If
you ask students brainwashed into the environmental worship of Mother Earth, investors
who stand to make a fortune from selling carbon swaps, Hollywood know-it-alls, and
bureaucrats who charge carbon taxes, the answer is yes.
If
you ask corporations and countries like Brazil who profit from pushing biofuels
(ethanol and DieselMaxx), the EPA, those green on the outside and red on the
inside who want to bankrupt the coal industry, those who want energy prices to
skyrocket, and those who receive huge government grants and subsidies to profit
from expensive wind and solar energy, the answer is yes.
If
you ask real and honest scientists, 100 of whom took a full-page ad in the
Washington Post to denounce the global warming hoax, the protesting people
around the globe who are starving or paying much higher prices for their daily
food staple, corn, that is now being turned into ethanol, and if you carefully
read the evidence and recent scientific data that is not doctored or
manufactured, the answer is no.
If
the much maligned CO2, a plant nutrient, is so bad for the planet, why do
greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to accelerate the growth and size of
their plants? The generators are made in the U.S. and run on propane and
natural gas, turning fossil fuels into CO2.
A
recent study showed that a slight rise in CO2 levels of the atmosphere has
actually helped re-green deserts, accelerating the growth of trees, shrubs, and
grasses which produce oxygen. The American Geophysical Union concluded that it was
the “fertilizer” effect of CO2 increasing vegetation cover by 8 percent in the
last 28 years (1982-2010). Researchers adjusted for potential changes from
rain, air temperature, sunlight, and land use. http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2013/2013-24.shtml
Nobody
can make pronouncements with 100 percent accuracy but it does not stop global
warming proponents to say that they are 100 percent sure that man-made CO2 production
since the industrial age began is the only culprit for global warming. How can
they be so sure? It is the accepted “consensus” of like-minded globalists, not
incontrovertible facts. The science of man-made global warming is based on “consensus”
and biased computer modeling. http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/060413-658776-study-shows-co2-rise-is-causing-deserts-to-get-greener.htm
“The
data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing recommendations on the data. We’re basing
them on the climate models, said Professor Chris Folland of the Hadley Centre
for Climate Prediction and Research. http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
“The
models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful,” said Dr.
David Frame, climate modeler at Oxford University. http://www.green-agenda.com/
“No
matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides
the greatest opportunity to bring about
justice and equality in the world, said Christine Stewart, former
Canadian Minister of the Environment. (Stewart, Christine. Calgary Herald,
December 14, 1998)
Alan Siddons and Joe D’Aleo call carbon dioxide the “Houdini of Gases.” They wrote on September 5, 2007 that studies compiled by geologist Tom Segalstad show “earth’s biological and chemical processes recycle CO2 within a decade,” contradicting United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conclusion that carbon dioxide remains in the air for up to 200 years. “A CO2 molecule you’re exhaling at the moment is bound to be captured by a plant or a rock or the ocean just a few years from now.” http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Carbon_Dioxide_The_Houdini_of_Gases.pdf
Global
warming alarmists always murky the waters by interchanging “climate” with “weather.”
They are two different concepts. It is self-evident that over millions of years,
the earth’s climate has changed independent of human activity, due to solar
activity, solar flares, cloud cover, ice cap melts, refreezes, and direction of
oceanic currents. Catastrophic weather events have occurred prior to the
industrial revolution when human activity could not be connected in any way to
earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, droughts, and floods.
Professor
of Climate Science and chair at Macquarie University, Australia, Dr. Murry
Salby, the author of the book “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate,” said
that man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or climate change.
Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 present over
non-industrialized regions, e.g., the Amazon, not over industrialized regions.
Ninety-six percent of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4 percent is
man-made. http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/10/climate-scientist-dr-murry-salby-explains-why-man-made-co2-does-not-drive-climate-change/
Dr.
Salby said in his speech in Hamburg, April 18, 2013, “IPCC [temperature
prediction] models have no predictive skill.” In other words, global
temperature is not controlled exclusively by CO2, there are other important
variables such as cloud cover, solar activity, solar flares, oceanic currents that
the IPCC modeling did not take into account. http://www.kaltesonne.de/?p=10877
Dr.
Klaus Kaiser explained in his article, “Pushing Back on Misinformation,” that
there is no such thing as “carbon pollution” or “carbon dioxide pollution.”
Carbon is an essential element of anything organic and carbon dioxide is
necessary for plant life on earth.
As
he points out, if atmospheric concentration of CO2 should drop from 0.04% to 0.02%
(most bureaucrats and environmental groups demand to cut CO2 emissions in half –
perhaps they could hold their breath or genetically engineer a non-flatulent
cow), “it would be insufficient to sustain photosynthesis in most plants. Without growing plants, the
bottom of the food-chain would disappear.”
Dr.
Kaiser also discredits the theory of “greenhouse gas that traps heat” that had
been proven a false hypothesis a hundred years ago but “resurrected in the
1970s by interest groups who saw it as a convenient means to exert control over
energy sources.”
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/56183
Larry
Bell encapsulated the true agenda of the maligned carbon dioxide and the global
warming proponents in his Forbes article, How Many Things You Do Today Will
Kill You Or The Planet? http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/06/25/how-many-things-you-do-today-will-kill-you-or-the-planet/2/
-
Control
by environmentalists such as the World Wildlife Fund and Sierra Club (The polar
bear population they claimed, unlikely to survive, has made a miraculous
recovery. Emperor penguins in Antarctica are going to survive as well and have
doubled in population.)
-
Wind
power (too expensive and only suitable for a few locations; chops up quite a
few birds; the darling of liberals as long as the ugly and noisy windmills are
not installed in their own back yards)
-
Solar
power (also expensive and inefficient at night when we need it most; I might
add that it needs lots of surface land to deploy the panels, land which is
better suited for agriculture)
-
Maurice
Strong and his 1992 Rio Summit with his UN Agenda 21, “centralized control of
every aspect of human life: energy use, water use, housing and stock
allocation, population levels, public health, dietary regimens, resources and
recycling, social justice and education”
No comments:
Post a Comment