Re: [asa] climate change severity

At 01:02 AM 1/5/2007, PvM wrote:

>On 1/4/07, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> @ I see you didn't get the
>> memo. http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/061213/lester.jpg ~ Janice

Seems Janice is once again trivializing the
science behind the human component to CO2.
Perhaps cows are more damaging than cars when it
comes to CO2, but cars make up a small amount of
human CO2 emissions. We all at risk to ridicule
that which we don't understand... ~ Pim

@@ Yes. And one of the things for which you
risk being ridiculed is your inexplicable
observation (despite the evidence in the ASA
archives of my posts), that it is me, rather than
the QUALIFIED scientists I cite / quote, who are
laughing at the so-called "science" being used to
promote another phoney "scare".

If you can't read the articles linked below it's
because you either died in "The Coming Ice Age"
that scientists predicted in the 1970s... the one
that would wipe out the Earth before the end of
the century if we didn't change our evil
capitalistic ways and join the Church of Timothy
Leary, you died after the Cold War ended in
mutually assured nuclear destruction,
obliterating the plant, you died during the
worldwide riots and upheaval after Y2K, or one
of the other various and sundry scare-mongering
tactics designed to separate emotion-driven,
naive fools first from from their _TAX_ money,
and secondly from any other money and resources they have left.

Question: When will we solve the "global
warming" - excuse me, "climate change" problem?
Answer: When grifters no longer have any way
to obtain fame or fortune from "the problem."

~ Janice ... "..Climatology professor John
Christy is a Lead Author with the IPCC, the
Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change.
Unlike many other Lead Authors he was not
appointed by his government, and he considers
that this situation arose most likely because the
remainder were willing to adopt a particular
viewpoint on causes of climate change not
dissimilar to the views of their political
appointees. Describing a gathering in New Zealand
prior to publication of the latest IPCC Report,
he mentions how discussion at a meeting was cut
short when serious objections were raised to a
pet theory of the scientist leading the
discussion. Such is the quality of open debate in
IPCC circles." .. http://www.abd.org.uk/climate_change_truths.htm

*

Carbon Dioxide Finds a Market in the North Sea
technologyreview | 12/13/2006 | By Peter Fairley
New technologies make concentrated CO2 for
enhancing oil extraction. The problem: a lack of carbon dioxide.
http://www.technologyreview.com/BizTech/17892/

*
The gods must be laughing By Tom Harris, Natural
Resources Stewardship Project Tuesday, November 7, 2006
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris110706.htm

*
The End of the World
By Daren Bakst Legal and Regulatory Policy Analyst
May 26, 2006

The world is about to end. It may even end the
day after tomorrow. There will be tidal waves,
earthquakes, and burning temperatures (or
freezing temperatures, one or the other). I know
how to stop this from happening, though.

If you believed me, and you thought I could stop
the end from happening, you’d let me do what I
wanted in order to prevent it. I could raise your
taxes, keep you from buying certain cars, prevent
you from living where you want, and much more.

Global warming alarmists have figured this out.
Global warming is their end of the world excuse
to push policies that they’d like to see
implemented. North Carolinians should care
because these policies, if adopted, will change
their lives in drastic and negative ways.

The goal, if we think global warming is a
problem, should be to develop sensible policies
that reduce the temperature. That seems simple
enough. There is only one catch, though, for the
alarmists. We can’t reduce temperatures in any meaningful way.

Dr. Thomas Wigley, a well-known climatologist
from the U.S. National Center for Scientific
Research and global warming alarmist, examined
the impact of the Kyoto Protocol. This treaty,
which the U.S. wisely hasn’t ratified, calls on
countries to reduce drastically their emissions
of carbon dioxide (CO2), and specifically calls
for the U.S. to reduce emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels.

According to Wigley, if there were 100 percent
compliance with Kyoto by countries that were
original parties to the treaty (not just the
countries that ratified it), including the United
States, the effect on temperature would be
undetectable. The temperature would be 0.0126° F
lower by 2050 and anywhere from 0.18° F to 0.37°
F lower by 2100. This data is outlined in greater
detail in a recent John Locke Foundation
<http://www.johnlocke.org/spotlights/display_story.html?id=124>study.
http://www.johnlocke.org/spotlights/display_story.html?id=124

This puts a damper on the global warming parade.
Fear not, though, alarmists have mastered the art
of illusion – or possibly convolution – to scare
people, including policymakers. Their goal now is
to take the means that allegedly would lower
temperatures, reducing CO2, and turn it into the
goal. This new goal can be measured and can show
reductions, albeit at a high cost. The illusion
is achieved by throwing out so many statistics,
arguments, and distortions on CO2 that the real
goal gets lost. Nobody remembers to ask how
policies to reduce CO2 will reduce temperature.

So to reduce CO2, which will prevent the end of
the world, legislators and other state officials
are discussing policies that will affect you. If
these policies will prevent the end of the world,
how can we disagree with those advocating
reductions in CO2? That would be like opposing
the existence of all human life and the very
existence of our planet. It is pretty tough to
counter that argument. Who wants to be labeled anti-Earth?

We have to support rail systems because they will
encourage people to stop driving. Do you want a
house with lots of land in suburbia? Too bad, you
only can get a 417 square foot studio apartment
downtown because we need to make the community
more dense. Are your eyes set on that beautiful
SUV for your family? Keep dreaming. You’ll drive
an electric car that goes 0-30 miles per hour in
1.6 minutes, and you’ll like it!

All of this is possible if alarmists get their
way. Rail systems, smart growth (a.k.a.
Soviet-style stagnation), and limited vehicle
choice are just some of the ideas that could be
forced upon North Carolinians in the name of
reducing CO2. For example, the state’s Climate
Action Plan Advisory Group
(CAPAG) http://www.ncclimatechange.us/ is
considering a multitude of options that will
undermine your freedom and could form the basis for legislation.

If you weren’t concerned before with the whole
global warming debate because you know it is all
junk science, be concerned. Be very concerned.
These CO2 reduction policies are very real
possibilities and can have significant costs.

To give some perspective on how far global
warming alarmists are willing to go in the name
of reducing CO2 and at the expense of the economy
and society, we have to look only at the impact
of Kyoto. The U.S. Energy Information
Administration determined in a leading 1998
study
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/cost.html that
U.S. compliance with Kyoto would mean a loss of
4.2 percent in Gross Domestic Product (or $437
billion). The National Black Chamber of Commerce
and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
estimated http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba407/
that as many as 3.2 million Americans could lose their jobs.

I’m not quite ready to hand over policymaking
decisions to the global warming alarmists. Some
may want to do whatever they recommend, but jobs,
freedom, and the future growth of North Carolina
are more important than addressing scare tactics.
In North Carolina, we often hear that we need to
be a leader on environmental issues. I completely
agree. We should be one of the few states that
stop listening to alarmists and start listening to reason.

*

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate
catastrophe By Tom Harris, Natural Resources Stewardship Project
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

A sample of experts' comments about the science
of "An Inconvenient Truth" By Tom Harris, Natural Resources Stewardship Project
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris110706a.htm

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 5 11:13:11 2007