reply to post by smyleegrl
But I have wondered if perhaps the conspiracy is backward.
Backward, forward, diagonally, upside-down, rightside-up... there are enough conspiratorial aspects to Global Warming to allow one to pick which side
they want to be on today and which side they want to rail against.
Simply put, the 'scientists' at the CRU and IPCC are frauds who are using their degrees to promote personal financial agendas rather than science.
The 'deniers' (and by that I mean those who simply deny everything without giving any real thought) are scared of what the possibilities are for
their lifestyle. The proponents are trying to make a fortune from the new technologies, without any regard to whether or not they are viable
financially or practically. The environmentalists are rebels without a cause, screaming their age-old cries of catastrophic doom in order to achieve
some unachievable utopia. The politicians are trying to keep their jobs and look concerned and sympathetic, while hedging their bets in case it is all
a hoax. The oil companies are covertly trying to keep the status quo while overtly trying to appear environmentally conscious so as to maintain public
trust. The banks want to punish OPEC countries for depegging from the dollar. OPEC just wants the issue to go away at any cost.
And sitting in the middle of this war of propaganda is the consumer, pretty much confused, but each still holding on to what they feel is the
truth.
Is it any wonder the debate is so confused?
Ignoring politics for the moment, the actual science says the following: yes, carbon dioxide can be a 'greenhouse' gas, but the absorption bands
correlate to some pretty high surface temperatures and this alone minimizes its impact on Earth's atmosphere. A quantitative analysis of that
atmosphere also indicates that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are far too minimal to account for predicted or observed global
temperature increases. It is a textbook example of the difference between qualitative and quantitative analysis: yes, it could happen, but no, it
cannot happen
under given conditions.
No, carbon dioxide is not a 'pollutant', nor a 'toxin'. It is responsible for all plant life on the planet, and by extension for all oxygen in the
atmosphere and therefore all life period on the planet. Carbon dioxide levels are one of the largest control mechanisms in photosynthesis, meaning
that increasing the levels will increase the speed of photosynthetic action and thus plant growth. This creates a self-correcting mechanism wherein
any increase in carbon dioxide results in an increase in plant growth, resulting in an increase in the ability of the biosphere to sink that rising
carbon dioxide level.
Yes, there has been an apparently observed increase (I say apparently only because of the Climategate scandal; I do not yet dispute the observations
in general) in global average temperatures which appear to correlate somewhat with the Industrial Revolution. Closer observation, however, shows many
areas of non-correlation, the most recent being the fact that there has been no overall observed global warming in the last decade despite carbon
dioxide levels continuing to rise. Indeed, if one examines the correlations closely, one will see a cyclical pattern of warming which would logically
be followed by a period of cooling. This last decade is indeed the 'warmest on record', because we have hit the peak of a cyclical pattern and are
quite possibly going to experience some measure of cooling for the next few decades.
Yes, pollution is bad, and in many of the infamous 'glacial retreat' observations has been found to be at fault. Carbon dioxide, however, is not at
fault. At fault are increases in NOx and airborne particles... the true definition of pollution. It actually would appear that the concern over carbon
dioxide has diminished the public awareness of other, more immediate and destructive pollutants.
Yes, Arctic sea ice is retreating. No, it is not because of carbon dioxide. Reports actually show what physics predicts: the ice is melting faster in
the water than on land, which indicates it is the water temperature, not the air temperature, that is responsible. Observations also show that the
largest temperature anomalies in the Arctic region are in the water rather than in the air. Carbon dioxide's warming effect, although again minimal,
is totally atmospheric based, and cannot warm the waters directly. Any warming would be by conduction, meaning that it would be physically impossible
for the water to warm more than the air if the air was the source of the heat. So what's warming the
water?
No, the sea levels are not rising. There are of course reports of some coastlines retreating; this is more due to the effects of erosion and
subduction than to a water level increase. Any increase in sea level would be experienced
world-wide, and nothing of the sort has been
experienced yet.
Yes, if all the land-based ice in the world melted, it would increase sea levels. The increase would not be as devastating as the media and the
CRU/IPCC would have you believe, however. Firstly, if this rise were due to increased temperatures, it would lead to increased evaporation since
warmer air can hold much more water vapor. Secondly, most of the land presently under ice has been compacted under the weight and would rise if that
weight were to be released, allowing the oceans to actually compensate for some of that increase in volume. None of the predictions made about sea
level rise account for these two countering phenomena, much less any others we may not be aware of.
Yes, areas of the ocean are experiencing acidification, but no, it is not due to carbon dioxide. Carbonic acid is relatively weak and difficult to
produce even under laboratory conditions. You drink it every day. It is commonly known as 'carbonated water' or 'seltzer' and is the base for all
major soft drinks. That carbonated water has to be carbonated and maintained under high pressures to keep its 'fizz' (its carbon dioxide content).
There is no high pressure forcing carbon dioxide into the oceans. Also, the carbon dioxide that does get absorbed by the oceans is the basis for
oceanic plant life and is used to provide food for the life in the oceans. That is why the oceans, the largest reservoir of life on the planet, is
also the largest 'carbon sink' on the planet.
Instead of looking at carbon dioxide as a culprit in acidification, look toward sulfuric and nitric acids, both of which are much stronger and much
more readily soluble in sea water. We in the western world tend to think sulfur content is the problem of a bygone age, but other countries (China
for instance) allow massive sulfur content in their fuels, up to 2000+ ppm. and oceanic shipping allows for sulfur content in the order of percentages
rather than ppm!
I could go on, but I think I have made my point. No Climategate is needed, no scientific debate is needed, no throwing around of degrees is needed to
see that carbon dioxide is not responsible for any problems, and that the problems themselves are being blown out of proportion or conveniently
ignored in the whole debacle. You'll notice I haven't posted a single link in this; I shouldn't need to. Every principle I have stated here should
have been learned in the 5th grade.
This just ain't rocket science. It's not even science. It's politics.
TheRedneck