Posted on 04/09/2007 12:52:59 PM PDT by Clive
"UN Report Proves Canada Must Act Now On Climate Change," trumpeted the headline of a Liberal party press release on Friday, timed to correspond with the release of yet another alarmist UN summary on climate change.
"Canada must act aggressively now to avert the destructive consequences of climate change," the Liberals insisted.
"Canada must be ready for a carbon-constrained future," said party leader Stephane Dion. "Human beings can't continue to use the atmosphere as an unlimited and free dump ? It is within our power to prevent the worst of the effects of climate change."
This, of course, marks the second alarmist release by the UN this year, both coming before its own scientific report on global warming is even out.
Just why would the UN release these teaser summaries before its actual scientific findings are available? It could it be that the science is becoming less alarming as scientists learn more, so the UN wants to maximize the public hysteria before its catastrophic forecasts for the future can be checked against the more moderate scientific truth.
We already know that the coming report -- the fourth by the UN in 15 years -- will say that maximum projected temperatures over the next century will not be nearly as high as projected in the last report in 2001; that man has contributed less to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than originally thought; and that sea level rise will be only a few inches, rather than the several feet once thought.
Yet the so-called "summaries for policy makers" are becoming more shrill each time: Species will be wiped out, crime will rise, starvation will kill hundreds of millions, disease will become rampant, islands will disappear beneath the waves, deserts will consume entire continents.
Science goes down, UN hysteria goes up. Curious, isn't it, how that plays into the UN's desire to be at the centre of a global effort to plan human activity?
But let's look at just what the global-warming theory implies and at Mr. Dion's charge that humans, Canadians included, are dumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Think of the atmosphere as 100 cases of 24 one-litre bottles of water -- 2,400 litres in all.
According to the global warming theory, rising levels of human-produced carbon dioxide are trapping more of the sun's reflected heat in the atmosphere and dangerously warming the planet.
But 99 of our cases would be nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), neither of which are greenhouse gases. Only one case -- just 24 bottles out of 2,400 -- would contain greenhouse gases.
Of the bottles in the greenhouse gas case, 23 would be water vapour.
Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, yet scientists will admit they understand very little about its impact on global warming. (It may actually help cool the planet: As the earth heats up, water vapour may form into more clouds and reflect solar radiation before it reaches the surface. Maybe. We don't know.)
The very last bottle in that very last case would be carbon dioxide, one bottle out of 2,400.
Carbon dioxide makes up just 0.04% of the entire atmosphere, and most of that -- at least 95% -- is naturally occurring (decaying plants, forest fires, volcanoes, releases from the oceans).
At most, 5% of the carbon dioxide in the air comes from human sources such as power plants, cars, oilsands, etc.
So in our single bottle of carbon dioxide, just 50 ml is man-made carbon dioxide. Out of our model atmosphere of 2,400 litres of water, just about a shot glassful is carbon dioxide put their by humans. And of that miniscule amount, Canada's contribution is just 2% --about 1 ml.
If, as Mr. Dion demands, we honoured our Kyoto commitments and reduced our current CO2 emissions by one-third -- which would involve shutting down all the coal-fired power generating plants in Canada (and living with constant brownouts and blackouts); or taking all the cars or all the commercial vehicles off the roads; or shutting down the oilsands; or some combination of all these -- we would be saving one-third of 1 ml-- the tip of an eyedropper.
And somehow, that is supposed to save the planet from warming; the tip of one eyedropper out of 2,400 bottles of water.
That might be true if carbon dioxide were the most toxic substance ever discovered by man. But it is not. We each expel it every time we exhale.
It's hard to imagine how such a tiny amount of a benign substance could cause the end of the planet. Maybe Mr. Dion could explain that in his next press release.
bookmark
Canada must act now?
The forecast is for overnight lows below freezing in Winnipeg for the next few days.
There may be some additional time left.
“This very simple analysis illustrates profoundly the silliness of the Global Warming hysterics.”
It gets even better, according to the BBC documentary (excellent - called the Great Global Warming Swindle), Al Gore’s chart that tracks CO2 in the ancient ice cores shows CO2 actually trailing the rising (and falling) levels of CO2. It shows that the oceans give off more CO2 when they warm up. Poor Al Gore has it backwards. Global warming causes a rise in CO2 not the other way around. I love this topic.
heheh I was having a discussion with one of the global warming faithful over this very fact presented in this article (the small amount humans contribute to carbon emissions in the atmosphere.)
My example was like saying a guy peeing in the ocean raises the temperature (it would but I am not sure the instrument has been invented that could measure the difference), but he did an AH HAH and asked me "but when all 6 billion humans would pee in the ocean at the same time then what would happen?" thinking he had hit a major flaw, in my argument.
Of course when I explained there is 1.57 billion cubic kilometers of ocean water and asked him if 6 people peeing in a 1 and a half cubic kilometer of water would make a difference we could measure he was profoundly confused.
Most of these poor souls have no clue how small the human population is when compared to the size of the earth. I told him if you had 100 times that many people or 600 per 1.5 cubic kilometers of water you still could not measure the difference. He just could not grasp the immenseness of the Earth's Oceans.
Is this BBC Documentary being shown on TV anywhere? I’d love to see it and tape it.
See the link above for the BBC documentary - I watched it twice - its great. Don’t know about a TV schedule.
Along with that, what changes have occurred in the nature of those sites? Have some of them changed over time from being in an isolated rural area to being in a developed suburb or city?
The Great Global Warming Swindle" documentary was done by Ch 4 in England, not the BBC. However it is well worth seeing. It is all over the internet. It was on Google Videos at one time, may still be there. Just search for Global Warming Swindle and I'm sure you will find something. It was also on YouTube.
Shows how stupid our own Government is.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340135300469846467&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en
It ia an avi file. There is a download button for Windows.
Fetch it now, no delay, before Google catches it and borks it again.
If you are using linux and want to know how to make a dvd disk from the avi file, send me a private message.
If you are using windows you are on your own.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
It has been 15 degrees below normal in Winnipeg for the last two weeks, no end in sight. Daytime temps haven't even gone above freezing, yet it's supposed to be spring. The red river has refrose, causing ice jams and flooding north of that city. If you mention global warming there, people get angry.
It doesn't get any better on this side of the border (ND) from there. More snow is forcast for tomorrow afternoon.
And in fact there are lots of such apparently implausible mismatches of cause and effect, for example relatively minuscule quantities of certain components of tail-pipe emissions used be a major contributor to smogging up hundreds of cubic miles of air above the Los Angeles basin on a daily basis in quantities of .1 parts per million and below.
The difference is that you could see the smog... so people didn't bother to argue over whether this was possible.
Mission Impossible 2
Thanks a bunch to all who helped me find the video. I’m downloading it now from Google.
Canada ping.
Please send me a FReepmail to get on or off this Canada ping list.
NEWS FLASH! Canada not cold enough!
Yes and the irony is that the efforts of environmentalist kooks and leftist bureaucrat scientists have benefited the most from the “public education” of the most recent generations of young people. It is sad really how pervasive leftist mythology has become. Too many people have bought into the “hate humanity” ideology and automatically accept the guilt of humanity without applying any critical thinking to the assertions no matter how stupid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.