Hurricanes, C02, and the Death of Civilization
If one follows the arguments about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), one becomes aware the subject is very politicized and is not just about science, but about control over the economy and man’s behavior.
An example of this politicization comes in the Charlotte Observer’s Monday issue on page C1 “Hurricanes ‘burp’ the Estuaries” is the title and while containing science, it is obviously a propaganda piece by the writer.
The first paragraph contains this gem: “..a new threat has emerged…” A threat? No, an unbiased writer would describe the event as new knowledge of something which has been going on since estuaries faced storms. Then the writer asks the question: “Why is this a problem?” A problem? His answer is that it releases stored CO2 into the atmosphere. Well, please tell us, what else was going to happen to it? Without the storm was the CO2 going to stay in the estuary forever? Or does the estuary operate like a tree; storing CO2 while it lives, then giving it up when it dies, either quickly, if burned, or slowly if it rots. But no, the writer wants the reader to believe that CO2, being released into the atmosphere is a bad thing. He continues: “hurricanes cause carbon dioxide which has been building up for years to be released all at one time.” Whoa be unto us – we are under attack by carbon dioxide – is what he seems to want us to think.
Then the reader is told how CO2 is formed. “…plant material….ends up in the estuary. The vegetative material is converted by microbes into CO2 by decomposition. Carbon (dioxide) can also be produced by plankton.” Then the writer tells us the researcher, Paerl, says: “…the largest contributor of carbon dioxide is man made sources.” From the quote which follows, that is not what Paerl said, but is typical of the writer. The quote is: “…the major sources of carbon that go into that sink are runoff from the watershed that delivers carbon that’s grown on land and then ultimately washes into the system.” Certainly there is a lot of agricultural land west of the North Carolina estuaries, but if they weren’t there, trees, plains and marshes would be. The effect would be the same, but the writer’s point is to make mankind out to be a bad actor.
He goes on: “While there’s no evidence that the excess CO2 affects air quality, he said it does augment the greenhouse effect.” CO2 affects air quality?! Would the writer have us eliminate it from the air if he could? And just how much does it affect the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Tell us please, or are we to be left to our horrified imagination?
We are told hurricanes are increasing in intensity and thus their effect on estuary burping is intensified. Where is the evidence that hurricanes are increasing in intensity? Or is that just a story put out by the AGW scaremongers?
AH – “The good news is that the outflowing of CO2 from these systems can be controlled.” But that is only by reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Which, of course means, less burning of fossil fuels – controlling of the economy by our betters.
At the end comes the interesting part, the researcher is quoted and please pay attention to what he actually says: “I would think that we would see a reversal of the feedback loop….The warming in the oceans will no longer occur at the rate they currently do. There will be cooling events, and I’m talking about long term now, not talking about a single event. We’re thinking decades to centuries in terms of the impact of those types of management strategies.”
Cooling events. Think about it. The purpose of the AGW crowd is to increase cooling events. Friends, we live in the south, the warm south where the growing season is from mid April to mid October – 6 months. Cooling events would give us a shorter growing season, less than half a year. Think about it.
Short URL: http://pundithouse.com/?p=16557