| Re: "Al Gore shares An Inconvenient Truth," by Roberta McDonald, June 15-21, 2006.
I read Roberta McDonald’s review of An Inconvenient Truth and she apparently believes this crap, so maybe she can enlighten me as to the proof that convinced her. She, like so many of these Kyoto advocates, seems to believe that if the polar ice caps melt, the oceans will rise, flooding coastal areas and cities. What I would like to know is: where’s all the extra water coming from?
Frozen water occupies more space than liquid water and most of the ice is floating in the Arctic and Antarctic Oceans. If it warms up enough to melt the polar ice caps it’ll be too hot for human life anyway so there won’t be anyone left to die in floods, but there won’t be any floods because if it warms up enough to melt the ice caps, rivers, streams, lakes, etc. will evaporate and lower the level of the oceans. The warmer air (saturation point) will hold more moisture. The logical fear should be dehydration not flooding, but these Kyoto advocates have no real science behind them so they have no basis for picking the logical fear tactic.
What if increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and these other gases are Mother Nature’s way of dealing with climate change? How effective would it be to attempt to reduce these concentrations? Until we have definitive, verifiable proof that what we’re proposing is the right thing to do, it would be better to do nothing. It’s better to watch a fire burn itself out than it is to pour gasoline on it. I believe that’s what the Kyoto Accord is asking – no, demanding – we do. The trouble is, even collectively we are no match for Mother Nature and if she needs those gases at increased concentrations, there’s nothing we can do to prevent her from achieving that, but what will our feeble attempt cost? The lack of respect for our environment boggles my mind.
|
Copyright ©2006 FFWD. All rights reserved.