about me
art
biz
Chess
corrections
economics
EconoSchool
Finance
friends
fun
game theory
games
geo
mathstat
misc
NatScience
... more
Profil
Logout
Subscribe Weblog

 
inhofeHere's a speech delivered in the Senate by James Inhofe (R), probably to no one, and makes a nice antidote to those who are just certain the global warming is anthrogenic. It is perhaps the more concise and fact-filled rebuttal to the global warming hysteria I have every read (the senator notes he talked to Bjorn Lomborg, which surely helped). You can read his speech here, and it also has links to videos of this speech:
The media have missed the big pieces of the puzzle when it comes to the Earth’s temperatures and mankind’s carbon dioxide (C02) emissions. It is very simplistic to feign horror and say the one degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the 20th century means we are all doomed. First of all, the one degree Fahrenheit rise coincided with the greatest advancement of living standards, life expectancy, food production and human health in the history of our planet. So it is hard to argue that the global warming we experienced in the 20th century was somehow negative or part of a catastrophic trend.
...
In addition, something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970’s, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age. Let me repeat, temperatures got colder after C02 emissions exploded. If C02 is the driving force of global climate change, why do so many in the media ignore the many skeptical scientists who cite these rather obvious inconvenient truths?
...
But this symbolism may be hiding a dark side. While greenhouse gas limiting proposals may cost the industrialized West trillions of dollars, it is the effect on the developing world’s poor that is being lost in this debate.

The Kyoto Protocol’s post 2012 agenda which mandates that the developing world be subjected to restrictions on greenhouse gases could have the potential to severely restrict development in regions of the world like Africa, Asia and South America -- where some of the Earth’s most energy-deprived people currently reside.
...
The “Copenhagen Consensus” found that the most important priorities of our planet included: combating disease, stopping malaria, securing clean water, and building infrastructure to help lift the developing nations out of poverty. I have made many trips to Africa, and once you see the devastating poverty that has a grip on that continent, you quickly realize that fears about global warming are severely misguided.
Kevembuangga (anonymous) meinte am 29. Sep, 19:24:
To put it bluntly James Inhofe is either a moron or a criminal and so are you.

"A scientific report commissioned by the US government has concluded there is "clear evidence" of climate change caused by human activities."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4969772.stm

"The Copenhagen Consensus is little more than a demonstration of the extraordinary vanity of many economists to believe that all choices can be boiled down to calculations of monetary value"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5361050.stm

OK, assuming contrarily that global warming is NOT caused by human activities, global warming is still there, so WHAT do YOU propose to do to deal with it? 
Teresa (anonymous) antwortete am 29. Sep, 21:57:
There is nothing to do
...except get ready for a winnie roast and make smores. Alternatively, we can get aggressive with Iran. The resulting mushroom cloud will fill the atmosphere with particulate matter, cooling the world for some time. 
Lars Smith (anonymous) antwortete am 4. Oct, 22:35:
Selective Quotations from BBC
Kevembuangga only quotes the second of two articles in a series (mentioning the Copenhagen Consensus), the first one was this one by Bjorn Lomborg, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5346734.stm 
Trader (anonymous) meinte am 5. Oct, 11:22:
What's the bet
It seems like the global warming discussion is just one of those discussions that can only be settled with a bet, but what is the bet? I would be very grateful if you would help me with the following questions:

1. Could somebody who do not believe global warming is ocurring tell me what fact would lead them to conclude that they've lost the bet?

2. Could someone who do not believe global warming is caused by humans tell me what fact would lead them to conclude that they've lost the bet?

Looking forward to your answers - and to make some easy money... 
Bond investor (anonymous) meinte am 5. Oct, 20:12:
Check out Crichton's "State of Fear"
My long commute allows for many books on tape to be "read." For more facts (and tons of citations) on global warming, including the likelihood that it will increase poverty and starvation in developing countries, it's an excellent read. Essentially, the part of the plot related to global warming is that the story posits a lawsuit is filed by a Pacific island nation against the EPA, suing for damages due to rising sea levels due to global warming. A good part of the book follows the legal team's preparation for trying to "prove" this in a court of law.

The results are that they abandon the lawsuit for lack of the American civil standard "preponderance of the evidence." Instead, they settle for a big press conference and go back to trying their "case" in the media.

As a novel, probably about average for Crichton. I preferred "Jurassic Park" and "Congo" for better characters and a tighter plot.