Yes, every time you update your Facebook status a baby polar bear dies.
Artists Rendering of Proposed Datacenter in Oregon for Facebook
Those are the words of yet another idiotic mindless drone of the environmental loonies. Tara Lohan, lefty blogger, posted an article on Change.org last week that vilifies internet giant, Facebook, for not living up to her standards. Somehow, Facebook should decide to move their company’s data center to the bidding of environmental whack jobs, and if they don’t then they’re evil and therefore in bed with the nasty republican earth murderers.
The reality is that Facebook seemingly made the good, prudent and resourceful decision, which is best for their bottom line. By moving to their planned location they’ll save at least $2,600,000.00 a year in taxes. (link) Although the datacenter will benefit from some hydro-base power, the majority of their electricity may be pulled from a coal based source in Idaho.
Lohan’s article came a few days prior to BBC’s Q&A with Phil Jones. Which is incredibly ironic, since so many of the current environmentalist’s arguments, including Lohan, for the earths demise is based on “Global Warming” or “Climate Change.” Jones, summarized, admits that global warming is not all it’s cracked up to be. He sites volcanic and solar influences as being the major warming catalysts.
Jones even admits that this warming trend is nothing more than a series of trends, and that there’s nothing unsusal with this global warming period. From the BBC Article:
A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Here are the trends and significances for each period:
| Period |
Length |
Trend
(Degrees C per decade) |
Significance |
| 1860-1880 |
21 |
0.163 |
Yes |
| 1910-1940 |
31 |
0.15 |
Yes |
| 1975-1998 |
24 |
0.166 |
Yes |
| 1975-2009 |
35 |
0.161 |
Yes |
|
He goes on to say,
N – When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over”, what exactly do they mean – and what don’t they mean?
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.
So really there is no consensus. There are too many variables out there that still need to be studied, and there’s no way an honest scientist can say there is man-made global warming, or that CO2 is the culprit. Any claim that Facebook is evil or wrong for utilizing coal based energy has a separate agenda or is truly an idiot. And the feeble attempts to put a halt to Facebook’s move is foolish.
Tara Lohan and here leftist agenda does nothing more than propagate a liberal agenda that has too many holes in it. The Huffington Post contributor and Alternet editor wants nothing more than us to never eat meat, make love to the earth and be controlled by a progressive government that dictates how we all live. In my opinion anyone that wants their progressive agenda passed at everybody’s expense, as Lohan does, is toxic and people should take caution when reading her hate filled rhetoric.
