By Alan Caruba
Just when you thought “global warming” has been put to rest by the revelations of how the computer models supporting the hoax had been deliberately falsified to “hide the decline” in the Earth’s temperature, along comes the next Big Lie, focused again on carbon dioxide (CO2).
Wednesday, January 13, has been designated “Wear Blue for Oceans Day” by some coalition calling itself Clean Ocean Action. I don’t even care whose funding this scam, but Friends of the Earth is proudly announcing it is part of it.
They are still smarting over the December debacle in Copenhagen despite being “one of the main groups organizing a December 12 march that attracted more than 100,000 participants…” The FOE neglected to mention they all stood out in a snow storm to make their voices heard on the way the Earth was warming.
Perhaps sensing that people might begin to wonder where all the global warming had gone since a global cooling cycle began in 1998, these perpetrators of the fraud turned their attention to the fact that the same CO2 that was supposed to “cause” global warming was nonetheless building in the atmosphere and that means in the oceans as well.
At far back as February 2009, these scare mongers organized an international symposium, the second one actually, on “The Ocean in a High-CO2 World.” It brought together “150 marine scientists from 26 countries” who allegedly are “calling for immediate action by policy-makers to sharply reduce CO2 emissions so as to avoid widespread and severe damage to marine ecosystems from ocean acidification.”
An article in Science Daily reported that “The scientists note that ocean acidification is already detectable and is accelerating.”
What these scientists are more interested in detecting is where the next wasted billions in government and foundation grants can be found.
The oceans of the world comprise some 70% of the Earth’s surface. They are like the lungs of the Earth, absorbing and releasing carbon dioxide. They have been doing this for billions of years and a rise in the amount of CO2 is essentially meaningless.
“It is well established among researchers that the uptake of increased amounts of carbon dioxide will make ocean water more acidic as the gas dissolves to create carbonic acid,” said the Science Daily article and, to scare you just a bit more, “Ocean chemistry is changing 100 times more rapidly than in the 650,000 years that preceded the modern industrial era…”
The global warming fraud was based on the assertion that, as the Earth encountered greater industrialization, the increased use of oil, natural gas, and coal as sources of energy, the CO2 released was “causing” the Earth to warm exponentially.
The only problem with that “theory” is that it was (1) based on phony computer models and other false interpretations of data, and (2) the latest, perfectly natural climate cycle, is causing havoc around the world by dumping mountains of snow everywhere along with breaking cold temperature records faster than new readings can be taken.
So, please, do not “Wear Blue for Oceans Day” on Wednesday because it will only indicate you are one of the idiots who still believe in global warming and that you are now prepared to further confirm that by thinking the oceans cannot handle a rise in CO2 in the same fashion they have for eons.
For the scientifically inclined, check out
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/07/noaa-ocean-temperatures-june-2009-warmest-on-record.php
Why is it important to know that global ocean temperatures are the warmest since records began in 1880? Because the colder the water, the more carbon dioxide it retains. Warmer oceans would generate less, not more acidification.
46 comments:
Oh for God's sake ....
Can we really say we didn't see this coming though? If it isn't one crisis, it's another.....
Can't blame them though. They have to justify their pathetic existence SOMEHOW ...
Wow. So you are what's wrong with this country. Just why do you think you have the right to dismiss these claims when your background is not in SCIENCE! I don't trust people who don't have a background in what they preach. I'll trust the PhD's that have worked their asses off in this subject. not a "blogger".
Cora:
I am a science writer, not a scientist and have never representated myself otherwise. Believe it or not, it is possible to actually LEARN SOMETHING about science if you write about it.
You, however, want to be misled by a lot of scientists who have been deliberately lying to the public in order to receive lots of money in the form of grants, speaking fees, etc.
Just because one has a PhD does not make them any more honest than myself and I, Cora, am putting my FACTS on the line where anyone can judge them.
If you want to continue to be fooled, that's your choice, but it is a poor one.
But Alan, there can be no doubt. Global warming dropped clean out through the hole in the ozone layer.
Boy, what a mint that one made for its perpetrators--demonising excellent refrigerants and replacing them with costly 'blends' of reduced efficiency. And how many cows grazing in the Falklands have gone blind through having been subjected to excesses of ultraviolet energy?
Geoff Alder
Another New Scare - Ocean Acidification - another load of baloney and fraud.
I feel I must, in support, add to Alan's post with this comment.
Sun 01st Feb, 2009 – A headline on the BBC World website, for this week ran:
“Acid rain ‘needs urgent action’” based upon : ‘The world’s marine ecosystems risk being severely damaged by ocean acidification unless there are dramatic cuts in CO2 emissions, warn scientists’.
So, let’s check the facts: Currently, the oceans (Pacific predomintly) have a ph of 8.1, which is alkaline; it requires a ph value of below 7.0 to be classed as acidic.
”Between 1751 – 1994 surface ocean ph is estimated to have decreased from approximately ph 8.179 to 8.104”, continues the BBC.
But, at that rate it will take another 3,500 years to be even slightly acidic!
Another point to ponder is how on earth did they measure ocean ph to four decimal places in 1751? The idea of ph wasn’t designated until 1909!
The BBC article then asserts: “The researches warn that ocean acidification, which they refer to as ‘the other CO2 problem’, could make most regions of the ocean inhospitable to coral reefs by 2050 if atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase”.
So let’s check some more facts: Corals became common in the oceans during the Ordivician Era (505 – 438 Million Years ago, within the Paleozoic Era ……….
(Palaeozoic, major interval of geologic time that began about 540 million years ago with an extraordinary diversification of marine animals and ended about 245 million years ago with the greatest extinction event in Earth history. The major divisions of the Paleozoic Era, from oldest to youngest, are the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, and Permian periods.)
………when atmospheric CO2 levels were about ten times (10X) those of today. Perhaps corals are not assumed to be as tough as they used to be.
In 1954 the US detonated the world’s largest nuclear hydrogen bomb at Bikini Athol in the South Pacific. Equivalent to 30 Billion pounds of TNT it vapourised three islands and raised the water temperature to 55,000 degF - to an invisible, hyper-heated, hyper-pressurised gas. Now, 54 years of rising CO2 later the corals are thriving, as is life within, at Bikini Athol. Another drop of ph 0.075 will likely have less impact on the corals than a thermonuclear blast ! The corals flourished when earth’s temperature was 10degC higher than present.
So many theorists predicting how rising CO2 levels will destroy the planet yet the geological record shows that for hundreds of millions of years life flourished and abounded with much higher CO2 levels than today coupled with much higher global temperatures.
These people are determined to destroy our civilization. To their shame we know exactly what they are doing.
These people are destroying the credibility of true science - maybe that is their quest in order to bring the world into a new Middle ages mindset?
Bring in the facts and it is game, set and match - END OF SCARE.
Sceptical Clive in the Philippines
Cora:
If you will take the time to read more of what Alan writes, you may discover that he has something more important than a PhD in a science discipline. Although he is far too modest to mention it himself, I believe he has a PhD in Critical Thinking. He also has an honorary degree in Reality.
He is well qualified to discuss the subjects he blogs about.
I don't know how long the ocean "acidification" scam has been on the back burner, but it seems like I've been hearing about it for years And now that their AGW drum is broken, it's only natural that they pound on this one harder than ever.
John Ray gives links to some interesting data in his lead story here that indicate what a crock the ocean "acidification" scam is.
Also, even if it were theoretically possible to alter the ocean pH that much, it would require more CO2 than is physically available, even by burning every last bit of "fossil" fuel on earth. I.e., being that it is a physical impossibility, it ain't gonna happen.
But, as you well know, they will never give up trying to con us into buying their poison.
Geoff, I worry about those Falkland cows all the time.....
Dammit Clive ...there you go again with those pesky facts....
I read a story today that said we're going to lose all the gorillas to global warming now, apparently because the rise in temperatures will make them "lethargic" and unwilling to mate. I don't know about gorillas, but when we get heat waves in our cities, people breed like rabbits!
Cora, I'm all for lending an ear to anyone who demonstrates expertise in their field, but simply hanging a piece of paper on the wall doesn't mean a lot to me.
I had a meeting with the president of a company I used to work for one day many years ago. I was upset because we were selling a product that didn't work, and I felt he should know about it. This is what he said to me:
"Do you see that piece of paper hanging over there? That is my MBA, and do you know what it does for me? It gives me the right not to have discussions like this with people like you ...." I did a quick about face and left his office, muttering under my breath what I felt he could do with his MBA.
True story. Today, he's long gone. I started my own competitive business six weeks later, and I've never looked back. That was fifteen years ago. I heard several years ago that he'd had a heart attack and died. Life has a way of getting even with people like that.
Oh, and by the way, I never did get MY degree, but I am considered somewhat of an expert in my field. Education is great, but there's no substitute for real world experience, and I often say that I've learned more about how NOT to do business from the people I've worked for....
OH, NO! I went to the grocery store here in Santa Cruz wearing a blue shirt!!!
I wondered why so many here smiled knowingly. The cashier, returning change, held my hand and gazed into my eyes and gave me a twisted little smile and nod.
How embarrassing. I retaliated by taking my bottle redemption monies and buying gasoline.
Cora,
For a bit of objectivity on this issue, you could do no better than to study a monograph, published earlier this month, by Craig Idso on http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/acid_test.pdf . It was written as a critique of a horror movie, “Acid Test: The Global Challenge of Ocean Acidification”, produced by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
If you have the stomach for it, watch the movie at http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/acidification/aboutthefilm.asp before reading Idsos’ hatchet job. Idso has the advantage of citing 150+ peer reviewed research papers, based on real time observations and experimental data, to support his conclusions, which included the following:
“even a cursory review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature reveals that an equally strong case – if not a more persuasive one – can be made for the proposition that the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration will actually prove a boon to calcifying marine life … based on the many real-world observations and laboratory experiments described above, it is clear that recent theoretical claims of impending marine species extinctions, due to increases in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration, have no basis in empirical reality. In fact, these unsupportable contentions are typically refuted by demonstrable facts. As such, the NRDC's portrayal of CO2-induced ocean acidification as a megadisaster-in-the-making is seen, at best, to be a one-sided distortion of the truth or, at worst, a blatant attempt to deceive the public. … if there is a lesson to be learned from the materials presented in this document, it is that far too many predictions of CO2-induced catastrophes are looked upon as sure-to-occur, when real-world observations show such doomsday scenarios to be highly unlikely or even virtual impossibilities. The phenomenon of CO2-induced ocean acidification is no different. Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not the bane of the biosphere; they are an invaluable boon to the planet’s many life forms”.
That the ‘scientists” who appeared in the movie, not to mention the celeb narrator, seem to be blissfully aware of extensive literature diametrically opposite to their scare mongering, disgraces them, the legitimate study of science and the institutions that employ them.
Ocean acidity is emphatically not the new CO2.
While Dr. Craig Idso may find it convenient to dismiss off-hand "the views of a handful of scientists, a commercial fisherman, and two employees of the NRDC," the same cannot be said of the 70 National Academies of Science from around the world that issued a joint statement in June 2009 warning of the dangers of oceanic acidification.
Concern is raised not just by the amount of CO2 being added back into the biosphere but by the rate at which it is being added, a rate unprecedented in the geologic record. The closest equivalent would be the PETM, 55 million years ago, which was accompanied by large oceanic acidification and a huge temperature spike with massive impacts to global ecosystems. It took natural processes tens of thousands of years to recover from these spiked carbon levels. Not surprisingly, Idso does not mention the PETM.
However, the PETM took hundreds of years to reintroduce its massive carbon amounts, a task we are accomplishing in decades.
There's something to be said for efficiency.
Michael, what you and too many others don't get is that carbon dioxide is not a threat to the planet, it is vital to all life on the planet. Acidification is just another part of the con-job regarding CO2.
And most people have concluded that too many of the noted scientific organizations allowed themselves to be fooled by the CO2 fraud perpetrated by a handful of IPCC scientists, including the vital process of peer review.
Give it up, Michael! Get a life!
Even if all this scary "science" about CO2 is true, I'm curious... What do these climatologists think they would accomplish by reducing our emissions? Each and every thing we could do to reduce our emissions is quickly being offset by our growing population. If CO2 is truly a danger to our survival, all we would be doing by reducing our emissions would be delaying the inevitable. Even if we reverted to living in huts and riding horses, at some point our population is going to grow to the point where the CO2 from breathing alone will be "too much". In my opinion, it's pretty arrogant to think that we can somehow change the course of nature on this planet. Short of giving someone or some government agency TOTAL control over every aspect of our lives, including our right to live, there's no way any human being, or group of human beings is ever going to "manage" the world's climate. Oh yeah, I forgot ... that's what they're trying to do isn't it?
I've always believed that if our existence here is more than the Earth can handle, the Earth will straighten things out, and in a much fairer way than any human being could. Nature has been running the show for eons, and will continue to do so despite the arrogance of those who think they can do it better. George Carlin summed it up nicely in one of his shows, when he said that the Earth will "shake us off like a bad case of fleas ...."
All this fear-mongering is being done for one purpose, and one purpose only ...control. Personally, I trust nature a whole lot more than I trust the UN, our government, AL Gore, or any other human. At least we know that nature isn't greedy and doesn't discriminate ...
Human activity alone represents a miniscule amount of CO2. The Earth generates about 97% of it whether we participate or not.
The more CO2 the better! More crop growth, more forest growth, a greener, lusher Earth.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a climatologist, or even slightly knowledgeable in such matters. I have no idea how much CO2 is "normal", or how much we generate through breathing, industry, agriculture, or any other "human" activity. Lacking any real knowledge of such facts myself, I'd certainly never try to match wits with anyone on the subject. I guess I just wanted to make the point that if we ever do manage to become a threat to our planet, I feel confident that the planet will straighten things out. I'm simply not buying the "doomsday" mentality of all these "scientists" running around scaring everyone nowadays, and it all just smacks of another attempt to control us....
How do you explain this:
"When President Taft created Glacier National Park in 1910, it was home to an estimated 150 glaciers. Since then the number has decreased to fewer than 30, and most of those remaining have shrunk in area by two-thirds."
Haven't you noticed worldwide glacial melt?
TC, did you know that 230 glaciers in the Himilayas are growing? As soon as you can explain why, get back to me.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Glaciers_Growing_in_Western_Himalayas.htm
Why are glaciers growing in some places and shrinking in others?
Simple just like "record temperatures" around the world - somewhere in the world has a new "record high" and somewhere else there is a new "record low" every year. If you pick and choose, it is easy to find something that supports your position - whatever it is.
If there is no global warming, or, as you say, "since a global cooling cycle began in 1998" how do you explain sea level rise? It is rising, isn't it?
TC, if it is all so "simple" why do you keep asking me questions? Presumably, you have ALL the answers...as demonstrated by your swift response to your own first question.
Now, here's a question to ponder. Why am I going to block you from commenting further here?
Hint: Because you are wasting my time. Get a life!
I think it is hilarious that the cure for ocean acidification is more warming... one hoax saves the other :P
For great information about how there hasn't been statistically significant warming since 1995 check out this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCrUQo3vbuc&feature=fvsr
Are you really this big an idiot or do you just play one on tv?
I don't understand what your gain is to dismiss good valid science.
People who agree with you WANT to be kept in the dark, it's much easier in the closet where you don't have to shed light on scary things that require serious people to make significant changes.
I hope you're having fun writing about how it's all fakery while basking in 100 degree + heat which is shattering a lot of records (most set in the 1990s)....people who believe you're touting the truth without seriously considering why their reality doesn't mesh with their truth will never seek the truth.
Kim, you offer the same arguments made for global warming, the greatest hoax of the modern era. Ocean acidification is in the same catagory as Greens desperately look around for something new with which to fool people into destroying the economy and modern lifestyles.
treehugger.com? That's fucking reference. Why not use NOAA a government agency? Oh wait they support Ocean acidification.
What your doing is dangerous. Future generation are gonna have to live in an ecologically damaged world because of dumbasses like you.
This is so bogus. Im majoring in Marine Biology and it is actually a big thing I'm researching. Even if you do not believe it is true- then all you are trying to do is justify the use of fossil fuels and other things that release mass amounts of CO2. Even if it were a Hoax, whats wrong with it if it is? Either way we need to find a way to be more eco-friendly, and sometimes something like this is what it takes for the rest of the world to make a step in the right direction.
@jingliz:
"Even if it were a Hoax, whats wrong with it if it is?"
And you are studying to become a SCIENTIST???? A marine biologist????
Real scientists and all other reasonable people do not just go along with a hoax. They protest the lies.
The US has flushed over $50 billion down the drain over the past two decades or more in the name of "climate research." With that kind of money we could have repaired bridges, upgraded roads, expanded ports, and all manner of useful, needed things.
That thing between your ears is called a brain. USE IT!
Alan, are you censoring comments? I have a lot of questions I'm hoping you can address, but I haven't seen my post make it to your blog.
@TrueBlue: YES, I do censor comments for a variety of reasons. Some convey inaccurate "facts", others are rude, and some expect me to answer ALL their questions and, of course, I lack the time to do their research for them.
The Globalists agenda has underestimated the section of the population that refuse to accept what they are told as verbatim.
I guess they will have to come up with something else a bit more drastic in order to remain in control. Run for cover Aliens are amongst us !
If the writer actually conducted unbiased research he would tell us that the term "glogal warming" is inaccurate. Scientist have actually realized that it is more of a global climate intensification, also know as "global climate change." Thus we are seeing stronger storms (like Hurricane Katrina,)record setting snow falls, rains, flooding, and fires, as well as hotter and colder temperatures world wide.
I don't have a PH.D but I am not ignorant enough to allow someone to tell me this is not happening, and that this is nature when studies have been conducted by thousands of well established scientist world wide who STRONGLY suggest there is an anthropogentic cause to an increase in our oceans acidity.
@Kirstin: Wrong, wrong, wrong. Your "facts", actually just assertions based on global warming lies, are baseless when it comes to the real science involved.
Suggest you visit my site and read "November 20, 2009: The Day "Global Warming" Ended. Posted Nov 17.
Folks, anyone who has taken basic chemistry and general biology can understand these things. Of which, I have taken these courses.
Regardless of what the causes are, the average ph of the oceans are decreasing. (ph is a log based measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions, multiplied by negative 1 to make it a positive scale.) It is also a simple fact that when these lower ph waters reach things like oyster farms, the oysters die because they stop growing shells.
So, regardless of causes or beliefs, our food sources are in decline, and people who make a living growing and harvesting those food sources are worried and loosing money. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Eco/ocean-acidification-hits-northwest-oyster-farms/story?id=10425738&page=1
So, if you want to be able to figure it out for yourself, take some intro to bio and chem courses at your local community college. Then you can make an informed opinion. As a bonus you can pad your resume, meet new people and have fun playing in the lab. (ask your chem prof to do the flaming gummy bear.)
So I do find it interesting that so many get passionate about these topics. I'm currently writing a paper on ocean acidification and toxic tide affects. It's nothing new to the oceans and this world. We have recorded and studied these processes for decades now and they have happened in various stages throughout history. What can be determined here is that this topic is being used as more fear mongering, to hop on a new band wagon. Much like the patriot act and invasion of foreign countries, we can only find support in the masses by installing emotional dependence on those with information that incites fear(whether that information is accurate is not relevant).
I thank you for your opposition to this topic in the form of social panic rather then political or scientific ridicule. Though slight changes in isolated environments do cause measurable affects on any diverse ecosystem, we should not incite fear as a tool to promote scientific understanding.
Those that seek responsible stewardship won't be the ones waving ridiculous flags and buttons. They won't be running around telling people their wrong since that will only foster more separation of an issue. True debate comes from understanding of both sides and still able to persuade your point.
I believe that there are solutions to a better way of life, a healthier way of living. I don't think we have the right to dump tons of garbage anywhere land or sea. This isn't a planet we inherit from our parents, its a planet we give to our children and we should act accordingly.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/ocean-acidification-one-less-thing-worry-about
For those still clinging to the notion of ocean acidification, I recommend reading the article linked to the URL above.
For all those curious, the pH scale works by orders of magnitudes meaning that 0.1 difference is actually and increase of 30% in the acidity of the oceans. Also acidification does not mean it is an acid. It means that it is becoming more acidic (less basic) so any drop on the pH scale means it is acidifying. The ocean has been absorbing carbon dioxide for a while now but look how much we are putting out. Burning fossil fuels, a combustion reaction, is a common source of energy now a days. For all those who don't know all combustion reaction lead to to creation of CO2.
Alan DON'T YOU DARE IGNORE THE POST JUST SENT TO YOU. THESE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO THE FACTS!
@Erica: I would remind you that this is MY blog, not yours. If you want to blather about CO2 and the oceans during to acid, get your own blog.
I doubt you have ever given thought to the hundreds of active volcanoes, above and below the oceans, that put out more CO2 than mankind ever could. Or that the Earth's natural system adjusts and balances to it, absorbing and releasing it.
For the truth about ocean accidification, read:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/ocean-acidification-one-less-thing-worry-about
And, Erica, take your message elsewhere in the future.
I can't believe that people are still beating this dead horse. One thing's for sure ... our schools are doing an excellent job of brainwashing our youth. They're like a bunch of little parrots, squawking the same irritating words, but there isn't one of them that has learned to think for themselves or question the philosophical, political, or monetary reasons for the scams being perpetrated on us.
Let's see ....
Ozone Hole - We're all going to burn up and get cancer.
Electromagnetic Radiation - We're all going to get cancer.
Asbestos - We're all going to get cancer.
Radon -We're all going to get cancer.
Acid rain - the Earth is going to turn brown and die. Oh, and we'll probably get cancer too.
Molds and mildews - We're all going to get sick and die. We might even get cancer.
Second hand smoke - we're all going to get cancer.
Cell Phone Radiation - We're all going to get cancer.
Global Warming - The oceans will rise, crops will fail, and we'll all die. Oh, and we'll probably get cancer too.
Ocean Acidification - We'll all die, of something ... probably cancer.
There are dozens more. Every time we turn around, someone is throwing some sort of scare tactic at us, and all you have to do is follow the money to see why.
Don't get me wrong ... I don't believe in POLLUTION. Dumping heavy metals into rivers, or polluting the air with known TOXINS is foolish, and shortsighted. But we have long since identified what is really toxic to us, and reduced our emissions of those substances to reasonably safe levels.
The EPA, and all the other environmentally oriented agencies and organizations out there are like a runaway train. They received massive public funding when there WERE serious problems with our environment, and they were successful in solving the major issues. But now, in order to justify their existence, and insure continued funding, they are grasping at straws, coming up with "threats" that really aren't threats to anyone.
I'm all for science, research, and education, but we've allowed politics and economic factors to taint the entire process, and the result is a lot of junk "science".
Until we break those economic and political links and restore science to what it used to be, an endeavor to discover truth, this problem will continue ...
@Guy: Bravo! Well said!
@Guy in Ohio, interesting you say that. There's a lot more money to be made in keeping the status quo. Think of who benefits from reduced carbon emissions (windmill makers? and according to scientists: animals) and who suffers (airline industry, car industry, manufacturing, oil industry, etc). I'd imagine the oil industry has a lot more lobbying power than some frogs in the Amazon.
I couldn't help but smile at your list "of scams being perpetrated on us"
Ozone Hole - solved by the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to reduce CFC and halon emissions.
Acid rain - fixed through cap and trade.
Asbestos - "We're all going to get cancer."
Second hand smoke - "we're all going to get cancer."
No need to comment on those last two "scams."
@Take2: Environmentalists never cease to spread their lies.
There have always been ozone holes; they are a natural phenomenon, especially over the Poles.
Acid rain is a hoax. A government study found virtually no damage to US forests except at the very highest levels and then not enough to waste millions on.
Asbestos is a medical, not an environmental problem. Second hand smoke, however, is utterly bogus.
Do not return to the blog if your only intent is to repeat such blatant nonsense.
So Take2, I'll agree with one thing you said ... there certainly is a lot more money to be made if we stick to the status quo. However, unlike you, I don't think profit is a four letter word. Soaking the citizens of this country for billions of dollars on senseless hoaxes will cripple our economy.
So, you think that the "Ozone Hole" was fixed by reducing CFC and halon emissions? That is false. The ozone holes are constantly changing in size and location. The people studying the phenomenon had extremely limited data at their disposal when they sounded the alarm. Since then, it has been shown that the changes they were observing are normal. What effect, if any, reducing CFC's has had is now widely disputed ...
Acid rain - was "fixed" through cap and trade? That's rich. Cap and trade hasn't even been implemented yet. You are certainly no authority on this subject are you?
Reductions in acid rain were achieved primarily through the installation of scrubbers on power plants, and the complete outsourcing of our steel industry, which happened gradually throughout the last four decades. Now, all those SO2 emissions are occurring in China, and our once thriving steel industry is dead.
Asbestos - "We're all going to get cancer." Wrong. Repeated exposure to large amounts of asbestos CAN be harmful, but scaring the hell out of homeowners by invading older homes with abatement teams in hazmat suits is ridiculous. Asbestos is only harmful if it's airborne, and inhaled on a regular basis. The asbestos on pipes and in building materials poses NO risk if left undisturbed. The same is true for lead based paints.
The concerns about mold, mildew, and radon are a joke too. Unless a house has a MASSIVE mold problem, few people would have any problem with a little mold or mildew. It exists everywhere, and if it was fatal, we'd all be dead by now. Radon is the same story. It exists naturally in most areas, and I have yet to see the first shred of proof that it causes cancer.
All these scams are nothing but excuses to bilk home buyers out of a bunch of money for ridiculous tests and abatement procedures. Of course, the new home industry does everything they can to propagate these myths, because they want people to buy their NEW homes....
Second hand smoke - "we're all going to get cancer." There is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that ANYONE has ever died from secondhand smoke. How could anyone prove that even one person has ever died from exposure to secondhand smoke? They proved it statistically, which is no way to prove anything. It is a COLOSSAL scam, and nothing but a witch hunt on the part of the anti-cigarette crowd.
No need to comment on those last two "scams", huh?
That's interesting. So I suppose the "science is settled" on those two subjects, right? It's an interesting defense. I'm right, because I say I'm right. Unfortunately, that defense holds no water. In fact, it's absolutely pathetic....
I hope you aren't in college yet. I can understand having your head filled with this kind of garbage by the public schools, but if you're in college, and paying to good money to be programmed full of this crap, you're wasting your money. You're supposed to be learning how to think independently, and ask pertinent questions, rather than being indoctrinated with a pre-packaged set of political and philosophical agendas.
@Take2:
You have been afforded enough time, effort, and space on this comments section to make your case.
Now take it somewhere else. No more comment posts for you. Bye.
Alan, thank you for your post. I am both an environmental scientist AND Republican, having advised GOP Representatives, Senators, and Governors in the past on energy and the environment. I have a 30 year career in consulting with everything from cheese production to oil & gas hazardous waste remediation.
That being said, I am a skeptic of warming claims that have been widely circulated by some in the media and certain scientists, particularly those involved in the CRU "Climategate" scandal.
However, the issue of ocean acidification is quite different. I've reviewed much of the high-level research, and this is in fact occurring, causing reduction of shellfish harvest in US and international coastal areas. If we add the stresses of acidification to urban runoff pollution, UV exposure and others, we find that the photosynthetic biomass of the uppermost layers of the ocean are in great distress.
We risk much more than a warming world with carbon dioxide and other such substances. The ocean's biosphere is already under attack from overfishing, and adding in the effects of acidification will reduce productivity at a time when the world's population is growing and pressures upon ocean resources increasing.
Forget global warming, I'm firmly in Dr. LIndzen's camp on this one. However, acidification is real and the data is compelling. Our food web will collapse long before the Arctic ice mass melts. Thank you, Charles R. Stack, MPH
@Alan:
You, my friend, are well ahead of the hoax curve.
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2013/09/join-sea-change-reporter-craig-welch-for-live-chat-tuesday-at-noon/
The Seattle Times has recently done a week's worth of worthless and lying articles on "ocean acidification."
Like you said, when the Left's Global Warming hoax was exposed they moved on to the next smoke and mirrors!
But thanks to writers like you, we are on to their dirty little game from the gitgo!
This is ridiculous...personally I can't wait until they say that the sky is falling because the atomic weight of carbon atoms are pushing down on the oxygen and nitrogen atoms, thus making Chicken Little their go to prophet for profit!
Post a Comment