Carbon
Dioxide: FOOD FOR LIFE
By Jon Christian Ryter
copyright © 2009 · All Rights Reserved by Author
Scientists know there are many chemical elements in our
atmosphere which are usually measured only in nano amounts that are highly
toxic to humans. Methane. Gaseous mercury. Lead. Cadmium. Zinc. Chromium.
Copper. Some of those elements are natural and trace amounts have always been
in our atmosphere. Most of the more hazardous elements were introduced into
the ecosystem by man—and are toxic to humans. They
are byproducts of mining and industrial activity. Once mobilized, these
elements circulate in the air, water, sediments and biota.
When and wherever these elements exist, when they pose hazards to the environment and to
human life, like the presence of mercury in the ecosystem, we are barraged
with warnings from government health officials about their toxic levels, like
mercury in seafood. Scientists even measure concentrations of mercury in the
fur of polar bears. Yet, as toxic as mercury is, it's never been banned. In
fact, mercury is used to create the luminance in the compact fluorescent
light bulbs (CFL) that will shortly replace the traditional incandescent
light bulbs in every home in the world because the eco-idiots are convinced
that the heat from the standard light bulb contributes to global warming. The
mercury vapors inside those bulbs are so toxic that if you break one, you are
required to call your State's environmental protection agency which will send
a hazmat team to clean up the hazardous spill. In 2007, Maine resident Brandy
Bridges' daughter Shayley broke a CFL in her bedroom. The State
charged the family $2,000 to clean it up.
Even with all of the warnings posted by the Federal
Drug Administration [FDA] concerning either the toxicity of specific
chemical compounds or the hazardous impact they have on the ecosystem, there
is one common chemical compound that can literally eat metal and for which no
health warnings have ever been issued by the FDA.  The compound is part of the chalcogen group on the
periodic table. It was discovered by two scientists in the late 19th century.
Although Carl Wilhelm Scheele, an apprentice apothecarist in Sweden, discovered the
element in 1773, Englishman Joseph Priestly is credited with its
discovery because his paper describing it was the first to be published in a
scientific journal in 1774. Yet, as they correctly described this element,
neither Priestly nor Scheele scientifically named it. This
caustic element would not be named until Antoine Lavoisier, a wealthy
French chemist, began experimenting with a compound in 1777, isolating the
element in his laboratory.  In its pure form it is an anti-cancer agent, and cancer
cells die when exposed to it. Yet the pharmaceutical community has not
figured out how to harness this element and make effective treatment for
cancer. The reason could be that since it is a natural element, they cannot
patent it, which means they can't own the rights to using it as a treatment
for cancer.
 That aside for the moment, if the US Supreme Court can
declare carbon dioxide—a chemical compound
absolutely essential to human life—to be a hazardous pollutant that
should be regulated and, if possible, removed from the atmosphere, why have they not yet
classified Priestly's chemical compound as a pollutant? It makes sense
that a chemical element more caustic than carbon dioxide should be classified
as at least as much a threat to mankind as carbon dioxide. What is this
deadly compound? Lavoisier named it oxygen.
Now, if you think I just tried to dupe you, think about the ecoalarmist
agenda of the non-scientist, politicized justices on the US Supreme Court,
the agendized bureaucracy within the government of the United States, and the
highly partisan, agendized ideologues who control the Congress. Now that
associate justices on the high court are appointed based on their pedigrees,
it is not surprising that the high court has taken it upon themselves to
declare carbon dioxide—a chemical compound that is
absolutely essential to both organic and inorganic life on this planet—is now construed to be a chemical element so toxic to
humankind that it must be regulated and/or eliminated. If the Supreme Court
can decree carbon dioxide as detrimental to life, why should they not be able to
classify oxygen, whose caustic properties can eat through metal, as a toxic
element at least as harmful as carbon dioxide—and
ban it?
Why?
You ask? Because we breathe oxygen. Without oxygen, we die. Without
oxygen, everything dies. Even if scientists could synthesize oxygen for
personal breathing, without oxygen in the atmosphere, there would be no water
to drink. H2O is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. The air we breathe
is 78% nitrogen, 20.8% oxygen, 0.9% argon and 0.03% carbon dioxide. Pure
oxygen is bad because it's a toxic element. Breathing 100% oxygen is harmful
and can possibly be fatal. We breathe a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen that
enriches our blood (making it bright red). As blood flows through the
pulmonary capillaries it is oxygen-nitrogen rich. As oxygen-nitrogen gases
journeys through the body to the lungs, the air becomes oxygen-depleted and
rich in carbon dioxide (dark red). It is then exhaled.  Plantlife (anything that contains chlorophyll) converts
carbon dioxide by photosynthesis to create glucose the food plants eat to
grow. The byproduct (the excrement of the choloroplasts [plant cells]) is
oxygen.
To produce oxygen you need carbon dioxide. It's the magic ingredient. In
addition to carbon dioxide being essential for human life, it is essential
for all life—organic and inorganic. I
mention that only because the agenda of New Age [Gaia influenced] watermelons
is the elimination or radical curtailment of mankind. Ecoalarmists like Gore, funded almost
entirely by Big Oil, views man as a blight on nature because man depletes the
natural resources of this planet—in
particular, oil. Thus, the ecoalarmist is willing to sacrifice man to protect
the world's pristine settings—and, of course, the oil. In the final
analysis, the war against global warming is nothing more than a grand scheme
to curtail the use of oil (which the Seven Sisters are convinced is a
finite resource produced by the decaying carcasses of prehistoric dinosaurs
and primordial fauna during the Carboniferous Age, and, not to exclude
an oil company explanation for all the oil found under the seas, billion
trillions of microscopic diatoms (organisms about the size of a
pinhead in the primeval seas) when, in fact, intelligent research has
scientifically confirmed that oil is a self-replenishing resource.
Anyone with
a lick of sense knows that oil from soupy, decayed dinosaur fat is a myth.
Stop and think logically. One barrel of crude oil per day equals 50 tons of
crude per year. The recoverable oil from the former Soviet satellite of Azerbaijan alone is estimated
to be in excess of 500 million tons.  China's recoverable oil
exceeds 823 billion tons. In the Mideast, the recoverable
oil is estimated at over 2.49 billion ton. There is enough crude oil and
natural gas in the Alaskan Arctic to supply the majority of the energy needs
of the United States for about 300
years. The crude oil reserves on the Northern Slope of Alaska, currently
banned from drilling, could supply 100% of the oil needs of the United States for 30 years. The
oil and natural gas seabeds stretching from the Marianna Trench Archipelago
to the Rose Atoll in the Hawaiian Island group are believed
to contain the world's largest oil and natural gas reserve yet discovered.
The amount of oil and gas available is as yet undetermined because on January 6, 2009, under the UN's Law of the Sea Treaty,
335,000
square miles of the South Pacific was declared to be a US national monument
by then President George W. Bush. Pursuant to 34 Stat 225, 16 USC 431,
The Antiquities Act of June 8, 1906.
When the Fertile Crescent was actually a fertile, grassy garden eons
ago, dinosaurs and primordial fauna was probably found there in abundance. But,
in an abundance so great that its decayed matter could have produced over 5
billion tons of crude oil, and trillions of metric tons of natural gas?
Think of just how many billions of barrels of oil and trillions of metric
tons of gas have been harvested in the world since the 1860s, and ask
yourself just how many dead Tyrannosaurus rexes or Apatrosauruses there could
possibly have been in the primeval world, and the likelihood that billions of
these creatures herded together in the same neighborhood dead zone to expire?
If crude oil really was a fossil fuel, we're looking at what would have to
have been billions of trillions of tons of decayed Stegosaurus flesh and
rotten fauna and flora.
The concept that crude oil is a fossil fuel is a myth. Peak oil is a myth.
The world is not
running out of oil even though the "factory" in the magma of
the planet is not replenishing it as fast as man can use it. And, what's
more, the oil industry—particularly the oil barons
at 26 Broadway in New York—know it. The money barons at 120 Broadway in New York and the politicians
at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC who are in their
hip pockets have been lying to the American people since the turn of the
century. Not this century. The last one.
On May 4, 1970 the Soviets began
drilling a super-deep bore hole, named Kola SG-3, on the Kola Peninsula, 1025 km from Murmansk in far northern Russia on the Arctic
Continental Shelf. The 40 thousand-plus foot deep oil well produced some 83.2
million tons of oil. Since drilling that well, Yukos Oil, the Russian oil
giant, has drilled almost 400 super-deep wells.
In 2006 the former Soviet Union surpassed Saudi Arabia as the world's
largest oil producer. Instead of waiting for the crude that is produced deep
in the mantle of the Earth to pool to the surface, the Russians decided to
sink wells deep enough to collect the oil as it seeps up through the magma
and pools in subterranean lakes of oil in the mantle of the Earth where it
lays until pressure forces it up into the upper crust where traditional oil
rigs are able to retrieve it.
Peak oil is one of those fables like the tooth fairy or the Easter Bunny.
Once the American people screw their heads on straight and think it through,
they're going to realize that peak oil, like the whole myth about "fossil"
fuels, is pure Santa Claus rhetoric. So is global warming. It's a myth that
was originally-contrived by the fabricators of the New World Order to achieve
world government. Add to that their accomplices: US industrialists
trying to escape punitive government regulations and US labor unions that
drive up costs. And, of course, the merchant princes who thrive on slave
labor-priced goods not to lower costs to the consumers, but to increase their
bottom lines.
|
|
Over the
last quarter of a century the United States has become a
replacement market for consumer goods since most Americans now have two of
everything and virtually need nothing. We can no longer use the total sum
of the goods we can produce, so our factories work at 48% of capacity to
create only what we can use and what can be sold to our trading partners in
the industrialized world. Production costs are high, profits are low. In
the third world there are hundreds and hundreds of millions of potential
consumers for the products manufactured in US factories. These people have
nothing and need everything . . . in particular jobs—our jobs.
|
Using the North
American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] as a tariff-free portal to return
cheap-labor goods made in Mexico—or China,
India or Indonesia and shipped to the US through the swinging doors in
Mexico—by United States companies that use NAFTA to circumvent
US labor laws by assuring they have an affluent market in which to sell the
goods made elsewhere. NAFTA and the one-sided global warming debate both
originated from the propoganda-fertilized egg of globalism. Global warming is
caused, the environmentalists argue, by carbon dioxide emissions from our
factories and from the internal combustion engines in our motor vehicles from
using fossil fuels that create the brown smog over our urban areas.
Industrialists and the oil barons have successfully used green shills like
the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund,  the Pew Center
on Climate Change and others to advocate on behalf of moving
carbon-dioxide producing factories to the pristine third world on the pretext
that emissions spewed in the third world somehow don't pollute the
atmosphere, but emissions from the industrialized nations do.
For that reason, it should come as a surprise to no one to learn that a
coalition of 31 industrial corporations and environmentalists joined forces
in May, 2007 to form the United States Climate Action Partnership.
The purpose of USCAP was to work with Congress to enact comprehensive climate
legislation to establish a mandatory economy-wide cap on C02 pollution caused by
industry and fossil fuels. The mandatory caps would require greenhouse gas
reductions of 80% by 2050.
According to a Sierra Club factsheet, ". . .
Agriculture expansion and forest depletion have multiplied emissions of
greenhouse gases like CO2, but it is our dependence of fossil fuels
that propels monumental atmospheric change. When we burn fossil fuels such as
coal, oil and gas, we release unsustainable levels of C02—the primary global warming culprit. Those of us living in
the developed world bar a majority of the responsibility for reversing this
disturbing trend. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]
projects that during the lifetime of our children's lifetimes, global warming
will raise the average temperatures on Earth within a range of 2.7° to
10.5°F. The ecological impact of such a rapid increase include rising sea
levels, coastal erosion, decreasing agricultural productivity and accelerated
extinction rates of plants and animals due to their inability to adapt to the
changing climate. Global warming also poses threats to human health through
increased droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and floods."
The Sierra
Club's "factsheet" is not based on facts but voodoo
science. First, scientists know that increased carbon dioxide means
increased, not decreased, crop yields. Instead accelerating the decline and
extinction rates of plants, the opposite will actually occur. Carbon dioxide
is the food plants eat. Forestation increases when carbon dioxide levels
increase. The Sierra Club's statement that the depletion of
forest land has multiplied greenhouse gas emissions is categorically false.
First, other than in third world countries like Brazil that have cut back
thousands of acres of prime forest for the lumber to build homes that are now
intruding on that country's wild lands, it must be noted again that increased
levels of carbon dioxide feed the fauna, causing not only tree-ring growth,
but the expansion of forest size as well. In 2005, the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory reported on a forestation growth study
they did, noting that ". . . forest productivity may be significantly
greater in an atmosphere enriched with carbon dioxide according to findings
released today (December 8, 2005) that challenge recent reports. The NASA
report is based on experiments that were conducted in a deciduous forest in Tennessee, a pine forest in North Carolina and a young
hardwood stand in Wisconsin." The study noted a
23% increase in tree growth and forestation productivity.
Man-induced global warming is based not just on bad science but no science at
all. The computer models that theoretically "prove" that
man-induced, carbon dioxide-generated global warming is real are
manipulations that begin with a conclusion—that
global warming is happening and the world is in crisis. The evidence, that
must fit the conclusion, is then framed into the equation. Science is easier
that way. There are no surprises. Since no evidence that disputes the claims is
entered into the computer model, the premise supports the conclusion. When
former Vice President Al Gore, Jr., author of the Oscar-winning sci-fi
docudrama, An
Inconvenient Truth, that loosely poses as fact, was challenged to a
public forum debate by Lord Christopher Monckton, the Viscount of
Brenchley, a former adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher—the challenge appears in a
series of ads that ran in the Washington Post, Washington Times, Wall
Street Journal and the New York Times—Gore declined Lord
Monckton's offer to discuss global warming in a public forum claiming ".
. . the debate is over."
Gore did not mean that global warming is "settled science."
Far from it. Global warming, like global cooling, is real. It just isn't
man-made. What Gore meant was that the Democratic Congress has now
passed the laws needed, and the liberal bureaucracy in Washington, DC and the
globalists around the world are now regulating climate change as though it is
a solvable problem that was caused by man.  Among those driving the carbon dioxide free express will
be enviro-wacko Harvard University professor and Director of the Office of
Science and Technology John Holdren, who is currently under fire from
climate scientists everywhere. Holdren was White House occupant Barack
Hussein Obama's pick as one of his key White House Science Advisors.
Also tapped for Obama's Rooseveltian "brain trust," are
other far left Harvardites: David Barron, Professor of Law at Harvard
will serve as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal
Counsel; Ashton Carter, Ford Foundation Professor of Science &
International Affairs at Harvard will serve as Undersecretary of Defense
for Acquisitions, Technology and Logistics; David Cutler,
Professor of Economics at Harvard will advise the occupant of the White House
on healthcare policy; Jody Freeman, Professor of Law at Harvard will
serve Obama as Counselor for Energy and Climate Change; Holdren,
whose official title is Assistant to the President for Science and
Technology; Elena Kagan, Charles Hamilton Houston Professor of
Law will serve as US Solicitor General; Jeffrey Liebman, Malcom
Wiener Professor of Public Policy will serve as Executive Associate
Director of the Office of Management and Budget; Daniel Meltzer, Story
Professor of Law at Harvard, will serve as principal Deputy
Counsel to the President; and Samantha Power, Anna Lindh
Professor of Practice of Global Leadership and Public Policy at Harvard
will serve as Senior Director for Multinational Affairs at the
National Security Council. Perhaps Power was brought on board to teach
the occupant of the White House how to give appropriate gifts to visiting
heads of State. Star Wars and Indiana Jones DvDs aren't proper
gifts even though they were good movies. Unless, of course, you're also
giving that head-of-state a Popiel Popcorn maker, a soft drink dispenser and
a year's supply of Raisinettes. Obama picked Jeremy Stein, Moise
Y. Safra Professor of Economics at Harvard to serve on the National
Economics Council. Heading up that agency will be Lawrence Summers,
the 27th president of Harvard. And, finally, Obama picked Cass Sunstein,
Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard as the Administrator
of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of
Management and Budget.
 Holdren's "chair" as Professor of
Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at
Harvard was financed by Teresa Heinz Kerry and the socialist, antiwar Tides
Foundation. When his name was announced, the Boston Globe which
noted that Holdren was long-associated with population alarmist Paul
Ehrlich and joined him in predicting disasters that never came to pass,
also reported an observation made by Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at
the Competitive Enterprise Institute, that Holdren's
association with eco-wackos like Ehrlich ". . . make him the
perfect person to formulate an expensive action plant to battle another
disaster that will never come to pass—human-induced
global warming."
 Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the
National Center for Policy Analysis said that ". . . Holdren
represents the worst of what passes for science today: a closed mind,
unwillingness to brook dissent or criticism of his predetermined view of what
science shows or should show."
Myron Ebell, Director of Energy & Global Warming Policy at
the Competitive Enterprises Institute noted that Holdren's
choice as Science Advisor in the Obama Administration contradicts Obama's
promise to respect science. "Holdren," Ebell said, "collaborated
with Paul Ehrlich for many years and has been a strong advocate for
population control. He has made numerous predictions about the future that
have been proven untrue. Most recently, his predictions about the
catastrophic effects of global warming have already passed their due date and
have not occurred."  Concurring with Ebell is John Dunn, a
civilian emergency medicine faculty member at Carl R. Darnall Army Medical
Center at Food Hood, TX. "In Holdren's view," Dunn
said, "there are too many people in the world and we must act to
limit either the number of people or the products of human society. This is
an extremist worldview that severely limits human progress".
One of the growing list of White House hypocrisies was Obama's
statement, in his inaugural address, pledging to restore science to its
rightful place. Apparently he believes in the flat earth science view. His
pick as one of his personal advisors on matters of science is an eco-wacko
who recently made a statement reported by the liberal Boston Globe in
which he predicted that sea levels would rise by 13 feet by the end of the
century. Holdren gets his 'science" from the same text book as
his friend and co-wacko, biologist Paul Ehrlich, author of the 1960s
best seller, The Population Bomb (which has gone through 18 reprints)—Thomas Malthus' 18th century Essay on the
Principle of Population. (Even the most extremist environmentalist limit their
predictions of sea level rising to up-to-13" over the next 100 years. In
point of fact, the computer models are all wrong since scientific global warming
(and cooling) are not man-induced, they coincide with solar cycles and
not rising levels of carbon dioxide which occur naturally in nature whenever
the solar cycles create long periods of warming.
The Population Bomb was propelled into best seller status by David
Rockefeller and the Rockefeller Foundation because it served Rockefeller's
purposes to fan the population explosion myth in order to legalize abortion
in the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s. On Jan. 22, 1973,
ruling on Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton, the US Supreme Court
decided the 14th Amendment provided some heretofore unknown Constitutional
prerogative: women possessed the legal right to kill their unborn children
for daring to intrude into their wombs. In a report on global warming by the Sierra
Club, the authors noted that the population of the world grew from 1.6
billion to 6.1 billion people during the 20th century—with CO2 emissions growing twelvefold during that century adding that
the United States, which has about 5% of the world's population, is the
world's worst atmospheric polluter, creating about 25% of the greenhouse
gases.
Ehrlich's book was based on the un-updated theories of 18th century
botanist Thomas Malthus who predicted that by the year 2000, half of
the world would be starving and the other half would be killing each other
for what food was left. In Malthus' world, the technology to build high rise
apartment buildings didn't exist. Nor did the technology to exponentially
increase crop yield exist in the 18th century. Malthus' primitive
science became Ehlrich's science even though technology had advanced
lights years in the 160 years between the publications of Malthus' Essay
on the Principle of Population in 1798 and Ehrlich's The
Population Bomb in 1968.
The ecoalarmists are convinced that people are responsible for the
proliferation of carbon dioxide, and by extension, global warming. In their
published view carbon dioxide, which is the food that sustains plantlife and
creates the oxygen we breathe, is dangerous to mankind at high levels.
Intragovernmental Panel on Climate Control [IPCC] scientist Chris
Field of Sanford University and the Carnegie Institute for
Science says that recent studies show that ". . . there is a real
risk that human-caused climate change will accelerate the release of carbon
dioxide from forest and tundra ecosystems which have been storing carbon for
thousands of years.  We don't want to cross a critical threshold
where this massive release of carbon starts to run on autopilot." Field said his research
shows that greenhouse gas emissions increased far more rapidly from 2000 to
2007 than scientists expected . . . due to the industrialization of China and
India.
Field noted that computer models he has been building indicate that
deforestation due to tropical forest wildfires could increase atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentrations from 10 to 100 parts per million by the end of
the century. (To the ecoalarmist, all doomsday warnings are scheduled to
befall mankind at the "end of this century or the next one," since
that's longer than the lifespans of the people being warned—who won't live long enough to call out the doomsayers for
their false prophecies when they fail to materialize as has been the case
thus far). Field noted that dramatic increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide
could reach the highest levels in 650 thousand years. "Tropical
forests," Field said, "are essentially nonflammable.
You couldn't get a fire to burn there if you tried. But, if they dry out just
a little bit, the result can be very large and destructive wildfires . . .
Essentially the computer models suggest forest-carbon feedback that acts like
a foot on the accelerator pedal for atmospheric CO2 ." Field suggested that as carbon dioxide levels
build, the heat generated by global warming dries out the forests and makes
them prime candidates for massive forest fires like those California
experiences whenever there is a dearth of rainfall in that State. Facts
simply don't support Field's views.
The Atacama Desert in north Central Chile disputes Field's
computer model which is based on ecoalarmist hypotheticals and not fact. The Atacama
Desert is one of the driest areas in the world. The average annual
rainfall in the Atacama is less than 1.5 cm. By itself, ecoalarmists
like Field could easily point out the desert terrain as the perfect
example of drought caused by the extremes of carbon dioxide proliferation.
They don't because above the Atacama Desert along the 600-mile long
mountain spine in which the Fray Jorge National Park sits every
patchwork quilt fog forests. The most rain received directly below any of the
patchwork quilt forests falls on the desert floor below Fray Jorge.
The low mountains below the fog forests closely resemble the American
badlands in the US Southwest. Those directly under Fray Jorge receive
about 6-inches of precipitation in a good "rain year." Jutting up,
almost vertically, are the coastal mountains which serve as the spine of
Chile. Unlike most South American mountainsides which teem with plush jungle
vegetation, these mountains look like the desert plains.
But as you climbs the steep mountains, an impossible change occurs.
Impossible in the sense that what happens next is a forest—or rather a patchwork quilt of forests—sitting on top
of a desert. Forests requires rain. Rain requires rain clouds. In one of the
driest areas on Earth, rain clouds are an improbability. Yet, some 1,500 to
2,000 feet
above a striking view of the Pacific Ocean is an amazing patchwork quilt of
small rain forests not unlike those found in the deep forests of Brazil.
Each patchwork quilt in these carbon dioxide rich mountains are literally
"fog forests" as opposed to rain forests. Fog lays like a shroud
over the mountains creating an atrium-like affect. (If you've ever raised
plants in an atrium ecosystem you know that water and oxygen are generated by
photosynthesis, and without being watered the plants in the atrium thrive).
The moisture trapped in nature's atrium from photosynthesis and from the
condensation of moisture in the fog blanket that sits like a canopy over the
treetops is supplemented by wind-driven water droplets from the Pacific
Ocean.
 Kathleen Weathers, an ecosystem
scientist from the Cary Institute of Ecosystems Studies in Milbrook,
New York has been studying fog forest for 25 years and admits that she still
doesn't understand how they work. "One step inside a fog
forest," she told Discover Magazine for an article in the
April, 2009 issue, "and its clear that you've entered a remarkable
ecosystem. The ways in which trees, leaves, mosses, and bromeliads have
adapted to harvest tiny droplets of water that hang in the atmosphere is
unparalleled."
Field simply is not correct in his estimation that increased
greenhouse gas emissions will "dry out" the fragile ecosystems,
sparking fires that will add to the carbon dioxide problem, and ". .
. as the Earth warms, it [will generate] faster winds over the oceans."
According to Field, the winds which blow the surface waters [of the
oceans] out of the way, like the parting of the Red Sea, allowing water with
higher concentrations of C02 to rise to the surface. Field reiterated that where the
oceans used to act as a "carbon sink," absorbing man-created carbon
dioxide. It is Field's opinion they have now become "carbon
sources" adding to the greenhouse gas problem as the frozen tundra in
the Arctic and Antarctic thaws, releasing greenhouse gases that have been
trapped for thousands if not millions of years in the permafrost, and
releasing those carbon dioxide and methane gases from decaying organic matter
back into the atmosphere, greatly adding to the greenhouse gas problem.
Today there are two inconvenient truths about global warming. First,
global warming is not threatening the world. Second, global warming is not
man-created. Sadly, for the last three or four decades real climate
scientists, fearful of the powerful lobby behind the climate change movement,
remained silent, letting 13% of the "scientific community" (most of
which are leftwing teachers) form the consensus that not only was global
warming real, but that it was caused by man and threatens the world unless
radical changes in the lifestyles of the human race are not quickly
implemented.
The global warming ecoalarmists blame everything on global warming—including scientific, factual evidence of global cooling.
Most common is the misrepresenting of climate data by the voodoo
climatologists.  Even though New Jersey is receiving upwards of six
inches more rain per year than it did a century ago, New Jersey Sierra Club
Director Jeff Tittel was quoted in a December 26, 2008 article in the
Asbury Park Press (Asbury, NJ) claiming that global warming is the culprit
behind the drought conditions in that State. First, National Climate Data
Center [NCDC] precipitation records indicate there was no increased
drought conditions in New Jersey. Second, the State actually experienced
increased precipitation over the past four years. Sadly, the article did not
include any rebuttal argument from the NCDC or from any reputable
climatologists.
When that type of reporting happens, people read the article and accept it at
face value. The newspaper, supposedly without an axe to grind in the
argument, reports there is increased drought in New Jersey. They report that
was caused by global warming. People file that information away in their
minds—and both the drought and the cause of the drought
becomes a fact in their mind. And even though the premise and conclusion of the
statement are bogus, global warming becomes real to the people reading that
paper. Multiply that story a hundred times a day in a hundred different
markets in the United States, and suddenly sane and sensible people believe
that man-induced global warming is a fact.
 Another weather
anomaly that should be causing Al Gore and the Sierra Club
problems is the Hadley Climate Center's HadAT2 Dataset temperature measuring
system that has been recording global radiosonde data since 1958. Beginning
last year the collected data from 676 individual radiosonde stations around
the globe twice a day show the planet is cooling. The Hadley HadAT2
graph is shown here: The HadAT2 records the global temperature departure
history since 1958. (The chart on the right records temperature activity for
624 months).
In the January 22, 2009 issue of Nature, climatologist Michael Mann,
author of the paleoclimate "hockey stick" theory that dismissed the
10th century warming of Iceland and Greenland, authored an article
arguing that his computer model simulations prove that Antarctica is still
warming even though scientific temperature measurements confirm that the
continent is cooling. In the article, Mann dismissed the random
placement of the temperature stations as "incredibly bad luck"
since, he said, the locations picked for the stations sat in areas where
isolated pockets of cooling simply defied the overall warming trend that was
taking place in Antarctica and around the world.
 Mann's article, Patrick Michael, Reearch
Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia
noted, was long on theory and short on reliable evidence. To corroborate his
computer models, Mann used the data from a satellite that was not
designed to measure temperatures. The data Mann retrieved appeared to
confirm his theories, so that was the data he chose to use to refute years of
temperature measurements that prove Antarctica is cooling. Patrick Michael
argued that Mann shopped around for satellite data that would appear
to confirm his global warming hypothesis, not discover the truth about
whether or not Antarctica temperatures were rising or dropping.
Mann's article insists that decades of raw temperature data shows a
false cooling trend in Antarctica because there are no measuring stations located
between the existing measuring stations to confirm what Mann's computer
models show—that significant warming was
taking place everywhere else on the continent. Of course, had there been
measuring stations between the existing measuring stations, Mann would simply have
grouped them with the other measuring stations and argued had there been
measuring stations between the "then increased number of existing
measuring stations," they would have noted that Antarctica was warming. Mann
insisted that ". . . our reconstruction show more significant
temperature change in Antarctica, and a different pattern for that change
than reported in previous reconstructions."
The problem with Mann's "evidence" is that it isn't
evidence. It's a hypothetical based on the suppositions of the person
creating the computer model. It subscribes to the adage, "Garbage in,
garbage out." Mann and his colleagues chose to throw away
factual scientific evidence that disprove the theories of the ecoalarmists,
using voodoo science and the liberal media to sell global warming to the
public. The media is now force feeding society with a litany of ecoalarmist
views from global warming advocates to convince the masses that man-made
global warming is fact.
When former Vice President Al Gore, Jr. declined Lord Monckton's
offer to discuss global warming in a public forum claiming he said "The
debate is over." As noted above, Gore did not mean that
global warming is "settled science." He meant was that Congress has
now passed the laws needed to regulate climate change as though it is a
solvable problem that was caused by man. As man tinkers with nature trying to
fix what is not broken, man will suffer the consequences of his own
"Chicken Little" stupidity. Today, the climate control crowd is
selling carbon credits. When they succeed in erasing our carbon footprints by
eliminating carbon dioxide, I suspect they will be selling both portable H2O pumps and
synthetic food packets to the handful of survivors still alive on Planet
Earth—providing what's left of us can
afford either. And, as we struggle to breathe bottled air, we will hear Al
Gore's voice somewhere off in the distance sayng, "I told you so. I told
you so." nl171.htm
Pass
it on . . . please send this article to someone you know
Brother
Grigor-Scott is a non-denominational minister who has ministered full-time
since 1981, primarily to other ministers and their congregations in other
countries. He pastors Bible Believers' tiny congregation, and is available to
teach in your church.
For Further Information
Contact:
Bible Believers' Church
Currabubula, NSW 2342, Australia
|
|
|
|