Twitter icon  Facebook icon

 

I am an environmentalist. I recycle. I mulch and compost where I can. I grow vegetables. I plant trees. I also categorically reject the scare tactics and faulty science by the "High Priest" of global warming, Al Gore.

I started this section after my kid brought home a note from his gifted teacher informing us that his class would be watching the dubious documentary, An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore. I opted out for my son and at home we gave him both sides of the debate for him to look at and also offered the same materials to his teacher to share with the rest of the class.  The teacher declined to provide opposing material to the class. "The science is settled" she said.

Herein I attempt to provide some counter information in a reasonable manner for all to review but especially teachers who have bought into the global warming hysteria and think that Al Gore's so called documentary is worthy educational material. Educators, do you dare present rational opposing information or will you only present one side? Is that any way to teach? Show me you're better than that. Show your students both sides.

One of my core principles is... "Do the right things ... for the right reason." There are very good reasons for recycling, planting trees, carpooling, public transporation, etc. Al Gore screaming that the sky is falling is NOT a good reason. Being good moral stewards of our planet is a good reason. We all can agree on so much, let's not be scared into doing what needs to be done but rather do it becaues it makes sense.

 

Some interesting reading material  on "Global Warming" and related topics

global warming cartoon

The Australian (news site) has an interesting interview on global warming that counters some of the global warming hysteria.  I've snipped some of the content to archive here and linked to the original source.

It has delicious comments like this ...

With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion.

Partial edits 

My favorite part was near the end ... 

"Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)"

 

Another snippet ...

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

 

Source story link in The Australian - by Christopher Pearson