EARTH LOVE AT PIRATE SANDALS

    Jackpot! Environmentally conscience sandals!
 
    Here is what they say about their business:

WE ARE NOT A BIG UGLY BUSINESS...

The left would have us believe that to be an environmentalist you have to believe in catastrophic threats, dramatic increases in government power and economically draconian solutions. Such a big-government bureaucracy, trial-lawyer-litigation and excessive-regulation "environmentalism" does a poor job of protecting the environment while it erodes individual freedom, destroys jobs and weakens our country.

    The time has come to propose a fundamentally different approach to a healthy environment and a healthy economy.

       The time has come for the development of a mainstream environmentalism as an alternative to big bureaucracy and big litigation environmentalism. You could call it "green conservatism," but it's really the mainstream environmental approach that has worked so well in the United States. President Theodore Roosevelt epitomized this approach when he said, "The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose and method."

Looks like I have my next book to read. 

    Gingrich was on Sean Hannity the other day and explained that what his book focuses on is the ability of the private sector to solve the problems of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. What I have been saying all along. 

     I have finished both Fred Singer's book and Bjorn Lomborg's book. Fred believes that global warming can be explained in other ways, most naturally, while Lomberg claims that that is not what is important. Bjorn contends that the way we are approaching the problem is all wrong. The money we are going to waste on projects like Kyoto, could be better spent on solving world hunger and malaria. Both agree that warmer weather will more than likely turn out better for humanity than what is being portrayed by the global warming fanatics, like Al Gore. 

    Both go on to point out that more deaths occur world-wide in colder weather than in warmer weather.  Plants and crops do better in warmer weather. Looking back at history, when the weather had been warmer, more human advancement occurred. Disease spreads faster, and becomes more deadly when the temperature is colder. And both agree that the sea-level rise envisioned by the radicals is preposterous.

    All-in-all they both make very good arguments for pushing aside the hysterics and thinking about global warming in a more scientifically responsible manner. 


    . 

    

    
    

    Am I worried about man-made global warming? The answer is “no” and “yes”.

No, because the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up against an “inconvenient truth”. Its research shows that since 1998 the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to increase.

    Yes, because the self-proclaimed consensus among scientists has detached itself from the questioning rigours of hard science and become a political cause. Those of us who dare to question the dogma of the global-warming doomsters who claim that C not only stands for carbon but also for climate catastrophe are vilified as heretics or worse as deniers. 

    And according to most global warming advocates, a denier is what he is. Here is some of the back and forth posted a few days later. 
    
    It's sad that Bellamy has to write an article defending his position. Will there ever be time when their is a debate from scientists based on science rather than opinion. Regardless which side you are on, boil all the talk down to what is known to be fact, it does not lead us into a direction that would suggest the end of civilization. Bellamy states those facts in his article and suggests that we simply put too much faith in computers.

    I agree.

    

    In political polling, as the same questions are asked of more and more people the uncertainty, expressed as margin of error, declines substantially and the poll becomes a clearer snapshot of public opinion at that time. But it turns out that with climate, additional research does not substantially reduce the uncertainty.    

For instance, Dr. Andy Mahoney, a post-doc at CIRES/NSIDC is working on examining some evidence from Russian sea ice charts complied as far back as the early 1930s. Apparently, Dr. Mahoney is finding that some pretty large variations in sea ice extent have occurred across the 20th century, including a period of relatively low sea ice extent that pre-dated a relative increase in sea ice area that occurred just prior to the sea ice decline of the last several decades (those observed in the satellite era). While Dr. Mahoney notes that the early declines don’t appear to be quite as large as the current ones, it is possible that they set the stage for them in that there was not a complete recovery in the intervening period.