Well, I suppose the Great Global Warming Debate is over. That august scientific body known as the United States Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. That settles it, right? The SCOTUS is after all the final arbiter of all human affairs.
So, since it’s now obvious that we must immediately and at all costs reduce or eliminate this deadly pollutant, what should be our next move? Eliminate all coal-fired power plants? Cease the production of gasoline and diesel fuel?
While these noble undertakings would surely be of vast benefit to Mother Earth, we must instead consider the most constant source of carbon dioxide: Animal life.
All animals, including humans, exhale carbon dioxide. As I sit here exhaling CO2 (and smoking a Camel), I can feel the planet heating up all around me. To make matters worse, I’m presently sitting in a Georgia truck stop (in Madison, just in case you’re curious) and I’m idling the truck engine. Just think of all those pollutants spewing from the exhaust pipe of this nasty old 18-wheeler.
Every time we turn on a light, drive our cars, or run the air conditioner, we are spewing tons of pollutants into the fragile ecosystem. Even by the simple act of breathing, we and other animals are polluting the atmosphere and warming the planet with deadly carbon dioxide. The only solution is the forced extinction of all animal life. Humans, dogs, cats, spotted owls, everything must go.
Okay, I’ll get sensible, although I was having fun being an idiot.
Here’s a jolt of reality for all you global warming alarmists out there: Carbon dioxide isn’t a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is a vital link in the chain of life on Planet Earth.
The simple fact that increased ocean-produced carbon dioxide follows, rather than precedes, increased water temperature debunks the fraudulent assertion that carbon dioxide causes warming. It is a result of warming, not a cause.
Consider this bit from scientist Gary Novak, who has created a wonderful website dealing with politically tainted science and its consequences:
ďLaboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions. This means there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters. If then humans double their 3% input of CO2 into the atmosphere, the distance of absorption reduces to 9.7m. A reduction in distance is not an increase in temperature. Convectional currents stir the heat around removing any relevance for distance.
Scientists who promote the global warming hype try to work around this fact by claiming something different happens higher in the atmosphere, which they claim involves unsaturation. The difference due to height is that the absorption peaks get smaller and sharper, so they separate from each other. Near the earth’s surface, the absorption peaks for water vapor partially overlap the absorption peaks for CO2. Supposedly, in some obfuscated way, separating the peaks creates global warming. There is no real logic to that claim. It is nothing but an attempt to salvage global warming propaganda through obfuscation of complexities. ď
Is the planet warming? Of course it is. Solar radiation, Eccentricities in Earth’s orbit, cosmic rays from far away super novae and tectonic activity all contribute to changes in our climate. And these items are much stronger climatic forces than puny Man.
Credible scientific and historical evidence clearly show that climate change is cyclical. We are still warming up from the previous ice age, and we will eventually begin a cooling trend that will lead us into the next ice age. History suggests that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, caused by rising temperatures, is a precursor to a coming ice age. It has happened before, and itíll happen again regardless of how many awards Al Gore receives for his next crockumentary.
Why, you ask, would our fearless leaders push this unscientific claptrap on the citizenry? The answer is simple: Control.
By creating a false crisis, government provides itself with multiple opportunities to exercise control over the people through new laws to combat that crisis. The Kyoto Protocol, for example, would empower a global bureaucracy to dictate the lifestyles of people all across the planet via draconian energy-use restrictions. The rich and powerful would find ways to exclude themselves from making the sacrifices they expect from the rest of us. Al Goreís energy-hogging Tennessee mansion is an excellent example of the blatant hypocrisy of those who seek to tell the rest of us how we should live.
Mister Goreís former boss, Bill Clinton, seemed to believe that the Kyoto Protocol was a great idea to ďsaveĒ us from global catastrophe. Hereís an excerpt from a 1998 report from the Department of Energy regarding Kyoto:
...The introduction of such reduction (Kyoto) would affect both consumers and businesses. Households would be faced with higher prices for energy and the need to adjust spending patterns. Nominal energy expenditures would rise, taking a larger share of the family budget for goods and service consumption and leaving less for savings. Higher prices for energy would cause consumers to try to reduce spending not only on energy, but on other goods as well. Thus, changes in energy prices would tend to disrupt both savings and spending streams. Energy services also represent a key input in the production of goods and services. As energy prices increase, the costs of production rise, placing upward pressure on the nominal prices of all intermediate goods and final goods and services in the economy, with widespread impacts on spending across many markets...
In other words, reducing our energy consumption artificially - independent of natural market forces - would have a wildly detrimental effect upon our way of life. Call me crazy, but Iím not ready to give up my 140-mph car or my frosty-cool oversize central air conditioner just yet. Iím an American. And we Americans like our lifestyle. We like having to wear a long sleeve shirt in the living room in summer because the air conditioner is set at 65 degrees Fahrenheit. We like our gas-guzzling SUVs and performance cars. We like Big Macs and large fries and drag racing and flying in jumbo jets. And weíre not likely to change anytime soon. If you doubt it, then try telling Al Gore to trade his mansion for a house like President Bushís humble home in Texas.
Go ahead and stage another environmental protest. Iíll ignore it. Go ahead and pass more bogus energy regulations. Iíll go out of my way to violate them. Iíll be damned if a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians, who are unqualified to manage a lemonade stand, will tell me how to live my life.
Split Supreme Court Orders EPA to Act on Greenhouse Gases
There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming (Gary Novak)
Article regarding the D.O.E.ís Report on the Impact of Kyoto