This is what the AGW scare-mongering has wrought
Last year, an anxious, depressed 17-year-old boy was admitted to the psychiatric unit at the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne. He was refusing to drink water. Worried about drought related to climate change, the young man was convinced that if he drank, millions of people would die. The Australian doctors wrote the case up as the first known instance of “climate change delusion.”
Robert Salo, the psychiatrist who runs the inpatient unit where the boy was treated, has now seen several more patients with psychosis or anxiety disorders focused on climate change, as well as children who are having nightmares about global-warming-related natural disasters.
Good job, Climate Changers! You bought this through your creating a climate of fear, now you own it.
Meanwhile, an “emergency trip” for Believers
Scientists are to hold an emergency summit to warn the world’s politicians they are being too timid in their response to global warming.
Climate experts from across the world will gather in Copenhagen next month to agree a stark message to policy makers, which they hope will break the political deadlock on efforts to curb rising temperatures. The meeting follows “disturbing” studies that suggest global warming could strike harder and faster than expected.
First, won’t all those airplane trips put massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, the very thing they claim is killing Mother Earth? Second, if it is simply to agree on something they all agree with, couldn’t they do it with a web meeting, and save massive amounts of energy? Or, do they just want a trip to lovely Copenhagen?
The meeting will publish an update to the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Richardson said the IPCC report was “wishy-washy” on issues such as sea level rise. “The IPCC talks of a 40cm sea rise this century. Well, if the consensus now is a rise of a metre or more then they need to know that.”
Consensus is not science. It is just more scare-mongering. Refer back to the first article.
over 100 dead in Australia from fires resulting from the worst heat/drought ever recorded. But some see no climate change
No Teach the individuals traveling on those planes will be responsible for less than 1% of the emissions that the plane produces. Typically large jets have a fuel effiency of about 100 mpg per passenger
I see the United Nation’s IPCC groupies – all 2,500 – like to speak for global warming myths, yet over over 17,000 scientists agree with the Oregon Institute of Science that man does not cause global warming! Too bad Goreons….
Um, John, might want to recheck that. They are saying the fires are a result of an arsonist. And, again, remember, my argument is about AGW, not that the climate has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age.
As for the planes, they still put out lots of CO2. Or, are you saying do as I say not as I do is OK?
Teach said:…my argument is about AGW, not that the climate has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age.
But according to you global warming stopped in 1998. Of course by that definition global warming has stopped several times since the Little Ice Age (and then started again). So which is it, Teach?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
You misunderstand, Silke. Just because the temps have been flat or going slightly down, doesn’t mean that we are not still in a period of warmer temps, nor that they could go up some more. It is going to depend mostly on natural processes, primarily the Sun. During the Little Ice Age, there were years were it was very hot. Consider the summer of the Battle of Monmouth, where more soldiers died of heat stroke then war wounds. I wouldn’t be surprised if the temps reverse, and go up a degree or two, sometime in the next hundred years or so. That seems to be the pattern.
But the current flat line period shows that, despite Man continuing to put out CO2 and methane, nature does what nature wants.
Teach said: It is going to depend mostly on natural processes, primarily the Sun.
What is your evidence that the Sun’s output has increased substantially enough to account for the current warming trend? The IPCC covers this in their Fourth Assessment Report. The fact is the sun’s output has not changed significantly in the last 30 years. However, CO2 output from the burning of fossil fuels (and the change in land use) has changed significantly. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was relatively constant from AD 800 until the late 1800s, at a level of 280 parts per million. In the last century it has shot up to 380 parts per million – an increase of 36%.
But the current flat line period shows that, despite Man continuing to put out CO2 and methane, nature does what nature wants.
Nobody who accepts the evidence for AGW disputes that nature affects the climate. For example we had an unusually warm year in 1998 due to an unprecedented el Niño not because the Sun increased it’s output substantially that year. For all your arguments about natural processes primarily driving global warming you don’t even seem to understand that very well.