IWA for Sunday 070812

New G.W.B.S. Now?  Preindustrial  man to blame.

Hey folks,

Does anyone actually believe the scam that is Man-Made Global Warming anymore? Seriously? It has all but been done away with in the news. Global Authorities have stopped pushing it. There is no money to be had. So, just like any other scam, it has gone pretty much in recession. It went away from mainstream, because there are not enough people worried about it to pay off.

Oh, it's hot. There are record heat waves going on out there. So you get a little blurb here and there about Global Warming. But for the most part, things like this tripe has all but gone away. But where free money is to be had, you still get this kind of garbage.

 Someone, most likely people just like me and you, paid for this moron to do this study. Now I tell you the truth, when you read this, one thing does jump out as a logically sound deduction. One I actually agree with. However, the rest of it, and the entire premise that CO2 is a pollutant, is just patiently absurd.

Turns out that according to our Idiot of the Week, Dr. Julia Pongratz of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Germany...

Humans started causing climate change long before the Industrial Revolution and the beginning of the fossil fuel era. A new study shows that the echoes of the earliest human-caused carbon emissions are still present in our atmosphere.

In fact, preindustrial carbon emissions, caused by deforestation as the world's population grew, were responsible for 9 percent of the total warming the globe has seen to date, the researchers say.

"The earlier the emissions occur, the less the influence on today's climate. But a part of the emissions stays in the atmosphere over a very long time scale of centuries to millennia."

Now the article makes a point here, in the next paragraph, which I will get to in time. But the lets talk about the logic that stands out. Every living thing emits CO2 as a by product. Trees and other live plants EAT CO2, and produce Oxygen. Without trees, and other plant life, there would be no Oxygen. However, with no CO2, there would be no trees and other plant life.

So I am all for the limiting of deforestation. I have no problem with that. However, if we planted as we go, are trees not a renewable resource? Of course they are. Now this article goes on to say this..

Using these models, the researchers found that 5 percent of the total "extra" CO2 in the atmosphere — the emissions that wouldn't be there if humans weren't around to create them — date back to the preindustrial era before 1850. The percentage of preindustrial emissions for each region varies. For example, China and South Asia have only recently begun burning fossil fuels in earnest, Pongratz said, but historically these regions underwent massive amounts of deforestation. So those regions' preindustrial emissions make up between 10 percent and 40 percent of their total carbon output.

If humans weren't around. Got to love the Environuts out there. It goes on to say this...

"This is a pure scientific study, and many things go into 'Who is responsible for what' that go outside the scope of science," Pongratz said. "But when you attribute today's climate change to regions of the world, then the picture indeed changes when you account for these preindustrialized regions."

And?

"Independent of political implications for today, our study is quite interesting to look at how this attribution evolves over time," Pongratz said.

So what is the study for? Back to the "next Paragraph" I was talking about...

This rethinking about carbon emissions could alter the relative blame put on various nations by as much as 2 percent, the researchers said. The political ramifications are not yet clear, but most international negotiations on climate change have focused on a "Ppolluter pays" model in which the biggest emitters would take on the biggest role in mitigating global warming. Including developments as far back at the ninth century would place slightly more burden on China and South Asian nations, according to the researchers.

{Laughing} That's what the whole thing was about. Passing blame and trying to dictate who has to pay more and less for the sins of their early man-kind. So Dr. Julia Pongratz can say "This is a pure scientific study, and many things go into 'Who is responsible for what' that go outside the scope of science," But then she does exactly that. She also makes completely absurd and improvable claims that "Since the late 1800s, the globe has warmed by about 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit (0.74 degrees Celsius). About 9 percent of that warming is because of preindustrial emissions." based on WHAT? Computer models that have already be proven false? Did she find the lost data that was claimed to have been lost the "proves" Global Warming? The false "Hockey Stick?" What?

Congratulations Dr., I am assuming you are a Dr., Pongratz, for throwing numbers out there and calling it pure science, while doing it for political agendas and money, you are the Idiot of the Week. I will give you credit for at least going a logical route. Less trees, less Oxygen. Makes sense. However, CO2, is not now, nor will it ever be a pollutant. It is a part of nature and it is necessary for life. It's not something to be regulated and used as a political tool. And neither is science itself. You should be ashamed of yourself for being used as nothing more than a political pawn. Any true Scientist would be.
Peter


Sources:    
Live Science- 9% of Today's Warming Caused By Preindustrial People By Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer | LiveScience.com – Tue, Jul 3, 2012