SaveGreenEarth.com Blog

Our executive branch is telling us that we really should paint our flat roofs white. Our legislative branch is telling us we need to destroy our economy in the name of reducing CO2 output.

Don't fall for any of it. As we say on our cover page, it's not the CO2 coming out of our tail pipes we need to worry about, it's the other junk piggy-backing off it.

But I have a problem with our site's own claim. The comment implies that our cars and power plants and factories are really and incredibly dirty in a toxic way. This is not true. According to the American Thinker, US and European cities are the cleanest in the world, in terms of the toxic stuff that piggy backs off our CO2 emissions.

The article says it better than I can:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_geography_of_carbon_emissi.html

As my kids would say: OMG!

The US govt is pushing further and further to the left as it advances its goal of quashing anything resembling the nation of our Fathers.

Our govt wants to tax everything some office pogue considers "unhealthy," from sodas to smokes to my favorite cranberry juice. Even worse yet, the people are following along like happy little sheep. "Well, you should see how many carbs are in that cranberry juice. Those are translated directly to sugar and then to fat." As though that makes it OK for the feds to tax me extra for drinking the stuff. All in the name of "fixing health care."

Does health care really need to be fixed? Many nations on this planet have tried government health care. NONE have succeeded. There is no evidence that the govt that brought us the continuously bankrupt Amtrak, the never-has-enough-money postal service, the broken bring-your-lawyer-if-you-want-benefits Social Security Administration, and the FCC, FDA, DHS, and much more can fix health care. There is one thing our government does well and that's defend our nation. But that works solely because of the great men and women in uniform working under the framework of our outstanding Constitution.

"But we have to get health care costs down!" But the fed does not pay the bulk of health care costs. In fact, it's the fed's involvement that has driven up the costs of electricity, gas, smokes (I am not a smoker), booze, cars, land ownership, and almost everything else. And again, what makes any sane person think the feds can do better with health care? As though it is any of their Constitutionally-granted business!

It's not just the US. Check out this article from Belgium. They want to tax backyard barbecues! It seems each cooking session emits a few grams of CO2. So they want to charge $27 for the backyard chef to turn cow flesh to cinders.

But wait! There's more! The Belgium govt will fly HELICOPTERS with CO2 sensors to police the barbecues. I wonder if they will be able to adjust those sensors to ignore the half a ton of carbon the helicopters themselves emit sniffing out those few unlicensed grams!

The whole CO2 thing seems, more and more, to be a cynical ruse to BS the people into calmly accept governmental meddling and eventual control of our individual lives. They are not only pushing hard on the CO2 thing (as though CO2 is not a rare trace gas that is essential for our biosphere), but they are sweating our fat as well. There is no way on this sweet planet that my weight is the fed's concern! There is no allowance for that in the US nor the many states' constitutions for this unholy intrusion!

Actually it's pretty frustrating with fragmented doctrines all accepting the output of climate models as gospel. The above is a prime example because they are either unaware of or blithely ignore the inherent contradiction in the above claim.

The effect of doubling carbon dioxide in the absence of confounding feedbacks is moderately well understood -- all other things being equal increasing Earth's atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide from 280 - 560 ppmv delivers a theoretical +1.2 K warming of global mean temperature (1.2 °C or ~2.2 °F), approximately half of which has already occurred since ~1750.

To derive a slightly scary +3 °C warming from 2 x CO2 an amplification factor of 2.5 is applied (2.5 x 1.2 = 3) -- which regular readers know we call the marvelous magical multiplier -- and the rationale is that warming due to increased CO2 increases evaporation and adds to the stock of the primary greenhouse gas -- yes, water vapor -- which increases greenhouse effect...

Inevitably, adding more water vapor to the atmosphere leads to more precipitation (what goes up must come down unless it reaches escape velocity). So, to get the temperature increases used as inputs to guesstimate drying and reduced runoff (as the above modelers do) actually requires a significant wetting of the atmosphere and consequent increase in precipitation and runoff (as gorebull warming modelers do).

All of which leaves us with the truly wonderful situation where a hypothetical wetting of the atmosphere causes a hypothetical drying of the atmosphere. At the same time we have recent publication of studies suggesting observed increases in runoff (in Europe, as I recall) are due to increased water efficiency of plants in the slightly less CO2-depleted atmosphere with reduced transpiration loss causing higher retained soil moisture levels between precipitation events (which, if memory serves, is supposed to increase the risk of damaging floods).

What a thoroughly stupid game this is.

(Note: The above was pasted from http://junkscience.com)

This BLOG is a moderated discussion board of issues related to the environment. In particular, we will be discussing "climate change" or "global warming," its implications, its supporting science, and policies proposed or enacted to deal with "climate change."

So much for the official blurb.

My name is Frank. I will be moderating this discourse. I will shutdown discussions that I think are childish (eg "I pwn u!) or disrespectful.

One of my favorite sites is junkscience.com. I have found a lot of excellent information on that site, and as such will refer to it frequently.