2005 Hottest Year

[SkinWalker]

Actually, I found Crichton's novel to be a thinly disguised attempt at political commentary that suggests a wildly implausible plot (eco-terrorists modifying the weather to scare the public into believing there exists a non-existing threat of global warming?).

 

Crichton states at the end of the novel, "[a] novel such as State of Fear, in which so many divergent views are expressed, may lead the reader to wonder where, exactly, the author stands on these issues..."

 

I think it's clear that Crichton thinks global warming is a hoax and that the world's leading scientists are full of crap.

 

For an interesting critique of State of Fear, look at this link: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

 

A quote from the site:

 

One character suggests that "if CO2 didn't cause the global cooling between 1940 and 1970, how can you be sure it is responsible for the recent warming?" (paraphrased from p86) . Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures do appear to have cooled over that period, and that contrasts with a continuing increase in CO2, which if all else had been equal, should have led to warming. But were all things equal? Actually no. In the real world, there is both internal variability and other factors that affect climate (i.e. other than CO2). Some of those other forcings (sulphate and nitrate aerosols, land use changes, solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols, for instance) can cause cooling. Matching up the real world with what we might expect to have happened depends on including ALL of the forcings (as best as we can). Even then any discrepancy might be due to internal variability (related principally to the ocean on multi-decadal time scales). Our current 'best guess' is that the global mean changes in temperature (including the 1940-1970 cooling) are actually quite closely related to the forcings. Regional patterns of change appear to be linked more closely to internal variability (particularly the 1930's warming in the North Atlantic). However, in no case has anyone managed to show that the recent warming can be matched without the increases in CO2 (and other GHGs like CH4).

 

An interesting chart on that very site:

 

 

Cheers.

[RoxStar]

I googled and found an article from '97

 

http://www.americasfuture.net/1997/nov97/97-1123a.html

 

EDIT: Heres another one of Kyoto.

 

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoFactSheet.html

[lukeiamyourdad]

"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."

 

So much BS in a few sentences.

 

We should consume more ressources, cut down more trees, burn down the amazon forest. It should make these people happy.

 

Hey, let's give our cows more antibiotics so they can grow bigger and better so it helps the economy!

[Redwing]

Of course the article says that with a straight face. That was okay in 1997.

 

(hint hint outdated information hint hint)

[kipperthefrog]

So sombody is lying. Either the enviornmentalists is in kahootz with the scientiists to control the economy, or the corperations want to put out propaganda to keep their big buisness running.

[toms]

Originally posted by Dave Grohl

I googled and found an article from '97

 

http://www.americasfuture.net/1997/nov97/97-1123a.html

 

A politcal rand by an obviosly biased guy, from 8 years ago. Hardly the most inspiring source since Michael Crichton (who also wrote about dinosaurs coming abck and us all turning to grey goo).

 

He offers no evidence to back his views up, except that he doesn't believe the scientists.

 

 

Originally posted by Dave Grohl

EDIT: Heres another one of Kyoto.

 

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoFactSheet.html

 

In 1982, we started The National Center to provide the conservative movement with a versatile and energetic organization capable of responding quickly and decisively to fast-breaking issues. Today, we continue to fill this critical niche through a top-flight research and communications operation driven by results and the bottom line.

 

In the 1980s, The National Center helped change public opinion through vocal national campaigns aimed at supporting Reagan administration initiatives concerning the USSR, arms control, Central America and human rights. With the Cold War won, The National Center now trains its sights on other issues, including:

 

Environmental Policy: Firm in the belief that private owners are the best stewards of the environment, The National Center's John P. McGovern M.D. Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs advocates private, free market solutions to today's environmental challenges. The Task Force highlights the perverse nature of many government-first environmental policies through the collection and promotion of regulatory horror stories, which attach human faces to very real problems caused by regulation.

 

Ahh... so an unbiased organisation who promotes their agenda therough "horror stories". Riiiight....

 

Global warming is a complex issue that we don't entirely understand, affected by both the world's natural cycles, man made effects and natural ones.

 

But the evidence is clear (even more so than in 97) that it is happening. Even if man made polution only causes say 20% of the effect, deos that mean we shouldn't try and cut down that 20%?

 

Even Bush's scientific advisors have now come around to the fact that global warming is a real issue (having initially denied it even existed).

 

The other main argument that the US seems to use is that the bill doesn't apply to developing countries. *whine*If HE doesn't have to do it, why should I???*whine*

 

So what? Obviously people would like them to control their emissions too, but they tend to have even more pressing issues (such as food and vaccinations), so just because we don't want to burden them yet is no reason not to do it ourselves. And we will hardly be able to lecture them in the future if we don't set a good example now.

 

All the other countries have signed up to do their bit, even though the US produces more emissions than most (all?) of them combined. They haven't all said "we can't make much of a difference on our own, so we won't even try". Have they?

 

They have also decided that the risks to jobs and the economy are either worth the benefits (or more likely totally negligible). I guess time will tell if they are correct.

 

----------

 

I could understand not focusing money and resources on kyoto targets IF, and only if, you were focussing those resources on aiding developing countries (so their economies would be better placed to combat/withstand global warming) or creating improved technologies to help on the issue.

 

Not focusing on the issue in order to increase us company profit margins, or give tax breaks, or to avoid US motorists paying $5 more on a tank of gas is arrogant, blinkered and reckless.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Not to mention the billions of money spent on agricultural exportation in north-western countries as means of protectionism and that slaughters the local economy of smaller nations.

 

In Congo, a belgian chicken costs less then one who has been produced by a local merchant.

 

But let's get back on topic.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

So sombody is lying. Either the enviornmentalists is in kahootz with the scientiists to control the economy, or the corperations want to put out propaganda to keep their big buisness running.

Sadly I'd say it's a mix of both. Both sides have done some wrong doings.