ca
232 Naval Air Weapons Station
Project Blue Beam
Martha T. Muse
"The White House"
Dance, marionettes, dance.
The controller always plays the role of the White Rabbit.
Thanks bro for the article.
16 Mar 2007 @ 23:09 by Pranav @220.127.116.11 : Human-caused climate change a crock?
Check out video on google. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831.
My wife was trying to convince me that humans were driving climate change so she invited a US federal gov. colleague to brunch. This climate scientist (PhD thesis on a climate model) tried to insist that there was absolutely no debate left on the matter and that competition for funding did not corrupt the science, as I had charged. This film supports all the suspicions I had raised that day but before even viewing it, my observation of her behavior added to those suspicions. I had told her that I was willing to be convinced by the scientific data, but she was short on data and long on emotional diatribes about how absolute the conclusions were and which scientist was a good scientist and which was not. Her comments on the uncorruptibility and effectiveness of the peer-review process (sheer nonsense - peer review does not even require checking the data or trying to duplicate the experiment), how one can distinguish a poor scientist (lack of attendance at his speech rather than the quality of the research itself) from a good one, the inherent balance of journalists (I have a B.S. in Physics and had once considered journalism, took courses, was chilled at the reporting bias I witnessed), left me more suspicious than ever of the global warming agenda and more broadly, of the scientific process in this sphere or any, if it is influenced, funded, or driven by any agenda at all as this one clearly is.
I am not a scientist, but do think like one. Therefore, I am still willing to be convinced by the data. I have looked at the IPCC report in parts. (One also has to examine at the process, people and funding driving the report.) I plan to view Al Gore's movie too, as a bargain with my wife for her to watch the above video.
Other entries in Diary
4 Jun 2012 @ 10:10: Eclipse - 2012
22 Sep 2010 @ 02:15: Who Wins?
19 Sep 2009 @ 22:42: Drivearound
12 Feb 2009 @ 06:56: UnderFoot
10 Feb 2009 @ 05:46: Walk the Ice
29 Jan 2009 @ 07:26: @Water
3 Jan 2009 @ 05:48: Quiet Day
22 Dec 2008 @ 05:55: Third Week
15 Dec 2008 @ 03:42: Raven Road
8 Dec 2008 @ 05:33: First Week