Global Warming?

There are a few issues that have to be addressed by the global warming crowd if they wish to be taken seriously by us "deniers".

1. Just as the only necessary answer to any of Al Sharpton's tirades is a quiet, chuckling, "Tawana Brawley", it would seem that the first answer to any claim of human-caused global warming has to be, "Mt. Pinatubo".

Mt. Pinatubo is a volcano in the Phillipines that underwent a major eruption in 1993. Fortunately, that area is home to a university that specializes in degrees in vulcanology and the area is virtually saturated with sensors designed to collect exactly the kinds of data necessary to properly analyze major, minor and picayune volcanic activity. As a result, Mt. Pinatubo stands as the most detailed study of a major volcanic eruption in the 20th century.

Startling results were achieved. Of primary interest is the atmospheric pollution aspect of the eruption. Mt. Pinatubo generated a range of pollutants across the entire spectrum of pollution, from the toxic gases (Sulphur Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, etc.), thru the "greenhouse" gases (Carbon Dioxide, Methane, etc.), to the particulates (Carbon soot, volcanic ash, etc.). Indeed, according to numbers that have been thoroughly vetted a number of times, Pinatubo spewed as much of this stuff as mankind has generated from all sources worldwide since approximately 1740. No, that is not a misprint. Pinatubo tossed as much crap into the air in one two-week burst as Man has in the last 250 years!

This would seem to render the entire scheme of "carbon credits" and "CO2 emissions reductions" rather moot, given our continued survival after the eruption without any detectable inconveniences. It also pretty well puts paid to the CAFE standards imposed on auto manufacturers as anything other than an open scheme to control production without regard to customers needs and desires, period.

2. The latest evidence from deep ice cores suggests very strongly that CO2 and methane levels don't produce warming conditions (as a consequence of the "greenhouse effect"), but rather follow such events by 1,000 to 1,500 years.

Again, we are led to question the efficacy of controlling mankinds generation of CO2 and/or methane to "cure" global warming.

3. Given that Man generates only about 2% of the greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere, even if we were to diminish our greenhouse gas production to zero, global warming would not be affected by any significant amount. What efforts are we making towards reducing that other 98% so as to save our grandchildren and all life on Earth? Or does anybody care? Doesn't it seem that the environmentalists are far more concerned with controlling, restricting and limiting business and manufacturing than actually affecting the environment?

4. How does the global warming crowd explain why 2007 is going down as the coldest year in recorded history since 1934, and the absence of any further warming on a global scale since 1998?

This takes the entire concept of "curing" global warming and tosses into a cocked hat. Now we have to worry about "global cooling" again! Remember when the big emergency of the 1970's was the coming ice age? Now we're getting evidence that that crisis du jour might be the real one to worry about...again!!

Referring again to the point of this blog, the global warming crowd seem to be the ones insisting that everyone do things their way...at the point of a gun if necessary. The "deniers" seem to be much more lenient in their treatment of the environmental habits of others, and are the ones I would prefer for neighbors.