Back in the USA

Trip Start Feb 15, 2007
1
18
Trip End Mar 31, 2007


Loading Map
Map your own trip!
Map Options
Show trip route
Hide lines
shadow

Flag of United States  , Rhode Island
Saturday, March 17, 2007

  I'm back home.  One of the first things I do is snuggle up on my couch and watch a Netflix DVD.  Unfortunately it's Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.  America, where science gets replaced by politics.  Al Gore, who has taken only two science classes in his whole life (getting a C and a D in them),  is now THE authority on global warming.

I just returned from Central America.  Do you know what would happen to these lovely people if because of our fear of global warming we stopped flying over there (a waste of energy) or stopped importing their fruits (another waste of energy)?  Before we shut down our (and their) economies, we better be sure about this thing, global warming.

I couldn't help but notice a number of mistakes (read as lies) told by Gore. This is not all, but just a sampling:  He claims that sea levels will rise soon by 20 feet.  The recent huge study by the Intergovernmental Panal on Climate Chagne says seas would rise 23 INCHES in the next century.  (By the way, I think poor people believe Gore and rich people don't.  You know why I think this?  Because in Central America all the sea level, sea side property is being bought up by rich Americans and being sold by poor locals.  If the wealthy believed in global warming, why are they buying expensive sea level land?  I think it's a trick to make them sell.)

Gore sites a study that says ALL scientists agree that global warming is manmade.  That study has been totally discredited because the woman used a wrong search term.  In other words, she cherry picked just those articles that support global warming.  The science is not settled.

While it is dramatic to see the ice shelf fall off the Antartica, in actuality the continent is getting colder and holding more snow and ice.  (I had to laugh because he shows the Perito Moreno Glacier calving, as if that means it is melting.  I was there last year.  And it is actually expanding, and every four years it dams up the lake causing a large explosion.)

Gore admits to stretching the truth:  "I believe it is appropriate to have an OVER-REPRESENTATION of factual presentations on how dangerous global warming is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are."  And the solutions are, and this is what he is really pushing for, Al Gore for President and more governmental running of our lives

He also misrepresented Kyoto...basically only the European countries signed it.  Only two are doing it, and China, India, Mexico, Brasil, South Korea, have no intention of signing on, in fact no one new has signed on in years.  Bill Clinton signed but never sent the treaty to the senate for radification.

The very left leaning New York Times just this week came out criticizing Gore saying that there are many inaccuracies in the movie.  The criticism came from rank and file scientists with no ax to grind.  Gore is wrong on hurricanes, malaria, climate change,  the earth  being hotter than ever  before (it was hotter in the middle ages).

Think about this:  97 percent of all greenhouse gas is naturally occuring.  What we really need to do is stop eating meat, the methane from cow farts is the real menace.  While we are at it we should stop all volcanoes from erupting, all vegitation from dying, and maybe we should all hold our breaths on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Sundays.

Before we accept Al Gore's inconvient truth we should think about where this is all coming from.  As the New York Times article itself said..."he's a politician."  And, power company records in Tennessee show that he uses 20 times more electricity than the average household.  Yeah, he is just as sincere about the environment as Teddy Kennedy and blocking the windmills on Cape Cod.

Anyhow, I'm glad to be home.  I, for one, am going to keep eating my grapes from Chile, my bananas from Guatemala, and my pineapples from Costa Rica, to support those lovely people.  I may even go down there more often to support their economy. ( I don't hear anyone calling for a boycot on coffee beans.)  Oh, and don't forget the cacao beans from Ecuador.  Life would not be worth living without chocolate!

 
Slideshow Report as Spam

Comments

gina_law
gina_law on

Other thoughts
Alright Dad, but the thing that sucks is that global warming is the discussion. There are SO many causes that are associated with global warming that are so harmful in so many other ways, yet the main result that people are focusing on is global warming. Does it REALLY matter if global warming is true or not? Let's focus on the energy crisis that we have. That my grocery bills are rising weekly, even though we have been more conservative with purchases, because oil prices are rising and transportation is sky-rocketing. Why? Because people have to survive in these temperature controlled environments, going from heat straight to AC, scared to acclimate even slightly to the environment around them. Or they drive gas guzzling SUV's (that half of them don't actually know HOW to drive) to drive around town. Let's focus on the fact that people are killing the planet in this disposable society that we live in. Or maybe the earth that we are raping through unsustainable farming practices, over cultivating, pouring chemicals onto the planet that end up in our soil, in our water and in our bodies. The oil that we are wasting, and the dirty corporations that we support when we don't support our local growers, buying lettuce at stop and shop instead of at the farmer's market. Buying honey at wal-mart from china, instead of the apiary down the road. Maple syrup at Shaw's instead of visiting the local sugar shack and seeing where it came from. This downward spiral that has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with what we are leaving for our children. What we are TEACHING our children. Do we teach them to live simply, to support our planet's health and their own? Do we teach them to not care, to stay focused on a financially and materialistically 'successful' future? Do we teach them to pick at petty details, stay poised for an argument, to zero in on the negative? To fight against someone, who is, while maybe very much over-exaggerating the truth, working at opening people's eyes. Maybe giving people a glimpse at being conscious of their actions? Maybe it is time to stop picking on Al Gore, being negative about his fight, and start educating people about the real inconvenient truth, that so many things we, as humans, are doing everyday, can be modified with such little effort (like maybe using a recycling bin, or bringing our own bags to the supermarket...) and in that we can work towards such a positive future.
Something to chew on.
Love you,
Gina

francesco0
francesco0 on

Live like Gina, and not like Gore
Gina, I totally agree with you on how we should live. We should be doing exactly like you are. But politically there is a big difference between Global Warming and caring for our environment. They ARE two different discussions. Buying food locally is different from changing energy policies. It does really matter if global warming is true because it would determine how we spend valuable resources that could better be spend other ways, actually saving lives. I agree we should buy and support our local farmers, but not boycott those avocatos grown in Chile, or the Fair Trade bananas grown in Peru (that are on your living food order form. Staying focused financially also means making important decisions about resources. Gore and the UN want to make those decisions for us. If they are based on lies, I have a problem with that. So, yes, it does matter if the science is true or not, if the seas are going to rise 20 feet, we should do something about it, if not, we should spend the money on something else. Al Gore is getting picked on because I beleive he is truly dangerous. We should not live in a state of fear!! I would like to see my grandchildren grow up free and happy. Our government always wants us to fear something. First it was the Russians and communism, when that was gone, it became global warming, now its terrorism. What next? Gina, yes, we should live like you, but we should be thinking with a little less fear.After all, this planet was here long before we were, I believe there is more collect wisdom in humans and animals than we realize. The planet and all of us will survive.

abc5
abc5 on

GLOBAL WARMING...
Cities at risk of rising seas By THOMAS WAGNER, Associated Press Writer
Wed Mar 28, 5:51 PM ET



LONDON - More than two-thirds of the world's large cities are in areas vulnerable to global warming and rising sea levels, and millions of people are at risk of being swamped by flooding and intense storms, according to a new study released Wednesday.

ADVERTISEMENT

In all, 634 million people live in the threatened coastal areas worldwide - defined as those lying at less than 33 feet above sea level - and the number is growing, said the study published in the journal Environment and Urbanization.

More than 180 countries have populations in low-elevation coastal zones, and about 70 percent of those have urban areas of more than 5 million people that are under threat. Among them: Tokyo; New York; Mumbai, India; Shanghai, China; Jakarta, Indonesia; and Dhaka, Bangladesh.

The peer-reviewed scientific study said it is the first to identify the world's low-lying coastal areas that are vulnerable to global warming and rising sea levels. It said 75 percent of all people living in vulnerable areas are in Asia, with poorer nations most at risk.

The study gives no time frame for rising sea levels or the potential flooding in individual countries. It warns, however, the solution to the problem will not be cheap and may involve relocating many people and building protective engineering structures. And, it adds, nations should consider halting or reducing population growth in coastal areas.

'Migration away from the zone at risk will be necessary but costly and hard to implement, so coastal settlements will also need to be modified to protect residents,' said Gordon McGranahan of the International Institute for Environment and Development in London, a co-author of the study.

IIED publishes the journal Environment and Urbanization. The other two co-authors of the study are Deborah Balk of the City University of New York and Bridget Anderson of Columbia University.

Separately, the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in a draft copy of a report expected to be released next week that coastlines are already showing the impact of sea-level rise. The draft copy, which was obtained by The Associated Press, said about 100 million people each year could be flooded by rising seas by 2080.

The draft copy warned that two biggest cities in North America - Los Angeles and New York - are at risk of a combination of sea-level rise and violent storms. By 2090, under a worst-case scenario, megafloods that normally would hit North America once every 100 years 'could occur as frequently as every 3-4 years,' the draft said.

In February, the IPCC warned of sea-level rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century due to global warming, making coastal populations vulnerable to flooding and more intense hurricanes and typhoons.

Asia is particularly vulnerable, the study said. The five nations with the largest total population living in endangered coastal areas are all in Asia: China, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Indonesia.

Between 1994 and 2004, about one-third of the world's 1,562 flood disasters occurred in Asia, with half of the total 120,000 people killed by floods living in that region, the study said. In addition, more than 200,000 people were killed by the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004.

'Migration away from lowest elevation coastal zones will be important, but can be costly and difficult to implement without causing severe disruptions,' the study said. Still, it said, 'relatively small shifts in settlement location, out of a coastal plain onto more elevated ground, can make a major difference.'

That is especially true in China, a country with an export-oriented economy that has created special economic zones in coastal locations, such as Shanghai. Fast economic growth has been associated with very rapid coastward migration, with the population in low-lying areas growing at almost twice the national population growth rate between 1990 and 2000, the study said.

'Unless something is done, there is the possibility that, as well as the people living in the low-elevation coastal zone, China's economic success will be placed at risk,' it said.

___

abc5
abc5 on

GLOBAL WARMING......
HOUSTON (Reuters) - A Texas-sized piece of the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning, possibly due to global warming, and could cause the world's oceans to rise significantly, polar ice experts said on Wednesday.

ADVERTISEMENT

They said 'surprisingly rapid changes' were occurring in Antarctica's Amundsen Sea Embayment, which faces the southern Pacific Ocean, but that more study was needed to know how fast it was melting and how much it could cause the sea level to rise.

The warning came in a joint statement issued at the end of a conference of U.S. and European polar ice experts at the University of Texas in Austin.

The scientists blamed the melting ice on changing winds around Antarctica that they said were causing warmer waters to flow beneath ice shelves.

The wind change, they said, appeared to be the result of several factors, including global warming, ozone depletion in the atmosphere and natural variability.

The thinning in the two-mile-(3.2-km)- thick ice shelf is being observed mostly from satellites, but it is not known how much ice has been lost because data is difficult to obtain on the remote ice shelves, they said.

Study is focusing on the Amundsen Sea Embayment because it has been melting quickly and holds enough water to raise world sea levels six meters, or close to 20 feet, the scientists said.

'The place where the biggest change is occurring is the Amundsen Sea Embayment,' said Donald Blankenship of the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics.

'One, it's changing, and two, it can have a big impact,' he said in a Webcast with a number of conference participants.

Other parts of the continent also were losing ice, he said, but generally not as quickly.

Add Comment

Use this image in your site

Copy and paste this html: