by Marvin PIRILA
Man is responsible for just 3.12% of the total greenhouse effect. It's a small number that seems forgotten in the media blitz and the oval office. Most people must imagine that it is a lot more to buy into the economic sacrifice so willingly.
CO2 accounts for 12% of the greenhouse effect, while water vapor and clouds comprise 36% and 14%, respectively. The ozone and methane have a 3% and unknown portion, respectively. Of the 12% of CO2, human activity accounts for 26%. In all, man is responsible for 3.12% of the total greenhouse effect. The rest of the CO2 (74%) is natural and recurring. The scientific community is not even sure how much methane is in the atmosphere. In fact, they are not even sure how much CO2 the earth holds. Note: methane has 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2
It seems that man, now thinking they can control the weather, believe they have the role that only belongs to God. If you believe in Intelligent Design, you would think you would also believe that what God creates is perfect. This follows from the fact that the earth is so finely tuned that even the slightest change in any one of the several variables necessary for life would cause all life to cease. Reasonable scientists, knowing that conditions on earth are impossible by chance, embrace the idea of Intelligent Design. Believing man can control the weather falls along the lines of building a tower to heaven via the Tower of Babel.
The warming cycle now occurring, allegedly a result in large part to man, is supposedly different than the various warmer periods of the past. The question scientists should be trying to answer is what caused a global warming period to shift into a cooler period, including the ice age. In the absence of man, this happened on its own, yet now we are supposed to believe man is a huge contributor to global warming.
If God, the Intelligent Designer, precisely set the variables for life on earth, it is reasonable to believe that he knew exactly how the earth worked, its cycles and its counter cycles. God created everything and the One that prophesized future events showed us He was in control.
The fact is that higher CO2 levels lead to increases in vegetation, which in turn capture more CO2. With the soaring world population, higher CO2 levels would lead to increased food production. If the earth hadn't been much warmer in the past we would have no fossil fuels. The industrialized world would never have happened. People tend to have forgotten that even fossil fuels came from a natural source.
No one should disregard measures to protect the environment, but there is a need to dismiss the absurdity that man is largely responsible for global warming. There needs to be greater awareness of the sensationalism of current events that support secret agendas and ideologies. The heating of the earth over the last 100 years is nothing but a blip in time and deserves little thought. It seems that claims of global warming are a guise to unite the world under one power that will result in a few figureheads deciding for the masses.
The plan to curb carbon emissions worldwide penalizes industrialized countries financially in order to subsidize third world countries. Ultimately it cripples existing companies in developed economies, prevents startups, with almost all costs being passed along to consumers. We are already seeing it in our electric and fuel bills. Our federal taxes continue to rise as more and more is spent on global warming measures such as money to the U.N. and renewable energy subsidies. The ideology seems to support the idea of the redistribution of wealth on a global scale.
The weakening of some countries for the benefits of others might sound honorable, but it's dangerous. Why would you want to throw more money into third world countries that sponsor terrorism? Likewise, ruthless dictatorships and corrupt leaders ensure the money never goes where it is designated. Inevitably, the global warming plan would lead to political decisions, as different international laws would have to be negotiated. This too, leads to greater power in one world body. The history of the U.N. and its ploy for greater relevance should worry everyone.
The purpose of regulations is to serve the public good but it has gone off course and threatens to end valuable industries such as coal. In the name of global warming, we are shackling our businesses, funding inefficiency via subsidies, and putting workers on the unemployment line. Like it or not, fossil fuels are the future of the past, the present, and the future. Wind and solar will never replace them. The only viable renewable source of fuel is sugar cane based ethanol, but it has limited growing areas. There are many other areas, particularly in the desert, that could be recaptured to grow more. In the end, it wouldn't be enough, but it would help.
Numerous reports talk of increased desertification, lack of good drinking water, droughts, low aquifers, increased fire risk, etc. The media generally use these as examples of what global warming is doing to the planet. We must do something now, they say, to avoid catastrophic weather in the future.
If we are going to do something, let's make reasonable plans. Every single day, freshwater rivers from around the world dump usable water into the saline waters of the oceans and seas. A network of pipes across the nation could divert water where it was needed. This would allow desert areas to be reclaimed for pastures and crops (including sugar cane), replenish aquifers, be available for irrigation, and provide safe drinking water to millions. There is no shortage of freshwater, only a lack of desire to take the appropriate action. It makes no sense to spend billions on desalination plants when we allow endless amounts of freshwater to escape to saline waters.
The billions being spent on global warming today is doing nothing but line the pockets of political backers in an effort to buy votes. It would do nothing but consolidate power in a world body with different interests than our own, causing far more harm than good. If taxpayer money is at stake, as well as their jobs and livelihoods, shouldn't they be demanding a reasonable plan and outcome?