Every "tree-hugger" needs one of these
A gas mask.
Read the interesting results of a German study that found out that plants produce methane here.
Long ago (December 2004), my brother linked to a scientific study that said that the main reason for increased global temperatures in the last couple of years was--get this--the sun.
(or more specifically, the increased but proven-to-be-cyclical radiance of the sun as observed from Earth).
And now we find out that plants "in captivity" (my wording) produce methane. Even more interesting, we are informed that increased levels of methane have been observed in the Amazon rainforests--that is, from greenery not "in captivity".
Methane, need I remind you, is a greenhouse gas. Forests, may I remind you, are supposed to help fight the effects of greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere.
That would be some trick, since it turns out that the forests in all likelihood release greenhouse gasses themselves.
My point: Is it possible that the "science" behind global warming is a little weak?
Now I'm not saying that there hasn't been an increase in the earth's temperature observed in the last umpty-squat years. Heck, anybody can observe a temperature increase.
But for a second, why don't we actually put the scientific process back in the science? You know. . .actually gather data and analyze what it means, maybe truly identify the cause for any unexplained observed phenomena. . .
Is global warming cyclic? Do trees--especially large masses of trees like forests--produce "greenhouse gasses"? Are "greenhouse gasses" a real danger to the environment--today, tomorrow, or a million tomorrows from today?
Do you think we should have an answer to these questions--good, scientifically-backed answers--before we go forcing the economic disaster of Kyoto down the world's throats?
The only thing that is missing is for the Department of the Interior to mandate that every point-paper from the environmental lobby regarding the "greenhouse effect" must be prefaced by "if this information does not answer all of your questions, maybe you should give a look-see at "of Pandas and People"". Then we'd really have a scandal on our hands. . .or at least a scandal that the MSM would report.
Read the interesting results of a German study that found out that plants produce methane here.
Long ago (December 2004), my brother linked to a scientific study that said that the main reason for increased global temperatures in the last couple of years was--get this--the sun.
(or more specifically, the increased but proven-to-be-cyclical radiance of the sun as observed from Earth).
And now we find out that plants "in captivity" (my wording) produce methane. Even more interesting, we are informed that increased levels of methane have been observed in the Amazon rainforests--that is, from greenery not "in captivity".
Methane, need I remind you, is a greenhouse gas. Forests, may I remind you, are supposed to help fight the effects of greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere.
That would be some trick, since it turns out that the forests in all likelihood release greenhouse gasses themselves.
My point: Is it possible that the "science" behind global warming is a little weak?
Now I'm not saying that there hasn't been an increase in the earth's temperature observed in the last umpty-squat years. Heck, anybody can observe a temperature increase.
But for a second, why don't we actually put the scientific process back in the science? You know. . .actually gather data and analyze what it means, maybe truly identify the cause for any unexplained observed phenomena. . .
Is global warming cyclic? Do trees--especially large masses of trees like forests--produce "greenhouse gasses"? Are "greenhouse gasses" a real danger to the environment--today, tomorrow, or a million tomorrows from today?
Do you think we should have an answer to these questions--good, scientifically-backed answers--before we go forcing the economic disaster of Kyoto down the world's throats?
The only thing that is missing is for the Department of the Interior to mandate that every point-paper from the environmental lobby regarding the "greenhouse effect" must be prefaced by "if this information does not answer all of your questions, maybe you should give a look-see at "of Pandas and People"". Then we'd really have a scandal on our hands. . .or at least a scandal that the MSM would report.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home