System after system after system...

[xsbank]

Scientist Fired by Gore Calls Warming Fears ‘Mistaken’

Princeton University physicist Dr. Will Happer, who says he was fired by Vice President Al Gore for failing to adhere to Gore’s views on global warming, has now declared that man-made warming fears are “mistaken.”

Happer, who served as the director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, said, “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly.”

He said in 1993, “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy."

Now Happer has asked to join the more than 650 international scientists who have spoken out against man-made global warming fears and are cited in the 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report from Environmental and Public Works Committee ranking member James Inhofe, R-Okla.

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,” Happer told the committee on Dec. 22.

President-elect Barack Obama’s choice as his top science adviser, Harvard University professor John Holdren, is a staunch believer in the dangers of man-made global warming and advised Gore on his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Dr. Happer has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

Sen. Inhofe said that the statements of prominent scientists like Happer who are willing to publicly dissent from climate fears strike a blow to the United Nations, Gore, and the media’s claims about global warming.

“The endless claims of a 'consensus' about man-made global warming grow less and less credible every day," Inhofe said.

Happer declared, “I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect — for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow. Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past . . .

“Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility.”

[Rockie]

Dr. Happer was a George Bush Sr. political appointee, so it's not surprising he was replaced by a Democratic appointee. I shudder to think how many people Bush/Cheney sent packing because they didn't tow the party line.

Dr. Happer is also a physicist with no credentials I could find anywhere in environmental science. How do you think he would react if an environmental scientist denounced conventional wisdom on laser spectroscopy as bullshit? My guess he would dismiss it as irrelevant, and he would be right. What does an environmental scientist know about physics?

Your article also quotes Senator Inhofe, who is the last person on earth anyone would want as a supporter.

[Four1oh]

and the other 650 scientists? Go ahead and discredit them you everything's-as-it-should-be denier!

[. ._]

In my psychology class, the prof said that numerous studies have been done on argument strength and attitudes toward something.

The way the human brain works is that if you have a strongly held attitude towards something, no matter what information is presented- either pro or anti, the attitude will be strengthened- regardless of the strength of argument too.

This thread is a great example of this human trait.

-istp

[Rockie]

and the other 650 scientists? Go ahead and discredit them you everything's-as-it-should-be denier!

What scientists are those and what is their field of expertise?

How's this comparison? If the majority of the worlds astronomers were saying there is a giant asteroid heading toward earth and there was a 70% chance it would hit, but there were a bunch of chemists saying it was all bullshit, who would you believe?

It defies logic why so many people ignore the experts.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5702/1686
http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

This quote from the first link says it perfectly:

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

We can afford to be wrong if man is not contributing to global warming, and if we are we will still have succeeded in cleaning up our environment and eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels. Can anybody argue with that?

We cannot afford to be wrong if we are contributing to global warming and do nothing about it.

[The Old Fogducker]

Rockie:

I'll sure give you full credit for persistence. You've done a pretty good job of hanging in there ... not that your efforts have had any effect on me. Here's a copy & paste of a post I made on another forum dealing with broadcasting and satellite radio. I present it just so my position on man-made global warning can remain electronically kept in a time vault.

Fog



Hi Folks:

I've had my (US service) Sirius subscriptions for about 4 years and enjoy it a great deal. Worth every penny to me so I can listen to signals free of government mandated programming intervention.

"Channel 53, Soul Town" is classic soul hits by Aretha, Marvin Gaye, Temptations, O'Jays, Four Tops, etc. ..... something you won't ever find on any live to air Canadian radio station and roughly 50% of my time is spent listening to it. Also, I really enjoy the ability to listen to "forbidden political signals" like the Fox channel (145) and the Patriot channel (144) to pick up Bill O'Reilly, Michael Reagan, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity.

There are times when I'm listening to talk radio programming which some of the Canadian PC crowd have labelled "Hate Radio" is a real kick for me just because I know it pisses them off. For a laugh, I'll sometimes envision myself as being a person in East Germany, huddled in a dank basement corner sharing a few swigs of rot-gut vodka with some loyal friends during the Cold War who yearn for freedom and listen to "banned news and music broadcasts" on contraband radios which are able to tune those decadent western radio stations.

At Christmas dinner, I had the opportunity to twist one of the younger PC environmental wacko guests out of shape because I told him outright that I was an "environmental denier" with respect to man-made global warming, and told him he was little more than "a useful idiot" for the likes of Al Gore and David Suzuki. I didn't belabour the point, as I could have.

He left immediately after the meal was finished and took his piercings and tattoos with him. .... presumably to go find a nice place to meditate. That whole discussion started because we were speaking about how he enjoys his XM radio and couldn't see himself going back to local programming. That brought out my appreciation of what he called "intolerant hate radio." He wasn't prepared to listen to the likes of me who has listened to sections Hitler's speeches where he is calling for the extermination of Jews, or Chairman Mao's pride and joy called Radio Peking, or the Cuban Missile Crisis broadcasts of Radio Havana Cuba. He had zero clue of what "hate radio" really was.

Despite our considerable differences, we both like the satellite radio service for some common reasons.....excellent coverage while driving without changing stations, wide selection of music styles which would not be considered viable by a local station, and for "oldies" a better audio quality than an AM station ... since 100% hit music "Oldies Stations" are by regulation, not permitted on FM in Canada.

Anyway, I like satellite radio and have zero qualms about paying for it.

[Rockie]

I like the 80's and the comedy channel myself. As for your dinner guest, he was probably more offended at you calling him an idiot than he was with your uninformed opinion on global warming. I think he showed much more class than you by simply leaving.

[Guido]

In my psychology class, the prof said that numerous studies have been done on argument strength and attitudes toward something.

The way the human brain works is that if you have a strongly held attitude towards something, no matter what information is presented- either pro or anti, the attitude will be strengthened- regardless of the strength of argument too.

This thread is a great example of this human trait.

-istp

I learned much the same thing in Social Psychology this semester... it seems the more strongly a person has to argue their point, regardless of what evidence is presented from the other side - the more strongly they'll believe that they're right.

[Four1oh]

Rockie, I recommend you check this out:
http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nea ... 0767908171

Very informative and might actually help you in your myopic time.

[Rockie]

Rockie, I recommend you check this out:
http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nea ... 0767908171

Very informative and might actually help you in your myopic time.

Maybe I will. As a keen student of the sciences you might find this one interesting too.

http://www.amazon.ca/Brief-History-Time ... 568&sr=8-1

[Just another canuck]

A very convenient truth...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzDYxGHGoFc

[The Old Fogducker]

Hi Rockie:

I was actually very civil and peaceful about the entire matter, telling the dinner guest that he met the definition of being a "useful idiot" after explaining exactly what that term meant from the 60's and 70's radical world of having vocal sympathy for the Communist governments of the world. Further, how by being an evangelist for the cause of man-made global warming, he was indeed also being a "useful idiot" for those that have created the business of marketing scare mongering.

He wasn't being called an, (if you will) ... "garden variety idiot" which has to do with low performance on an IQ test, whether he breathes through his mouth, and has a thousand yard blank stare frequently. This fellow was a pseudo-intellectual idiot, or "a thinking man's idiot" might be another way to describe it.

As it turns out, he was a guest of a guest and thankfully, isn't a member of the immediate family unit, nor likely to be. He is better suited to a lifetime of "employment" being a sage at an ashram retreat perhaps.

So Rockie, this isn't meant as a dig at you, you are doing what you think is right based upon the way you have processed information. For me, it simply doesn't wash and I would compare the movement to being like a travelling huckster selling snake bite and general cure-all medicine from a covered wagon, or maybe Kevin Trudeau hyping vitamin sales on a late night TV infomercial.

The wonderful thing about living in freedom, we can post widely varying viewpoints and not worry about being placed on some hit-squad list, and disappear with a burlap sack over your head some night.....well, until the Politically Correct Enviro-Nazis gain power that is. Then we'll end up in being sent for "Political and Environmental Re-education Classes." If you flunk the fanatical mass-worship section of the "course" you end up with a plastic bag duct taped over your head. The student activist "peace & love" movement of the 60s has morphed into today's Green Movement ... green on the outside and red on the inside. After all, we've already been labelled as a class of citizen ... "A Denier" or should that be spelled "Denyer?"

My sincere best wishes Rockie, and I gotta hand it to you for standing by your convictions. Even though I strongly disagree with your position on this thread, you've done a good job of "being a man" and not giving up the fight and have my respect.

Regards,
Fog

[Rockie]

Thinking man's idiot or garden variety idiot is a pretty fine distinction to make, but either way it's an idiot. Maybe he just didn't like being talked down to. Did he happen to say what he thought of you?

[Check Pilot]

Well Rockie,

You say that there is a pretty fine distinction between a thinking man's idiot and a garden variety idiot.

I think that Fog was trying to point out the difference between someone that can't think about anything clearly and someone that can, but is seriously misguided and easily misled. His points contain a lot of very subtle areas about the way people think that I can see some folks are very likely to miss without some serious reflection about their own thoughts after reading only the surface of his remarks.

His guest obviously did not present a rational approach to his argument in a manner that would present a convincing method of changing his host's mind.

BTW, for you, it's nice to see someone that is so very convinced that the truth lies within their beliefs and are willing to spend the time to carry on with those convictions. Your arguments likely will not cause anyone to change their own beliefs but a worthy attempt anyway.

[Meatservo]

Hey, how come you can't say "Marvin Gaye"?

Anyhow, I don't think it matters if the world is actually getting warmer or colder or what. It would be hard to deny it's getting fuller (of people that is- animals are disappearing), dirtier, and natural resources are getting scarcer, surely you can all agree on that, and fixing those things naturally would take care of the theoretical causes of climate change whether you believe in them or not. I for one believe something bad is gonna happen. Stop breeding so much- all of you.

[Meatservo]

Kevin Gaye

. Gaye

Archibald Gaye

Marvin Simpson

Cletus Gaye

[Meatservo]

What's going on here?

[Four1oh]

Rockie, I recommend you check this out:
http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nea ... 0767908171

Very informative and might actually help you in your myopic time.

Maybe I will. As a keen student of the sciences you might find this one interesting too.

http://www.amazon.ca/Brief-History-Time ... 568&sr=8-1

I read it a couple years ago, blew my mind. I especially liked his explanation of gravity.

[Four1oh]

What the @#$! did you create the misc/political fourm for if your going to put crap like this on the generall comments section.

my 2 cents :mods pull your heads out of your asses and move this bullshit to where it belongs

No mod messes with another mod, doncha know. And no one messes with the dog, and the dog ain't never wrong, so it'll stay right here in the board index/top aviation forums/general comments(canada) forum instead of where it should be.

[Rockie]

Well Rockie,

You say that there is a pretty fine distinction between a thinking man's idiot and a garden variety idiot.

I think that Fog was trying to point out the difference between someone that can't think about anything clearly and someone that can, but is seriously misguided and easily misled. His points contain a lot of very subtle areas about the way people think that I can see some folks are very likely to miss without some serious reflection about their own thoughts after reading only the surface of his remarks.

His guest obviously did not present a rational approach to his argument in a manner that would present a convincing method of changing his host's mind.

BTW, for you, it's nice to see someone that is so very convinced that the truth lies within their beliefs and are willing to spend the time to carry on with those convictions. Your arguments likely will not cause anyone to change their own beliefs but a worthy attempt anyway.

Yes, I know what Fog was talking about, hence my comment that maybe the young lad just didn't like being talked down to. There's nothing worse than being thought naive when you're not, although not knowing this young chap I couldn't say how sharp he is but it's a distinct possiblity. It's very possible he's smarter than Fog and able to see nuances that Fog cannot, and he was also too polite to say it. He probably left thinking Fog is so dogmatic in his rejection of the possibility of global warming that he's unwilling or unable to accept evidence or reasoned scientific argument. I think he'd be right.

Also, it isn't my belief or my position on global warming. I am the farthest thing from an expert, and I have no ability to either conduct my own research or competently judge the research of others. So, I have to rely on the true experts who are overwhelmingly saying the same thing. My argument here isn't to convince people that global warming exists. My argument is that people shouldn't be so arrogant to think they are smarter than environmental scientists and reject out of hand what they are saying. On what basis do they do that? It certainly isn't knowledge, because no one here has the kind of knowledge to make that determination on their own. So it must be something else. I think it's one of two things:

1. A hatred of Gore/Suzuki et al that makes them automatically reject anything they say without any unbiased consideration of what the entire environmental scientific community is saying.

2. They jump on the opposite bandwagon out of plain ignorance or resistance to what they percieve as elitest government, business, media, leftist propaganda for the purpose of enriching the select few. Again without any unbiased consideration of what the scientists are saying.

The fact that most of those people here are also pilots is a little disconcerting. When we are faced with a situation in flight we are trained to address that situation in a logical way that ensures a safe recovery. If fact we pride ourselves in our pragmatism and cold assessment of fact. We stick to procedures written by the manufacturer because they understand the airplane better than we do and we don't make up our own procedures up as we go along. Why does that pragmatism get thrown out the window in this situation? What gives us a better understanding than the scientists?

Answer: Nothing

[just curious]

Having flown genuine geniuses around much of the globe, ncluding the spots that seem really different the last ten years,iI I have no idea what you guys are saying beyond the fact that satellite radio is better than listening to CBC on the ADF....

As far as one mod not interfering with another mod's post if I can't hear airplane PPC headset bond PT-6 or ramp in every third line... out it goes.

[x-wind]

Four1oh,
So you know the associated costs in producing hydrogen? It doesn't cost more!

The actual cost of making H2 isn't the problem, so "they say". It's the storage of hydrogen for mobile use that's the biggest logistics problem, which is not far off from being solved "so they say". But the even bigger issue facing hydrogen replacing oil to stand along side electricity as our two energy sources is-> political will and lack of education about a hydrogen economy.

Do you know what it costs to produce a barrel of oil in North America say the Athabasca oils sands? How about the Aribica sweet crude costs? North America will never be able to be oil independent!

NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE

Enemy of the Planet
Published: April 17, 2006

Lee Raymond, the former chief executive of Exxon Mobil, was paid $686 million over 13 years. But that's not a reason to single him out for special excoriation. Executive compensation is out of control in corporate America as a whole, and unlike other grossly overpaid business leaders, Mr. Raymond can at least claim to have made money for his stockholders.

There's a better reason to excoriate Mr. Raymond: for the sake of his company's bottom line, and perhaps his own personal enrichment, he turned Exxon Mobil into an enemy of the planet.

To understand why Exxon Mobil is a worse environmental villain than other big oil companies, you need to know a bit about how the science and politics of climate change have shifted over the years.

Global warming emerged as a major public issue in the late 1980's. But at first there was considerable scientific uncertainty.

Over time, the accumulation of evidence removed much of that uncertainty. Climate experts still aren't sure how much hotter the world will get, and how fast. But there's now an overwhelming scientific consensus that the world is getting warmer, and that human activity is the cause.** ** In 2004, an article in the journal Science that surveyed 928 papers on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals found that "none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.****

To dismiss this consensus, you have to believe in a vast conspiracy to misinform the public tha.t somehow embraces thousands of scientists around the world. That sort of thing is the stuff of bad novels. Sure enough, the novelist Michael Crichton, whose past work includes warnings about the imminent Japanese takeover of the world economy and murderous talking apes inhabiting the lost city of Zinj, has become perhaps the most prominent global-warming skeptic. (Mr. Crichton was invited to the White House to brief President Bush.)

So how have corporate interests responded? In the early years, when the science was still somewhat in doubt, many companies from the oil industry, the auto industry and other sectors were members of a group called the Global Climate Coalition, whose de facto purpose was to oppose curbs on greenhouse gases. But as the scientific evidence became clearer, many members — including oil companies like BP and Shell — left the organization and conceded the need to do something about global warming.

Exxon, headed by Mr. Raymond, chose a different course of action: it decided to fight the science.

A leaked memo from a 1998 meeting at the American Petroleum Institute, in which Exxon (which hadn't yet merged with Mobil) was a participant, describes a strategy of providing "logistical and moral support" to climate change dissenters, "thereby raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.' " And that's just what Exxon Mobil has done: lavish grants have supported a sort of alternative intellectual universe of global warming skeptics.

The people and institutions Exxon Mobil supports aren't actually engaged in climate research. They're the real-world equivalents of the Academy of Tobacco Studies in the movie "Thank You for Smoking," whose purpose is to fail to find evidence of harmful effects.

But the fake research works for its sponsors, partly because it gets picked up by right-wing pundits, but mainly because it plays perfectly into the he-said-she-said conventions of "balanced" journalism. A 2003 study, by Maxwell Boykoff and Jules Boykoff, of reporting on global warming in major newspapers found that a majority of reports gave the skeptics — a few dozen people, many if not most receiving direct or indirect financial support from Exxon Mobil — roughly the same amount of attention as the scientific consensus, supported by thousands of independent researchers.

Has Exxon Mobil's war on climate science actually changed policy for the worse? Maybe not. Although most governments have done little to curb greenhouse gases, and the Bush administration has done nothing, it's not clear that policies would have been any better even if Exxon Mobil had acted more responsibly.

But the fact is that whatever small chance there was of action to limit global warming became even smaller because Exxon Mobil chose to protect its profits by trashing good science. And that, not the paycheck, is the real scandal of Mr. Raymond's reign as Exxon Mobil's chief executive.

[BoostedNihilist]

First

If it is man made how come they can't quantify how much of our actions are causing which percentage of change

If it is man made how come they can't tell us exactly how much longer we have before we pass the point of no return

The fact 'they' can't answer these questions to any degree of accuracy tells me that they are basing their findings on a correlation, correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation usually comes into play when you first decide where you want the evidence to take you then find the evidence which supports your conclusions.

second
Let's for the sake of our argument stipulate that the global change in temperature can be attributed to man.

Big Effin Whoop...

Good for you environmental scientists. Pin a medal on your shoulder and keep on whining. What I don't hear from those scientists is some form of workable solution. Wind, water, hydrogen, hybrid, I see SO many problems with the proposed solutions yet the algoreans bray that these solutions are safer.. based on what? They aren't scientists in any of the fields they claim could create a workable solution. Who should we believe when these solutions are tabled, the algoreans (not an insult just an easy way to say 'them') No, they have nothing to say except humans are bad mmkay. It's bullshit.

The fact of the matter is, these algoreans are so happy that they can finally say they have made a scientific breakthrough that they spend all their time trying to convince everybody they are right. Big effin whoop, who exactly is that helping? If you are so cocksure that you are right then bring me a fuckin solution and quit trying to indoctrinate me. Here is the hitch, your solution has to work and keep my standard of living up or else I'm not buying it. I'll conserve what I can, when I can, but I'm not going to let a bunch of environmentalists convince me to change my regular old shitty bulbs for ones that last five years because they have mercury in them. I am not going to let an environmentalist convince me that I am doing less damage by using a hybrid because they have storage devices which are an unknown quantity and en masse might be a larger environmental problem than c02 emissions.

What it comes down to is the imposition of wills. The algoreans want this struggle to transcend all life paying little attention to the actual impact their solutions will have. They want us all to drop everything and basically stop life as we know it to save the planet... well, that aint going to happen and it is not because we are selfish, it is because we all have to live within our socioeconomic systems as they exist today. Sure, we could all go live like a hermit in the bush but is that realistic? Well for some perhaps but I don't know many people who are willing to make that kind of sacrafice, and why should they. Why should we give a damn when a billion chinese people are running their vehicles on kerosene and powering their society with coal. Why should we care when in south america the main mode of transportation relies on two cycle engines. Why should I give a shit when in vancouver the electric buses are powered by coal fired powerplants during peak hours, the answer is, I can't afford to give a shit.

What I want to hear from the algoreans is a timetable. How much time do we have left, and what and how do we make the changes necessary to stop this global catastrophe, can you even prove that we have not passed the point of no return?

This whole 'I'm the leader which way should we go' argument is tiring and is not helping a damned thing.

You guys need to get your ducks in a row, you've only solved half the problem, and it isn't even the important half.

[Siddley Hawker]

I got this from a friend of mine in Darwin, and I post it here with tongue firmly in cheek.

The Carbon Sense Coalition today claimed that all government efforts to stop global warming and cut carbon dioxide emissions were anti-life and against the interests of mankind.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that this generation of foolish politicians are the first in history to complain about the beneficial effects that have always accompanied the periodic but short warm eras that punctuate earth’s history.

“The human story is intimately tied to the grand cycles of climate and the Chicken Littles should study these before squawking.

“Distant climate history is well recorded in rock strata, ice cores, tree rings, ancient shore lines, marine sediments, pollen distribution, fossil occurrences, coral reef growth, and carbon isotope ratios. More recent history is abundantly supplemented in clay tablets, cave paintings, rock art, ancient scrolls, inscriptions, historical events and records, monuments and epitaphs, the rise and fall of empires and direct records of temperature, sun spots, river levels, rainfall, droughts, floods, heat waves and bone chilling blizzards.

“Anyone who studies these records will see that eras warmer than today are periodic but short chapters in the earth story. The most recent major ice age ended a mere 11,500 year ago, when the Modern Interglacial commenced. Since then, earth has experienced five warm eras.

“In the first warm era starting about 4300 BC, the Sahara bloomed with plants, forests spread over Northern Europe and Canada and there was sufficient water for irrigation in Arabia. This era ended when blizzards and ice returned for nearly 1,000 years. Another short warm era started about 1450 BC, but was ended by another bout of cold dry weather that caused depopulation in Greece and Turkey and hardship everywhere.

“In the Roman Warm era, starting about 250 BC, the world smiled again and populations grew. But the warmth was cut short by the return of the snows which forced Vikings and Norsemen out of their frozen North to pillage and then colonise warmer southern lands.

“Then we had the Medieval Warm Period, starting about 800 AD, a time of great achievement and prosperity. Farmers moved back into Scotland and Norway, Greenland was colonised and corn was grown. Vineyards produced wine near Manchester, in East Prussia and Norway. Even Tasmania warmed up. Trade and industry flourished and people had surpluses for culture and education. Cambridge, Oxford and Bologna Universities were founded and cathedrals and temples were built at Westminster Abbey, Notre Dame, Canterbury, Cologne, Florence, Castile and Angkor Wat.

“But Jack Frost returned with the Little Ice Age starting about 1300 AD. Famine, food riots and disease again stalked Europe. Glaciers advanced, ice caps expanded, droughts and blizzards became more common and gales wracked Europe (and destroyed the Spanish Armada). Frosts killed orchards, North Sea cod moved south, food prices soared and farms were abandoned. In Scotland and Norway the capitals moved south and villages were abandoned. The Greenland colony perished. During the frigid years of the Dalton Minimum (1790 – 1820 AD) Napoleon’s Grand Army perished in a bitter Russian winter.

“Then in 1860, with no help from men burning coal or oil, earth started to warm again. This continued until 1942. A cooling spell from 1942 to 1976 had the Alarmists worried that the ice was about to return, but warming resumed from 1976 to 1998. Temperatures have been cooling slightly since then, despite the boom in burning of coal and oil.

“Even a casual glance at climate and human history will show that the warm eras like today are far more beneficial for all life than the cold dry eras.

“People prefer warm climates. They do not flock to Alaska, Archangel or Antarctica for winter – they head for Bermuda, the Black Sea or Bali. All over the world, the human race is migrating towards the sun belts – Florida, the Riviera, and Capricornia – very few volunteer to live in Siberia or Patagonia. President Putin voiced what many Russians must think – “a bit of warmth would be welcome here”.

“Moreover, a bit of warmth would vastly increase the land suitable for growing food and fibres. On the other hand, a slight cooling would take much of the farmlands of Canada, Northern Eurasia and New Zealand out of production, and parts of Tasmania and Victoria may have to convert from producing wheat and dairy products to farming caribou or reindeer.

“Warm eras also provide more rainfall because of the additional evaporation from oceans, lakes, snow and ice.

“When warmth and moisture are combined with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the beneficial effects on plant life are multiplied. A doubling of the CO2 content of the air would have insignificant effect on global warming but would have marvellous effects on plant (and then animal) life:

Growth rate of herbaceous plants would increase 30%
Growth rate of forest plants would increase 50%
All plants would be more tolerant of drought and heat
Food production would need less land and less artificial fertiliser

“All of this magic can be achieved by allowing man’s activities to recycle more CO2 and water to the atmosphere. Why then are politicians taxing carbon and encouraging people to waste money on foolish schemes such as trying to bury valuable carbon dioxide in artificial and expensive carbon cemeteries?

“The whole animal kingdom, including mankind, relies totally on plants to survive. Without grasses and cereals on land and plankton in the sea, most of mankind would starve.

“All plants need moisture, warmth, and carbon dioxide to grow and flourish. Why then are we having hysterics because the earth is currently blessed with more than average of these three magic life sustainers?

“Even the dumbest sheep in Australia knows that being warm, watered and well fed is better than being cold, thirsty and starving.”

“Maybe we should give sheep a vote?”

Selected References:

Moore, Thomas Gale, 1995: “Global Warming – a Boon to Humans and Other Animals”, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

Idso, Sherwood, and Idso, Craig, 2007: “Carbon Dioxide & Global Change: Separating Scientific Fact from Personal Opinion”. CO2 Science

Viv Forbes

Disclosure of Interest:
Viv Forbes earns income from three carbon emitting industries, coal, cattle and sheep. He hates frosts, droughts and starving stock. He also uses cement, steel and electricity, buys diesel for his tractor, petrol for his car and gas for his barby. He uses trains and occasionally boards an aeroplane. He eats carbon based foods, pays taxes and uses government services funded by taxes on the carbon industries. All of these industries and services will be harmed by carbon taxes, emissions trading or carbon sequestration. He is also a scientist, investment analyst, computer modeller and political analyst. Like the great majority of Australians, he has a big vested interest in the outcome of this historic debate.

[Icebound]

..


Some people, when confronted with a terminal cancer, say "what the hell, I'm dying anyway, why prolong the agony...I'm spending all my money on women, toys and beer... and then follow it up with a nice tight spiral dive into the Atlantic from 10,000 feet"...

Others say... "there are people who depend on me.... every extra minute of me on this planet is a minute of happiness for my grandchild and my spouse, and my friend, and..." And they go off and seek therapies and gain an extra month or two or six before the inevitable. They leave their meager fortune for the care of their loved ones, and to charities.

===

The planet has been an iceball in the past and has cycled through a tropical jungle, and back to iceball... several times.

It will become an iceball again. It is just a matter of whether "sooner", or "later".

The question is: do we bother to prolong mankind's life a millenium or two or even a century or two.... in the belief that mankind has mysteries to unravel, accomplishments to achieve....intellects to challenge... and it needs every last minute it can get, in order to do all that....

... OR....

... do we grab what we can... hasten mankind's demise.... because "what the hell.... it is all going to end badly, anyway"....

We really have become a species of "me, first" bastards, haven't we.


...