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.
....and automatically accept the guilt of humanity without applying any critical thinking to the assertions no matter how stupid.
The problem is not that the number is wrong, it is that it is meaningless. A more meaningful statement is that the CO2 has increased along with the increase in temperature and the industrial revolution. The increase in CO2 has created some further warming, the proportion is unknown and unknowable and man's proportion is probably trivial.
I think it isn’t so much that they are stupid as they lack the critical thinking skills. They absorb this stuff without asking basic questions. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard people go on about corporations bent on polluting for profits. Those type of corporations may exist but I certainly don’t know of anyone who starts out with the goal of polluting for profit. I would imagine that most companies go out of their way to avoid anything that might cause them legal headaches. This populist environmentalism has been driven into the heads of children over and over again and it isn’t surprising that it is bearing fruit.
What did I do wrong? I clicked the download button and I downloaded a 665 byte file with the extension .gvp.
The most monumentally ignorant and unstatesmanlike hysterical statement a politician can make today.
No further comment is necessary.
That is because the scientific underpinnings for the "report" had to be "tweaked" to agree with the previously issued political report...
Most progressives and other moonbats don't even have a clue how small 1 ml is... in comparison to the other 2,400,000 ml in the example given.
Look up the word "sophistry".
Last I checked, the natural contribution of the nasty compounds you refer to were not 99.975%... as it is for CO2
Right click on the Downlad button (i.e. button 3, not button 1 on your rodent) to bring up a menu then select "Save target as ..."
I am using Opera under linux but I am sure that the same technique will work with any of the browsers in Windows. the words "save target as ..." may be something else like "save link as ..." but the principle is the same.
The download progress dialog will show that it is fetching a file with extension .avi
To be persuasive, this movie (which is over an hour long) has to be capable of being viewed with the audience sitting in comfortable chairs in their living rooms or recreation rooms.
So the movie has to be converted to a DVD disk image. Linux has a neat little collection of command line utilities to do this and if you are using linux please let me know by private mail and I will tell you the utilities and the method to use. I am confident that there is a Windows utility somewhere that will do the same thing, but I tend to avoid windows like the plague so you are on your own there unless there is a windows geek reading this thread who can help you.
My son uses Windows so it is on my dual boot system but the only time that I boot into it is for the purpose of cleaning out the malicious code that inevitably and naturally accumulates while my son is using the system.
Thank God for Free Republic. I was absolutely inundated this morning with Global Warming this Global Warming that all over the morning news....it was almost unbearable, how shrill the media has got.
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.A few inches, perhaps down from five inches; and several feet must refer to the 15 to 50 feet figures. :')
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.