Reader Feedback 08/07/2007

Some comments on our recent article "Celebrity Carbon":

It's easy to criticize a rock super group for wasting our precious natural resources. Bono has said many times that he is not some kind of saint to be emulated. His point is to try to raise awareness of the numerous cheap and simple ways to help solve Africa's problems. He's pushing for AIDS drugs, cheap water filters and mosquito nets for all those who need them. It is a scientific fact that global warming is real and that it has added to the misery of millions of Africa's most impoverished people.

Shame on you for taking a pot shot at someone who is trying to do what he can to make the world a better place. Celebrities who use their fame for the good of others should be given a tip of the hat, not ridicule.

(Christie R.)

***

While anyone would congratulate the lampooning of celebrity hypocrisy, people seem to be missing the entire point about the Global Warming Debate. That point is Venus. Venus, victim of its own runaway global green house effect, and currently home to surface temperatures of 430 degrees centigrade and clouds of sulfuric acid. This is what happens when too much water vapor enters the upper atmosphere. Whilst Methane and CO2 are the buzz gases, it is the humble H2O molecule that does the most greenhouse work, trapping heat in any planetary atmosphere.

Rising sea levels may flood low-level countries in the next 50 years or so, and weather patterns may possibly cause horrific drought and storm cycles, but it is when the planetary water in permanent ice form eventually becomes water in gaseous form that we need to be concerned. Of course, "we" don't need to be concerned, because the exponential effects of a runaway green house effect may take thousands of years. But it will be exponential, as more heat releases more water vapor (and more methane, trapped in the vast frozen tundra of Northern Europe) which leads to more heat and so on.

The crux of the debate - will we continue to behave in a way that may possibly end all life on the planet? Even if there is only a 5% chance, and it may only happen in the next 10,000 years, is that a risk a sane person would take? We are juggling machetes in an inflatable life raft. It's probably for the best to stop.

Whilst economic taxes and fees may hurt short term, even if every GW scaremonger is completely wrong, reducing emissions and our reliance on oil will obviously, without debate, lead to a lowering of pollution and an avoidance of global dependence on the Middle East. The emphasis on improving technological advancement within the alternative energy world can only benefit mankind - or are we still to continue to drive around the planet in a device operating exactly as it did in 1895? In the same way that horse manure removal is no longer an urban problem, petrol engine byproducts could also be a thing of the past.

Would you strap on a parachute with a 5% chance of failure? Even a 1% chance?

(Oscar H.)

***

WWNK is usually such a good information source that it is a pity to waste it on rants like Celebrity Carbon. Super-rich entertainers, baseball players, and so on, are a popular part of the current American "culture." If some of the super-rich raise alarms about mankind's role in global warming then it is absurd to expect them to suddenly become hermits. However, it is reasonable to expect them to decrease their "carbon footprint," as Al Gore has promised.

When Doug resorts to attacks on these individuals to bolster his case on global warming, it suggests that he has no convincing arguments of his own, or cannot think of any useful topic to write about. In his special report on global warming (WWNK 9 Jan, 07 - with counter arguments in WWNK, special report, 31 Jan 07), Doug went to a lot of effort to try and convince us that people were having very little effect on global warming, even though we have increased the CO­2 to levels higher than seen on this planet in half a million years.

However, he wrote there: "We do believe that the debate should be taking place out in the open, with both sides presenting evidence, rather than engaging in name calling." Hmmm, perhaps Doug should take his own advice.

(Anonymous)

 





Posted 08-07-2007 11:05 PM by Doug Casey