January Current Event
In "What Comes After the Inconvenient Truth", Al Gore starts out his presentation by describing how many notable water masses have increased in size over the last decade or so because of carbon getting trapped in ice and heating it up. These notable places include Antarctica, the Polar North, and areas in the Himalayas where glaciers used to exist, but have since melted and formed lakes. We have learned to rely so much on this water that is melting, that when it goes away, either from evaporation or it freezes again for a short time during the winter, up to 40% of people in the world are left without water. This "drying" that occurs then triggers wild fires in the spring and summer that have grown to increasing danger recently. We currently add up to 25 million tons of CO2 into the ocean everyday, mainly from the burning of fossil fuels by humans. He then talks about how the burning of fossil fuels is the leading contributor to climate change worldwide. Al Gore makes a reasonable suggestion then; he knows that it will be hard for the world to completely change to clean energy, so he instead suggests that humans start using clean coal instead of "dirty coal". It is a much cleaner option that burning gas and oil for energy. It is the small steps that lead to a big change. To watch the video, click here.
I like that his suggestion is on the side of caution... even keeping in line with recent pushes toward reopening coal mines. It's a nice compromise.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem with the fantasy of switching to "clean" energy is undoubtedly the price behind it. Not only that, but its a "who steps up first" type of deal. I remember Obama proposed the idea of taking away the coal and natural resources of 3rd world countries obviously due to the emissions that result from them. First off, taking away the coal from most 3rd world countries would be akin to a genocide with the amount of people who would die from no resources to heat themselves and live. Not only that, but why wouldn't a well-developed country step up and switch to clean energy? Oh yeah, nobody wants to spend the price or time to switch. Also, to most people who believe in AGW, I'll give you a heads up that you might want to swap out your "leader", Al Gore, with an actual scientist. Gore has been spewing false ideology since 2001. I remember his many acclamation's that the Polar ice cap would be "ice free" by 2012 and then 2014 and also that NYC would be under water by now. How did those statements work out?
ReplyDeleteFirst part---> Completely agree with. Clean energy is something we must allow enter society but not until prices are manageable and comparable to what we have now. Adapting to the changing times is a MUCH better option, in my opinion, than completely banning things and/or making things illegal such as no longer allowing the emission of CO2. Christopher Monckton, climate scientist, had this to say about that very thing:
Delete"We burn about 30,000,000,000 tons a year of CO2 worldwide. That is the equivalent of 2 ppm per year in the atmosphere. That means it is 15 billion tons of CO2 per ppm. The United Nations believes we are going to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere if we do nothing by 468 ppm in the next century. That would mean we would emit 7 trillion tons over the next century. The UN believes the 7 trillion tons would produce an increase in temperature by 7 degrees Fahrenheit in the next century. One degree per every trillion. That would mean in order to restore one Fahrenheit degree in temperature, we would have to not put any CO2 into the atmosphere, which means no cars, no machines, and no electricity. Nothing for 33 years. That is why there is no point in trying to mitigate the CO2."
For the second part with Al Gore and U of Colorado? Upton Sinclair perfectly expresses the truth:
Delete“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
Everything in science is based on funding and research, as I’m sure you know. The University of Colorado I can almost assure you gets funding and research money from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) which is headquartered in Boulder, Colorado. With NCAR getting its funding from the government, it's policies and ideas MUST match the ideas of the government, and those ideas are obviously for Global Warming. In fact, every government agency, including NWS, NASA, NOAA, NCAR, etc., are manipulated by the government and their graph's, charts, proclamations as well. If you really don't believe me, I could show you. Every Ice level, temperature, sea level, CO2 level chart made by NASA and NOAA are faulty and FAKE. Not only that, but way back in the late 1990s and early 2000s when Global Warming was getting coined, the scientists at these places purposely manipulated the data to fit the narrative, known as ClimateGate. Furthermore, most of the peer review that occurs in these studies is cherrpicked and blows through peer review in months. Most scientists, especially the ones against the crowd, have to wait potentially years for their study to pass peer review. The scientists who run these places are told what to believe and they're okay with it because they make bank. Speaking of scientists, I've heard the statement that "Consensus shows that 97% of scientists believe in Global Warming". That is a premature and somewhat false statement:
Here are three definitions to “consensus”:
1. Unquantified definition
“We are causing some Global Warming”
2. Quantified definition
“Human Activity is very likely causing most of the current warming”
3. Catastrophist definition
“Our influence is dangerous enough to justify a ‘climate policy’”
The middle definition is the adopted definition of the IPCC and many other climate government agencies. Now, here is how Cook et al managed to represent this “97%”:
11944 Abstracts were Reviewed (100%)
7930 were excluded for expressing no opinion (66.4%)
3896 marked as agreeing we cause some warming (32.6%)
64 marked as endorsing consensus as defined (0.5%)
41 actually endorsed consensus as defined (0.3%)
0 marked as endorsing man made catastrophe (0%)
“There was actually only a 0.3% consensus from this review based off the second definition from above adopted by all climate agencies. So, to begin they threw out most of the papers because they hadn’t “expressed enough opinion”. Then, they congregated together 3 levels of endorsement only one of which was the majoritarian endorsement that most of the warming was caused by us and they lumped that together with the definition most of all of us can agree with, and that is we have put CO2 into the atmosphere, but we don’t know the cause of it. By conflating these two completely different definitions of consensus, they claimed there was this 97% consensus.” – Christopher Monckton
However, this doesn't mean I'm against environmental issues. We need to fix air pollution, water pollution, recycling problems, etc. I'm just against the biggest scam in science history that many are blowing by like its nothing. I believe the principle of science is being taken advantage of by politics. In fact, Ned Nikolov, a PhD physical scientist, has found to be what, to me, seems like a groundbreaking discovery in the climate science field by connecting the Earth's climate to an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model. Many are laughing and mocking his discovery because it's equivalent to the discovery of gravity - something never before thought of. However, his ideas are well backed on geophysical components and I wouldn't be shocked if his ideas are accepted into the scientific world, albeit it may be awhile.
Delete