FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
"Fwup Fwup Fwup...arf" (moonbat noises)
Posted on 05/02/2007 6:51:43 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
A gentleman named George Monbiot has accused the leading industrial nations of the world of condemning millions to die. Perhaps, if he were criticizing their unwillingness to take stronger military action against Islamic Fundamentalists, the gentleman would have a point. He isn’t. He instead is accusing these nations of using phony science to deny the inevitable reality of anthropogenic global warming.
Monbiot drags forth all the AGW bogeymen. The Ice Caps on Greenland will melt, just like they did in the Middle Ages, when the Vikings settled the vast island and appropriately named it Greenland. The Amazon Rain Forest would vanish. He obviously assumes that no trees would grow in other places, despite the warmer temperatures in climes that were previously inhospitable to large, canopied forest terrains.
”A paper published last year by the climatologist Malte Meinshausen suggests that if greenhouse gases reach a concentration of 550 parts per million, carbon dioxide equivalent, there is a 63-99% chance (with an average value of 82%) that global warming will exceed two degrees. At 475 parts per million (ppm) the average likelihood is 64%. Only if concentrations are stabilised at 400 parts or below is there a low chance (an average of 28%) that temperatures will rise by more than two degrees.”
So Monbiot exhorts us all to get scared; very scared. In his world of imaginary climate models, the time to act is now! Now! Now! Here is what Monbiot proposes.
”This is a cut in total emissions, not in emissions per head. If the population were to rise from 6 billion to 9 billion between now and then, we would need an 87% cut in global emissions per person. If carbon emissions are to be distributed equally, the greater cut must be made by the biggest polluters: rich nations like us. The UK's emissions per capita would need to fall by 91%.”
Of course those aren’t the only people that Monbiot seeks to condemn by fatwa to the dark ages of history, before mankind emitted CO2 by smelting brass and iron. Ronald Bailey of Reason Magazine points out some other distressing details elided by Monbiot. I won’t accuse Monbiot of lying to the people, but this is an inconvenient truth that the environmental movement doesn’t want to talk about.
”The vast majority of the increase in energy demand and emissions results from economic growth in the developing world over the next 25 years. The WEO 2004 report noted in its reference scenario that 1.6 billion people lacked access to electricity in 2002. Even more distressing is the fact that the IEA reference scenario projects that 1.4 billion people will still lack electricity by 2030. To get electricity to more than half a billion people who, under IEA's reference scenario lack electricity in 2015, will require about $200 billion of additional investment in electricity supply. Even that would still leave about a billion people without electricity. One wonders how many billions do Meinshausen and other activists want to leave without access to modern fuels?”
This, of course, will probably never come to pass. Given a choice between George Monbiot’s view of the future and that of Osama Bin Ladin, a wise man chooses Bin Ladin. At least then, you get the tools and technologies abundant in the 7th to 9th Century Middle East.
I think of this as just more red meat. He throws it out there to placate the radical environmental base that leftists like Monbiot owe their positions and continuing influence. I think of it as red meat, because if Great Britain ever fell under the slavery that would necessarily accompany any regime to cut their carbon emissions by 91% in the near future, the hearty Yorkshire yeomen would not have a large enough carbon allowance to be eating their meat pies cooked.
Damn it! That jumped right out at me.
me too
I wonder how many of the Earth First freaks auto-eroticate themselves to the rants of this a$$clown?
All we need to do is buy carbon credits and we can save the world from total destruction /sarcasm.
Yes, because legend has it that's where the term "moonbat" derived. It's been discussed on a number of other threads, and is mentioned on Monbiot's Wikipedia page:
The pejorative political epithet "Moonbat" is often used by right-wing political commentators to mock Monbiot.[10] The epithet was coined in 2002 by Perry de Havilland of Samizdata.net, a libertarian weblog. The claim that the term was originally used as a play on Monbiot's surname [11] has been denied by de Havilland - the full epithet being "barking moonbat". Seemingly, George himself does not mind.[12]
Not exactly true considering the ice caps on Greenland are estimated to be 18,000 years old. Yes, it was warmer during the Viking age, not the Middle Ages, but global cooling forced abandoment of many of these settlements in the 1300's.
It is, however, interesting that the Greenland example is used, because a relatively inexpensive engineering project would do more to contain the ice melt from Greenland than all the concocted carbon credit schemes combined.
If Greenland melted down completely, 88% of the excess water produced could be contained by flooding the uninhabited Qatarra Depression in northwest Egypt, producing thousands of miles of valuable lakefront property, generating electrical power as water flowed from the Medditerranean to the depression and potentially turning much of the surrounding Sahara Desert into arable land.
It took Greenland 18,000 years to accumulate as much ice as it has now. How long do you think it will take it to melt?
“A gentleman named George Monbiot”
Is a very troubled man. I am guessing he is in deep need of mental attention.
My head swells ever more. I will one day own the entire blogosphere. Great minds think alike, and all that...
That last statement doesn't really make that much sense. If it got warm enough it could take a few years. If humans wanted to melt it intentionally we could probably manage it in under a decade - naturally in an "environmentally responsible" manner.
We have condemned millions to death - by banning DDT, not by ignoring human-caused global warming.
Actually, Greenland froze over about 15 million years ago (which makes it even more unlikely that it will melt.)
In addition, most of the interior of Greenland is well below sea level as a consequence of all the ice depressing the land for the past 15 million years. If all the ice melted, Greenland would just be an archipelego ring of islands and there would be far less sea level rise than most fake scientists say.
Monbiot.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Is that French for Moon bat?
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
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.