Last Night's Presidential Debate Proves That Al Gore's Life Has Been In Vain
Sometimes silence can reveal more than words. And the complete silence of both candidates during last night’s (and previous nights’) presidential debate on climate change speaks volumes about just how dead the issue now is. Indeed, this is the first time in 24 years that neither candidate thought it fit to mention what Al Gore has billed the biggest threat ever to “human civilization as we know it.” That Obama didn't feel the need to devote even a lame half-a-sentence to it in the 270 minutes of free airtime he has gotten shows what a remarkable fall this defining challenge of our generation has enjoyed. Laments Evan Lehman of Environment & Energy:
This is the first time since 1988 that climate hasn't been mentioned in the presidential debate cycle, Johnson of Climate Silence said in a post that provides partial transcripts to the contests. Back then, Republican vice presidential candidate Dan Quayle said, "the greenhouse effect is an important environmental issue."...
Everybody knows it's a fraud.
It's not a fraud. The planet is warming.
ReplyDeleteHow can you call yourself a scientist and keep denying the facts?
Seems like you and the Met office have a disagreement. Work it out among yourselves.
DeleteAre you referring to the Met Office "report" David Rose used in his utterly disingenuous article where he claims that the Met office "confirmed" there's been no global warming in the last 16 years except that it hasn't done that and the Met office wants to make it clear (twice in fact) that David Rose has completely misinterpreted their report which isn't even a report at all, it's a dataset.
DeleteOh yes, that report.
I'm sorry Dr Egnor, David Rose is a hack and anybody citing him is equally shameless. The Daily Mail is also a fairly reliable vehicle for unrealistic scientific non-fact.
This is the Met's rebuttal of Rose's massive fibbery on the first occasion: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/
This is the Met's rebuttal of Rose's massive fibbery on the second occasion: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
This is the dataset: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/
First Time Caller (Calling Again)
Yes, you win; global warming will go unabated, causing incredible environmental damage and human suffering. Hope you’re happy.
ReplyDelete-KW
And someday it may exceed several hundred million dead, and equal the deaths that have already occurred from DDT hysteria and population control genocide.
DeleteBut what, cheap gas is so worth it?
Delete-KW
Michael,
Delete'And someday it may exceed several hundred million dead, and equal the deaths that have already occurred from DDT hysteria and population control genocide'.
You're partly correct. Global warming will probably, not certainly, lead to several hundred million deaths.
There was no DDT hysteria. DDT was not banned in control of malaria. It was eventually banned in agriculture because the property that made it so useful in internal treatment of habitation (its persistence), made it a major environmental danger.
The population time bomb is still in the balance. If we are lucky, global population may stabilize at 9 billion in 2050, which means we need to increase food production by 25% at least. Oceanic fisheries are already being overfished into collapse, but still provide 1 billion with their protein intake.
There might be some unexpected technological fix that will solve the problem. However, the easy solutions have already been taken. Almost all the available arable land is under cultivation. Fertilizers from fossil fuels have boosted food production, so hopefully they'll still be available at a cheap price to enable the poor to be able to buy their food. The aquifers supplying much of the irrigation water in many productive agricultural areas are dropping critically.
One of the reasons for the Arab Spring was the spike in wheat price due to the Russian drought. With the global market, we are likely to see many similar crises due to mismatch of food supply and demand. Food reserves aren't great - no more than 70 days.
You are insane, mregnor. You need help. Seriously.
Delete