Sheryl Crow - Toilet Paper, Earth Day and the U.N.

Sheryl Crow, on a roll in her quest for publicity without a Lance Armstrong photo op, suggests saving trees by using:

"only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required."

When this news broke this a.m., the entrepreneurial opportunity was exciting, but Sheryl's brother is already on it, and suggests not discarding the one square but:

"...just washing the one square out."

I assume the above is Ms. Crow's attempt at levity, because any other assumption casts her in quite an unflattering light. True levity, however, can be seen in Crow working tirelessly to EDUCATE our college students with a U.S. Global Warming College Tour... and to validate the integrity of her tour, Laurie David is lending her expertise by appearing and touring with Crow. Who is Laurie David? She is the founder of StopGlobalWarming.org, a convenient tool for promoting Al Gore, and Laurie and Larry David's film, An Inconvenient Truth. The Davids are filmmakers and producers. Honestly, I encourage Ms. Crow to rest easier on the throne. There are many opinions out there, many from real experts...scientists and climatologists...who see the earth differently...who have nothing to gain by disturbing the emotional peace of nations by creating that which is probably not. Ronald Bailey, Science Correspondent for ReasonOnline, has a long list of credits, research and writings. He says, in his 2002 "Debunking Green Myths," piece:

Environmentalism is an ideology, very much like Marxism, which pretended to base its social critique on a "scientific" theory of economic relations. Like Marxists, environmentalists have had to force the facts to fit their theory. Environmentalism is an ideology in crisis: The massive, accumulating contradictions between its pretensions and the actual state of the world can no longer be easily explained away.

Bailey's article references the work of Bjorn Lomborg, a former Greenpeace member, who set-out to debunk anti-global warming rhetoric. Ms. Crow's yearning to daunt toilet paper usage might consider this from Lomborg:

Lomborg shows that claims of rapid deforestation are vastly exaggerated. One United Nations Food and Agriculture survey found that globally, forest cover has been reduced by a minuscule 0.44 percent since 1961. The World Wildlife Fund claims that two-thirds of the world's forests have been lost since the dawn of agriculture; the reality is that the world still has 80 percent of its forests. What about the Brazilian rainforests? Eighty-six percent remain uncut, and the rate of clearing is falling. Lomborg also debunks the widely circulated claim that the world will soon lose up to half of its species. In fact, the best evidence indicates that 0.7 percent of species might be lost in the next 50 years if nothing is done. And of course, it is unlikely that nothing will be done.

On the earth's rising temperature and the cost of "draconian cuts in fossil fuel use:

"...global warming caused by burning fossil fuels is unlikely to be a catastrophe. Why? First, because actual measured temperatures aren't increasing nearly as fast as the computer climate models say they should be -- in fact, any increase is likely to be at the low end of the predictions, and no one thinks that would be a disaster. Second, even in the unlikely event that temperatures were to increase substantially, it will be far less costly and more environmentally sound to adapt to the changes rather than institute draconian cuts in fossil fuel use."

Of the ACTUAL costs, in dollars and cents:

The best calculations show that adapting to global warming would cost $5 trillion over the next century. By comparison, substantially cutting back on fossil fuel emissions in the manner suggested by the Kyoto Protocol would cost between $107 and $274 trillion over the same period. (Keep in mind that the current yearly U.S. gross domestic product is $10 trillion.) Such costs would mean that people living in developing countries would lose over 75 percent of their expected increases in income over the next century. That would be not only a human tragedy, but an environmental one as well, since poor people generally have little time for environmental concerns.

Professor Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research. He has this to say about human-caused climate change:

"For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero)".

"...yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."

"[a global warming enthusiast] will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate."

Continuing with Professor Carter's piece, notice the reference to the United Nations:

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible? The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

But Crow, on the unpopularity of any debunker's opinions, opines:

"It's past debate, it's hardly controversial doctrine."

So, to Professor Carter's "essence of the issue" and my search for any possible reason to contemplate just one little square of tissue:

Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

Crow's college tours are now over, not a single scheduled concert, an album in production containing "some powerful political messages," and she's discussing your toilet paper and mine. I must hand it to her, she's getting press today. Al Gore is basking in the sweet light of the publicity he so desperately seeks, his come-back resting squarely on the shoulders of our young 20-30-somethings who are feeling the weighty burden of an absence of toilet tissue in their lives, and the urgent need to purchase Melissa Ethridge's musical global warming warning: "I Need to Wake Up," - which is generally considered a big yawn - a big bore and a huge so-what, but buy it anyway because everyone needs to support "the cause." Let's face it, Crow, Gore, Ethridge and such, need global warming-hysteria to fund their lavish lifestyles - it's all about the money. Dollars and cents take us back to the United Nations, and guess what? Climate change is a threat to global security!

FROM THE UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change)UNFCCC Executive Secretary says significant funds needed to adapt to climate change impacts

The United Nations Security Council is meeting to discuss climate change as a threat to global security. Claims are that war lords will take advantage of populations "beset by flood, drought and other side effects of climate change." Forget the immediate Islamic threat, or the fact that many of these countries are already under Islamic tyranny...this from a report prepared by "retired American military" for a Virginia think tank:

The authors recommend that all branches of the U.S. military and intelligence services begin to devise national defense strategies that take into account the projected impact of climate change. "As military leaders, we know we cannot wait for certainty. Failing to act because a warning isn't precise is unacceptable."

If the world had just a glint of a legitimate "United Nations" focusing on real terrorism, the world would be a safer place, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Syria would certainly be less a threat. "Money-grubbing wanna-be-despots" describes much of the U.N. It's always about the money, the lifestyle of the Liberal rich, the famous and the diplomats, and it is NEVER about honest debate, it is only about their decision. I cannot solve global warming, nor can Sheryl Crow, for all her light-weight thought about it. To say that:

"It's past debate, it's hardly controversial doctrine,"

...from Sheryl Crow, is ridiculous, and it's insulting to the world population who must "get-on with it" every day - get up, go to work, take care of the family, actually DONATE some time and money for worthy causes, and all without benefit of prima donna attitudes: Read this from The Smoking Gun on Sheryl's demands, and look for the cigarettes, lighter, black socks and post cards, WITH STAMPS, assumedly so that she can mail-off a note or two, with the receiver believing she actually took the time to shop for it. THE DRUDGE REPORT has more. Permalink for this entry: http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/2007/04/sheryl-crow-toilet-paper-earth-day-and.html Trackback URL for this entry: http://haloscan.com/tb/maggiesnotebook/6435279902041667074 Tracked back by: Sheryl Crow Saves The World! from 123beta. Excerpt: Crow advocates reducing our toilet paper usage: Technorati Tags: Sheryl Crow U.N. United Nations Telegraph U.K. ReasonOnline Professor Bob Carter Ronald Bailey Science Correspondent Global Warming Melissa Ethridge I Need to Wake Up Science Climate Climatology