Al Gore Or BBC Video?
Gordon K. Glatz
March 28, 2007
I borrowed this Buddha wisdom from another writers Article, as it is what I have been saying for years.
Buddha - Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta: "Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true."
Before you start writing to me in rebuttal read my whole article, as I know the first part will not set well with those who hold with the BBC, and the third paragraph with the Al Gore crowd.
I watched the BBC video, and I looked to me like another Hollywood documentary production, even though it was not made by Hollywood. Most of the film was junk back ground for so called effect, shots of this and that, with music, noise, and bells. Jumping back and forth from one scientist to another, making statements of opinion with no scientific back up. It was around a quarter to a third of the way into the film before they finally got into graphs and data to back their case.
Now one thing that was news to me was the statement that cosmic ray particles caused clouds. Implying that water vapor would not form with out it. I am sure everyone remembers learning in school that the sun's heat, caused evaporation of the water into the air forming clouds. Or was this a white lie to simplify it for the little kids.
It makes no matter since the real argument has nothing to do with CO2, or it shouldn't. Al Gore's film may have been politically motivated, or genuinely from the heart. We will never know since we can't read his mind. Like wise the BBC Video could be construed to be supporting oil.
I can well understand that the sun could and does cause climate change. After all how much light, heat, and radiation we receive will determine, how much is absorbed by the earth. In that the nature of the earths surface, and atmosphere will determine how much is reflected away, and how much is held in will be determined by the green house effect. So the extremity of the temperature may be due to how much the green house effect adds to it.
The criminal is pollution, CO2, CO3, Smoke, dust, chemicals, etc. Most maybe due to other sources, like volcanos, forest fires, etc., but if I fill a 100 gallon pool with water from what ever sources, and then I (man) go pore a bucket more into the pool, water is going to over flow.
It is certain that back in time when the sun caused high periods of warming, how high must have been associated with green house effects. Maybe not by man, but by some abnormal natural cause. Like more volcanic activity, or a meteor impact. That doesn't mean that this time it is just natural causes. You can not deny that conditions are quit different now then in other times. Man is more able to contribute to the effect, then he could before 1900.
Take a look at California on a clear day, that is if you can find a clear day. Then tell me that smog is not caused by man's cars.
We need to put back the trees, and other plant life we have destroyed in the name of progress. Use other materials in stead of wood.
There are other things that oil is used for, plastics, medicine, etc, plus the grease to keep the machinery of industry running.
What happens to these when the oil is gone?
We have found substitutes for motor oil, and grease that work better then the kind from fossil oil. We make plastics from wood sap which is renewable, and I am sure we can find other alternatives for the other products from oil.
Should a third world country go with out electricity? YES! If they can't afford it, with out the cost of more pollution to the world. The BBC Video said that solar, and wind was to expensive. Yes!, when made in a country where the cost is established by wages and living standards there. You can't expect a person in a country that has such a low economy to pay those prices.
Here in the USA for over a 100 years people had no electricity, and lived very good lives. Their pay was as little as those third world countries have to day. A lot of them could not afford the electricity when it was available, and continued in the old ways with healthy lives. Many farms had no power, or plumbing, but still had through hard work a clean home, with food on the table. With time and work they soon had the new comforts, they did not wait for some other country to hand it to them.
The only answer is an all electric world, they are discovering new ways to produce electricity every day. I read where a company has found a way of making cheaper solar cells with higher out put. I believe there are other ways as yet untapped, and we should be investing in research to find them. In stead of war to keep the oil flowing.
Buddha - Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta: "Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true."
Before you start writing to me in rebuttal read my whole article, as I know the first part will not set well with those who hold with the BBC, and the third paragraph with the Al Gore crowd.
I watched the BBC video, and I looked to me like another Hollywood documentary production, even though it was not made by Hollywood. Most of the film was junk back ground for so called effect, shots of this and that, with music, noise, and bells. Jumping back and forth from one scientist to another, making statements of opinion with no scientific back up. It was around a quarter to a third of the way into the film before they finally got into graphs and data to back their case.
Now one thing that was news to me was the statement that cosmic ray particles caused clouds. Implying that water vapor would not form with out it. I am sure everyone remembers learning in school that the sun's heat, caused evaporation of the water into the air forming clouds. Or was this a white lie to simplify it for the little kids.
It makes no matter since the real argument has nothing to do with CO2, or it shouldn't. Al Gore's film may have been politically motivated, or genuinely from the heart. We will never know since we can't read his mind. Like wise the BBC Video could be construed to be supporting oil.
I can well understand that the sun could and does cause climate change. After all how much light, heat, and radiation we receive will determine, how much is absorbed by the earth. In that the nature of the earths surface, and atmosphere will determine how much is reflected away, and how much is held in will be determined by the green house effect. So the extremity of the temperature may be due to how much the green house effect adds to it.
The criminal is pollution, CO2, CO3, Smoke, dust, chemicals, etc. Most maybe due to other sources, like volcanos, forest fires, etc., but if I fill a 100 gallon pool with water from what ever sources, and then I (man) go pore a bucket more into the pool, water is going to over flow.
It is certain that back in time when the sun caused high periods of warming, how high must have been associated with green house effects. Maybe not by man, but by some abnormal natural cause. Like more volcanic activity, or a meteor impact. That doesn't mean that this time it is just natural causes. You can not deny that conditions are quit different now then in other times. Man is more able to contribute to the effect, then he could before 1900.
Take a look at California on a clear day, that is if you can find a clear day. Then tell me that smog is not caused by man's cars.
We need to put back the trees, and other plant life we have destroyed in the name of progress. Use other materials in stead of wood.
There are other things that oil is used for, plastics, medicine, etc, plus the grease to keep the machinery of industry running.
What happens to these when the oil is gone?
We have found substitutes for motor oil, and grease that work better then the kind from fossil oil. We make plastics from wood sap which is renewable, and I am sure we can find other alternatives for the other products from oil.
Should a third world country go with out electricity? YES! If they can't afford it, with out the cost of more pollution to the world. The BBC Video said that solar, and wind was to expensive. Yes!, when made in a country where the cost is established by wages and living standards there. You can't expect a person in a country that has such a low economy to pay those prices.
Here in the USA for over a 100 years people had no electricity, and lived very good lives. Their pay was as little as those third world countries have to day. A lot of them could not afford the electricity when it was available, and continued in the old ways with healthy lives. Many farms had no power, or plumbing, but still had through hard work a clean home, with food on the table. With time and work they soon had the new comforts, they did not wait for some other country to hand it to them.
The only answer is an all electric world, they are discovering new ways to produce electricity every day. I read where a company has found a way of making cheaper solar cells with higher out put. I believe there are other ways as yet untapped, and we should be investing in research to find them. In stead of war to keep the oil flowing.
Print
Email
