Global Warming, More Gore-Bull or Actual Fact?

C.T.

While catching up on my back log of news junkyism, I came across an article posted on PoliPundit from Daily Tech. Basically, it talked about the American Physical Society, a group that represents about 50 thousand physicists and how they have reversed their stance on climate change. The article is titled," Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate."

Across the scientific communities there seems to be disagreement about the causes of climate change.

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution." [1]

Also, there is the question about the validity of the methods used by the IPCC and its 2007 climate report.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors" [1]

Now, don't get me wrong, I do believe there is something amiss with the environment. There is to much evidence to convince me otherwise. But, does this mean that all the "apoco-literature" about the end of civilization as we know it and it being mankind's fault is true? A resounding, "HELL NO!"

Mankind contributes about 5% of the CO2 emissions that are presently at work. If we are in the "end times" we have no control. Even if we staved off and cut our percentage of CO2 emissions down to nil, what would it buy us? Maybe a few years of the world we once knew? That is like going through chemo-therapy to extend your life another 3 months, it just doesn't make any sense.

Here is the rub about global warming and the Armageddon scenarios, fear sells. Remember the Y2K bug? How many companies profited from fear mongering there. In another article from Daily Tech, titled IEA: $45 Trillion Needed to Combat Global Warming ,the IAE is calling for a $45 trillion dollar plan to halve carbon emissions.

On Friday, the Paris-based IEA released its formal plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The cost? A mere 45 trillion dollars -- an amount some three times larger than the entire U.S. economy. [2]

There are a few problems though.

And because the plan grabs all the "low hanging fruit" in carbon reductions, the amount needed to complete the job wouldn't just be double that $45 trillion, but far higher. [2]

and

Worse still, the report only covers emissions from energy production -- the much larger amount arising from agriculture, transportation, land-use changes, and other factors weren't included. [2]

As I have stated in the past, alternative energy sources, conservation, cleaning up existing environmental problems, and using technology to better our environment are all worthwhile and sensible. But these tactics being used by the far left eco-terrorists amount to nothing more than the same tactics they accuse the present administration of for getting us involved in Iraq. They are hypocritical despotic megalomaniacs who are driven by a need to find any reason to increase government control over the masses. They are taking something worthwhile that needs our attention and turning it into something that will inevitably backfire on them. People will be so sick and tired of the "clean up the environment" movement, nothing will ever get done.

C.T.

[1] Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
[2] IEA: $45 Trillion Needed to Combat Global Warming