Startin' early: a new approach to fighting 'global warming' (MORE: "World expert" says hurricanes <em>not</em> linked to global warming)

Posted by: ST on June 23, 2007 at 12:44 pm
.!.

The UK Scotsman reports that UK children are losing sleep …

over global warming:

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.

The most feared consequences of global warming included poor health, the possible submergence of entire countries and the welfare of animals.

Most of those polled in the survey by supermarket chain Somerfield understood the benefits of recycling – although one in ten thought it was linked to riding a bike.

Pete Williams, of Somerfield, said: “Kids are exposed to the hard facts as much as anybody. While many adults may look the other way, this study should show that global warming is not only hurting the children of the future, it’s affecting the welfare of kids now.”

When all else fails, it’s never above an alarmist to cry “we must do it for the cheeeldren!” First it was, “we need to do something now, so our kids don’t have to pay for it later” – now it’s “we can’t wait, because they’re already suffering …”

Hat tip: Ken Green at Planet Gore

PM Update: Expert disputes storms’ link to global warming

COLUMBIA – As population continues to grow on the coast and people build more structures, losses from hurricanes will go up drastically but it isn’t because of global warming, one of the world experts on the topic said at a University of South Carolina appearance Thursday.

Chris Landsea, science and operations director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, said the notion that global warming is causing an increase in hurricanes gained widespread attention after the stormy seasons of 2004 and 2005.

But that perception is wrong and the statistics don’t bear it out, Landsea told about 200 students and professors in the auditorium at USC’s geography building.

Further study continues to show that hurricane activity occurs in cycles of 20 to 45 years, he said. Even though the seasons of 2004, when four hurricanes bashed Florida, and 2005, when Katrina devastated New Orleans and neighboring parts of the Gulf Coast, seemed shocking, they were no more intense than some storms in the early part of the 20th century and in the 1930s, Landsea said.

The 1926-1935 period was worse for hurricanes than the past 10 years and 1900-1905 was almost as bad, he said. So it is not true that there is a trend of more and stronger hurricanes.

“It’s not a trend, it’s a cycle: 20-45 years quiet, 20-45 years busy,” Landsea said. Scientists currently have no idea what causes the time period.

Bbbbut, I thought there was a consensus? ;)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • Flopping Aces trackbacked with More Global Warming Fanaticism
  • Skilletfan-My first blog trackbacked with Concert to Warm the Planet
  • 11 Responses to “Startin' early: a new approach to fighting 'global warming' (MORE: "World expert" says hurricanes <em>not</em> linked to global warming)”

    Comments

    1. Tom TB says:

      Funny when you think about it; what’s the first thing you do with children? Make sure they’re warm! Hot drinks, sit by the fire, toasted marshmallows! I grew up being told we would be nuked by the Russians at any moment, so I guess every generation has to have a bogeyman.

    2. This junk science is harmful to the children. No wonder they’re losing sleep. It’s a form of mental cruelty.

      I’ve concluded Al Gore is bad for your environment.

    3. Steve Skubinna says:

      Funny. My response to that story is not “Awww, global warming bad for poor widdle kiddies.”

      It is, rather, “Idiot adults scaring the pee out of the kids with their stupid hysteria.”

    4. Severian says:

      This is interesting:

      The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland’s 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100.

      Where’s the scientific support for this claim? Certainly not in the recent Policymaker’s Summary from the United Nations’ much anticipated compendium on climate change. Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore’s film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent.

      Even 17 inches is likely to be high, because it assumes that the concentration of methane, an important greenhouse gas, is growing rapidly. Atmospheric methane concentration hasn’t changed appreciably for seven years, and Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland recently pronounced the IPCC’s methane emissions scenarios as “quite unlikely.

      Nonetheless, the top end of the U.N.’s new projection is about 30-percent lower than it was in its last report in 2001. “The projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica for the rates observed since 1993″ according to the IPCC, “but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future.”

      According to satellite data published in Science in November 2005, Greenland was losing about 25 cubic miles of ice per year. Dividing that by 630,000 yields the annual percentage of ice loss, which, when multiplied by 100, shows that Greenland was shedding ice at 0.4 percent per century.

      “Was” is the operative word. In early February, Science published another paper showing that the recent acceleration of Greenland’s ice loss from its huge glaciers has suddenly reversed.

      Nowhere in the traditionally refereed scientific literature do we find any support for Gore’s hypothesis. Instead, there’s an unrefereed editorial by NASA climate firebrand James E. Hansen, in the journal Climate Change — edited by Steven Schneider, of Stanford University, who said in 1989 that scientists had to choose “the right balance between being effective and honest” about global warming — and a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was only reviewed by one person, chosen by the author, again Dr. Hansen.
      :-"

    5. sanity says:

      Terrorism is a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions. One definition means a violent action targetting civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal. …

      As terrorism ultimately involves the use or threat of violence with the aim of creating fear not only to the victims but among a wide audience, it is fear which distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare.

      Link

      The Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism as “a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorising or condition of being terrorised.”

      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.

      ….

      The most feared consequences of global warming included poor health, the possible submergence of entire countries and the welfare of animals.

      ….

      While many adults may look the other way, this study should show that global warming is not only hurting the children of the future, it’s affecting the welfare of kids now.”

      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.

      ….

      One mother, unable to get tickets to the show, called U of T and lamented that her daughter, a high-school student, has been unable to sleep since seeing Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth and hoped seeing him live would make her feel better.

      ….

      “There’s an anger and a rage,” said O’Neill, a self-described passionate environmentalist and U of T lecturer whose practice includes the link between ecology and personal as well as communal transformation. “They’re asking what are the people doing who are supposed to be protecting us.

      “I think it’s more than anxiety. I think it’s terror.”

      Link

      IF, and I say if, what Gore and others are doing have been found to be over exagerated or proven false, what would you think about it then?

      Just think about it.

      Don’t react, just THINK.

      I am putting it out there for you to think about, that is all, whether what you come to in your conclusions is right or wrong, that is your take on it then.

      That’s all I am going to say about it.

    6. Baklava says:

      This is obviously somebody who is paid by big oil to lie Sev… :)

    7. Severian says:

      Stop that! =))

    8. Severian says:

      I did find the last part particularly interesting Bak. Some “peer review” eh? Find the one guy who agrees with you totally and have him read it…8-|

    9. Severian says:

      An interesting discussion on the dangers of subverting science by relying on models and wishful thinking rather than rigorous adherence to the scientific method and some of the problems with using computer models as “proof” (the model is part the hypothesis not part of the proof by experimental observation).

      Link to Thread

      The original poster has posted an excellent take on all of this that points out, historically, the dangers of the consensus/we think it’s true so it is approach to science using the example of the Aristotelean Conceit.