CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholicism > News and Politics
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 28th February 2007, 06:41 PM
AI2001
 
Posts: n/a
Default And "predictions of models are often wrong"

Quote:
Numerical Models, Integrated Circuits and Global Warming Theory
By Jerome J. Schmitt


...

Climate Models


As with all fluid mechanics models, the flow field of a climate model (i.e. the entire atmosphere) is divided into three-dimensional grids of small volume elements designated by latitude, longitude and altitude. Each volume element of the grid is then characterized with parameters such as pressure, temperature, wind velocity, etc., and equations that relate these factors. Air and energy that leave one volume element enters the adjacent one. When summed across all volume elements, the model keeps track of the flows of air and energy in the entire atmosphere. Many factors must be accounted (see below). Boundary conditions must be set: in this case, the boundary of the atmosphere is land or ocean surface on the bottom, and some boundary in space on the top; these yield rules (e.g. air cannot flow into the surface of the earth). Then, Initial Conditions must be set: this means that the grid's equations are "populated" with the known values of the parameters characterizing the atmosphere such as pressure, temperature, and humidity profiles measured today.

Finally, the computer calculation can commence: A unit of time (a second, minute, day) is assumed to pass and the computer calculates the next "state" of the model based on the initial conditions, the boundary conditions and the other equations of the model. This process is repeated again and again, with the new state being the initial condition for calculating the subsequent state, until e.g. 100 years has passed.


Errors can accumulate rapidly. Let's list some of the factors that must be included (by no means an exhaustive list):

Quote:
Solar flux
Gravity, Pressure
Temperature
Density
Humidity
Earth's rotation
Surface temperature
Currents in the Ocean (e.g., Gulf Stream)
Greenhouse gases
CO2 dissolved in the oceans
Polar ice caps
Infrared radiation
Cosmic rays (ionizing radiation)
Earth's magnetic field
Evaporation
Precipitation
Cloud formation
Reflection from clouds
Reflection from snow
Volcanoes
Soot formation
Trace compounds

And many, many others
Even if mathematics could be developed to accurately model each of these factors, the combined model would be infinitely complex requiring some simplifications. Simplifications in turn amount to judgment calls by the modeler. Can we ignore the effects of trace compounds? Well, we were told that trace amounts of chlorofluoro compounds had profound effects on the ozone layer, necessitating the banning of their use in refrigerators and as aerosol spray propellants. Can we ignore cosmic rays? Well, they cause ions (electrically charged molecules) which affect the ozone layer and also catalyze formation of rain-drops and soot particles.

As with all models, it is perilous to ignore factors in the absence of complete experimental data which might have otherwise have significant effect.


Perhaps most critically, the role of precipitation in climate seems to be understated in the numerical global climate models. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center of the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, AL, writes that the role of precipitation is not fully accounted for in global warming models. In my view, that's like an economist admitting his theory of the money supply doesn't fully account for the role of the Federal Reserve.

Quote:
Unless we know how the greenhouse-limiting properties of precipitation systems change with warming, we don't know how much of our current warmth is due to mankind, and we can't estimate how much future warming there will be, either. To solve the global-warming puzzle, we first need to learn much more about the precipitation-system puzzle.


What little evidence we now have suggests that precipitation systems act as a natural thermostat to reduce warming.

...

Read the whole thing.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 28th February 2007, 07:05 PM
Bertrand
 
Posts: n/a
Default

AI2001:
I see that you are a very rigorous man who follows great scientific processes before building an opinion.

Well!! I wish you and your conservative friends would have followed such rigorous methods regading WMD in Irak, then perhaps we would have 3,000 Americans and 70,000 irakis still living today.

And what about following this rigorous process on the opening of the red sea that you seem to have no problem to believe....

As for your wealth, yes, i know that this is of great worry to you and therefore I tell you this:
You cannot serve God and money. Not a penny of that great wealth you accumulated will follow you beyond the grave.

Perhaps it is time to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and start following the word of Saint Francis of Assisi and John the Baptist and find the way of humility with respect to possession and nature.

Bertrand
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 28th February 2007, 07:55 PM
AI2001
 
Posts: n/a
Default That's all you've got?

Bertrand

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
AI2001:
I see that you are a very rigorous man who follows great scientific processes before building an opinion.

Well!! I wish you and your conservative friends would have followed such rigorous methods regading WMD in Irak, then perhaps we would have 3,000 Americans and 70,000 irakis still living today.

And what about following this rigorous process on the opening of the red sea that you seem to have no problem to believe....

As for your wealth, yes, i know that this is of great worry to you and therefore I tell you this:
You cannot serve God and money. Not a penny of that great wealth you accumulated will follow you beyond the grave.

Perhaps it is time to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and start following the word of Saint Francis of Assisi and John the Baptist and find the way of humility with respect to possession and nature.

Bertrand

Is that all you have Bertrand?

You failed to address any of the points made in the articles I posted when it comes to the FAILURE of the "global warmalists" to prove, using the "scientific method" that there actually is global warming.

How about addressing the fallability of "modeling" when it comes global warming?

Am I to infer from this statement that you actually agree that "global warming" is a religion and an individual must believe in it as one believes in God parting the Red Sea?

Quote:
And what about following this rigorous process on the opening of the red sea that you seem to have no problem to believe....
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 28th February 2007, 08:38 PM
Bertrand
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I have read countless reports, for years of renouned scientists from all over the world and ALL disagree with your point. The rate at which the planet is warming up is unprecedented in history and therefore the link to man activity is almost certain. I give you that there is never certainty in this domain but like in 1939, by the time we're certain it might be too late.

They now predict the complete meltdown of the arctic ice cap within half a century, the increase of deserts, the drastic reduction of wildlife, the flooding of sea shores, the increase of violent storms. Who are you to claim that that all this is natural and it is irrelevant to do anything about it!!!!

Even if all were convinced that man is responsible and the whole world was committed to lower its CO2 consumption, even then it would be very hard to revert the process.

I am not an expert but those who are all agree (or at least the vast majority) that such a fast change over such a short period is completely new. I also read articles that showed proof that the White House had erased form some official reports expert opinions that were contrary to the line of the president. good old soviet style!

150 countries agreed on this at Kyoto, dont you think there must be a reason? Only the US among the industrialized nation said Niet! This gave the sentiment to the rest of the community that the US places itself above all laws, even those of nature.

And even, even, if the global warming was not proven, dont you think that a wise approach, to give the theory the benefit of the doubt, would be to reduce CO2 emission anyway? What do we have to lose by being less greedy, by driving smaller cars, by stopping being just nasty consumers?
Dont you care at all about the world you will pass on to your children? Who can pretend to know it all! Instead of stubbornly say no to everything, you like the US government, should show a little flexibility towards your brothers from abroad.....

Bertrand
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 28th February 2007, 08:52 PM
quiz1
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AI2001 View Post
In other words, they want to redistribute the WEALTH OF AMERICANS & AMERICA via taxation.

Ain't the 21st century grand?


Yep - I firmly believe it is an effort towards the further socialization of the world. If they can't beat us militarily, they will beat us fiscally.

Why do I believe this? Because there is absolutely no scientific evidence that this warming is caused by man, there is just way too much hype and almost persecution of people even advocating an even-handed approach of more study, there is outright lying by Al Gore saying he's worked tirelessly for 30 years on this but yet was VP for 8 of those years and we heard nothing of global warming from him.

It's pure mass hysteria. America's air and water are cleaner than they ever have been, Americans recycle more than ever before, but who are the worst polluters? China for one. And through Kyoto, the US will be handing over its sovereignty so that China can become world dominant. A country that executes more people than the rest of the world combined and hands over their organs for profit. This is the world's model of development. It's ridiculous.

It's way beyond political affiliation, so I wish everyone would save the self-righteous indignation over "Republican" abuses, and not be so naive.

Last edited by quiz1 : 28th February 2007 at 08:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 28th February 2007, 09:47 PM
AI2001
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
I have read countless reports, for years of renouned scientists from all over the world and ALL disagree with your point. The rate at which the planet is warming up is unprecedented in history and therefore the link to man activity is almost certain. I give you that there is never certainty in this domain but like in 1939, by the time we're certain it might be too late.

Quote:

"The Cooling World" - by Peter Gwynne
April 28, 1975 Newsweek


There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.

The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.

Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.


Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. “The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

To think, the Earth went from a LITTLE ICE AGE to FULL BLOWN GLOBAL WARMING that will kill us in a matter of decades, in 32 yrs.

Quote:
They now predict the complete meltdown of the arctic ice cap within half a century, the increase of deserts, the drastic reduction of wildlife, the flooding of sea shores, the increase of violent storms. Who are you to claim that that all this is natural and it is irrelevant to do anything about it!!!!

I can claim that because I have listened to scientists for years first tell me that:

1) We are entering a LITTLE ICE AGE in 1975
2) 2007 - Global Warming - the world is going to boil & be flooded
3) Eggs are bad for you, cholesterol and all that
4) Eggs are good for you
5) Margarine is better for you than butter
6) No, actually butter is better for you it is natural and margarine is worse
7) Chocolate is bad for you
No, chocolate is good for you, anti-dioxants, and all that
9) Pluto is a planet
10) Pluto is not a planet

Do I need to go on to make a point?

Quote:
Even if all were convinced that man is responsible and the whole world was committed to lower its CO2 consumption, even then it would be very hard to revert the process.

That's right not all are convinced, but a minority of leftists have screamed, told a GIANT LIES and now demand that the United States conform to their lie while at the same time China & India don't have to change and the Russians are going to get paid handsomely by the EU to clean up their factories (which by the way were not as clean as America's factories).

Of course the EU voted for it, and that's really all that matters because to this day they have not met their Kyoto obligations.

It's all about intentions, good intentions, etc. etc. etc. You know what they said about that road to hell don't ya? It's always paved with good intentions.


Quote:
I am not an expert but those who are all agree (or at least the vast majority) that such a fast change over such a short period is completely new. I also read articles that showed proof that the White House had erased form some official reports expert opinions that were contrary to the line of the president. good old soviet style!

The vast majority does not agree, it is a minority that has bloviated to the point of driving people insane with their little paranoid delusions.

No kidding? You read such an article? Well let me tell you, I read articles about how the United States of America has such power that it can actually cause earthquakes that cause tsunamis.

We also have a death ray on the moon and we can zap anyone here on earth.

I also read articles about how the United States is responsible for "global warming" on Mars.

Quote:
150 countries agreed on this at Kyoto, dont you think there must be a reason? Only the US among the industrialized nation said Niet! This gave the sentiment to the rest of the community that the US places itself above all laws, even those of nature.

And China & India are not obligated to join in.

Russia said no as well, until the idiotic Eurabians bribed them a few years ago.

Ohh and btw, the Eurabians that signed up to the Kyoto treaty/accords have FAILED TO MEET THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER KYOTO.

I don't see you harping on them do I? A little hypocritical, but you know what? I understand completely why you and the rest of the world harp on the United States.

It is because the United States of America is like a god. We are single handedly responsible for global warming, global cooling & little ice ages, we are controlled by Israel and yet control it at the same time,

We are fat ugly greedy nasty world ending Americans, yet almost every single person on this earth would swim the biggest ocean to live amongst these fat ugly greedy nasty world ending gun totin' red-neck NASCAR watchin' SUV drivin' Bible thumpin' Americans.

Quote:
And even, even, if the global warming was not proven, dont you think that a wise approach, to give the theory the benefit of the doubt, would be to reduce CO2 emission anyway? What do we have to lose by being less greedy, by driving smaller cars, by stopping being just nasty consumers?
Dont you care at all about the world you will pass on to your children? Who can pretend to know it all! Instead of stubbornly say no to everything, you like the US government, should show a little flexibility towards your brothers from abroad.....

Freedom that is what we will lose and you may want to give yours away, but I don't.

Too many women and men have bled to grant me those freedoms and I am not about to give them up without a fight, just because some socialist planners want to bring me and my country to its knees...

Because whether you like or not Bertrand, this is all about money. America has it and the rest of the world, instead of working for it (as we have) and instituting freedoms for their own people (as we have) which would permit them to be just as wealthy (in every sense of the word) as we are, just want to take it via taxation, while retaining the old status quo.

Quote:
Bertrand
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 28th February 2007, 10:15 PM
Hope
 
Posts: n/a
Default

As for the blind acceptance of by the masses that global warming is caused by the actions of mankind . . . I'm not so quick to buy into this.

The world may be getting warmer, indeed, but the temperature has fluctuated up and down since the beginning of time.

Where am sitting now, typing this, thousands of years ago, it was once covered by a glacier. Now, it's not. To believe that we are the primary influence of temperature change, and that the world temperatures would stay as is if we were not here, contradicts the data.

Some think that it has been proven that we are responsible for accelerating the process of the earth's warming? How can it be proven that man is responsible for this when we already know that nature is quite capable of doing this herself? There have been wooly mammoths and other ancient creatures found frozen in ice, with tropical grasses still in their mouths. This reveals that the world's temperature can lower at a rapid rate without any help from men, so why couldn't the world warm without the help of men?

But wait . . . there's more.

This also reminds me of the time in history when the majority of people believed that the world was flat because it was so obvious. Just look outside man and you can see that the world is flat. Same thing with the earth being the center of the universe and the sun revolving around it.

And finally . . .

This also reminds me of blood-letting, a practice that was universally accepted for over 5,000 years. The doctors, the so-called scientific experts of the day, claimed to have proved blood-letting's effectiveness beyond a doubt and those whom they treated swore that it saved their lives. George Washington, believed in it so strongly, that as he lay dying in bed, he encouraged his physician to drain even more blood. In hindsight, it is believed that it was the blood-letting that killed him, not the original illness.

History shows again and again, just because experts believe in something and convince a majority that they are right, they are sometimes wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 1st March 2007, 04:44 PM
AI2001
 
Posts: n/a
Default 1974 - An Ice Age Commeth - Man is responsible.

Quote:
Time Magazine
June 24, 1974

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

...

Telltale signs are everywhere--from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 degrees F. ... When Climatologist George G. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamong-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

...

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

...

Warns [Climatologist Kenneth] Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present popuation is sustainable is there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."

...


Make sure to visit PowerLineBlog.com for the GRAPHIC that demonstrates how far and wide the ice would have stretched. Since I reside in the Great Lakes are, according to the 1974 Global Cooling/Ice Age Cassandras, I would be living and sharing an igloo with Polar bears.

And in this article, there is another BIG LIE that has been told and believed by many in the West and that is the BIG LIE concerning a 'population explosion'.

Now Europe is on its deathbed when it comes to demographics and they are importing moslems and transforming the heart of Christendom, another good reason to 'believe' (snorts in disgust) today's scientists when it comes to "global warming".
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 1st March 2007, 06:42 PM
AI2001
 
Posts: n/a
Default Global Warming on Mars

Here is an article about how Mars is experiencing "global warming" and to think, man has yet to step on the surface of Mars:

Quote:
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming

...

"Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."

...

"It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated," he maintains. "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

The real news from Saint Petersburg -- demonstrated by cooling that is occurring on the upper layers of the world's oceans -- is that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and "will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60" lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again.

Because of the scientific significance of this period of global cooling that we're about to enter, the Russian and Ukrainian space agencies, under Dr. Abdussamatov's leadership, have launched a joint project to determine the time and extent of the global cooling at mid-century. The project, dubbed Astrometry and given priority space-experiment status on the Russian portion of the International Space Station, will marshal the resources of spacecraft manufacturer Energia, several Russian research and production centers, and the main observatory of Ukraine's Academy of Sciences. By late next year, scientific equipment will have been installed in a space-station module and by early 2009, Dr. Abdussamatov's space team will be conducting a regular survey of the sun.

With the data, the project will help mankind cope with a century of falling temperatures, during which we will enter a mini ice age.

"There is no need for the Kyoto Protocol now. It does not have to come into force until at least 100 years from no w," Dr. Abdussamatov concluded. "A global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse- gas emissions."


And yet "global warmalists" have announced that the 'scientific community' has reached a concensus, "global warming" exists and its mans fault.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 1st March 2007, 08:34 PM
llazcano13
 
Posts: n/a
Default




Quote:
STATE OF FEAR
The ecologist tiranny
by Michael Crichton

Gorka Echevarría Zubeldia

“The threat of the heating of the planet does not exist. Even if it were a real phenomenon, surely it would result in a net benefit for most of the world”. With appointments like this one, Michael Crichton has put himself in the front sight of the ecologists. His novel, State of Fear, has caused a tidal wave of histerical reactions pretty similars to the ones Lomborg provoked in his day .

This novel is centered in the obsession of the ecologists to implant their agenda at any cost. In State of Fear, an Greenpeace type organization decides to frighten people making a congress on climatic change to coincide with a series of ecoterrorist attacks. In frount of such a chaotic situation, professor Kenner, with the aid of his assistant and other characters, tries to prevent that the terrorist barbarism ends the life of innocents.

But this work is not limited to develop a thrilling history, also offers a detailed rebuttal of the ideas commonly accepted about the environment.

Among the questions discussed in the book, the main one is the Earth heating. Crichton recognizes that the average temperature of the planet has experienced a slight increase since 1978 of 0,08ºC per decade. Also, he explains that none of the effects that the promoters of the Kyoto Protocol and the ecologists in general predicted has taken place . For example, the Antártida and Greenland are not being warmed up, but all the opposite (the reduction has been of 2,2ºC). And the number of animals species has not undergone a substantial reduction either, specially because there is no form to calculate how many exist.

In front these revelations, the reader really feels deceived. If it is not necessary to worry about the Earth heating, many will ask themselves what is the purpose for Kyoto. As the author of Jurassic Park remembers, this Protocol is based on mathematical models of simulation that make predictions that have not been fulfilled. In any case, its success is doubtful because, at the most, in fifty years the temperature of the planet would be reduced solely in 0,02ºC.

Along with this provocative analysis, the author is entered in other subjects, among which he emphasizes the damages caused by the banning of DDT; according to Crichton, “it has killed more people than Hitler, and the ecological movement pressed a lot to obtain it”.

I understand that it costs to digest these ideas, but is preferable to leave the cavern that to remain in it for not opposing the unique thought. The lesson that this novel has for us could be this one: “The current, almost histerical preoccupation for Security is, in the best of cases, a waste of resources and an obstacle for the human spirit and, in the worst of the cases, an invitation to totalitarianism”.

Evidently, environment is a good that we must protect, but in no case can we forget that our main duty is to preserve the life of the man. If we dedicate ourselves to accept without any criticism all messages coming from average ecologists media it is possible that we endangering the social welfare. In any case, to play being gods and controlling environment is as unreal as thinking a new man can be created or that crime can be exiled definitively. The ecological utopia, like the Socialist one, is a step back in civilization.

Not long ago, a famous ecologist had the courage to reveal the hidden agenda of the ecologism: “Until the moment at which the homo sapiens decides to return to Nature, some of us can only hope that the suitable virus appears”. (http://www.liberalismo.org/articulo/42/29/)

If you are one of those sensible people who do not want crocodiles to devour you or the malaria ends with your life, then nothing else is more recommendable than innoculate yourself against the divinization of nature. For this purpose you can begin reading State of Fear. It will not dissapoint you.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.