These estimates of the long-term cost of trying to curb global warming come from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). However accurate they may, or may not be, the numbers are staggering, and should make everyone stop and think a whole lot.
We have a great deal of doubt about the reliability of computer climate models, and there is much evidence that the world temperature data is inaccurate, and has been tampered with. Finally, there is a huge body of observed scientific information, strongly suggesting that global warming and climate change are natural processes that have been operating to heat and cool the Earth for billions of years. These are processes like variations in the amount of solar energy received by the Earth and the complex interplay between the atmosphere, the land, oceans, the biosphere, the carbon cycle, and the hydrologic cycle.
In light of this vast amount of information to the contrary, it is mind-boggling to think that any rational person is even thinking of trying to control global warming. Yet not only are people thinking of controlling global warming, they are passing laws that will cost billions upon billions of dollars. How can this be people? What is going on here? Have our politicians in their pathological partisan ambition become totally blind to reality? What does this say about all of their supporters?
Peter
from: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299419,00.html
Junk Science: Global Warming’s Trillion-Dollar Turkey
Thursday, October 04, 2007
By Steven Milloy
A trillion dollars doesn’t buy what it used to — at least when it comes to global warming, according to a new analysis from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Last July, this column reported that the latest global warming bill — the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007, introduced by Sens. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. and Arlen Specter, R-Pa. — would cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion in its first 10 years and untold trillions of dollars in subsequent decades.
This week, the EPA sent its analysis of the bill’s impact on climate to Bingaman and Specter. Now we can see what we’d get for our money, and we may as well just build a giant bonfire with the cash and enjoy toasting marshmallows over it.
For reference purposes, the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 380 parts per million. The EPA estimates that if no action is taken to curb CO2 emissions, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would be 718 ppm by 2095.
If the Bingaman-Specter bill were implemented, however, the EPA estimates that CO2 levels would be 695 ppm — a whopping reduction of 23 ppm.
The EPA also estimated that if all countries — including China, India, Brazil and other developing nations — curb CO2 emissions, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would be 491 ppm in 2095, including the above-mentioned 23 ppm reduction from the implementation of the Bingaman-Specter bill.
So it appears that no matter how you slice it, Bingaman-Specter is worth a 23 ppm-reduction in atmospheric CO2 by 2095. But what are the climatic implications of this reduction in terms of global temperature? After all, we are talking about global warming.
Although the EPA didn’t pursue its analysis that far, figuring out the implications are readily doable using the assumptions and formulas of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Under the no-action scenario (718-to-695 ppm), the IPCC formulas indicate that the multitrillion-dollar Bingaman-Specter bill might reduce average global temperature by 0.13 degrees Celsius.
Under the maximum regulation scenario (514-to-491 ppm), Bingaman-Specter might reduce average global temperature by 0.18 degrees Celsius. Actual temperature reductions are likely to be less since these estimates rely on the IPCC’s alarmist-friendly assumptions and formulas.
The question, then, becomes this: Is it really worth trillions of taxpayer dollars over 90 years to perhaps reduce global temperatures by 0.13-0.18 degrees Celsius? If you can’t answer that question, consider this.
Under the no-action scenario, average global temperature might be 1.2 degrees Celsius higher in 2095 than it is today, once again using conservative IPCC assumptions and formulas. Under the maximum-regulation scenario, average global temperature might be 1.03 degrees Celsius higher than today. (For reference purposes, the estimated total increase in average global temperature for the 20th century was about 0.50 degrees Celsius.)
So what’s the difference in mean global temperature between the no-action scenario and the maximum-regulation scenario? Could it be a whopping 0.17 degrees Centigrade? Is that what global warming hysteria is all about?
The Bingaman-Specter bill, then, would cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and produce virtually nothing in terms of temperature outcome. But the pain of Bingaman-Specter doesn’t stop with trillions of taxpayer dollars. The heart of the Bingaman-Specter bill is a so-called cap-and-trade system in which CO2 emission limits (caps) would be decreed and certain businesses and other special interest group emitters (such as farmers and states) would be given permits to emit CO2.
Emitters that have extra permits could sell them in the open market to emitters that weren’t lucky enough to get free permits and that need permits. Extra permits, as such, are essentially free money.
Proponents of the cap-and-trade scheme — generally speaking, conniving environmentalists who want to appear to be business-friendly and special interest emitters who want to feed at the taxpayer trough — portray it as a "market-based" approach to addressing global warming concerns.
Not only is cap-and-trade not "market-based," highly respected economists, including former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Arthur Laffer and Harvard University’s Greg Mankiw, say cap-and-trade will cause significant economic harm.
In a recent paper sponsored by the Free Enterprise Education Institute, a think tank with which I am affiliated, Laffer said that a cap-and-trade scheme would act as a constraint on the energy supply — much like the 1970s-era Arab oil embargoes and other energy crises. He estimates that cap-and-trade would shrink the U.S. economy by 5.2 percent and reduce family income by $10,800 by 2020.
So the Bingaman-Specter bill not only would waste taxpayer money, but it would harm economic growth and reduce family income — all without affecting global temperature in any sort of meaningful or even detectable way.
Although the EPA acknowledged, "Since the variation in cumulative global greenhouse gas emissions are small under [Bingaman-Specter], the variation in the resulting CO2 concentrations are small," this only hints at the bill’s futility.
There can be little doubt as to why the EPA failed to carry through the ultimate implications of the 23 ppm impact of Bingaman-Specter. The agency would have "officially" exposed the bill and global warming alarmism as utterly absurd.
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Respond to the Writer.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
More Fear-Mongering Drivel About Global Warming
Here is another example of ignorant fear-mongering from otherwise supposedly intelligent people about the issue of global warming and climate change. It contains the usual litany of ifs, maybes, coulds, and speculation. The most grievous mistake is the accepted assumption that man's carbon dioxide emissions are the cause of this destructive global warming and climate change.
All Thomas Homer-Dixon does is warn us about the dangers of global warming without offering any solutions. He's just another person "crying FIRE in a crowded theater". We all know what happened to "the boy who cried Wolf" too often; people began ignoring him, and he was eaten. At least I think that is how the story goes.
In conclusion, he says: "In response to the new dangers of climate change, we need a similar mobilization — of mothers, of students and of everyone with a stake in the future — now." A mobilization to do what? Read the following opinion piece published in the New York Times and see how ridiculous his statements are.
Peter
from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/opinion/04homer-dixon.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
A Swiftly Melting Planet
By THOMAS HOMER-DIXON
Published: October 4, 2007
Toronto
THE Arctic ice cap melted this summer at a shocking pace, disappearing at a far higher rate than predicted by even the most pessimistic experts in global warming. But we shouldn’t be shocked, because scientists have long known that major features of earth’s interlinked climate system of air and water can change abruptly.
A big reason such change happens is feedback — not the feedback that you’d like to give your boss, but the feedback that creates a vicious circle. This type of feedback in our global climate could determine humankind’s future prosperity and even survival.
The vast expanse of ice floating on the surface of the Arctic Ocean always recedes in the summer, reaching its lowest point sometime in September. Every winter it expands again, as the long Arctic night descends and temperatures plummet. Each summer over the past six years, global warming has trimmed this ice’s total area a little more, and each winter the ice’s recovery has been a little less robust. These trends alarmed climate scientists, but most thought that sea ice wouldn’t disappear completely in the Arctic summer before 2040 at the earliest.
But this past summer sent scientists scrambling to redo their estimates. Week by week, the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., reported the trend: from 2.23 million square miles of ice remaining on Aug. 8 to 1.6 million square miles on Sept. 16, an astonishing drop from the previous low of 2.05 million square miles, reached in 2005.
The loss of Arctic sea ice won’t be the last abrupt change in earth’s climate, because of feedbacks. One of the climate’s most important destabilizing feedbacks involves Arctic ice. It works like this: our release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases around the planet causes some initial warming that melts some ice. Melting ice leaves behind open ocean water that has a much lower reflectivity (or albedo) than that of ice. Open ocean water absorbs about 80 percent more solar radiation than sea ice does. And so as the sun warms the ocean, even more ice melts, in a vicious circle. This ice-albedo feedback is one of the main reasons warming is happening far faster in the high north, where there are vast stretches of sea ice, than anywhere else on Earth.
There are other destabilizing feedbacks in the carbon cycle that involve the oceans. Each year, the oceans absorb about half the carbon dioxide that humans emit into the atmosphere. But as oceans warm, they will absorb less carbon dioxide, partly because the gas dissolves less readily in warmer water, and partly because warming will reduce the mixing between deep and surface waters that provides nutrients to plankton that absorb carbon dioxide. And when oceans take up less carbon dioxide, warming worsens.
Scientists have done a good job incorporating some feedbacks into their climate models, especially those, like the ice-albedo feedback, that operate directly on the temperature of air or water. But they haven’t incorporated as well feedbacks that operate on the atmosphere’s concentrations of greenhouse gases or that affect the cycle of carbon among air, land, oceans and organisms. Yet these may be the most important feedbacks of all.
Global warming is melting large areas of permafrost in Alaska, Canada and Siberia. As it melts, the organic matter in the permafrost starts to rot, releasing carbon dioxide and methane (molecule for molecule, methane traps far more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide).
Warming is also affecting wetlands and forests around the world, helping to desiccate immense peat bogs in Indonesia, contributing to more frequent drought in the Amazon basin, and propelling a widening beetle infestation that’s killing enormous tracts of pine forest in Alaska and British Columbia. (This infestation is on the brink of crossing the Canadian Rockies into the boreal forest that extends east to Newfoundland.) Dried peat and dead and dying forests are vulnerable to wildfires that would emit huge quantities of carbon into the atmosphere.
This summer’s loss of Arctic sea ice indicates that at least one major destabilizing feedback is gaining force quickly. Scientists have also recently learned that the Southern Ocean, which encircles Antarctica, appears to be absorbing less carbon, while Greenland’s ice sheet is melting at an accelerating rate.
When warming becomes its own cause, we might not be able to stop extremely harmful climate change no matter how much we cut our greenhouse gas emissions. We need a far more aggressive global response to climate change. In the 1960s, mothers learned that the milk they were feeding their children was laced with radioactive material from atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons and that this contamination could increase the risk of childhood leukemia. Soon women organized themselves in the tens of thousands to demand that nuclear powers ban atmospheric testing. Their campaign largely succeeded.
In response to the new dangers of climate change, we need a similar mobilization — of mothers, of students and of everyone with a stake in the future — now.
Thomas Homer-Dixon, a professor of peace and conflict studies at the University of Toronto, is the author of “The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity and the Renewal of Civilization.”
All Thomas Homer-Dixon does is warn us about the dangers of global warming without offering any solutions. He's just another person "crying FIRE in a crowded theater". We all know what happened to "the boy who cried Wolf" too often; people began ignoring him, and he was eaten. At least I think that is how the story goes.
In conclusion, he says: "In response to the new dangers of climate change, we need a similar mobilization — of mothers, of students and of everyone with a stake in the future — now." A mobilization to do what? Read the following opinion piece published in the New York Times and see how ridiculous his statements are.
Peter
from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/opinion/04homer-dixon.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
A Swiftly Melting Planet
By THOMAS HOMER-DIXON
Published: October 4, 2007
Toronto
THE Arctic ice cap melted this summer at a shocking pace, disappearing at a far higher rate than predicted by even the most pessimistic experts in global warming. But we shouldn’t be shocked, because scientists have long known that major features of earth’s interlinked climate system of air and water can change abruptly.
A big reason such change happens is feedback — not the feedback that you’d like to give your boss, but the feedback that creates a vicious circle. This type of feedback in our global climate could determine humankind’s future prosperity and even survival.
The vast expanse of ice floating on the surface of the Arctic Ocean always recedes in the summer, reaching its lowest point sometime in September. Every winter it expands again, as the long Arctic night descends and temperatures plummet. Each summer over the past six years, global warming has trimmed this ice’s total area a little more, and each winter the ice’s recovery has been a little less robust. These trends alarmed climate scientists, but most thought that sea ice wouldn’t disappear completely in the Arctic summer before 2040 at the earliest.
But this past summer sent scientists scrambling to redo their estimates. Week by week, the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., reported the trend: from 2.23 million square miles of ice remaining on Aug. 8 to 1.6 million square miles on Sept. 16, an astonishing drop from the previous low of 2.05 million square miles, reached in 2005.
The loss of Arctic sea ice won’t be the last abrupt change in earth’s climate, because of feedbacks. One of the climate’s most important destabilizing feedbacks involves Arctic ice. It works like this: our release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases around the planet causes some initial warming that melts some ice. Melting ice leaves behind open ocean water that has a much lower reflectivity (or albedo) than that of ice. Open ocean water absorbs about 80 percent more solar radiation than sea ice does. And so as the sun warms the ocean, even more ice melts, in a vicious circle. This ice-albedo feedback is one of the main reasons warming is happening far faster in the high north, where there are vast stretches of sea ice, than anywhere else on Earth.
There are other destabilizing feedbacks in the carbon cycle that involve the oceans. Each year, the oceans absorb about half the carbon dioxide that humans emit into the atmosphere. But as oceans warm, they will absorb less carbon dioxide, partly because the gas dissolves less readily in warmer water, and partly because warming will reduce the mixing between deep and surface waters that provides nutrients to plankton that absorb carbon dioxide. And when oceans take up less carbon dioxide, warming worsens.
Scientists have done a good job incorporating some feedbacks into their climate models, especially those, like the ice-albedo feedback, that operate directly on the temperature of air or water. But they haven’t incorporated as well feedbacks that operate on the atmosphere’s concentrations of greenhouse gases or that affect the cycle of carbon among air, land, oceans and organisms. Yet these may be the most important feedbacks of all.
Global warming is melting large areas of permafrost in Alaska, Canada and Siberia. As it melts, the organic matter in the permafrost starts to rot, releasing carbon dioxide and methane (molecule for molecule, methane traps far more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide).
Warming is also affecting wetlands and forests around the world, helping to desiccate immense peat bogs in Indonesia, contributing to more frequent drought in the Amazon basin, and propelling a widening beetle infestation that’s killing enormous tracts of pine forest in Alaska and British Columbia. (This infestation is on the brink of crossing the Canadian Rockies into the boreal forest that extends east to Newfoundland.) Dried peat and dead and dying forests are vulnerable to wildfires that would emit huge quantities of carbon into the atmosphere.
This summer’s loss of Arctic sea ice indicates that at least one major destabilizing feedback is gaining force quickly. Scientists have also recently learned that the Southern Ocean, which encircles Antarctica, appears to be absorbing less carbon, while Greenland’s ice sheet is melting at an accelerating rate.
When warming becomes its own cause, we might not be able to stop extremely harmful climate change no matter how much we cut our greenhouse gas emissions. We need a far more aggressive global response to climate change. In the 1960s, mothers learned that the milk they were feeding their children was laced with radioactive material from atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons and that this contamination could increase the risk of childhood leukemia. Soon women organized themselves in the tens of thousands to demand that nuclear powers ban atmospheric testing. Their campaign largely succeeded.
In response to the new dangers of climate change, we need a similar mobilization — of mothers, of students and of everyone with a stake in the future — now.
Thomas Homer-Dixon, a professor of peace and conflict studies at the University of Toronto, is the author of “The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity and the Renewal of Civilization.”
Another Open Debate On Global Warming
Here is another debate on global warming, conducted in March, 2007. The idea is to educate as many people as possible about the absurdity of trying to stop global warming.
Peter
Last March, the prestigious New York debating society Intelligence Squared sponsored a debate on global warming, which may be viewed at http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=agsqgfcab.0.kh6qgfcab.rc5nt5bab.9902&ts=S0287&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.intelligencesquaredus.org%2FEvent.aspx%3FEvent%3D12. A pre-debate poll indicated that, by 2-to-1 (57 percent to 29 percent, with 14 percent undecided), the audience believed that manmade global warming was a crisis. But in the post-debate poll, the audience reversed its pre-debate views - the ranks of the skeptics swelled to 46 percent, the believers plummeted to 42 percent and the undecided declined slightly to 12 percent."That's the power of debate," said Milloy. "Though Al Gore aggressively promotes global warming alarmism, he unfortunately seems to lack confidence in his ability to debating climate change against others. But Al Gore's curious reluctance will hardly stop the public from being able to see how his points stack up against that of climate experts," Milloy concluded.
Peter
Last March, the prestigious New York debating society Intelligence Squared sponsored a debate on global warming, which may be viewed at http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=agsqgfcab.0.kh6qgfcab.rc5nt5bab.9902&ts=S0287&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.intelligencesquaredus.org%2FEvent.aspx%3FEvent%3D12. A pre-debate poll indicated that, by 2-to-1 (57 percent to 29 percent, with 14 percent undecided), the audience believed that manmade global warming was a crisis. But in the post-debate poll, the audience reversed its pre-debate views - the ranks of the skeptics swelled to 46 percent, the believers plummeted to 42 percent and the undecided declined slightly to 12 percent."That's the power of debate," said Milloy. "Though Al Gore aggressively promotes global warming alarmism, he unfortunately seems to lack confidence in his ability to debating climate change against others. But Al Gore's curious reluctance will hardly stop the public from being able to see how his points stack up against that of climate experts," Milloy concluded.
Al Gore "Debates" Climatologists About The Role Of CO2 in Global Warming
GeoPete
Message #1 - 10/04/07 12:43 PM
Here is another good video summarizing the main reason man is not causing global warming, and hence climate change. Atmospheric carbon dioxide just does not cause warming. This brings the entire global warming house of cards down. Have a look and listen.
Peter
Al Gore 'Debates' Global Warming for the First Time in YouTube Video; 'We Debate, You Decide' environmental education video series launched by DemandDebate.com
Washington, DC (October 4, 2007) ─ Since former vice president and global warming activist Al Gore has so far refused to debate global warming skeptics, the debate has been brought to him. The public may now watch Al Gore make his case head-to-head against expert climatologists in the first episode of the new environmental education video series, "We Debate, You Decide," launched by DemandDebate.com.
The "Al Gore Debates Global Warming" video is posted on YouTube (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=agsqgfcab.0.jh6qgfcab.rc5nt5bab.9902&ts=S0287&p=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DXDI2NVTYRXU).
"Al Gore has refused multiple invitations to debate in-person about global warming," said Steve Milloy, executive director of DemandDebate.com. "So we've decided to let video of his previous remarks do the talking for him," Milloy explained.
In the first installment of DemandDebate's "We Debate, You Decide" series, Al Gore 'debates' expert climatologists on the central issue of whether carbon dioxide drives global warming.
Al Gore says in the video that we're witnessing an unprecedented level of atmospheric carbon dioxide that is driving global temperatures higher. But expert climatologists ─ including Syun-ichi Akasofu, Tim Ball, Ian Clark, Piers Corbyn, Patrick Michaels, Nir Shaviv and Frederick Singer ─ say there is no evidence carbon dioxide drives global temperature change."
"We'll see what the public thinks after both sides make their case on a specific and narrow point," said Milloy. "Global warming alarmists didn't fare so well last time that happened," he added.
Message #1 - 10/04/07 12:43 PM
Here is another good video summarizing the main reason man is not causing global warming, and hence climate change. Atmospheric carbon dioxide just does not cause warming. This brings the entire global warming house of cards down. Have a look and listen.
Peter
Al Gore 'Debates' Global Warming for the First Time in YouTube Video; 'We Debate, You Decide' environmental education video series launched by DemandDebate.com
Washington, DC (October 4, 2007) ─ Since former vice president and global warming activist Al Gore has so far refused to debate global warming skeptics, the debate has been brought to him. The public may now watch Al Gore make his case head-to-head against expert climatologists in the first episode of the new environmental education video series, "We Debate, You Decide," launched by DemandDebate.com.
The "Al Gore Debates Global Warming" video is posted on YouTube (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=agsqgfcab.0.jh6qgfcab.rc5nt5bab.9902&ts=S0287&p=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DXDI2NVTYRXU).
"Al Gore has refused multiple invitations to debate in-person about global warming," said Steve Milloy, executive director of DemandDebate.com. "So we've decided to let video of his previous remarks do the talking for him," Milloy explained.
In the first installment of DemandDebate's "We Debate, You Decide" series, Al Gore 'debates' expert climatologists on the central issue of whether carbon dioxide drives global warming.
Al Gore says in the video that we're witnessing an unprecedented level of atmospheric carbon dioxide that is driving global temperatures higher. But expert climatologists ─ including Syun-ichi Akasofu, Tim Ball, Ian Clark, Piers Corbyn, Patrick Michaels, Nir Shaviv and Frederick Singer ─ say there is no evidence carbon dioxide drives global temperature change."
"We'll see what the public thinks after both sides make their case on a specific and narrow point," said Milloy. "Global warming alarmists didn't fare so well last time that happened," he added.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" on DVD
New from JunkScience.com:
The Great Global Warming Swindle...
is now available on DVD -- only at the
DemandDebate.com Store! Supplies
are limited. Get your copy while they last!
The Great Global Warming Swindle...
is now available on DVD -- only at the
DemandDebate.com Store! Supplies
are limited. Get your copy while they last!
Schools Must Warn Of Gore Climate Film Bias
It looks like our British friends are finally beginning to catch on to the hoax that Al Gore is perpetuating about the myth of man-caused global warming. Hopefully this represents the "tipping point" and this nonsense and fear-mongering about global warming will fade away like Al Gore.
Peter
Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias
Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" has been called unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush'.Schools will have to issue a warning before they show pupils Al Gore's controversial film about global warming, a judge indicated yesterday.
The move follows a High Court action by a father who accused the Government of 'brainwashing' children with propaganda by showing it in the classroom.
Stewart Dimmock said the former U.S. Vice-President's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush'.
He wants the video banned after it was distributed with four other short films to 3,500 schools in February.
Mr Justice Burton is due to deliver a ruling on the case next week, but yesterday he said he would be saying that Gore's Oscar-winning film does promote 'partisan political views'.
This means that teachers will have to warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film.
He said: 'The result is I will be declaring that, with the guidance as now amended, it will not be unlawful for the film to be shown.'
Al Gore talks about Hurricane Katrina in a scene from the controversial movie
The outcome marks a partial victory for Mr Dimmock, who had accused the 'New Labour Thought Police' of indoctrinating youngsters by handing out thousands of Climate Change Packs to schools.
Mr Dimmock, a lorry driver from Dover with children aged 11 and 14, said at the outset of the hearing: 'I wish my children to have the best education possible, free from bias and political spin, and Mr Gore's film falls far short of the standard required.'
His solicitor John Day, said yesterday that the Government had been forced to make 'a U-turn', but said it did not go far enough.
He said 'no amount of turgid guidance' could change the fact that the film is unfit for consumption in the classroom.
The case arises from a decision in February by the then Education Secretary Alan Johnson that DVDs of the film would be sent to all secondary schools in England, along with a multimedia CD produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs containing two short films about climate change and an animation about the carbon cycle.
David Miliband, who was Environment-Secretary when the school packs were announced, said at the time: 'The debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over.'
But during the three-day hearing, the court heard that the critically-acclaimed film contains a number of inaccuracies, exaggerations and statements about global warming for which there is currently insufficient scientific evidence.
The Climate Change Resource Pack has now been sent to more than 3,500 schools and is aimed at key stage 3 pupils - those aged 11 to
Children's Minister Kevin Brennan said last night: 'The judge's decision is clear that schools can continue to use An Inconvenient Truth as part of their teaching on climate change in accordance with the amended guidance, which will be available online today.
'We have updated the accompanying guidance, as requested by the judge to make it clearer for teachers as to the stated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change position on a number of scientific points raised in the film.'
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Melting Glaciers Are Fun
Global warming and melting glaciers can be fun.............a new Olympic sport perhaps? See this video.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKRR9RMmcIQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKRR9RMmcIQ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)