Journal SPAM: Global Warming "Science" is Only Poor Correlation 4
"The power to tax and ration energy is the power to control the world -- to have life and death control over every human being on the planet. No government should ever have this power. The United Nations-IPCC process is not about the climate or saving the environment. It is about power and money -- lots of it.
Should Gore and the UN succeed, the effect will not only be diminished prosperity in the United States. In underdeveloped countries, billions of people are lifting themselves from poverty by means of hydrocarbon energy. If their energy supplies are rationed and taxed, they will slip backwards into poverty, misery, and death. This fits the population control agenda of the United Nations.
If the misuse and falsification of the scientific method that drives the human-caused global-warming mania succeeds, it will cause the greatest acts of human genocide the world has ever known. It must be stopped."
Power, Money, Opportunism and Science (Score:2)
a) On the basic physics alone, it would be very startling if adding CO2 to the atmosphere *didn't* raise the planetary temperature.
b) There is a clear - that is to say, unambiguous - correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and mean planetary temperatures. It isn't a perfect correlation, but it is of about the magnitude that you would expect from the basic physics, if the planet were a gas cube, assuming a static atmosphere and no biological component. It is
beautiful (Score:1)
I find this a beautiful rebuttal to what I said earlier today. I find these as especially tasteful morsels:
Human use has caused a transient increase during the past century -- from about 0.03 percent to 0.04 percent of atmospheric molecules. Man is producing about 8 gigatons per year, and yet there are 40,000 gigatons in the biosphere and oceans.
Carbon dioxide has a very short half-time of about seven years in the atmosphere. However, while it is in higher concentration, it is wonderful for us because it makes our plants grow faster, which markedly increases the amounts and diversity of plant and animal life.
Scientific questions are never settled in this way. Science is about natural truth. The truth doesn't require any advocate. It stands by itself.
I just want to say that I think all parties involved are correct on some level: The sun is causing warming, humans are causing warming. But I don't think it really matters. Especially when we are only contributing 0.04% of it. In the end I do think it is about money and power - two things we should not be giving more of to the UN. Great post.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png [wikipedia.org] - this is just the first example I grabbed. The atmospheric CO2 concentration is about half again what it was a century ago, this is unambiguous. Furthermore, the biosphere does not countain CO2. It contains reduced carbon.
The lifetime of an individual CO2 molecule is seven years, it's true, but that's completely irrelevant. If the net flux into the atmosphere goes up, it
Re: (Score:2)
Human use has caused a transient increase during the past century ? from about 0.03 percent to 0.04 percent of atmospheric molecules.
While this is technically true, it is profoundly misleading.
Firstly, it is a 33% increase in total atmospheric CO2, not a 0.03% increase, as I initially read. CO2 is a tiny component of the atmosphere for a reason. That's not a transient increase. His claim that this extra CO2 will just be eaten by plants and go away comes from th