Posted by
Rajjpuut's Folly on Monday, June 29, 2009 8:42:45 PM
Al Gore Burns Down 40,000 Square-foot Mansion
Real science goes to work as "hoopla dies"
Celebrities ask, "Global Warming, what's that?"
Obama calls for return to "pollution-tech"
Nobel Prize Officals’
Political-Activism Backfires
Back in 2000, when the Nobel Peace Prize was jointly awarded to Al Gore and the United Nations’ IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Rajjpuut commented to his now ex-wife that “I can’t believe it, every year it’s more and more political . . . Nobel must be rolling over and moaning in his grave!” The question has become now nine years later, now that real scientists are saying this is NOT the slam-dunk that the Nobel people thought it was, now that real scientific debate is occurring . . . when will Al Gore give back his prize?
Now, however I feel sorry for the IPCC. Despite all the criticism, they did proper science and their conclusions were scientific, so why in God’s name would they get a “peace prize?”Ah, because as the Nobel Committees realized, the science wasn’t conclusive (which is exactly what the IPCC said) . . . ah, because Gore had done no real science and they couldn’t justify giving him anything at all for no science unless . . . ah because they didn’t like George W. Bush raining on their (The European) leap to judgment on the issue . . . ah, because they found Gore’s movie entertaining . . . ah, because they wanted to make a political statement with their idiotic peace prize decision. On the other hand, the IPCC did proper science and came to a proper set of conclusions, to wit:
A. They called it Global Climate Change (GCC) not “global warming” and they are right
B. They stated GCC was occurring and they are right**
C. They stated that greenhouse gas proliferation seemed to be the main causative agent (undoubtedly right, but they hardly paid enough attention to methane released when permafrost melts; methane is 20 times the greenhouse gas that carbon dioxide is)
D. They stated that small and large climate shifts into colder and warmer eras were commonplace in the earth’s history (absolutely correct)
E. They stated that the relative effects of man’s negative contributions and the natural processes were impossible to delineate (clearly true)
Unfortunately, the IPCC did not combine all their science with the wonderful investigations done by the History Channel as revealed in their marvelous dvd “Little Ice Age, Big Chill.” If they had, they might have come to a sixth correct conclusion:
F. Since mighty volcanic actions and sunspots and other powerful agents have been at work in normal, natural climate shift, it’s most likely that at present, (short of all-out nuclear war and the subsequent “nuclear winter” phenomenon) man’s negative effects are still far too puny to measure up to nature’s power in shifting climate.
Ya’Ya'all live long, strong and ornery,
Ra Rajjpuut
Th .** Those who've seen the History Channel dvd . . . most likely would conclude that global climate shift right now means more extreme weather (more record highs, more record lows, more and mightier storms that mother nature is bringing our way) with every passing year.