Monday, April 30, 2007

Gore's guru, Dr. Roger Revelle, disagreed with alarmism

The Financial Post, a Canadian newspaper, shows much more evidence that Al Gore's mentor, Dr. Roger Revelle, thought that the significance of the greenhouse effect was unproven and existing knowledge didn't justify any "action".



The evidence includes not only his widely discussed paper with Singer and Starr but also earlier letter to lawmakers and others.

Unfortunately, his student was a pretty lousy student. Even more unfortunately, lousy students are those who have much influence in this sometimes lousy world.

Meanwhile, another student who is a staunch AGW believer and became an official member of "Al Gore's cavalry", which is the official name of the greenshirts, is surprised that her classmates think that she's nuts. Most of her generation doesn't find global warming that terrifying, she says. Thanks God.

Similar nutcases as Claire who have made it into the European Parliament want to outlaw burping, so far only for cows. Poor cows. For 50 million years, they thought that they were free to burp. Suddenly, everything can change. ;-) According to the U.N., farm animals create 18% of the greenhouse effect, more than 14% created by transportation. And because the greenhouse effect became politically incorrect, poor cows must change their diet and recycle their manure.




There is only one thing we can say about this lunacy: "Boo!"

The New York Times asks:
and explains that the environmentalist gestures have no positive effect on the environment. They quote the president of an environment grant-making group that the whole indulgence game needs a new Martin Luther.

Well, I am afraid that it probably needs a new Winston Churchill instead - but even Luther would be progress. It is somewhat but not quite unexpected to find relief in the New York Times at the same time when we can't rely on sanity of the White House and many companies in these issues anymore.

In the Financial Times, Lawrence Summers correctly argues that the carbon policies won't lead to any good results if they don't include the developing world where most of the growth will occur. However, the hard-to-swallow conclusion is that the developing world should really be choked, and most of the article is dedicated to technicalities how to choke it. As I see it, the text is written with the assumption that the global warming believers own the world and the only question for them is how to figure out the details of the policies to control everyone on this world and everyone's carbon cycles.

I just can't believe that some of the analogous attitudes were still insufficiently left-wing for many people at Harvard. I consider these particular comments extremely left-wing. The Western politicians or professors don't own the world or the developing countries and don't have any right to dictate someone how much carbon dioxide he should be emitting. They wouldn't have this right even if their theories looked convincing - and they don't.

Well, I happen to think that if someone really plans to do these nasty things to the third world - things based on the assumption that the absurd "fight against climate change" is as important as their future -, they will eventually understand what is the goal and they may try to protect themselves, and guess whether I would be too sad if they assassinated a couple of promoters of the carbon regulation who want to prevent them from developing.

And if I am gonna make any medium-term prediction, I don't believe that China and India will accept any significant mandatory cuts of CO2 emissions. China is already becoming the leading country to oppose this lunacy.

Update, May 1st:

My prediction about China turned out to be precious. The position of the country that will become the #1 CO2 emitter this year has intensified.

Reuters reported that according to the Global Times - daily that, because of idiosyncratic Chinese societal arrangements, represents the opinion of 1.2 billion people - Western politicians are using climate terrorism to put the Chinese growth at risk, and China will oppose it.

Of course that any ban or restriction will just move the corresponding industry to China that will benefit. I wonder whether algores want to do something about it. Do they want to threaten China with nukes, to accept their megalomanic Kyoto-like plans? China has nukes, too. Moreover, China has a fifth column in the West. I dislike communists but if this clash became serious, I would, for example, instantly promote the pro-market Chinese communists to the status of fellow fighters for freedom! ;-)

Algores' insane plans to control the carbon cycle in the whole world will surely lead to some escalation of tension and emotions and these algores may soon find themselves in the same situation as the German chancellor in the late 1930s. Let's hope that fewer human lives will be wasted before they're stopped than what happened 65 years ago.

No comments:

Post a Comment