Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Al Gore mistaken on Polar Ice Cap science

Former Vice President Al Gore stuck his foot in his mouth while speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit when he claimed that, "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years." Interesting but not so quick as the scientist that Gore quoted denied giving concrete numbers to which later Gore's office admitted that the figure was "one used by Dr. Maslowski as a 'ballpark figure' several years ago in a conversation with Gore" (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece). Interesting error in science indeed, especially in light of those hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.

While I do acknowledge that the climate warms and cools, I do not subscribe that it is as manmade that most on the left would like us all to believe. As I am writing this, Andrea Mitchell had Gary Hart and a former General on to discuss how climate change is a national security threat. The Left is losing the battle and has not gone to the bag of tricks that Bush used, i.e. WMD's, to push the climate change agenda. Let's all be honest, what is playing out in Copenhagen is not about being good stewards of the Earth; rather it is about plundering the coffers of the Industrialized World by Third World and developing countries. The EU has announced that it will give 500 million euro's to Africa and the Caribbean (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE5BE1BI._CH_.2420) and the United States upped their ante that will be set at $9 billion for 2010. By the way it was President Bush that led to the tripling of "direct humanitarian and development aid" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html).

That being said, it is time that we take a time out and look at the science of climate change. A friend of mine posted this webpage on my Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedaily.com%2Freleases%2F2009%2F11%2F091124140957.htm&h=a0758a2cd40ea99ae8b12077acd89c03 After reading the article I posed this question: Park says that "a strong correlations exists between sea-surface temperature and CO2 levels in the tropic areas. Conversely, in places with a lot of trees and other biomass to soak up much of the atmospheric CO2..." Wouldn't that lead us to believe that deforestation and the lack of biomass – will need a definition on that – is the root cause of the "inerannual time scales" that results in less CO2 absorption? So, shouldn't the push be for more forests and biomass instead of "Cap and Trade" legislation? Or did I read what he said incorrectly? It appears to me that Park is applying correlations found in tropical oceans to all waterways which does not equate when he says "in places with a lot of trees and other biomass" the oceans are able to absorb access CO2. Can't have it both ways…"

I have not seen an answer to this question. Perhaps someone here will help me understand or correct me if I am miss-understanding Parks report. All of this is why we need to have a robust debate void of emotion and political influence. Is that even possible? Plus, if Gore was told of the prediction by Dr. Maslowski took place several years ago, wouldn't that mean that we will see no polar ice cap in the next one or two years?