September 21, 2007
Global Warming Update (XXXVII)

"Seattle launches campaign to educate public about global warming"

Seattle is launching a public awareness campaign to educate individuals on how to reduce greenhouse emissions and slow global warming, Mayor Greg Nickels said this morning.
Some of the suggestions are sensible measures to conserve energy and save money regardless of one's beliefs about global warming. But this smacks of hypocrisy:
The city also suggests ... commuting to work without a car and going car-free for a week or more.
Be sure to let me know when Mayor Nickels gives up his 100-mile-a-day chauffeured limousine for a week and I'll give him due credit.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 21, 2007 11:57 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Seattle would be nearly free of all co2 emissions if all socialists who live and work there hold their breath for ten minutes.

Posted by: Allan Rothlisberg on September 21, 2007 01:25 PM
2. hi

Posted by: lynz on September 21, 2007 01:34 PM
3. hi

Posted by: lynz on September 21, 2007 01:34 PM
4. Patterson is right.

Last week alone, 1.3 million Washingtonians in service sector jobs failed to show up for work at all, because there is no light rail to get them there. Another 800,000 had to hitchhike to work. Dozens were killed and hundreds badly burned in attempts to human-cannonball themselves to their job sites, because there is no light rail. A massive traffic backup was caused on I-5 last Tuesday by hundreds of fast food workers commuting to work via the two-man ankle roll (the poor man's alternative to rollerblades). This is a crisis! Scientists have proven that if we don't have light rail in Puget Sound by 2009, the mean surface temperature of the Earth will rise by 16 degrees Celsius, and we will all die of heat exhaustion, the affluent doing so while stuck in traffic, and the poor doing so while hauling more gasoline in jerry cans to build yet more powerful human cannons to try to get to work.

Posted by: TB on September 21, 2007 01:43 PM
5. Doh! Wrong post! Sorry about that!

Posted by: TB on September 21, 2007 01:45 PM
6. In other words, sacrifice your own convenience based on vague unsettled science.

Fore those people in Seattle who really do need an automobile for transportation (most), yet are dumb enough to create a lot of inconvenience for themselves by following these recommendations, PT Barnum salutes you proudly.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 21, 2007 11:03 PM
7. When talking about global warming, there are a few questions that must be dealt with.

First, is climate warming? The answer, though not definitive yet, is probably yes. The Earth is a dynamic system, which means it is constantly in flux. Average temperatures are continually moving up or down. Equilibrium would mean that the system was dead. In spite of what Al Gore says, there never has been a time of equilibrium in the system, and that's a good thing.

Second, if temps are going up, what is the cause? Is it Man's contribution of greenhouse gases? Conventional wisdom (as portrayed in most of the media, anyway) says 'yes'. But the truth is that that is a hypothesis, not even a full-fledged theory yet, and certainly not an established scientific fact. Let me explain:

Obviously we can't put the Earth into a laboratory and experiment on it. Experiments must be done on climate models. Scientists formulate a hypothesis, plug their assumptions into the model, and then see if the model can predict reality.

Even the best climate models don't predict reality very well. Heck, the Old Farmer's Almanac does a better job of predicting weather patterns and climate trends.

So what's going on? Is it worse than even the scientists have predicted?

That's one explanation offered by the manmade global warming enthusiasts, but a simpler, scientific, and less hysterical explanation is simply that one or more of the assumptions programmed into the model are incorrect. That just means the hypothesis is flawed. It does not prove or disprove the scientists opinions. Garbage in, garbage out, as the saying goes.

So how do we get from a flawed hypothesis to a sound scientific theory? The short answer is: we don't. The hysteria is due to politics and propaganda.

How do we get from politics and propaganda to an established scientific fact? Again, we don't, obviously. What we get is more politics and perhaps public policy.

Why? In two words: money and power.

More taxes. Higher prices on energy. Control of energy sources. Sales of books, 'carbon offsets', and myriad 'green' merchandise.

Does it bother the True Believer that Al Gore has 200 million dollars in the bank from selling carbon offsets? That his prediction of a 10-foot rise in sea level is echoed by not one scientist anywhere? No, of course not. Some people want to be scared.

Does it bother the True Believer that the grandfather of global warming politics is a man named Maurice Strong, a big UN muckety-muck who happens to be a eugenicist and de-populationist? No, of course not. Those same people craving catastrophe probably don't understand the implications of those words.

But politics and global evil aside, should we be concerned about climate change? The answer to that is an unqualified 'maybe'. So wouldn't it be nice to just let the scientists work without all the propaganda and hysteria?

Despite the claims of 'consensus', the science is very, very far from being settled. Do you realize there are still scientists studying gravity? And you thought that had been 'settled' long ago, didn't you?

Bottom line: Don't let anybody take your money or freedom based on a hypothesis. And real science is not done by a show of hands. Recognize the the doomsayers, propagandists, and slanted journalists for who they are and get on with life.

But don't necessarily abandon your 'green' practices. They'll save you money in the long run and conservation is always a good thing.

Posted by: Ron on September 22, 2007 09:39 AM
8. Hm. They want to educate the public on how to reduce global warming, when the IPCC says there's as much as a 33% liklihood that man isn't causing any significant global warming to begin with.

More evidence that "education" in Seattle is crumbling.

Posted by: pudge on September 22, 2007 10:36 AM
9. Science is shaped to fit the political agenda by Seattle Schools. Once that happens it becomes junk science.

The State of Fear by Michael Crichton accurately depicts this scenario - once again, it is follow the money. This is to the detriment of children who will be indoctrinated instead of educated.

Posted by: KS on September 22, 2007 08:40 PM
10. Here's an inconvenient truth for you True Believers:

Rapeseed biofuel 'produces more greenhouse gas than oil or petrol'

Posted by: Obi-Wan on September 23, 2007 01:06 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?