The following is from an article written by Greg Roberts for The Australian, April 18, 2009:
A paper to be published soon by the British
Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters
is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years,the area
of sea ice around the continent has expanded.
Roberts reports that the recent publicity about loss of ice from the Wilkins Ice Shelf, which is in western Antarctica, is misleading. Eastern Antarctica, which is much larger than western, has had an increase in ice mass over the last 10 years or more. Nevertheless, says Roberts, the Australian Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, continues to maintain that Antarctica is losing ice rapidly, and continues to make exaggerated predictions about the effect on world sea levels. Garrett is certainly aware of the findings to be pulished in Geophysical Research Letters, since the study originated in Australia. Q: Why would he say something so contrary to compelling scientific evidence? A: Peter Garrett is the Australian equivalent of Stephen L. Johnson and Christine Whitman, the current and former heads of the EPA; i.e., Garrett is a political appointee, his words are politically motivated, and therefore he is not to be trusted.
Additional evidence is easily seen in the above NASA photos of the Amery ice shelf: between 2001 and 2002 there was growth, not shrinkage of this eastern Antarctica ice. This is hardly indicative of warming.
I wish to state for the record my own scientific observation that the sea level is not rising. I have made this observation in Delray Beach, Florida, where my in-laws live. I have been visiting them from time to time over the past 15 years, and the beach is exactly the same size now as it was in the 1990s, when the Clintons were warning about warming. Rush Limbaugh, as you know, owns a compound in Palm Beach, a stone's throw from the Kennedy compound, and slightly up the coast from Delray. I will start worrying about global warming when Rush and the Kennedys build levees around their properties, and not before.
Anyway, I am in favor of global warming, because it would mean a longer golf season in New York.
Posts
6 comments:
Note how the high priests of "global warming" are shying away from that description in favor of "Climate Change". Warming is too specific, anything can be blamed just noting that there was a change of some sort. It's just a more appropriate name for the biggest scam to ever be perpetrated on man.
RKL
Formerly, I did not think it was a hoax, but just an environmental issue that had been hijacked by groups with an extreme anti-capitalist, anti-american agenda. But, it turns out, it is a hoax.
I still don't understand what's anti-american about wanting a cleaner, healthier (for people, as well as the ecosystem as a whole) planet?
I repeat the question I've asked four or five times here already: global warming (climate change - whatever) or not - why would we prefer to use a form of energy that is both politically and environmentally volatile, when there are many forms of energy that are neither?
Because the other forms of energy, with the exception of nuclear, are not ready for prime time. Because we have vast resources in this country that could free us from dependence on oil obtained from our enemies in short order. Because the agenda of the political leaders of the enviornmentalist movement has nothing to do with preserving the environment. Because CO2 is not pollution; it is required for all plant life on earth; how do you make the planet greener by reducing CO2 levels. Because there is no evidence that, on balance, things will be worse if the world is warmer. Historically, eras of high temperature and high CO2 have been times of increasing biodiversity. Because the earth has been "cold" a lot more than it has been "warm" over the past few 10s of millions of years, and human civilization only flourished during the present warm part of the cycle. Do you know that in Brazil, they power their vehicles with 90% ethanol; the ethanol comes from sugar cane; they have to cut down rain forest to grow enough sugar cane to satisfy their appetite for ethanol. They do not use much oil, but is this sound environmental policy?
no, but that's Brazil not us. You don't care about Brazil. U!S!A! U!S!A! Brazil's not the awesomest, Uhmerica is, so why compare yourself to Brazil?
And, what do you mean by "historically" when you say that "Historically, eras of high temperature and high CO2 have been times of increasing biodiversity?" Do you mean, pre humans (or don't you 'believe' in evolution either?)? Right now, with our hight CO2 levels, we do not have increased biodiversity. And, the cleaner technology would probably be more market-ready by now if it had not been forestalled for the last 8+ years.
Because the eco-fascists have target us, not Brazil.
Historically means the past few millions years or so, maybe more.
And right now, our CO2 levels are not particularly high, compared with historical precedent.
I repeat: CO2 = green
Post a Comment