Global Warming, CO2 sources, and credits?

Question

So, I am curious.

The "scientists" of today (Al Gore, cough) claim that man-made carbon dioxide is leading to global warming and ultimately the destruction of our planet.

Carbon dioxide production, however, has been proven to be approximately 95% natural (leaving only 5% being man-made). Forest fires (which are natural and have been happening since the beginning of time) are a larger source than man is.

That being said, why are we so bent on spending obscene amounts of money to "go green" and attempt to control this 5% that is man-made? Even if we were successful in scaling back man's impact by 50% it's only a 2.5% drop in the overall (natural + man-made) carbon dioxide emissions each year.

And secondly, if forest firest are a larger source of carbon dioxide emissions that man is, rather than spending tons of money on "going green" wouldn't it be wiser to spend tons of money to have "quick reaction forces" ready 24/7 to combat forest fires?

Answer 1

O U R O P I N I O N

An alarmist’s solution to criticism

    Unless you’re among those who follow the global warming controvery with considerably more intensity than the average citizen, the name James Hansen probably doesn’t ring any bells. But it should.

    Hansen is the original global warming alarmist. He is currently the head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Twenty years ago, in an appearance before several Congressional committees, Hansen warned that increasing human-generated CO2 content in the earth’s atmosphere was pushing up global temperatures, and that if generation of CO2 wasn’t cut back, we would face a “tipping point” from which there could be no return, and that the result of warming would doom life on earth as we know it.

    He was called to testify in the early ’80s because in 1981 he and a team of scientists at Goddard had concluded that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to global warming sooner than previously predicted. While other climatologists had already predicted that a trend would be apparent by 2020, Hansen predicted, in a paper published in Science, that the change was already occurring and that there would be record high temperatures as early as 1990.

    In June of this year Hansen again testified before a Congressional committee, on the anniversary of his first alarmist appearance. And what has happened to global temperatures in the intervening 20 years? According to the University of Alabama at Huntsville, global satellite temperature data show that earth’s temperature has indeed changed; it’s gone down by half a degree (Fahrenheit). So much for Hansen’s prediction about tipping points, and carbon dioxide dangers, etc., etc.

    But Hansen also did something else at in June. At an informal media event hosted by Worldwatch Institute, an environmental activist group, he called for criminal trials against scientists, corporate executives, and public policy advocates who disagree with him. He said skeptics are guilty of “crimes against humanity.” If you oppose his theories, in other words, you’re no better than Hitler, Stalin, Robert Mugabe, Papa Doc Duvalier, and the rest of history’s mass murderers, and ought to be sent to jail — or worse — for holding such views.

    Much of the above is from the August issue of Environment & Climate News, a Heartland Institue publication. The Heartland Institute, you may not know, is a non-profit environmental organization that challenges global warming theories. Two letters to the editor today take note of a story published in the Sunday Press Dispatch (albeit buried on D7) that some 31,072 American scientists have signed a petition rejecting Hansen’s — among others — assertions that global warming has reached a crisis stage that is caused by human activity. The story about the petition originated with the Heartland Institute.

    The petition puts the lie to claims such as the one by Al Gore (“The debate is over”) that there’s any sort of general agreement among the world’s scientific community about global warming, either as to what is causing it, that it’s in fact happening, or that there’s anything humanity can do about it.

    Hansen, you might also want to know, is indeed a scientist. He’s an astronomer. But stifling dissent of his theories by shouting, “Off with their heads” does not exactly comport with scientific method. So it’s no surprise to also learn he’s Al Gore’s adviser on science. Uh huh.

    Steve Williams

Victorville Daily Press

7-29-08

Answer 2

1. Imagine a 10-ton rock balanced on a small point. A 100-pound man stands on the middle of the rock and it stays balanced. But then he walks to one end of the rock, it tips over and falls down a cliff, setting off a landslide that destroys the village below.

At his trial, the man argues: hey, I only weigh 100 pounds, I can't possibly have any effect on that 10-ton rock!

2. A large corporation has annual revenues of $1 billion, and it hires a new CFO who turns out to be a swindler. He embezzles $1 million per year, but since the company runs on very thin profit margins, the embezzlement turns the company from a profit-maker into a money-loser. After ten years, the company's balance sheet is zero and it files for bankruptcy, putting thousands of innocent people out of work.

At his trial, the embezzler argues: Hey, I only stole 0.1% of the annual revenues, I couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the bankruptcy!

3. In the absence of man, carbon emissions into the air from natural sources, and carbon extraction from the air by natural sinks, are in balance. A sudden global imbalance by 5% per year is HUGE.

There is simply nowhere for most of that excess to go, except to stay in the air, where it warms the planet. We're actually pretty lucky now, because about half of our emissions are being absorbed by natural sinks. But multiply that 2.5% excess by 10 years and what do you get? Now multiply it by 100 years, and what do you get?

At $4 per gallon, the average American will spend $19,000 over the life of his car on gasoline. That's about what the car is worth by itself. So why are you worried about spending "obscene amounts" of money on green technology, when you don't bat an eyelash when spending obscene amounts of money to make the oil companies rich?

And even in Canada, which has some of the largest forests in the world, fire accounts for only 18% of CO2 emissions in an average year. In most other countries, it's less.

http://www.bioenergyupdate.com/magazine/...

Answer 3

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123).

We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.

The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies.

Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.

Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.

Answer 4

The objective of reducing consumption of fossil fuel is not entirely without savings in cost.

By now we are just beginning to see that conserving our fossil fuel resources may be our best way to avoid spending enormous amounts of money.

While we should have quick response teams and equipment, we also need to be creating water storage and distribution systems sufficient to do a lot of irrigation of forest lands. Those forest lands standing there under drought stress are not consuming much CO2, and are a major fire risk. We can use those forests, with water, to absorb the CO2 instead of being concerned only with cutting emissions.

We also have coal mines on fire in various parts of the world, some have been burning for centuries, that produce more CO2 than all human uses do.

We are just getting started in having arctic methane releases that will far exceed human CO2 emissions as greenhouse gases.

Having other sources to blame does not alter the concern for global warming. Rather it makes it more significant to deal with major problems that global warming is likely to produce, such as  drought and flooding. But dealing with drought also fights global warming.