This article makes some excellent points that global warming hysterics are not telling people. 97 percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not from human activity. Human activity cannot double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Even if the carbon dioxide did somehow double, the effects on climate would be so minimal that nobody would notice.
They want the world to spend trillions of dollars to reduce human carbon but even if every human left the planet forever it would only have the effect of reducing carbon in the atmosphere by less than three percent. These idiots of environmental junk science really want global management and control and they hijacked the media to attract the usual knee jerkers and convince politicians and foundations to support only science that will support what the global warming gurus wish published.
Let’s see, so far over 50 billion dollars was spent hyping man caused global warming while the opponents of Global warming legislation have been accused of spending millions. We can do all they say, even screw up the economy of the whole world, but if there is one major volcanic explosion on the earth all the trillions we will have spent to reduce carbon will be for naught. If we by some magic somehow manage to reduce the human contribution to carbon it also will be for naught because it will have no effect on climate.
Some self deluded self important control freaks might like to believe they are so wise and powerful that they can control nature but at this point that thought is ridiculous.
WorldNetDaily: Sizzling study concludes: Global warming ‘hot air’: “‘Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038 percent),’ said meteorologist Joseph D’Alea, the first director of meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chief of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecast. ‘Only 2.75 percent of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. The amount we emit is said to be up from 1 percent a decade ago. Despite the increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (plus 0.45 percent per year),’ he said. ‘We are responsible for just 0.001 percent of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor.’ Former Harvard physicist Lubos Motl added that those promoting the fear of man-made climate changes are ‘playing the children’s game to scare each other.’ ”
“Along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, [this] new study belies Al Gore’s claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if Schwartz’s results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC’s scientific ‘consensus,’ the environmentalists’ climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world’s environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?” AEI’s Schwartz concluded.
Let me imagine what the environmentalists will say. ‘Reid Bryson? He’s not an imminent scientist at all. After having done some research on the man concerned, it turns out he’s getting paid by Exxon!‘ Yeah right. I’m getting sick and tired of these people. I watched Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth‘ and, yes, if you believe everything the newspapers write and don’t know anything about U.S. politics or just ‘happen’ to hate George W. Bush as basically everyone does, it does sound rather convincing. But if you have a good memory, a critical mind and at least a little knowledge of American politics, it should be obvious that the entire documentary is political propaganda and highly exaggerated. On purpose. Why on earth does he have to whine about not having won the presidential elections in 2004 in a ‘documentary’ on Global Warming? Because it is what it is, political propaganda. I’ve been mocked at and severely criticized for daring to question anthropogenic global warming and specifically climate change in a short summary of my opinion in a report on alternative energy I had to write in group in college. And most if not all Evangelical Christian churches in Belgium appear to have joined the Gore crowd as well. A pastor from the Netherlands who’s the director of a Evangelical Protestant TV broadcasting service who I’ve always respected now turns out to believe it as well and preaches it as truth. He even went as far as declaring on television last week that sea levels are already rising whereas that is entirely untrue. Even a secular public broadcaster in Belgium mentioned that if the North Pole’s ice caps were to melt entirely it would still have no effect on sea levels so go figure. Nevertheless I’m still treated as a Holocaust denier. The thing is when you don’t agree with the environmentalists, people see you as a person who is irresponsible and thinks it’s okay to pollute and destroy nature. But the two are NOT related in any way! I entirely agree that people – i.e. governments, corporations, private individuals – should consider the consequences of exploiting natural resources and that we should try limiting pollution and respect what God has created. But for some bizarre reason, even my dad can get furious when I criticize the three huggers. I wonder why, for I have always been respectful towards nature and if I were in business I’d be that way too. Because I venerate Nature? No, because I venerate the Creator and what He has created. Go ask the poor tribal peoples who’re living “in balance” with Nature how happy and healthy they are.
Oh, and by the way, this is the worst (read: coldest) summer I’ve had in years! 🙁
Just one more thought on this. ‘Virtually every scientist agrees’, said the pastor, ‘that climate is changing.’ But doesn’t virtually every scientist agree likewise that man evolved from an ape through Darwinian evolution, that God does not exist, that all religion is invented by humans, that the universe and all it contains came about by mere coincidence, and homosexuality is in one’s nature? You might as well throw away your Bible if you based your beliefs solely on the scientific consensus of a particular time.
The largest protestant denomination in the United States (SBC) endorses Al Gore’s global warming beliefs as well. It is not what the grass root members believe but the leadership must finally want to be on the side of an issue that is popular with the world. By being on the side of Global warming they think they can look like caring compassion Christians who care about the environment. So there they stand kowtowing to the godless Left about something they know little about.
Christian leaders ought to know that God has climate under His control. One angel could change the climate if that was God’s desire.
Actually many scientists do not believe in Global warming. Ten thousand of them signed a document saying so. The real reason more do not speak out is if they do they will be mocked and might even lose their position or funding.
The people pushing global warming hype have no real facts, all they have is the ability to intimidate anyone who gives anyone the facts.