« Bahamas in Throes of High-Stakes Debate | Main | Bahamasair or Bahamas Disgrace »

March 25, 2008

Comments

Bob Knaus

Here's the silly part: a round-trip flight from New York to Nassau costs $2.19 for the offsets to make the trip carbon neutral. 9/11 security measures cost more than that, as you can see by looking at your ticket.

Calculate it yourself at:
http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/carbon_calculators/

C.Lowe

Not to make light of a serious subject, and it is that but a simple thought struck on my way home tonight.
Could global warming and sea level rise be the reason for our Governments willingness to liquidate (no pun intended) Crown Land?
After all, if it will all be underwater in 50 years, why not sell it?
Conspiracy theorists will love that thought.

Tim Roberts

"Scientists now have conclusive evidence that the world has been heating up ever since people began burning oil and coal in the 19th century."

Not meaning whatsoever to shed negative light on anything said here in this article, however, I feel it important to give sufficient light to both sides of the story.

There in fact are a good many scientists who do not believe Anthropogenic Global Warming is a foregone conclusion. There has been strong evidence that the 'hockey stick' graph popularized by Al Gore is in fact completely inaccurate.

I am a conservationist. I believe we need to change our dependence on fossil fuels due to many reasons, however, Global Warming is not one of them. I want us to go more 'green', but not on false premises.

For sake of due diligence, I feel it is imperative that both sides are given fair treatment. The media (referring most particularly to American media) has been swooned by Al Gore and seems to give no time for anything to the contrary, but there is much out there.

I have begun compiling a list of stories that show the other side, and are backed by scientific evidence. I am not saying Global Warming does not exist, however, I do believe there is more to the story than alarmists want everyone else to know.

http://blog.my-abaco.com/2008/03/19/inconvenient_evidence/

Tim Roberts

I would like to re-emphasize, for clarity sake, that I am not against conservation, I am not against alternative cleaner energy sources, I am in no way against good sound stewardship of earth and its resources and inhabitants. I believe we are OBLIGATED to be good stewards.

What I am against is the unreliable evidence being touted as factual and the 'alarmist' way in which it is done.

Consensus Science has also lead to more harm than good. Michael Crichton's article shows this: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

The point is, there is another side to the story that is being purposefully ignored, be diligent and check it out.

larry smith

The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.

The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.

A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database. Oreskes stated that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position...This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies."

Source - Wikipedia

Bob Knaus

{sigh}

Every day this global warming thing gets to be more like religion. As the oh-so-politically-incorrect Huck Finn put it, "Are you Baptist or Methodist?" As if there could be no other.

What ever happened to informed skepticism? The principle that reasonably informed people could come to their own opinions, without resort to the "consensus" of experts?

Am I a fool to cling to ideal of a Renaissance Man? One who has a broad range of knowledge, and is capable of forming his own judgements?

Tim Roberts

In an article by Richard S. Lindzen, he cites the same study by Oreskes, however, another study , apparently more indepth, showed slightly different information.

More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.

I don't disagree that there is global warming, I disagree with alarmists who portray imminent catastrophe. I also find many of their conclusions(based on theoretical predictions and assumptions) to be inaccurate. I don't think man is as significant, if at all, a cause of global warming any more than any other naturally occurring phenomena.

Again, I want it known explicitly, that even though I find the science insufficient and you think it is sufficient, we both do have the same ideals in mind regardless of the debate. Cleaner and greener environmental changes are good for everyone involved. We need conservation and good stewardship, a reduction in pollution, cleaner environments and alternative power sources.

dat nickah

No one give a flying f**k about "carbon offsetting" or any of that other jibba jabba.

Talk immediate dollars and cents if you want the average joe to read about this kind of stuff for more than 3 paragraphs.

How much will car rental companies save on gas if they switch to electric rental cars. How much do the cars cost up front. How much retardedly-high duty to bring em here?

How much lower our BEC bill ga be with renewable energy?
How much more reliable will BEC be?

How much more money can a tour company expect to make if they
transform into eco-tourism companies?

How much money will I save if I buidl to LEED standards?

larry smith

You are right of course - the "average joe" will not read at all.

But policymakers and opinion leaders presumably will.

As for your other excellent points, that can be the subject of a future article. This one was reporting on a particular conference that looked at the big picture.

larry smith

Hi Tim,

In the WSJ Lindzen acknowledges that thousands of scientists from 120 countries have agreed, through the International Panel on Climate Change process, that human activity is driving global warming.

He also acknowledges that this consensus was recently confirmed by a report prepared for the US Congress by the National Academy of Scientists.

The point about the Oreskes study was not that every article about climate change explicitly endorsed the IPCC conclusions.

The point is that if there was real uncertainty there would be “substantive disagreement in the scientific community” that would be reflected in peer-reviewed literature. There wasn’t.

Peiser didn’t find any peer reviewed studies that oppose the scientific consensus.

Peiser claimed that 34 papers “reject or doubt” the consensus view. According to the recently published abstracts of those 34 papers, the vast majority express no doubt whatsoever about the consensus view.

Only one paper, by the Association of Petroleum Geologists, cited by Peiser actually rejects the consensus view and it “does not appear to have been peer reviewed outside that Association.”

ECOT

I just want to highlight that there is no such thing as a 'carbon neutral destination'. If we promote this, it's lying to ourselves and the world. Each gram Carbon emitted is going into the atmosphere and contributes to global warming. If we spare or safe in other places carbon, that does not make that one gram 'not emitted'. It's that simple.
Now, what we really need is a shift of the tourism paradigm, of those 6%of the world population who are 'tourists' and travel on international fights! In the 1990, the German Green Party MDP Halo Saibold already did risk her career in order to make tourists aware of the irresponsible paradigm they follow which each trip abroad. Only when the Caribbean tourism sector and residents do understand that they cant promote mass tourism flying in by planes anymore as they will drown otherwise in the near future, only then the Caribbean Tourism way can be changed to a more quality one, following the claim 'fly less, stay longer' - this will cause a selection of (wealthy?) people, yes, but in the end we might be able to safe the lives of millions who will be killed due to climate change impacts.

Andrew

A few papers Oreskes missed...

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan

Welcome

  • Bahama Pundit is a group weblog that publishes the work of top Bahamian commentators. We welcome your feedback. You may link to this site but no material may be reproduced without permission.

Email this blog

Global Village

  • Global Voices Online - The world is talking. Are you listening?

Site Meter

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 09/2005

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner