I do not believe that global warming theory is all a scam and giant conspiracy on the part of liberals to take away our freedoms, but neither do I believe that the sky is falling immediately and that the science is settled once and for all and we must do something drastic. I tend to believe the theory is valid but overstated. I also believe that there has been a concerted effort to make the science fit a conclusion and to stifle descent. How is one who is himself not a scientist to know what to believe?
Below are two informative articles about environmental issues:
Low-carbon technologies ‘no quick-fix’, says researchers at The Institute of Physics is a new study.
A drastic switch to low carbon-emitting technologies, such as wind and hydroelectric power, may not yield a reduction in global warming until the latter part of this century, research published today suggests. Low-carbon technologies ‘no quick-fix’, say researchers Furthermore, it states that technologies that offer only modest reductions in greenhouse gases, such as the use of natural gas and perhaps carbon capture and storage, cannot substantially reduce climate risk in the next 100 years. "Achieving substantial reductions in temperatures relative to the coal-based system will take the better part of a century, and will depend on rapid and massive deployment of some mix of conservation, wind, solar, and nuclear, and possibly carbon capture and storage," the researchers write.This is not some opinion by some right-wing partisan or a coal industry funded study. Even if one accept completely the global warming theory, then the questions becomes what do we do about it. There are no simple answers.
UT Researchers Find China’s Pollution Related to E-Cars May Be More Harmful than Gasoline Cars.
Electric cars have been heralded as environmentally friendly, but findings from University of Tennessee, Knoxville, researchers show that electric cars in China have an overall impact on pollution that could be more harmful to health than gasoline vehicles.So much of environmentalism seems to be based on faulty assumptions and a desire to do something even if is wrong. I think few would now argue that ethanol produced from corn is beneficial to the environment but we spend million upon millions requiring ethanol in our gasoline which led to poisoning of the Gulf of Mexico, poor land management practices and third world hunger due to an artificial increase in the demand for corn. The newest environmental folly may be the electric automobile.
Top Stories
Posts
Poorly educated leaders!
ReplyDeleteI think this is the largest contributor to Global Climate Change.
For example, one day my 3rd grader came home and demonstrated how our bodies radiate energy in an invisible field, which is observable by holding a weighted string at arms length and then "thinking" about circular motion. Of course after a moment the string rotates a circular motion and she says, "see, I told ya". At the next parent/teacher conference, I bring this up to the teacher, she stammers and say's lots of uh's and um's then finally mumbles something about a Vandy professor that she had done some work with in the past.
Needless to say it took a little time but I was able to correctly educate my daughter in this simple matter, but how many parents will do this? Most of these kids grow up to believe garbage, and they don't question it when someone like Al Gore spouts his nonsense. The premise of his Inconsistent Babble is based on bad data taught by one professor.
It really is up to the parents to be on top of what our kids hear and correct them and challenge the misinformation.