Global Warming: Nairobi Hijinks

By November 17, 2006Global Warming

As Carter Wood noted here earlier, there’s a UN conference on climate change taking place in Nairobi this week, and there’s lots of fun and mischief surrounding it. US Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Chair of the Senate Environment Committee and a guy who knows a thing or two about the topic and who dares to think for himself, yesterday called the Nairobi klatch a “brainwashing session.” He probably wasn’t too far from the truth.

Al Gore, for his part, is in Australia, calling the US and Australia “Bonnie and Clyde” for not signing on to the treaty that was voted down 95-0 when Al Gore was President of the US Senate. Australian PM John Howard, unbowed by the former Veep says they ain’t gonna drown any time soon. Advantage Howard.

Kofi Annan says climate change is more serious than “the proliferation of deadly weapons.” Really? Now there’s a guy who’s lost his compass. Ought he not worry that misguided efforts to stem the hysteria might retard development in the countries that need it most to lift themselves out of poverty? Maybe nobody worries about poverty anymore.

Finally, in the “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” category comes Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen in Nairobi, observing that maybe if we lay down a little pollution it’ll block the sun and stop the one degree rise in temperature that’s happened over the last century from continuing — to another degree in the next hundred years. Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. weighed in on that one, calling it just so much “politically-motivated research” (ya think?), cautioning as follows: “Starting with a desired political outcome and then generating the science to support that outcome is not the most effective way for science to support policy, even coming from a Nobel laureate.”

Mark us down as agreeing with Pielke, Inhofe and Howard and disagreeing with Al and Kofi. Not sure what to make of the “bring it on” pollution guy. He might just need a vacation.

Join the discussion 3 Comments

  • Andrew Worth says:

    Every time one idea used to deny that the warming that we have seen over the last century is anthropogenic is knocked over, the AGW denialist camp dreams up another.

    CO2 is the second most powerful GH gas after water vapour, it accounts for at least 26% of the greenhouse effect.

    The natural greenhouse effect keeps the temperature at Earth surface 33C, (60F) warmer than it would be if there were no GH effect.

    The burning of fossel fuel, and changes in land use (deforestation) has lifted atmospheric CO2 levels from the ~280ppm level that existed for thousands of years up until 1850 to 380ppm today, a rise of 35%.

    At the anticipated rate of fossel fuel use (business as usual) CO2 level will reach at least 560ppm, (double natural levels) by the end of this century.

    Why is there such a strong desire in some people to deny AGW? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that AGW is seen as a greenie bandwagon by right wing conservatives? And that as such, some people just can’t see past the politics to look objectively at the science?

    The political implications of the greenies actually being right, about a scientific issue with such serious political implications, sends some on the conservative right into an irrational maniacal frenzy.

    Willing to believe anything, anything, rather than accept the obvious.

  • Jack says:

    I didn’t post the first comment. I didn’t even know about this company but all help greatly appreciated.

    We are all on the same track when it comes to the current hysteria on the web and elsewhere regarding “Global Warming”.

    Next thing you know Gore (in a loud foghorn voice) will be telling us the “Great Flood” is about to happen again as we continue to watch the problems along our west coast.

  • Jack's Newswatch says:

    There is a wonderful new book, “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years,” by distinguished climate physicist Fred Singer and award-winning environmental economist Dennis Avery. The conclusion of their book in a nutshell is that, yes, the world is getting a bit warmer, but this is just the natural cycle. They provide overwhelming evidence this warming would occur with or without mankind increasing CO2 emissions or doing anything else. The good news is that if we realize we cannot stop global warming, and concentrate on constructively dealing with the problems it causes – which are all manageable at reasonable cost – and then enjoy the benefits, mankind will do just fine.

    We have already had two cycles in recorded history; the Roman warming (200 B.C. to 600 A.D.) which was a very prosperous period, and the medieval warming (900 to 1300) during which farms were created in Greenland and Iceland. The modern warming period began about 1850, well before mankind was producing massive amounts of CO2.


    November 17th, 2006

    Posted by Jack at 09:41am | Daily Blogger |