I sure do. Just to make sure I wasn't hallucinating I did this thing called googling to make sure that was the case.
I found this from 9/1/05 from The Nation.................
But he neglected to raise these specifics or to question Barbour about his previous work as a corporate lobbyist who, on behalf of his well-paying clients, fought fiercely against the Kyoto accords. (Recent scientific research suggests that global warming has led to more destructive hurricanes.)
or this from the 8/29/05 Time.............
So is global warming making the problem worse? Superficially, the numbers say yes—or at least they seem to if you live in the U.S. From 1995 to 1999, a record 33 hurricanes struck the Atlantic basin, and that doesn�t include 1992�s horrific Hurricane Andrew, which clawed its way across south Florida in 1992, causing $27 billion dollars worth of damage. More-frequent hurricanes are part of most global warming models, and as mean temperatures rise worldwide, it�s hard not to make a connection between the two. But hurricane-scale storms occur all over the world, and in some places—including the North Indian ocean and the region near Australia—the number has actually fallen. Even in the U.S., the period from 1991 to 1994 was a time of record hurricane quietude, with the dramatic exception of Andrew.
So according to these Branch Gorevidians, global warming causes more hurricanes. Then how do they explain this.......
The North Atlantic hurricane season has not produced a storm in over 3-weeks and, if no more develop, the season overall would rank as the slowest since the El Nino year of 1997. Hurricanes Bill and Fred accounted for over 82% of the Accumulated Cyclone Energy [ACE**] -- a metric that combines intensity, duration, and frequency of hurricanes and tropical storms during a year. The remaining storms were weak, rather short-lived and unremarkable. Indeed, the Accumulated Cyclone Energy [ACE] of 44 ranks among the slowest during the past half-century. Elsewhere, the Northern Hemisphere and Global ACE when calculated either with 12- or 24-month running sums, remains just above historical 30-year lows.So what is it?
4 comments:
I tend to look at the global warming movement from a policy perspective...
If I were a socialist bureaucrat, with my economic theories being disproven by the economic failure of communism demonstrated in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Cuba, North Korea, etc. where would I run? What would be the next latest and greatest social experiment where my policy could be applied and result in higher taxes and social control? This time, the underlying theory, such as the greenhouse effect, unlike the communist economic experiment, would take centuries to fully prove or disprove; long after my life as a beaurocrat was over. Another plus to the global warming theory is that it is global in nature, lending itself to be a problem best solved by a "world government". The effort would be backed up by research at those universities around the world that shared my socialist agenda.
Basically what I'm saying is that even if if fossil fuels have absolute zero effect on the earth's ecosystem, the socialist tendencies of liberals and universities would drift to a global warming theory, or someting like it, to fill the void left by the collapse of socialist/communist policies. There are very many similarities between communism and carbon rationing policy.
There always needs to be a vessel for these beliefs. Today it's global warming.
In the run up to the Copenhagen climate change conference, it is vital the following information be disseminated to the public as well as to our political leaders.
A widely cited 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Livestock's Long Shadow, estimates that 18 percent of annual worldwide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are attributable to livestock….however recent analysis by Goodland and Anhang co-authors of "Livestock and Climate Change" in the latest issue of World Watch magazine found that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions!
http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf
The main sources of GHGs from animal agriculture are: (1) Deforestation of the rainforests to grow feed for livestock. (2) Methane from manure waste. – Methane is 72 times more potent as a global warming gas than CO2 (3) Refrigeration and transport of meat around the world. (4) Raising, processing and slaughtering of the animal.
Meat production also uses a massive amount of water and other resources which would be better used to feed the world’s hungry and provide water to those in need.
Based on their research, Goodland and Anhang conclude that replacing livestock products with soy-based and other alternatives would be the best strategy for reversing climate change. They say "This approach would have far more rapid effects on GHG emissions and their atmospheric concentrations-and thus on the rate the climate is warming-than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy."
Like it or not, fossil fuels are directly or indirectly responsible for the functioning of all the important institutions in the world. Agricurture, transportation, electicity (i.e. the internet), business.
This makes it the perfect target for neo-communists like the ones in charge of our congress, presidency, UN. Anything they don't like they can attack indirectly through global warming policy.
Like the the previous guy. A vegetarian. Take out the meat industry by blaming it for global warming. Don't like the auto industry? Global warming. Power industry? Global warming. Heating oil? Global warming. (Oh but keep food, heat and shelter cheap for poor people. So tax everyone for carbon use and tax for poverty subsidies that will be needed to help people pay the higher prices.)
Hey, federal and local governments of the U.S. consume 1/3 of GDP. The government is the biggest producer of fossile fuel emmissions (government vehicles, office electricity, etc.). Bigger than a bunch of cattle. Yet, we never hear the government offer to reduce it's consumption. See Gordon's posts on California.
That's because the real end game is not a cool planet. The real end game is for more poor people and bigger government for them to be dependent upon.
The left is a compassionate philosophy???? MY ASS!!!
Anonymous #2
As a typical liberal, you manage to answer a question that wasn't even posed.
Post a Comment