No, really. Seriously
Al Gore bad for your mental health? Think about it.
The message of environmental destruction being delivered by Gore – and a host of others in recent months – is proving too much to handle for some who feel helpless controlling the forces of nature.
Tears. Sleepless nights. Rage. They're all part of a thought-provoking anxiety over the environment that's being likened to the feeling many had a half-century ago when nuclear war appeared imminent.
"Sometimes I do cry and I don't think I'm the only one," said Jenny Greenop, 23, an environmental studies and biology major at the University of Toronto, when asked about her views on the state of the planet.
Reminds me of the days and weeks after the 2004 elections. Gotta be liberals. Of course, everything gives them anxiety, rage, tears, crying jags, and helpless feelings. Then they create a petition
However, it is one thing for grown adults to freak each other out over their inability to change the natural forces of the Earth and Sun, it is quite another when they do it to children
HALF of children between the ages of seven and 11 are anxious about the effects of global warming and often lose sleep over it, according to a new report.
A survey of 1,150 youngsters found that one in four blamed politicians for the problems of climate change, while one in seven said their own parents were not doing enough to improve the environment.
Great, simply great. As if kids don't have enough to worry about from reality, now global warming hysterics are messing with childrens heads enought to give them major anxiety and sleepless nights. Way to go, global warming as caused by man nutballs!
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Right on the Right, Maggie's Notebook, Big Dog's Weblog, basil's blog, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, Sujet- Celebrities, Pet's Garden Blog, Rightlinx, The Right Nation, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Teach, this is from the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – Summary for Policymakers, February 2007:
“Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.â€
There were over 2,500 scientific expert reviewers, 800 contributing authors, 450 lead authors from 130 countries using data collected over the past six years:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Liberals – in general and specifically – are bad for everyone’s health!
Silke, I have read, and analyzed, the entire thing, through 3-4 posts. The problem is, it is a political document, light on science. Science is specific, not “likely” and “very likely.” Newton did not say that gravity is likely or very likely to make an apple fall.
There are major contradictions in what was written, as well as whether man is at fault. But, it has a political agenda. It fails to really mention the influences of the Sun and natural forces on the global climate. It fails to mention influences like the urban heat effect, which causes micro-climatic changes. It fails to mention Antarctica getting colder. It even fails to mention who it has been getting warmer since the late 1700’s, despite no cars, no SUV’s, no trains, no planes, no coal energy plants.
All said and done, Man does have an influence, but, it is mostly in small areas. Why have the temps barely changed on the outskirts of cities like NYC and Atlanta, while the cities have gone way up? Things change. The environment changes. And climate changes.
Show me real, hard, scientific facts, without using the same computer models that cannot even predict with accuracy where a hurricane is going two days out, or the weather 10 days out, and I’ll believe it. Till then, I will treat global warming for what it is: a big money business.
“Science” as agitprop. Great.
One can understand why clericists in old Europe used to stage violent revolts over state-run school systems. It isn’t just because the “right” to public education often lead to decreases in literacy (Portugal went form 90% literate to less than 50% in 20 years when the progressives took Rome out of the education business). It’s also because progressives replace the God shaped hole in their lives with poorly understood “science”, phremology, loopy nurition fads and bad pscyhology beign examples that leap to mind. Most people just aren’t critical or smart enough to be good scientists, and that’s especially true of the fools who try to use science to explain phenomona outside it’s purview.
It is ironic in the extreme that most crystal and magnet healing types are agnostics or atheists, while students of the hard sciences and engineering or economics tend to be far more religiously orthodox than their colleagues in the humanities and soft social sciences. To quote Inigo Montoya, when it comes to humanities majors and science “I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Teach said: The problem is, it is a political document, light on science.
Yes, it is meant to be. That’s why the title says “Summary for Policymakers.†The actual report is divided into three separate volumes and is scheduled to be released at different times.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Teach said: Science is specific, not “likely†and “very likely.â€
You must have missed the footnote where it states:
“In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgment, of an outcome or a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely > 95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Unlikely
Teach said: It fails to really mention the influences of the Sun and natural forces on the global climate.
I guess you missed this part too…
“…Since the Third Assessment Report, new observations and related modeling of greenhouse gases, solar activity, land surface properties and some aspects of aerosols have led to improvements in the quantitative estimates of radiative forcing.â€
Teach said: It fails to mention Antarctica getting colder. It even fails to mention who it has been getting warmer since the late 1700’s, despite no cars, no SUV’s, no trains, no planes, no coal energy plants.
What is your source for this information?
Teach said: Show me real, hard, scientific facts, without using the same computer models that cannot even predict with accuracy where a hurricane is going two days out, or the weather 10 days out, and I’ll believe it.
Climate and weather are really very different things and the level of predictability is comparably different. It’s like the difference between trying to predict the height of the fifth wave from now that will come splashing up the beach versus predicting the height of tomorrow’s high tide. I’m not saying it’s easy to predict climate changes, but clearly your analogy doesn’t work.
Here is the thing, Silke: people are saying that global warming as caused solely by Mankind is a fact. It is not encumbant on me to provide proof to refute it, much like with Evolution. It is the up to those who believe in global warming as caused solely by Mankind to provide the proof. That is the way science works.
CO2 barely makes a dent in the amount of gasses in the atmosphere. If we were talking about the massive release of methane by Man, I would be less skeptical. We aren’t. How do you reconcile that many, many locations are not only showing a minimal change upward in their temps, but some are actually going down? Why is it that the places that one would expect to be warmer only used? How can we say that the glaciers are in full retreat when only a small amount have been measured? Why is Al Gore saying that global warming is killing the polar bears, when his whole hypothesis is based on 4 bears who died, according to the experts, from a storm?
The report is political, not science. There are tons of experts out there who state, with science, that global warming is not being caused by Man.
Not too be nasty, but, if you do not understand that gas burning vehicles were not around in the 1700’s, then you have no business discussing the subject. Check this post (http://www.thepiratescove.us/?p=3435) second excerpt.
Again, it is not up to me to refute a scientific hypothesis; it is up to those who believe in it to provide proof that it is real. So far, the proof is only cherry picked and hysterical “facts”
Teach,
No one supporting the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming claims that CO2 is the only factor in the ocean-atmosphere climate system. It is complex, responsive on many different timescales, and subject to numerous forcings. AGW only claims that CO2 is the primary driver of the current warming trend as seen over the last 100 years.
I have cited quotes from a scientific (peer reviewed) study to support my argument. If we are going to discuss this issue rationally I think it’s only fair that you do the same for your arguments. Can you please cite your source for the facts you are providing?
Teach said: Not too be nasty, but, if you do not understand that gas burning vehicles were not around in the 1700’s, then you have no business discussing the subject. Check this post
Not to be nasty, but if you don’t understand that carbon dioxide also comes from burning coal (which was definitely around in the 1700’s) then you have no business discussing this subject.