Wednesday, August 31, 2005
On March 13, Bush reversed his previous position, announcing he would not back a CO2 restriction using the language and rationale provided by Barbour. Echoing Barbour’s memo, Bush said he opposed mandatory CO2 caps, due to “the incomplete state of scientific knowledge” about global climate change.
Well, the science is clear. This month, a study published in the journal Nature by a renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing prevalence of destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming. Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged. Our destructive addiction has given us a catastrophic war in the Middle East and--now--Katrina is giving our nation a glimpse of the climate chaos we are bequeathing our children.
While absurd on its face, this has been well refuted over at Captain's Quarters.
According to Reason Magazine, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that if we do nothing, the rise in temperature over the next hundred years would average (among the various estimates) about 3.0°C. Full implementation of the Kyoto protocols would reduce expected warming over the next century down to a mere 2.86°C; that is, Kyoto gives us a reduction in anticipated temperature increase of 0.14°C over 100 years.
Okay, that gives us something to work with. 0.14°C divided by 100 gives us an expected reduction of 0.0014°C per year. Thus, from March 2001 to March 2005, we could have seen a reduction in warming of as much as 0.0056°C. But wait, there is more: in the five months from March 2005 to August 2005, there would have been an additional 0.0006°C, which brings the grand total to 0.0062°C if we
had implemented that furshlugginer treaty (we're assuming the globalistas' predictions are correct).
So what K. is saying is that the extra 0.0062°C (or 0.01° Fahrenheit, if that's your bag) spelled the difference between a pacific Atlantic ocean and a Force 5 hurricane that killed scores and caused tens of billions of dollars in damage, flooding vast stretches of three states and stranding hundreds of thousands. And all for the want of a ten-penny nail!
Of course it figures that the allegation was made by a Kennedy. Really, you should read the whole thing.
Speaking of Germany and the Kyoto treating, while looking for blog fodder I found this quote by Jürgen Trittin, Germany's minister of the environment regarding Hurricane Katrina:
"The American president has closed his eyes to the economic and human damage that natural catastrophes such as Katrina -- in other words, disasters caused by a lack of climate protection measures -- can visit on his country."
So nice of the minister to place blame on bush for the Hurricane while bodies are still floating. Has he no shame? When is the next war with Germany scheduled?
As someone who believes in Global Warming and that we're the cause, I say that (as it should be obvious to all sane people) that the hurrican was not caused by Bush not signing the Kyoto treaty. Also, hurricane ferocity and number are based more on normal climate stuff and not global warming. Global warming may strengthen some hurricanes, but that can't be proven.
The minitue I heard "Global Warming" on the news I cringed, because I knew the Right would, as always, take the small group of complete idiots on our side and use their words against Global warming.
So have at it... tell me how it's not a small group and that we're all idiots and how the Democrats actually caused this hurricane because of we're all evil or some junk like that...
Unfortunately, some of the loud voices on this topic are in positions of importance and credibility, even if they are idiots. The day of landfall German politicians also made Katrina about the Kyoto treaty.
Even assuming that Catchy Sue's view is absolute truth, it is idiocy for people to say that there is any correlation whatsover between climate change and whether or not someone signed the abomination known as the Kyoto treaty. One very good reason for not signing it is the fact that, even fully ratified, it would not have made one iota of difference. Even those countries who consider it practically a religious text have found themselves incapable of complying with it.
Your argument suggests that it's better to do nothing since it can't be proven that we're responsible for the climate change.
Do nothing? Why? Where's the benefit in polluting our atmosphere? The only sound, sane way forward is to reduce instead of increase pollution. It's simply good stewardship no matter where you stand on the global warming debate.
the reason article is deeply flawed. We already knoe that the gulf temps which are whatpumped this storm have risen two degrees, which is much more than the atlantic increase. small bodies of water are increasing temps faster as a result of CO2to the increase and would also respond faster to the decrease.
Lapel Pins Manufacturer
Flag Lapel Pins
Disney Pins Wholesale
mouse pads manufacturer
Lapel Pins Manufacturer