Revisiting Global Warming, Junk Science and 'nattering nabobs of negativism'..
The Liberal Left environmentalists say, 'Let them eat Cake'!
Since the beginning of the 'Industrial Revolution' and probably back to the dawn of recorded time, we have had those chicken-little doom and gloomers who trumpet the warning that mankind is on the brink of self-destruction.
Now enter "Global Warming". And the fascinating conundrum that we are destroying ourselves with burning of fossil fuels.
While the jury is still out on our ability to influence natural forces, let's just assume that we are having some small effect on the increase in atmospheric CO2.
So.. What to do about it?!!!
The common concensus in the eco-religion is "Use less, Buy Less, Produce Less."
Well, if you do all those, then the world economy takes a hit.. a BIG hit! And when the economy takes a hit, the employment rate goes down, if you have nothing to produce, you certainly dont need people to produce it. Of COURSE, though, consumption and usage WOULD automatically go down.. because without wages, there's no buying and a lot less usage.
Of course that won't be a problem if all governments adopt economic central planning and production.. and isnt THAT convenient! Because then you have adopted the Marxist model despite its long, and without exception, track record of failure.
When you attempt such by governmental fiat, political concerns inevitably rear their ugly heads.
When I was a kid, the USSR periodically released 'new' evidence that Russian Scientists had actually invented everything from the telephone to the auto to radio to the airplane. Which was treated derisively by the west. But let's look at the background facts, suspending disbelief... They MIGHT have been telling the truth.
So let's ASSUME that is so..certainly there IS a lot of brain-power in Russian society.
Why weren't these marvelous Russian inventions put into common usage? Because it wasnt in the interest of the Czar and, later, the Commissariat to let the 'masses' have them. If I have to explain WHY that is so, you wont believe me anyway.
Which gets us back to the aforementioned non-productivity model - to wit: what we have now is "good enough".
Another buzz-issue is the development of new technologies.. sounds good, but the USUAL proposal is that we be taxed to develop those technologies, for their own sake.
Never mind that all definitive advances in any field have been by means of private effort and endeavor... and yes, that EVEN includes most of NASA's space program by-products. Teflon wasnt invented in NASA labs... I dont recall if 'Tang' was or not.
If I recall correctly they were invented by private concerns to meet NASA specs.
And to this day, most 'new' environment friendly technology work is being done in the private sector... yes, there are a multitude of academic grants but they tend to produce only the proven concept, it's up to industry to make them feasible and affordable.
So let's say that there is promise there... but it's not enough. How about stepping back and looking at the BIG PICTURE?!!!
First let's address 'population control'... the liberal-eco-wacko promotes this as key.
Well, it's indisputable proven fact that the wealthiest, developed societies produce the fewest offspring and the poorer 'subsistance' societies produce the most offspring. We neednt go into 'why', it's a fact and needs no provenance.
- EXCEPTION BEING: the rich in feudal societies, but that's another issue.
Second, every kid that has ever read Science Fiction knows that all life on this planet is 'carbon-based'. Since CO2 is the current issue, shouldnt we then look at how to fix MORE carbon from CO2?
If plants take in CO2 and exude O2, then lets grow more plants! This, of course is where the environmentalists have a point.. to wit: the reduction in rain-forest area.
THIS is where the global effort needs to focus. Stop demolishing the Amazon and other tropical areas. How hard can that be!
Uh, except for populist politics, of course. The poor Brazilian peasant doesnt want to hear that he has to give up his subsistant slash-and-burn living... how's he going to support his 12 kids?!! Get my drift, here?
But the BIG PICTURE bottom line is this:
The warmer it gets, the longer the growing season, the more green leaves there are, the more CO2 is converted.
And the warmer it gets the higher the evaporation rate in the oceans, the more water vapor suspended in the atmosphere, the more rainfall, the more water for plants to grow. The more plants grow, the more carbon is fixed.
And you will note that those plants release the same water they take in; once they use it to fix the carbon and produce O2, they release it back into the atmosphere.
So, while the main worry of global warming is an excess of seawater, might the ANSWER ALSO be in that?
Picture a genetically modified edible plant that thrives in saline.. like, say, kelp does.. and picture 'sea-farms' on the coast of Saharan Africa.
More O2, less CO2, more food, more water vapor released, more rain, more tillable land, more plant-crops, more ... well I'm sure you have some imagination.