« What's old is new |
Blog Home Page
| Rwanadans want an apology from France »
March 21, 2007
Albert in Wonderland (updated)
Mr. Gore went back to Washington today to retell his fantasy that the debate on the science of climate change is over. In spite of virtually daily news to the contrary, the eco-obsessed former Veep just testified before House panels that the consensus is more unanimous than on anything other than, perhaps, gravity. As expected, he then proposed costly, unproven solutions like pollution taxes, immediately frozen CO2 emission levels and unworkable cap and trade scams which have failed miserably in Europe.
Gore remained stubbornly resolute when Energy Committee ranking member Joe Barton (R-TX) cited numerous reports suggesting that the CO2 / Climate relationship may be the exact opposite of that currently touted by eco-maniacs. The eco-crusader reaffirmed that placement of each in their cause-and-effect relationship was beyond any scientific debate.
These words, spouted from the hypocrite recently exposed for using 12 times the average amount of energy in his own home, are, of course, nonsense.
As recently reported on the Channel 4 program The Great Climate Change Swindle, fossil records have shown that warmer oceans have produced more atmospheric CO2, not the other way around.
One contributor to that program, Professor Philip Stott, addressed the subject when speaking at the annual Tenant Farmer's Association meeting last week. According to the Farmer's Guardian, the professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London ridiculed:
Stott went on to chide those obsessed with reducing farmers' carbon footprint while shifting focus and funds away from more practical areas, such as food production and mitigating the impact of climate change. This is crucial, as there is little debate that climate shifts will impose many real challenges upon agriculture; yet opportunists such as Gore continue to focus on the more politically expedient blame-game in order to further their lefty causes.
Reminding us that this is "big-picture" problem, the professor then exposed the obvious flaw in putting all of our carbon-credits in one government controlled basket:
And, fittingly, concluded:
Next: On to the Senate -- where Wonderland's Albert, who now claims that "Earth has a fever," is likely to find more than one simpatico Mad Hatter.
Well, not only did Albert find an abundance of Mad Hatters when he squeezed though the Senate rabbit hole, but also two Queens of Hearts, both named Barbara. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) began by singing a syrupy and foolish love ballad to all that is Al. Then, Barbara Boxer (D-CA) opened her remarks from the chair by echoing the claim Gore made this morning that Global Warming is one of the most important challenges facing humankind (Gore actually equated it to the spread of communism and fascism).
As with this morning's exercise in cult-speak, there was considerably too much bravo sierra to address, so, again, I'll focus on one con.
Gore "proved" the CO2 - Climate link by pointing out that the temperature of Venus was higher than that of Mercury, even though Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun. He blamed this completely on the high concentrations of CO2 in the Venusian atmosphere.
But this is as misleading as its science is unsettled.
True, the mean surface temperature of Mercury is 166.86 degrees Celsius (with swings of up to 600 degrees C) while Venus maintains a steadier average of 456.85 degrees on the same scale. And, Venus's atmosphere is, indeed, comprised 96% of CO2 while Mercury has no significant atmosphere at all. On the surface (so to speak), this might lead to the conclusion that CO2 levels alone are responsible for heat capture.
Yet, Mars has a CO2 percentage similar to that of Venus and its mean temperature is an extremely cold -87.5 degrees Celsius.
The difference -- which Gore neglected to mention -- is that the atmospheric density on Venus is 90 times that of Earth while Earth's is 100 times that of Mars. On top of which, another contributor to the so-called "Greenhouse Gas" effect on Venus is the presence of an extremely thick bank of clouds primarily comprised of sulfuric acid, NOT CO2.
Now consider that Earth's atmospheric volume is but 0.0360% CO2 and compare its mean temperature of 15 degrees Celsius to that of its neighbors on each side. It would certainly seem reasonable to argue then, that an atmosphere's density, rather than its CO2 volume, would represent the greater probable impact upon its temperature.
Of course, given the welcome mat rolled out to him in Wonderland - facts aren't likely to remove Albert's Cheshire Cat grin, are they?