The Environmental & Public Works Senate committee takes the book to class scientifically but I will recap some of the scientific points before I move on.
- The book claims polar bears are starving and dying left and right while reports say the population on the whole is either stable or increasing; take that Robert Christopherson!
- Another claim is that this climate change is human caused. This ignores those who question the man's effect on the climate and those who point out rapid climate change on other worlds.
A second thing I have against the book is its politics. It blames "rich countries" for global warming. Never mind industrialized countries have decreased greenhouse gas emissions by 3.3 percent from 1990 to 2004. Turkey has increased by 72.6% (Kansas City Star; A1; 10/31/06) while India and China increase can be measured geometrically. The Kyoto Climate Change treaty would impose no restrictions on these countries. China alone will pass the U.S. in emissions in 2009 if trends continue.
The third complaint is cultural. The book was made by elitists at the United Nations. The Eskimo (Inuit is a specific group of Eskimo so I am being accurate with the term) child encounters “Sedna, the Mother of the Sea” who identifies itself as creator of all sea life. Let me break this down the meaning: to be in touch with nature the child and Eskimos have to be pagan, never mind most Eskimos in Greenland are Lutherans. Also, the story trivalize beliefs- the sea goddess is just as real as the talking animals. Can you imagine the United Nations making a book where young Peter is warned by Jesus about climate change or young Moqtada is warned by Muhammad? No, of course not. Eskimos and religion are fair game.
The last bit is the most repulsive. When the child reaches information overload the whale character complements the child saying that is a good thing and to get angry. This is a message to children not to question what is being told to them and become drones.
I am not denying climate change. All I am doing is making a public call for reason. If there is climate change that means humans as a whole will have to deal with some pretty important problems. The only way we can correctly solve these problems (or at least work around them) is to have cool heads with solid information. Let us all think. No Medieval calls for end of discussion, no demonization, let us all work together for a better world.
Category: Miscellaneous
3 comments:
From a climatologist who prefers to remain anonymous. There is overwhelming consensus of the anthropogenic part in climate change. One or two or even 50 reports that still deny the human role in climate change do not challenge the validity of this scientific consensus. It is very important to keep level heads in addressing this issue, as you stated. This begins with recognizing and owning up to our part in this issue. Let us just keep that straight, please.
Very good points anonymous climatologist!
I consider myself a Harm de Blij when it comes to the issue of global warming. I ask to what extent are humans possible. It is commonly accepted that humans played no major role in the Little Ice Age yet climate change happend at a rapid pace and many changes still are in place (e.g. no more Scotish wine. Then remember global warming on other planets, free from human influence.
So the question remains to what extent. Added on is what should humans do, if anything. If there is no "stable" default for climate what is our responsiblity and duty? And if this climate style is to be prefered, to what extent should we strive to keep the world as is?
But thanks again for your comment!
"One or two or even 50 reports that still deny the human role in climate change do not challenge the validity of this scientific consensus. "
It's like the "black crow" hypothesis. You can find thousands of black crows, but that still doesn't prove the hypothesis.
But if you find just one green crow, it's all over.
For global warming, there are way too many green crows. For one thing, the infamous "hockey stick model" has been shown to be erroneous. You can feed their model random data and still get a hockey stick.
Post a Comment