Global Warming ... enough already!

Global warming ... argh. Almost daily in the news. It drives me crazy the way the news people and others with a voice (i.e. politicians and celebrities) take up stories without knowing what they are talking about. They are building a frenzy for reducing greenhouse gases around the world (i.e. Kyoto Protocol) and its a frenzy based on truth that is inconveniently not true.

From what I read humans have almost no effect on global warming and the greenhouse gases that cause some of the global warming. Below is a quote from the website www.junkscience.com explaining that 90-95% of the greenhouse effect is from water in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide and other miscellaneous gases are "minor greenhouse gases" that have almost no effect on greenhouse changes.

"In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, "Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models," Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2." (FROM: www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse)

Please read the entire article to learn more about atmospheric science at:www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse.

Next read an article about Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" at: http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg/index.html.

The author explains where Gore is correct and not so correct.

The article starts with a telling quote from Al Gore himself in an interview.

"Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth does indeed have some correct facts, but as he even says himself, sometimes you have to over-exaggerate to send the message to people:

Q. There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?

A. I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis. (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/ (Interview with Grist Magazine's David Roberts and Al Gore about An Inconvenient Truth)

Al Gore said this, so how are we supposed to know fact from fiction in the global warming debate? The following paragraphs will inform the reader of the false claims, the facts, the selective facts and tactics to scare and advertise." (FROM:http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg/index.html)

By the way ... statements like the one above are similar to socialist dictators who believe government is the solution for every problem and the people are not capable of understanding the truth. Venezuela's President Chavez is a scary reminder of power gone wrong. (http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/dec2007/gb2007123_114899.htm)

The Al Gore article goes on to describe the misuse of charts and dates to make a point that is not true.

One set of stats Gore shows deals with the receding glaciers around the world. It is true that they are receding but he fails to explain that it can be shown they have been receding for 100-150 years, well before we humans started driving cars in mass.

Please take time to read: http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg/index.html

The truth as I understand it is ... humans are not causing global warming and we should not be forced into all becoming Green and driving cars that cost $20,000 more because of all the added Green engine stuff. Diesel engines went up $7000 to $10,000 this year (2008) because of government mandated emissions upgrades.

Is going Green bad? No, actually I like the idea of reducing my use of fossil fuels. I think we should all walk more and ride bikes more often. I am planning on buying a diesel and trying bio-diesel (which is fuel made from vegetable oil). And I am also designing a house that is highly efficient with passive and active solar heat and power. I hope to build it some day to lower our natural gas and electricity bills, relying more on God-given solar power and possibly even wind power.

BUT ... it should be my choice to be Green or not be Green. The government should stay out of our business.

8:27 PM - 1 Comments