$3 billion, wasted
Posted by Michael.
I have no idea what Sir Richard Branson is thinking, throwing three billion dollars (over ten years) at a problem that doesn’t exist. Honestly.
as part of President Clinton’s Global Initiative – geared towards solving world problems by soliciting donations and effort from corporate leaders – Branson has pledged the $$$ to work against global warming. Why not spend it on something worthwhile, like blowing up abortion clinics or sniping at those who don’t support the bloody conversion of the world to the One True Religion of Money Jesus Christ?
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:41 pm Using
Okay, sorry for that folks if I was a little over the top. But global warming denial really pisses me off.
This morning, CNBC peeps had the Cali AG Bill Lockyer on to discuss his lawsuit against the big six automakers for their contribution to greenhouse gasses, which is cool – but then they just spent the whole time making fun of him and baiting him. grr.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:34 pm Using
must admit that i had to read that one twice yesterday….. seems my sarcasm-dar is a little off. did get your message eventually but after much confusion on my part. god damn habitually skim reading everything.
September 23rd, 2006 at 3:14 am Using
i dunno. i’m not entirely convinced we’re in mortal peril from global warming. i think we should fight the pollution for the sake of fighting the pollution instead of using global warming to scare everyone. we simply don’t know enough about the climate, or the greenhouse gases, or the solar cycle, to really make any good predictions.
i went to a talk at bucknell the other week by richard lindzen (google him, i don’t know how to make links in comments, and it’ll just get stuck in moderation anyway.), basically trying to refute “An Inconvenient Truth”, which i still haven’t managed to see but want to. he made a few good points, but also some bad ones.
the GOOD:
1) global average temperature (GAT, for ease) can fluctuate from one year to the next by far more than we have supposedly warmed
**2) the CO2 vs GAT plot that al gore loves to show, showing higher amounts of CO2 during times of higher GAT, actually shows the rise and fall of CO2 LAGGING the rise/fall of GAT (this is what really hit me in the talk).
3) the models are biased. they have fudge factors in them, for processes we don’t quite understand, that allow the modelers to “produce” results with the models to match current observations, to “prove” the models are accurate. i call them fudge factors because, if i recall right, they set the fudge factors merely to reproduce current observations, not basing the factors on any real scientific information. for example, nobody really understands how aerosols impact global temperature. not even whether it would impact negatively (i.e. lower temp) or positively (raise temp). but they’re in the models. does setting the variable in the model to whatever reproduces the right current observations qualify as being “scientifically accurate”?
the BAD:
1) he claims there is no warming trend in the data, because the signal is too small. now, unless statistical analysis is completely contrary to my gut feeling (which for all i know it is), it sure as hell LOOKS like there’s a slight warming trend, even accounting for the error bars on the data. but the low end of the error range would be only half as large a jump in GAT since the trend began.
2) he said that the ice sheets in greenland, while a lot of ice is falling off at the coast, are getting thicker in the middle, so the loss from the coast is counterbalanced by the gain in the middle of the continent. this is interesting, because i’ve seen that the sea ice in the arctic is not only shrinking in area every year for like the last 10 or 20 years (i forget exactly), it’s also getting thinner.
September 23rd, 2006 at 3:30 am Using
oh, a few points he made that i forgot: some greenhouse gases (i think he specifically said CO2, but i’m not certain) do not have a linear relation to rise in temperature. given current levels of CO2, and predicted levels in the future, we should already be experiencing 3/4s the impact those predicted levels would have. also, in the Q&A, someone brought up antarctic sea ice. if i followed the exchange right, the land ice is disappearing, but the sea ice is growing. i need to look for some sources on that, because i would expect it to be more difficult to create sea ice (water being harder to warm and cool than land) than land ice. unless it’s more dependent on there being proper weather patterns to put moisture over the land to fall to the ground.
SUMMARY: i think we need to do something about our pollution levels. there are plenty of reasons beyond global warming to do so. currently we ARE warming, so perhaps clearing up some of the pollution will help in the short term, since we ARE losing sea ice, and i want the polar bears to live. but the wild predictions for the years ahead should be taken with a shaker of salt. for some reason, though, it seems you’re either in the “global warming isn’t happening so let’s throw all the pollution into the air that we want to”camp, or the “if you don’t believe wholeheartedly in global warming, you’re an idiot/republican/non-human” camp. and i’m in neither.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:35 pm Using
the link for the antarctic sea ice story, dated august 2002:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html