Hysteria and hysterics
In conjunction with the DVD release of the BBC's series, "Planet Earth: The Complete Series," AOL is currently offering a short quiz and a video contest.
Hysteria first: The 10-question quiz "Planet Earth by the Numbers" has a certain spin, to say the least. Note question 10, my favorite:
Question: According to some estimates, by 2050, CO2 levels may be as high as when ...
a. Elvis was alive
b. Dinosaurs ate early humans
c. Oceans were 300 feet higher
d. An ice age began
The answer is ...
Oceans were 300 feet higher.
The comment along with the answer: "If sea levels rise along with CO2 concentrations the effect could be devestating(sic) -- 10 percent of the world's population lives in coastal areas within 32 feet about sea level."
Set the new sea level at 300 feet and say goodbye to most of the populated areas in the US. Panicked? Have a good laugh to reduce the stress.
Hysterics: To win a copy of the DVD, AOL asks contestants to "(u)pload a video of yourself, a family member or a friend imitating an animal or presenting an Earth Day tip about how to protect the planet and you could win a 'Planet Earth: The Complete Series' DVD set!"
There you have it, the solution to global warming: Videos of committed Socialist Greens squawking and clucking the party line. I'm laughing already.
Comments (9)
I don't know. I might think about sending in a video with my Earth Day tip about lobbying the government to totally and completely deregulate the solar power industry. Seriously, get rid of all labor laws, OSHA standards, disability laws, get rid of tax breaks. Explain how any and all regulations burden these clean industries and prevent any meaningful innovation.
Published: April 19, 2007 10:11 PM
"If sea levels rise along with CO2 concentrations"
But even the IPPC predicts that sea levels will rise less than C02 concentrations.
According to the Wikipedia: "Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm".
(32 feet are 9.75 meters).
Published: April 20, 2007 1:16 AM
*IPCC
Published: April 20, 2007 1:16 AM
Too bad my professors don't accept Wikipedia as a valid source of research data...
Published: April 20, 2007 5:12 AM
"We are awash in energy (10,000 times more than required to meet all our needs falls on Earth), but we are not very good at capturing it. That will change with the full nanotechnology-based assembly of macro objects at the nano scale, controlled by massively parallel information processes, which will be feasible within twenty years. Even though our energy needs are projected to triple within that time, we'll capture that .0003 of the sunlight needed to meet our energy needs with no use of fossil fuels, using extremely inexpensive, highly efficient, lightweight, nano-engineered solar panels, and we'll store the energy in highly distributed (and therefore safe) nanotechnology-based fuel cells. Solar power is now providing 1 part in 1,000 of our needs, but that percentage is doubling every two years, which means multiplying by 1,000 in twenty years. Almost all the discussions I've seen about energy and its consequences, SUCH AS GLOBAL WARMING, fail to consider the ability of future nanotechnology-based solutions to solve this problem."
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0692.html
The "watermelons" -- green on the outside, red on the inside -- don't want to hear this, of course, as it means that the market, if left to its own purposes, will resolve whatever warming problem might exist as a matter of course. No need, that is, for the world state that they covet.
Published: April 20, 2007 6:38 AM
The "watermelons" -- green on the outside, red on the inside [...]
Ha ha ha!! That is an excellent way to describe them! Concise and funny!
Published: April 20, 2007 10:54 AM
Hey! Very funny indeed! :)
Published: April 20, 2007 12:05 PM
Axel, the wikipedia article about IPCC report has a link to the report itself:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Please read page 13.
Published: April 20, 2007 1:34 PM
David White -
Ignoring for a moment the question of global warming itself, extrapolating exponential growth of solar technology is obviously flawed. Assuming a technological advance of this magnitude, even over the course of twenty years, is wishful thinking.
Now let's re-examine global warming. The problem with the case for global warming is that it, by its very nature, must make exactly these kinds of unrealistic assumptions. Even Al Gore doesn't think New York will flood tomorrow, but long term changes are possible, even if improbable. Let's try to evaluate competing claims by using realistic numbers. Not even Google has sustained this kind of exponential growth.
Published: April 22, 2007 2:40 PM