Friday, January 26, 2007
Mr. Gore is traveling around the world to tell us how we (he, too?) must change our civilization b/c of global warming. He was in Denmark last week. The main Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, requested and got confirmed that Mr. Gore would have an interview with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist". The interview had been scheduled for months. Guess who was a "no show"? Not only did Mr. Gore try to change the terms of the interview 24 hours before the meeting was to occur, he backed out totally at the last minute. Wonder why?
Mr. Lomborg took his share of criticism for his book - criticism that was never proved. However, he has been critical of Mr. Gore's claims and can substantiate his views. Does Mr. Gore dislike it when someone disagrees with him and his agenda? We don't know but there is substantial accurate information that contradicts Mr. Gore's mantra:
1 - The U.N. CLimate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore's path, the average person will be left 30% poorer. (Note, this is a UN study - that organization the left loves to quote - except when it doesn't agree with them.)
2 - Mr. Gore's movie sites a 20' rise in sea level, the same U.N. panel expects only a 1' rise by 2100, the same as the last 150 years. Why exaggerate by a factor of 20? (Might there be an agenda?)
3 - He cites Nairobi as experiencing an increase in malaria - problem with this is that WHO (World Health Organization) has stated that Nairobi is free of malaria.
4 - He tells us that Antarctica is warming - well, 2% of Antarctica is warming but 98% is cooling and getting thicker. Guess he didn't want to take his cameras to the other side of the continent.
5 - Sea ice is decreasing in the Northern Hemisphere but increasing in the Southern Hemisphere.
There are numerous other problems with the global warming fear proponents. But there are also related economic and education problems.
Economically, to implement Mr. Gore's plan, would cost $553,000,000,000,000 (that is $553 trillion) over the next century. Do we really want to spend this kind of money and saddle our kids with this debt and a lower, less healthy standard of living for a problem that will happen (thanks to the sun) no matter what we do? Maybe we should spend the money on something constructive vs. destructive.
Educationally - just why do we continue to tell our youth only the facts we want them to know versus all the facts? Are they that slow? No - but they are impressionable and feeding them data that is at best half-true is a detriment to all societies on the planet.
Today, there is no doubt the planet is warming yet in the 1970's we were told we were entering another ice age. What is it? "Climate" is weather over a long period of time - not just the last N years - take your pick, whatever fits your agenda.
It's time to learn the facts, all the facts. Humans have adapted for thousands of years - we will again. It will be much easier if we tell people the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth.