Från veckans Contra om global uppvärming:

Från veckans Contra om global uppvärming:
Skrivet av	Anon Üm
Vad trr ni andra om detta? --------------------------------------------------- 2. INGEN KONSTGJORD UPPVÄRMNING There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming, American Policy Center There is no scientific evidence to back claims of man-made global warming. Period. Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends--be they teachers, newscasters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or Presidents--is wrong. In fact, scientific research through U.S. government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling--very slightly--.037 degrees Celsius. A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in1992 there was only one day over 90 degrees and, in 1997, only 5 days. Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling" trend has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years. Ironically, that\'s the same period of time the hysteria has grown over dire warnings of "warming." Changes in global temperatures are natural. In fact, much of the recent severe weather has been directly attributed to a natural phenomenon that occurs every so often called El Nino. It causes ocean temperatures to rise as tropical trade winds actually reverse for a time. The resulting temperature changes cause severe storms, flooding, and even drought on every continent on earth. It\'s completely natural. El Nino has been wreaking its havoc across the globe since long before man appeared. How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting? On Election Day the Financial Times of London carried the hysterical headline: Arctic Ice Cap Set to Disappear by the Year 2070. The article stated that the Arctic ice cap is melting at an unprecedented rate. The article is based on a report titled: Impacts of a Warming Arctic, submitted by a group of researchers called the Arctic Climate Impact Assessement (ACIA). It must be understood just who makes up this so-called group of researchers. The report is not unbiased scientific data. Rather, it is propaganda from political groups who have an agenda. The report was commissioned by the Arctic Council, which is comprised of a consortium of radical environmentalists from Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States. All are nations that possess land within the Arctic Circle. Many of these countries, through the Kyoto Protocol, have a financial stake in pushing the global warming agenda. One of the groups providing scientists to the ACIA researchers is the World Wildlife Fund, one of the leading chicken-little scaremongers who create junk science at the drop of a news release to terrify us all into proper environmental conduct. The report is now being used at the global warming meeting currently underway in Buenos Aires to rally the troops and bully the United States into accepting the discredited Kyoto Protocol. We are being warned of killer heat waves, vast flooding, and the spread of tropical diseases. Ocean levels are rising and America\'s coastlines are doomed, they tell us. Hurricanes and tornadoes have already become more violent, we are warned. Floods and droughts have begun to ravage the nation, they cry. Any change in temperatures, or an excessive storm, or extended flooding is looked upon as a sure sign that environmental Armageddon is upon us. Diabolical environmentalists are using the natural El Nino phenomenon to whip people into a Global Warming hysteria. Two Kinds of Scientists We are assured by such groups that scientists everywhere are sounding these warnings, and that we may only have one chance to stop it. Well, as the debate rages, we find that there are really two kinds of scientists. There are those who look at facts and make their judgments based on what they see and know. Their findings can be matched by any other scientist, using the same data and set of circumstances to reach the same conclusions. It\'s a age-old practice called peer review. It\'s the only true science. And then there are those who yearn for a certain outcome and set about creating the needed data to make it so. Usually you will find this group of scientists greatly dependent on grants supplied by those with a specific political agenda who demand desired outcomes for their money. Let\'s just take NASA, for example--the most trusted name in American science. A lot of NASA scientists have fallen into the money trap. Environmental science has become the life-blood of the space program as the nation has lost interest in space travel. To keep the bucks coming, NASA has justified launches through the excuse of earth-directed environmental research. And the budgets keep coming. At the same time, many of NASA\'s scientists have a political agenda in great harmony with those who advocate global warming. And they\'re not above using their position to aid that agenda whenever the chance is available. This was never more clearly demonstrated than in 1992 when a team of three NASA scientists were monitoring conditions over North America to determine if the ozone layer was in danger. Inconclusive data indicated that conditions might be right for ozone damage over North America--if certain things happened. True scientists are a careful lot. They study, they wait, and many times they test again before drawing conclusions. Not so, the green zealot. Of this three-member NASA team, two could not be sure of what they had found and wanted to do more research. But one took the data and rushed to the microphones with all of the drama of a Hollywood movie and announced in hushed tones that NASA had discovered an ozone hole over North America. Then Senator Al Gore rushed to the floor of the Senate with the news, and drove a stampede to immediately ban Freon--five years before Congress had intended--and without a suitable substitute. He then bullied President George H.W. Bush to sign the legislation by saying the ozone hole was over Kennebunkport, Maine--Bush\'s favorite vacation spot. Two months later NASA announced--on the back pages of the newspapers--that further research had shown there was no such damage. But it was too late. The valuable comodity known as Freon was gone forever. Flawed Computer Models Then there are those computer models. Night after night Americans watch the local news as the weatherman predicts what kind of a day tomorrow will be. These meteorologists, using the most up-to-date equipment available, boldly give you the five-day forecast. But it\'s well known that even with all of their research and expensive equipment it really is just a best guess." There are just too many variables. If the wind picks up here, it could blow in a storm. If the temperature drops there, it could start to snow. The earth is a vast and wondrous place. Weather does what it wants. Yet those who are promoting the global warming theory have the audacity to tell you they can forecast changes in the global climate decades into the future. The truth is computer models are able to include only two out of 14 components that make up the climate system. To include the third component would take a computer a thousand times faster than we have now. To go beyond the third component requires an increase in computer power that is so large only mathematicians can comprehend the numbers. Moreover, even if the computer power existed, scientists do not understand all the factors and the relationships between them that determine the global climate. So it\'s an outrage for the World Wildlife Fund or the Sierra Club to tell you that man-made global warming is a fact and that we Americans must now suffer dire changes in our lifestyle to stop it. Scientists are Not on the Global Warming Bandwagon And so too is it an outrage for the news media to tell you that most true scientists now agree that man-made global warming is a fact. What it doesn\'t tell you is that roughly 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992, just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming. Today that figure has grown to over 4,000 scientists. Americans arent being told that a 1997 Gallop Poll of prominent North American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them disagreed with the man-made global warming theory... The Kyoto Climate Control Protocol Those who have been fighting against the radical green agenda have been warning that modern-day environmentalism has little to do with protecting the environment. Rather, it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development, and redistribute the world\'s wealth. They use the philosophical base of Karl Marx, the tactics of the KGB, and the rhetoric of the Sierra Club. The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid environmentalists. School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and death. Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like Freon have been removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for extinction. Our entire nation is being restructured to fit the proper green mold. All of it for a lie about something man has nothing to do with. But the lie has grown to massive proportions--and the game is about to get very serious indeed. Pressure is building again to impose the Kyoto Protocol worldwide. Only a few years ago, this treaty appeared dead when President George W. Bush refused American participation. Now, however, Russia has signed on and the UN has enough support to begin implementing its dire consequences--even on the United States. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has called the White House stance on global warming terribly disappointing. McCain is now using the ACIA report to convene hearings on the human effect on climate and what to do about it. McCain intends to help build pressure on the President to accept the Kyoto Protocol. In fact the Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding international treaty through which industrial nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels. That means that all of the energy growth since 1990 would be rolled back, plus 7 percent more. Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, will devastate this nation. To meet such drastically-reduced energy standards will--in the short run--cost the United States over one million jobs. Some estimate it will cost over seven million jobs in 14 years. If the treaty sends the economy into a tailspin, as many predict, it will cost even more jobs. It will cost the average family $1,000 to $4,000 dollars per year in increased energy costs. The cost of food will skyrocket. It has been estimated that in order for the United States to meet such a goal, our gross domestic product will be reduced by $200 billion--annually... Global Raid on American Wealth But perhaps you still are not convinced.Maybe you still cling to the idea that such drastic action is necessary--that those pushing the global warming agenda are truly in a panic over global warming and are just trying to find a solution. If you are one of these people, ask yourself: Why does the Kyoto Protocol only bind developed nations to draconian emission levels? Undeveloped Third-World nations will be free to produce whatever they want. These will include China, India, Brazil, and Mexico. Yet 82 percent of the projected emissions growth in future years will come from these countries. Now ask yourself: If the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol is all about protecting the environment--then how come it doesn\'t cover everybody? The truth, of course, is that the treaty is really about redistribution of the wealth. The wealth of the United States is, and has always been, the target. The new scheme to grab the loot is through environmental scare tactics.,, The fact is that one person now stands between the global warming jackals and economic sanity--George W. Bush. Will he stand firm in his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol? Or will he capitulate to massive international pressure and sell Americas soul? The American Policy Center, a grassroots, activist think tank headquartered in Warrenton, Virginia. Its Internet site is www.americanpolicy.org.
Svar på tråden: Från veckans Contra om global uppvärming:

Hur illa jag än tycker om dina övriga åsikter ..
Skrivet av MacGyver
.. så är jag benägen att bifalla det här inlägget. Och även om "växthusteorin" skulle innehålla någon grad av verklig beskrivning av läget är den ändå helt ointressant eftersom de fossila bränslena helt enkelt inte räcker till för att fullfölja extrapolationerna till år 2050. Oljan och kolet kommer helt enkelt att ta slut långt innan polerna smälter.

Det hela är enkelt
Skrivet av Adde
Vetenskapliga bevis för att de förändringar vi åstadkommer i atmosfären i form av koldioxidutsläpp och andra växthusgaser, andra typer av ämnen osv, kan omöjligt man inte påstå att man har, av den enkla anledningen av det jättelika experiment av utsläpp, aldrig tidigare har gjorts. Med geologiskt tidperspektiv är de förändringar vi åstadkommer i miljön högst marginella. Med människans perspektiv eller t.o.m. mänsklighetens perspektiv är de förändringar vi åstadkommit enorma. Vi vet inte vad det har för effekter. Nyckelordet är att VI VET INTE. Vad vi vet är att mycket av de naturresurser som använts är överutnyttjande. Bl.a. är inte oljereserven outsinlig utan kommer förmodligen vara slut om senast 30-40 år, med den fart vi använder den idag. Utfiskning av hav är en realitet. De döda bottnarna i Östersjön skapad av utsläpp, likaså. Exempel på exempel kan radas upp där vårt överutnyttjande av resurser lett till större eller mindre katastrofer. Ska man blunda för detta?


Du kan sluta oroa dig
Skrivet av MacGyver
I vilket fall över mänsklig miljöpåverkan. Det är olja i olika former som direkt eller indirekt driver nästan all miljöpåverkan vi håller på med. Så fort oljeutvinningen börjar minska kommer miljöpåverkande aktiviteter att minska de med. Det är nog mer elevant att oroa sig över hur fasen människan skall klara sin blotta försörjning utan billig olja.

Jag har lärt mig
Skrivet av Adde
att man inte ska oroa sig över sådant som man ändå inte kan påverka. Är det vad du menar? Ingen idé att heller oroa sig över hur vi ska få billig energi i fortsättningen heller... eller?

Du kan nog glömma billig energi
Skrivet av MacGyver
Räkna med att vi alla får klara oss med mycket mindre mängder energi. Jag lovar dig att det finns en uppsjö av faktorer som vi kan påverka i allra högsta grad när det gäller att klara oss med mindre energi! Och förberedelser kommer bokstavligt talat betyda skillnad mellan liv och död. Oljan har så avgörande inflytande på så många aspekter av vår tillvaro att det nästan är omöjligt att göra ett tankeexperiment där man föreställer sig hur världen kommer att se ut utan den.

Från veckans Contra om global uppvärming:

Hur illa jag än tycker om dina övriga åsikter ..

Det hela är enkelt

Du kan sluta oroa dig

Jag har lärt mig

Du kan nog glömma billig energi

Artiklar från Allt för föräldrar

Artiklar från Familjeliv

Livsstadier

Samarbeten

Forum

Verktyg

Information