[Note: Some critics have objected to the wording "prove its hypothesis." Since Mr. Webster is not among them, and since even the critics know what I am talking about, I have no plans to rewrite this soon. The problem may be confusion between the words hypothesis and hypothetical which, I suppose, have the same root. I understand that it would be silly to prove a hypothetical, but can't there be a "working hypothesis" that can be true? Before I am through, certain individuals may wish they could claim that they were only speaking hypothetically in reference to 'global warming'].
Proving its conclusion does not prove 'global warming' theory. You must prove its hypothesis. The focus has been on showing there has been warming without verifying the cause for the alleged warming.
We used to call this "jumping to conclusions" or "putting the cart before the horse." It is not science. No amount of warming, melting ice caps, or drowning polar bears will prove the original premise that heat from earth is prevented from escaping to space at the old rate by 'greenhouse gases,' particularly man-made carbon dioxide, CO2.
Proving the hypothesis must involve showing a decrease in the rate of atmospheric cooling. No new source of heat is involved, only a reduction in how fast cooling occurs. Imagine that, a theory called 'global warming' is really about cooling!
Empirical tests are easy to conceive, conduct, and verify (for example, not a proof, the hypothesis requires that the average low temperatures must have increased at least as much as the average highs). Maybe you can find good tests or even proofs, I can't.
The phrase, 'global warming,' seems to imply a prior knowledge of a warming trend among its proponents. It would have been foolish to coin it during a cooling trend until such time a lesser rate of cooling and cooling add up to a warming. It certainly would have been foolish to complain about it.
If the warming trend were now over, I'd dump the old phrase and choose something else catchy like 'climate change.'
No, I wouldn't, but they would and did. If it does get colder, are they going to want to force more CO2 on us?
(Caution: Consult your banker for professional advice on how 'float' used to work (it still works but not as significantly) before you invest in "global warming").
It has always bothered me that the very same people who forced us to maximize the carbon dioxide, CO2, in our emissions push "global warming" the most rabidly.
No more soot (pure carbon), no more "unburned hydrocarbons," and no more carbon monoxide, CO. All must be oxidized to the limit, i.e., into CO2. We have had "emissions change."
Ignore the soot and hydrocarbons for now and assume the average life of a CO molecule is ten years (rather conservative considering the claimed life for chlorofluorocarbons is 50 years, and a Canadian TV station recently, hyping "global warming," put the life of CO2 at 100 years, and the October 2007 National Geographic Magazine, in the insert, tries to imply a life of 200 years).
All of this 'early CO2', that could have been CO during the first ten years after emissions change, becomes part of the atmospheric level when made instead of ten years later (on average). We have eliminated the 'float' CO provided (and taken oxygen out of the air earlier). Here is the real "zinger" - - - all of this 'early CO2' becomes a permanent increase to the atmospheric level, forever - - - yes, ten years' worth higher, forever (all other factors constant). This is the magic of 'float.'
Smell a rat? Now add in the amount from the incinerated soot and cremated hydrocarbons. Even if we did not use any more energy than before, the atmospheric carbon dioxide level would have to have gone up.
In his column, "Triple threat for one-of-a-kind Kenya" (4-16-07), Thomas Friedman used the recent lack of rain in that country as support for "climate change." Initially, he would have you believe there has never been drought there before, and it is also our fault! (Near the end, if you got there, he does mention one area where there have been droughts, but they are now more frequent, of course).
Anyone of my vintage knows there have been many droughts in Africa before. Friedman refers to the movie, "Out of Africa." I guess it made him feel good. I haven't seen the movie, but I have read Beryl Markham's book, "West with the Night," which was the basis for the movie. [Oops! My error! The story was actually written by Izak Dinesen, the penname for a Danish woman whose family moved to Africa around 1885 when she was a girl which should make her story contemporaneous with Markham's. Everything else I have written here still has merit. I am not sure how I thought it was Ms. Markam's life the movie was about. In any case, my apologies to Dinesen. Friedman is still an idiot]. Ms. Markham's father lost his farm in Kenya precisely because of a prolonged drought (shortly after WWI, if I recall correctly) which split the family. Father and daughter even migrated in different directions just like the families Friedman emotes over! [Maybe I should apologize for the following --- there were other reasons for leaving Africa around this time, e.g., the Germans. Nah!].The reason for the movie's name eluded Friedman. Maybe it wasn't brought out in the movie. I get the suspicion he would have chosen the title, "Into Paradise, Before the U.S.A. Ruined It!"
As a veteran of the days when we were treated to newsreels at the movie theater, I know that there was always a drought, flood, hurricane, tornado, typhoon, or freezing conditions somewhere. Having been alive for sometime, I also know Africa has always been a mess. Remember the Mau Mau? Kenya borders those other paradises, Sudan and Somalia. Heard of them? They are our fault too.
I offer some of the lyrics from the Kingston Trio's "Merry Minuet," which I first heard in the 1960s: "they're rioting in Africa, and Texas needs rain."
Friedman is a threat, but I don't advocate he be replaced. Just question everything he writes. I believe we have become too gullible, another threat.
Perhaps you have heard it argued that the archaeological or geological record "fully supports" 'global warming.' I assume this refers to a correlation (higher carbon dioxide and evidence of warming found together at the same time) and not a 'cause and effect' relationship. Don't be mislead. The most that can be claimed is that this correlation does not deny the theory. Other things do.
Why reach out to some weak theory and get everything backwards? From mining, volcanoes, and making cement, we know that warming releases carbon dioxide, CO2 (there's cause and effect for you).
When limestone, calcium carbonate, is heated, it gives off CO2 gas. Even before they erupt, volcanoes give off huge amounts of CO2 from the heated limestone below. What would you predict if you knew the earth's crust was warming? What might cause "Dead Zones?" (There is a lake in Africa that "burps" CO2 periodically, killing everything around). [Note: I have been informed this is not correct. The killing was limited and a way has been found to release the gas harmlessly].
Had the proponents of 'global warming' consumed more soda pop and adult carbonated beverages, they might have realized CO2 is more soluble in cold liquids. During a period of warming, bodies of water cannot hold as much dissolved CO2 as during the previous cold one. CO2 is released to the atmosphere!
I believe these same people also contend that the earth was originally very hot and had an atmosphere solely of CO2. There's a high correlation for you. But, which came first, the heat or the CO2? By the way, did the earth get warmer, or did it cool? I don't recall.
Are these proponents just confused, or do they have an evil hidden agenda, a claim "fully supported" by what you have just read?
(Hint: There are more than two reasons they want you to drink water and vegetable juice).
Never, like the writer of the 4-29-07 "Global Warming" letter (Peninsula Daily News), bring a complex model and equations to a thermometer fight. And never ever think you can substitute the "theory of global average temperature" for the "theory of global warming." Not on my watch. (It only shows weakness and elitism).
Watch? A watch and a thermometer are all that are needed. This is a matter of degrees, more accurately, degrees per unit time (a rate). For example, after the sun goes down, how many degrees, y, does the temperature drop in time, t? Conversely, how long, t, does it take to drop y degrees? It is not about "average temperatures."
The warming situation has been characterized as so dire and immediate any Eighth Grade science student should be able to demonstrate the theory of a reduced rate (rate!) of cooling, aka "global warming," (something that has eluded the "scientists" for, what, 20 years now?) by showing fewer degrees of cooling in the same time period or a longer time to achieve the same cooling.
Real scientists do take issue with the model. I've heard it doesn't allow for water vapor. It must also not allow for the intensity of the sun (or we would be told what percent of warming is due to the sun and what is due to carbon dioxide, CO2). The sun never gets any credit.
Thermometer size doesn't matter. It's all in how you use it. A thermometer can't measure "global average temperatures," but it can detect fraud.
Why do the "greenies" hate grass? Let me rephrase that. Why do they hate lawns? That's not quite right either. They don't hate brown lawns; they only hate green lawns.
Why do they hate green lawns? With all the love they claim for trees, do they not realize lawns perform the same function? They remove carbon dioxide, CO2, from the air, but only when they are green and growing.
Apparently water ranks higher. It ranks higher even where there is so much water it wouldn't be missed if used on lawns. There seems to be no internal conflict within them for rejecting green lawns.
They even hate the clippings. You are supposed to immediately compost them or haul them to a facility that will do it for you, making CO2 along the way. Composting only accelerates the process of converting the carbon in the clippings to CO2. The folks at Biosphere II put the dead vegetation from their farm into the basement to keep it from decomposing. They were already going crazy from the high CO2. They quickly ran out of space, so don't forget your attic. There it would have a higher R-value.
Why so much anger if you burn it (not just clippings, but tree branches, fallen trees, leaves)? No clue?
We don't save water by not watering lawns. We only choose to use it elsewhere. Man-made lakes, reservoirs, cisterns, canals, and rain barrels save. They will let us have rain barrels. Why do they really hate dams?
[Some after thoughts: In my younger years in the farm country, I observed pea silage that had been left out in heaps and also bales of hay. Some of this remained outside, ignored for years without changing much in appearance. My point --- it deteriorated very slowly, that is, it decomposed making carbon dioxide, CO2, only very slowly, not contributing very much to the atmosphere at any one time. Where I live, I can still see old cedar stumps from when the 'old growth' was logged. Some of these are notched where the loggers inserted a springboard on which they stood while cutting the tree. I don't believe that technique has been used in some sixty years. My point --- It takes a long time for some wood to decompose. Now there is a big push to call it "biomass" and make sure it gets burned ('cleanly' of course, maximizing the CO2) as soon as possible. Now there is even a plant not far from here that collects cow dung for use as fuel. It isn't actually burned. The methane from it is. It is in the name of 'green' energy that some of these things are forced to contribute their carbon to increasing the amount of CO2 in a hurry. Also, in addition to not spreading the change of carbon to CO2 over time, it is no longer to be spread over a wide area. It is brought to a more central location where the effect is concentrated locally. Thus, the CO2 is not only maximized 'globally,' it is maximized in a particular locale. Does that matter? (Please see Forks Biomass)].
[Note: The inspiration for this was TV from British Columbia, Canada the first week of June 2007. There was concern that the heavy snow pack would melt too fast and cause severe flooding. It was late for the snow to still be around. Whether it was a record amount or not, I couldn't say, but it was way above average. The cold nights around Port Angeles, Washington had kept the local rivers in good condition. The Canadians characterized the temperatures as "below seasonal" (quaint way to put below average, but then who would want to say that if you had devoted a segment each broadcast for the past month to "global warming?"). Finally, the temperatures soared. One day, five locations north of the Strait of Juan de Fuca reported record highs. Flooding commenced. Before the worst fears were realized, the weather cooled, again to "below seasonal" temperatures. It seems intuitive that a carbon dioxide 'blanket' would act as a damper on temperature excursions. (Yes, I am aware that the "global warming" advocates have now switched and claim there will be temperature swing extremes. They had to if we are between a warming and a cooling period). I also realize that three separate weather systems could be involved in these events, but it still begs the question of when certain high temperatures should be excluded. Also, not addressed here, is the issue of what locations to include. Should a more developed area with many recording sites have each count in the global average even if they are within the same weather system? Nor is there consideration for the even more important question of whether we can trust any data when we allow such concepts as "baseline budgeting" to prevail. Cooking the books for years has probably done more for "global warming" than anything else].
If I could toss a wrench in the "global warming" works, I would make it a ratchet wrench. Sit your kids down and scream, "Ratchet!" Pause, repeat three or four times. Then proclaim, "And that's what I think of 'global warming!'"
A ratchet wrench is one that only works one direction at a time and clicks when moved the other direction. Carbon dioxide, CO2, by slowing the cooling process, is supposed to cause the temperature to ratchet up and only up until we all die.
The old style bumper jack would provide a better analogy. It also used the ratchet principle. (Since these are hard to find these days, it might be all right to use a Come-A-Long). These items click in both directions, but never mind. Let's say it took twenty clicks to raise the car off the ground. It should then require twenty to lower it.
"Global warming" claims something to the effect that if the temperature goes up twenty clicks, it will only come down 19 clicks because of CO2. Then, when it goes up another twenty clicks, it will only come down another 19, leaving us at 22. I will call this "creep." ("Global warming" advocates are "creeps"). Even by their admission, it is a slow process. (A Come-A-Long really illustrates this because of the pulley. It takes many clicks to move a short distance, one click at a time). There can be no jump up of 10, 5, or even 2 clicks at a time.
What should we do when temperatures rise dramatically? A spike in the temperature is not predicted by their theory (maximum, half a degree at a time?). The total rise claimed is, what, 0.5 degree Centigrade over 40 years? Wouldn't that be proportional as the CO2 level rose? Statistically, would there be little variation? All of the increases should be close to the mean, right? If I recall the terms correctly, the standard deviation would be low. In fact, the 0.5 degree total shoul be divided by the 40 years first, so the average (and approximate maximum) are both close to 0.0125 degree. Shouldn't we, therefore, exclude jumps in temperature greater than, say, 0.02 degree above average from their average? Taking it further, we should also divide it by 365 in order to obtain a daily average of 0.0000342 degrees. Now, we are in the truly meaningless arena even if we say the whole 0.5 degree is attributable only to CO2.
There is no dramatic increase in the atmospheric CO2 level on an hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, or even annual basis that would explain dramatic increases in the temperature. Since something else must be responsible, why should we allow them to claim the small increase in average temperature is due to CO2?
"College Chemistry," 4th edition, King and Caldwell, American Book Company, 1963, spoke of many properties of and experiences with carbon dioxide, CO2. I challenge you to find any useful information in texts published since, say, 1980. I believe they have been purged. About all you will find is something to the effect that CO2 is the "greenhouse gas."
Some of the missing information would be useful in casting doubt on "global warming" (heat plus limestone yields CO2, solubility), but much would not. Why remove it too?
Recall what was happening some years ago? (Déjà vu)! Junk science and mass hysteria as now with "global warming" was employed to scare us to convert our emissions to CO2 ("it's good for the trees"), and carbon monoxide was "demonized" as atmospheric (not local) CO2 is today.
Could the other missing information (CO2 is heavier than air, displaces air, does not readily disperse, causes lack of oxygen and inability to rid the body of CO2, extinguishes fire and life, and forms "acid rain") lead to a realization that the conversion was a mistake?
What if "global warming" were always only intended to create confusion, dominate the discourse on CO2, divert (bribe) research funds and talent away from investigating real local harm, make the perpetrators look like saviors, and, as a last resort, provide an argument for cutting back on CO2, so they can continue their damage control?
Do you really believe that God or Mother Nature couldn't design combustion products? Is nuclear power a gift we rejected?
Ulterior motive? Guess!
[a work in progress]
It is a cold December day. The weatherman predicted clouds and rain, but it is clear and bright here in the northern hemisphere. If you have ever observed a cat, you should be able to deduce that “global warming” is a fraud. Every kitty will find a spot on a chair, couch, carpet or hardwood directly in the sun’s rays on a day like today, thus proving they are smarter than the smartest proponent of “climate change” or than an above average weather prognosticator. The increase in temperature of kitty's fur can be measured, but the claimed contribution from "global warming" cannot. If earth can cool itself from the sun's rays in summer, why would it not be able to cool from something that is less detectable than a warm pussy in winter?
There once was a wise Frenchman named Jean Baptiste Fourier. He was a mathematician among other things and once a friend of Napoleon’s. After Napoleon’s little difficulty, Fourier tried to avoid him, so as not to bring more trouble on himself. I guess that would make Fourier a “fair weather” friend. You see, Napoleon was quite generous to J. B., once making him governor of Egypt.
J. B. was probably no better at predicting weather than our current crop, but he didn’t claim any expertise here that I am aware. He did know something about heat, though, and made his mark in thermodynamics. Strangely enough, today we remember him for some of his other math that is useful in signal processing and analog to digital conversions and/or vice-versa. Try learning Fourier Analysis or the Fourier Transform.
We don’t need to take it that far. From an old edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, I learned that J. B. had the habit of shutting himself up in a room and staring into the fireplace. After one session he supposedly stated, “It is not the air that heats the room. It is the room that heats the air.” Until the light from the fire strikes the walls or the furniture, etc. there is no heat. This encyclopedia even claimed that these rooms were “airless” and contributed to his death which suggests several things to me, one of which is the editor was not too knowledgeable. Let’s leave the “airless” remark for another time. Make sure I come back to it.
Fourier’s statement makes sense. It explains how the energy from the sun can travel across millions of miles of space without warming it. No heat is created until the sunlight strikes things here on earth. Even though it is freezing outside, kitty knows the sun will warm her quite nicely through the window and inside her home. The outside air surely wouldn’t even with a touch of “global warming.”
There is some qualifying needed. If everything were in a vacuum, we would have no problem. But, there are molecules in the room air and in the atmosphere that probably should be counted as part of the "room." Light striking them is similar to light striking the walls or the furniture. Primary among these to a “global warmist” would be carbon dioxide, CO2. Is it significant, or are the molecules too far apart (too little density) even with an increase in the level?
It is confusing. I don’t know how far Fourier took radiant heat. Bright light from the sun or a fire, sure. Barely glowing embers from a dying fire, probably. Cooler than that, we get into the invisible to the naked eye. J. B. didn’t own night vision goggles and I do not know if he understood “blackbody” radiation in the far infrared region that includes the frequencies CO2 absorbs. White light and visible red light are much stronger than the “black” light for warming. How much does the "black" light warm night vision goggles (remember, they detect more than just the few frequencies that affect CO2, and not from any great distance).
Think of the normal convection oven. When you bake, the red-hot element is underneath a metal plate. The element heats the plate, the oven floor, and the oven sides that “see” the element. Ovens are a dark color to absorb the radiation and thus heat the oven surfaces, which, in turn, heat the air in the oven and the potato or whatever. Even though “blackbody" radiation may be doing the work, this is considered convection not radiant heat. Some examples providing additional clarification or confusion are steam or hot water radiators and wires in a concrete like floor (radiant) and forced air heated by gas, oil, coal, or electricity (not radiant).
If you are broiling in your oven, on the other hand, the upper element is glowing and is exposed directly to the item to be cooked (definitely radiant). It is faster. This also explains why you boil water on a red-hot element not in the oven in the bake mode. Radiant is superior.
The so-called “global warming” theory is one of convection where the equivalent of the dense metal plate is more like a very permeable screen up in the atmosphere (Imagine a grid 1,000 units by 1,000. It would contain one million units, total. Now, imagine that every 50th one along the bottom is filled in and, above each of these, also every 50th one in the vertical direction. That should make another grid 20 by 20 within the first grid. This would represent 400 parts per million, which is less than the current CO2 level) driven by a weak distant source (not inches above a very intense source). Blacktop can get very hot in direct sunlight, but how hot does it feel a short distance above it? Yet, even weaker sources are suppose to work on the CO2 in the atmosphere and return to earth.
If I recall correctly, there are only three bands of frequencies that are absorbed by CO2. This is only a portion (Note to self: pin this down as to how much) of the infrared spectrum. What are the chances of the correct frequency of radiation striking widely spaced CO2 molecules? Even when it happens, all the radiation, when released by that molecule is not directed back to earth. If the CO2 molecule is spinning and zig-zagging randomly up there in the atmosphere, we could assume that only one half, maximum (if close enough to the earth)would be directed toward the earth. Does the absorption change the wavelength (frequency)of what then is emitted? Would this change stop the process? If the energy is still within one of the absorption bands, energy headed out could be reabsorbed by another CO2 molecule and half could be redirected back in. But, the same is true of energy headed in. Half of that could be redirected out. Of, course, if the wavelength (frequency) changes, the energy could be absorbed by a water molecule, and energy absorbed by a water molecule might be changed when released so it could be absorbed by a CO2 molecule. Got a headache yet? My money is on the water molecules. There are a lot more of them, and CO2 molecules don't seem to do anything different than water ones do.
Try designing a carbon dioxide detector. The modern electronic ones use a special optical filter to exclude all light but that light of the frequency (wavelength) CO2 will absorb. Without such a filter, light of a nearby frequencies will swamp the detector and the decrease in light due to the absorption cannot be measured. My point here is that the energy affecting CO2 is a very small part of the total.
Earth is not a greenhouse. It is an earth. The earth's atmosphere does not have fixed dimensions like a greenhouse. As the atmosphere warms, it expands. This is one of the gas laws. That means that the CO2 and other molecules must become even less dense (Volume of a sphere, V = (4*PI*r^2)/3) and less likely to behave as "global warming" theory claims. The atmosphere is the outer layer of this sphere, if you will, and the total surface area is determined by the formula A = 4*PI*r^2. This means that a larger surface is exposed to the extreme cold of space as warming occurs because the radius, r, increases. It is not important that CO2 is called "the greenhouse gas." It is irrelevant. It is just a trick. While I am thinking of it, why do you suppose they have coined the phrase "carbon footprint?" Is it not CO2 that we are supposed to be concerned with? Shouldn't they use "CO2 footprint?" You see, if they did that, you might start looking for CO2 on the ground. That's where a footprint is and that's where the most of the CO2 is. Inside their "Jackboot," on your throat.
For some time now, I have noticed that the sun feels as if it is searing my skin when I expose it during summer. As an old man, I doubt if my skin is more tender or sensitive than in my youth. I never had that sensation before. I have concluded the sun is more intense (supported by sun spot data), and there is warming because of this.
Kitty knows too. It is still the sun that warms the earth and the oceans that, in turn, warm the air. (Important! Remember “global warming” theory is about a reduction in cooling, less heat escaping to space). It is the oceans that melt the ice, along with the sun’s rays that are not reflected. Raise your freezer’s temperature one degree. Does it start defrosting? It shouldn't.
There’s another wise guy named Forest Mims, III. He writes books on simple instruments, some of which measure sunlight. Radio Shack stores used to sell these books. One of his graphs showed how CO2 and water vapor decreased the intensity of the incoming sunlight. Seems to me that the incoming would be much more powerful than what is reflected back and trapped. Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to assume CO2 would act just like water vapor but on a much smaller scale, and that it also helps cool the earth by blocking some of the incoming energy?
Have you noted how much warmer it usually is on those winter nights with cloud cover (i.e., water vapor)? If you stand outside and look up on a clear starry winter night, you may almost feel connected to the extreme cold of space. Why does CO2 not keep us warm on such nights? If you say it would be colder without it, don’t you have to admit that water vapor is even more responsible for “global warming?”
[Warning! my analysis below needs to be reworked. The water content of air is only between 1 and 5 percent. Thus, a report of 90 percent humidity means something else than I used below. Perhaps it means 90 percent of the maximum 5 percent. It appears I have been guilty of exaggeration. I confess and will fix this when I can pin it down].
Water vapor traps more and wider frequency bands of infrared radiation than does CO2, and it forms a denser blanket. What do you suppose it means when the weatherman says, “Humidity will be 90 percent?” Four hundred parts per million, ppm, CO2 is 0.04 percent, (400/1,000,000). Even at only 40 percent the water vapor is a thousand times more concentrated. So, if you really think you believe in "global warming," then you must also believe that if water vapor increased by one one-thousandth, (0.001 or 0.1 percent), this would also bring on "global warming." Not likely! Wait, I did that wrong. It is the increase from 300 to 380, or is it 350 to 380 that has caused "global warming" to already devastate earth. Let's use a change of 80 ppm. That's only one fifth of our prior 400 ppm, so we would have to believe that a rise of one five-thousandth in water vapor would be the same as a rise of 80 ppm of CO2. Do you think earth could handle that? How about 50 percent humidity? Sixty? Seventy? Now, recall that water vapor does a better job than CO2.
You are undoubtedly aware of the claim that “global warming” will raise temperatures and the sea level, the polar ice will melt (within seven years now, they say!), and there will be widespread drought and famine.
Just where will there be drought? If it is warmer and there is more water, doesn’t that necessarily imply that there must also be more water vapor? If there is more water in the air, won’t there be more rain? Well, you should know by now how there logic works - - - yep, more rain will cause more droughts
The only place there is more water is in the hose. Yes, you are being hosed.
There is an important distinction to be made between local and global levels. This writer has no more case against CO2 than he does, say, guns or dynamite. He only wants you to be aware that CO2 is being used against you as any other weapon could be. CO2 has a legitimate place too. Be advised that this is not really about CO2 or science. It is about evil. It is about the people who believe in population control, people who want to own and control you, and people who would create confusion and chaos to obtain those ends. They hate you unless you are one of them.
The strongest evidence in support of this claim and against 'global warming' is what has transpired at the local level. The science relating to CO2 was ignored then hidden. At the same time we were forced to change our emissions, we were also forced to make our homes, schools, and offices "air tight." Even passengers in airliners were subjected to higher levels of CO2. If you look closely, every policy has been to maximize the CO2 you and your children must breathe (For example, the latest push for burning 'biomass' or hauling garbage hundreds of miles away. They still give tax credits and incentives for sealing your home and upgrading wood stoves to ones that make more CO2). All the while, we have been told to look up, look at the atmospheric level. 'Global warming' is the distraction any good con must possess in order to succeed. You are being bamboozled.
[The following piece covers some old ground but also some new].
What if there were an aerosol chemical weapon that was not immediate and dramatic? Instead, it worked slowly and did immense harm before anyone realized.
What if those responsible had operatives in place ready to provide "damage control" any time the aerosol was suspected?
What if they also invented a distraction that would divert attention and resources elsewhere, corrupt those who had the ability to reveal the truth, make it appear the perpetrators hated the aerosol, and, ultimately, provide an excuse to reduce the accumulated aerosol, keeping the damage within the ability of the operatives to obscure? ("Cap and Trade," anyone)?
The distraction (a necessary element of a successful con) you know as 'global warming.' The aerosol weapon is carbon dioxide, CO2. Its properties and capabilities have been distorted and hidden from you.
CO2 is heavier than air, displaces air, and does not readily disperse. They wanted you to look up (global) when the problem was local.
Not only did they force us to change emissions to favor CO2, they forced us to make our homes, schools, and offices more airtight.
With increased CO2 came a predictable increase in asthma and allergies (CO2 can be a respiratory irritant - - - open a container of soda pop under your nose - - - and is food for bacteria and mold), anxiety, A.D.D., depression, self-mutilation, rage, infanticide (all associated with overpopulation and overcrowding - - - extra CO2 makes us sense more people than there actually are), and more, so overwhelming many people they now support government health care.
You can recognize the operatives. They falsely blame dust mites (probably around longer than the cockroach), pet dander (like this is new too - - - these first two imply that women don't know how to clean their homes anymore), second-hand smoke (does anyone still smoke?), radon (I have a bridge to sell), ozone (this word comes from Greek and means "strong odor." It is the smell of sparking electricity. All of us who played with toy trains and slot cars are going to die. Old vehicles with generators instead of alternators made more of it. It still can't be smelled in areas where it is supposedly a problem.), carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons (almost nothing makes these anymore - another reason ozone can't be a problem because their scenario uses monoxide and/or unburned hydrocarbons as precursors of ozone production!), poverty, and illegal drugs. They are right about mold, but neglected to tell you it thrives on CO2.
They run away from nuclear power and want to surrender to our enemies.
My solution: (1). Go back to the old emissions for most things. (2) The CO2 enhanced emissions are alright where they can be captured and used for valuable ends such as feeding an "algae farm." See the October 2007 issue of National Geographic Magazine. (3). Use nuclear power.
Copyright © 2008, 2009 Donald L. Beeman. All rights reserved.