Okay, I want to be careful about overstating the significance of a single study (thanks for the hint, Esoteridactyl). My goal is not to condemn all gobal warming believers, and certainly not to condemn environmentalist. (I consider myself one.) My goal is to expose what I believe to be government-and-media-backed hysteria, and the possibility of it being leveraged for profit and power by our ruling elite.
I’m curious about the Exchange Traded Funds GWO, which seems to relate to Global Warming, and GRN which seems to relate to Carbon Trading. I’m no expert and would welcome any comments pertaining to how these work. It certainly isn’t a bad thing to invest on what you believe the future might bring, but it’s important to be mindful that profit and power might color people’s intentions.
“A detailed analysis of black carbon — the residue of burned organic matter — in computer climate models suggests that those models may be overestimating global warming predictions. . . . The researchers found that carbon dioxide emissions from soils were reduced by about 20 percent over 100 years, as compared with simulations that did not take black carbon’s long shelf life into account. The findings are significant because soils are by far the world’s largest source of carbon dioxide, producing 10 times more carbon dioxide each year than all the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities combined.” (emphasis added) (Read more from sciencedaily.com)
Al Gore will launch the international soil monitoring league. We’ll be taxed in its name. Their central planners will supervise the filling of rockets with dirt and launch them into outter space. . . or else we will be doomed! Doooooomed! DOOOOOOMED!
SEE ALSO:
The price of dissent on global warming
“WHEN I first stuck my head above the parapet to say I didn’t believe what we were being told about global warming, I had no idea what the consequences would be. I am a scientist and I have to follow the directions of science, but when I see that the truth is being covered up I have to voice my opinions.
According to official data, in every year since 1998, world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that? The sad fact is that since I said I didn’t believe human beings caused global warming, I’ve not been allowed to make a television program.
My absence has been noticed, because wherever I go I meet people who say: “I grew up with you on the television, where are you now?”
It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on children’s program Blue Peter, and I also had an article published in which I described global warming as poppycock. The truth is, I didn’t think wind farms were an effective means of alternative energy, so I said so. Back then, at the BBC you had to toe the line, and I wasn’t doing that. . . .
Yes, the lakes in Africa are drying up. But that’s not global warming. They’re drying up for the very simple reason that most of them have dams around them.
So the water once used by local people is now used in the production of cut flowers and vegetables for the supermarkets of Europe. One of Gore’s biggest clangers was saying that the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan was drying up because of global warming.
Well, everyone knows, because it was all over the news 20 years ago, that the Russians were growing cotton there at the time and that for every tonne of cotton you produce you use a vast amount of water. The thing that annoys me most is that there are genuine environmental problems that desperately require attention. I’m still an environmentalist, I’m still a Green and I’m still campaigning to stop the destruction of the biodiversity of the world. But money will be wasted on trying to solve this global warming “problem” that I would much rather was used for looking after the people of the world. . . .
I might not be on TV any more but I still go around the world campaigning about these important issues. For example, we must stop the destruction of tropical rainforests, something I’ve been saying for 35 years.
Mother nature will balance things out, but not if we interfere by destroying rainforests and overfishing the seas. That is where the real environmental catastrophe could occur.” (Read more from theaustralian.news.com.au)
sigh. yes, when you say soil produces 10X the CO2 as all human activity combined, it sound inconsequential, right? No. When you are talking biological systems, small changes in proportion count for a lot. Human activity is actually estimated to only produce about 5% of CO2, but that can throw off a lot. to make a slightly off comparison, if you increased the temperature of the human body by 5%, it would be around 104degrees, high enough to do some damage to organs. of course, the earths climate isnt as static a system as the body, but the point is that interdependent systems are sensitive to small changes. and our impact on CO2 goes further as we destroy major consumers of of CO2 in the environment by logging, etc.
all that said, this process isnt exactly “unnatural”. we wouldnt we the first top predator species in history to consume their way out of their niche/habitat leading to their demise. we will probably make the earth uninhabitable for humans and other species we like, but it will be habitable for other species, and a whole new geological time period will commence. to be a bit pessimistic about it ;)
“There is no pool so shallow that a thousand bloggers won’t drown in it. Take the latest claims from the former broadcaster David Bellamy. You may remember that Bellamy came famously unstuck three years ago when he stated that 555 of the 625 glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were growing. Now he has made an even stranger allegation. In early November the Express ran an interview with Bellamy under the headline “BBC shunned me for denying climate change”. “The sad fact is,” he explained, “that since I said I didn’t believe human beings caused global warming I’ve not been allowed to make a TV programme.” He had been brave enough to state that global warming was “poppycock”, and that caused the end of his career. “Back then, at the BBC you had to toe the line and I wasn’t doing that.”
This article, on the web, received more hits than almost anything else the Express has published; so 10 days ago the paper interviewed Bellamy again. He took the opportunity to explain just how far the conspiracy had spread. “Have you noticed there is a wind turbine on Teletubbies? That’s subliminal advertising, isn’t it?”
There is just one problem with this story: it is bollocks from start to finish. Bellamy last presented a programme on the BBC in 1994. The first time he publicly challenged the theory of manmade climate change was 10 years later, in 2004, when he claimed in the Daily Mail that it was “poppycock”. Until at least the year 2000 he supported the theory.
In 1992, for instance, he signed an open letter, published in the Guardian, urging George Bush Sr “to fight global warming … We are convinced that the continued emission of carbon dioxide at current rates could result in dramatic and devastating climate change in all regions of the world.” In 1996 he signed a letter to the Times, arguing: “Continued increases in the global emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels are likely to lead to climate change at a rate greater than the Earth has experienced at any time during the last 10,000 years.” In the same year he called for the replacement of fossil fuels with wind power. In 2000 he announced that he was supporting a plan to sue climate change “criminals”: governments and industries that blocked attempts to stop global warming (all references are on my website). But Bellamy’s new claims about the end of his career have been repeated as gospel in several newspapers and all over the web.”
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/09/climate-change-science-environment