Tree Huggers Wrong Again?

Yep, it appears saving the trees and stopping the dreaded “Global Warming” do not go hand in hand. I don’t think they can have it both ways. Moonbat heads will explode. Here’s an excerpt. It starts out talking about the Live Earth concert last year, and the Earth Hour.

This year, 27 “partner cities” were named on the campaign’s Web site. They included Chicago, Atlanta, San Francisco and Phoenix. Sort of reminds us of last July’s Live Earth concert series, when the various NBC networks provided 75 hours of free air time to Al Gore and friends for concerts on its various stations.

NBC host Bob Costas sat in a darkened studio for a full minute as an energy-saving gesture while millions watched on their energy-consuming plasma TVs.

Never mind that it involved flying rock stars around the planet in emission-spewing private jets to plug their electric guitars into Godzilla-size amplifiers. Everything was fine, we were told, because everyone was buying “carbon offsets,” a scam that lets warming hypocrites continue their energy gluttony because they’re paying somebody somewhere to plant a tree.

In the green scheme of things, trees are a good thing and deforestation is bad. We must plant as many trees as we can to suck up all that CO2, the pollutant that sustains all plant and therefore all animal life on earth. Old-growth forests must be protected from those nasty loggers.

Trouble is, according to Thomas Bonnicksen, professor emeritus of forest science at Texas A&M University, forests left in “pristine” condition have too many trees and too many dead ones, both of which provide fuel for the devastating forest fires that ravaged California last year.

Bonnicksen is also a visiting scholar at the California Forest Foundation and has authored a study available at its Web site (calforestfoundation.org). It shows that four large California wildfires produced 38 million tons of greenhouse gases through fire and subsequent decay of dead trees — 10 million from the fires themselves and 28 million from the post-fire decay. This is equivalent to the emissions from 7 million cars for an entire year.

I’m beginning to think the Green Movement, and Tree Huggers in particular, have done more damage in the US in the last 30 years than any other source. And it all seems to come from ignorance and ego trips. Be sure to READ IT ALL.
H/T JunkScience

Related: How Lies Killed a Small Town

Advertisements

14 Responses

  1. Well, imagine how many tons of carbon went into the atmosphere when the Okefenokee Swamp burned last spring.

  2. That was a good thing, though. It needs periodic burnoffs to remain a swamp.

  3. Mother nature has a fine plan for all of this. The worst fires have come since the gubment shut down virtually all activity in the woods.

  4. And besides that, CO2 is NOT a pollutant! But don’t tell that to the Huggers or the Gloworms. It will make for an interesting fight.

  5. Not a pollutant under what definition, exactly?

  6. Without C02 you’d be dead. It is as important as oxygen.
    Here you go.

  7. Here’s another definition.

    CO2 Is Not an Air Pollutant

    First, the plaintiffs assume rather than demonstrate that CO2 is an “air pollutant.” Section 302(g) defines “air pollutant” as “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents…which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.” Note that to be an “air pollutant,” it is not enough for a substance to be emitted into the ambient air (oxygen and water vapor fit that description). The substance must also be must be an air-pollution “agent.” The text does not define this term, but it does not have to. An air-pollution agent is obviously something that pollutes the air. According to Webster, “pollute” means to “make impure,” “make unclean,” “dirty,” “befoul,” or “contaminate.” Carbon dioxide simply does not pollute the air in any recognized sense of the word.

    A clear, odorless gas that is non-toxic to humans at 20 times ambient concentrations, CO2 neither impairs visibility, fouls the air, or contributes to respiratory disease. Plants raised in CO2-enriched environments are able to survive and even thrive despite exposure to bona fide air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide that would otherwise damage or kill them. Carbon dioxide is plant food, and experimental data indicate that the rise in the air’s CO2 content from 280ppm to 380ppm over the past 150 years has increased average wheat yields by roughly 60 percent. Were it not for CO2 emissions, either many people now living might not exist or many forests now standing might have been cleared to make room for crops. The air’s rising CO2 content helps almost all plants grow larger, faster, and more profusely, and all animals depend on plants, directly or indirectly, as a food source. Thus, CO2 emissions are greening the planet, contributing to biodiversity and global food security. Carbon dioxide is fundamentally unlike any substance EPA has ever regulated as an “air pollutant.”

    Source

  8. One more for you. Al Gore’s 10 Errors

    Error 2: “Today we the people of this planet would put another 70m tons of global warmingpollution into the earth’s atmosphere.”

    The facts: “Global warming pollution” is Gore’s favorite phrase for “carbon dioxide.” However, CO2 is not a pollutant, but a naturally-occurring gas. Together with chlorophyll and sunlight, it is an essential ingredient in photosynthesis and is, accordingly, plant food. The reconstruction of palaeoclimatological CO2 concentrations below, taken from Berner (2001), demonstrates that carbon dioxide concentration today is almost at its lowest level since the Cambrian era 550 million years ago, when there was almost 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today, without any threat to animal or plant life, and without causing the “runaway greenhouse effect” that Gore likes to mention.

  9. So, if I’m understanding you correctly, you would not consider CO2 to be an air pollutant because:

    1. It occurs naturally.

    2. It does not directly and negatively affect human health.

  10. 3. Without any threat to animal or plant life, and without causing the “runaway greenhouse effect” that Gore likes to mention.

    4. Co2 is being used by algore and others to commit fraud. There is no evidence that CO2 causes global warming. Quite the opposite, CO2 follows warming by 800-1000 years.

    5. There has been no rise in the average global temps since ’98, in fact the temp has dropped in the last 7 years by about 1 degree F. without the help of man.

    6. Without CO2 plants die, without plants, we die. It’s NOT a pollutant.

  11. That’s not exactly what I was asking; I’m trying to figure out exactly what it is for you that defines a pollutant. What elements must a chemical possess in order to earn the designation of a pollutant?

    That’s it. I’m not even speaking directly about CO2, here, I’m just trying to figure out the base classification system you’re attempting to use.

  12. So what is your point Bryson? You must have something to say, since you don’t accept what I’ve already said.

  13. I don’t have a point, yet, because I’m totally unsure of the point that you’re trying to make.

    What is pollution? What constitutes a pollutant? At what point does something become a nuisance and a concern, and at what point does it not deserve our attention? You seem to have some sort of system of evaluation to discern malicious chemicals from benign ones; what is that system?

  14. If you’d read the links you would know it’s not my evaluation that counts. There are many experts out there that have come to these conclusions, and I am just giving you the information. Make of it what you will. If you are really interested, I suggest this site.
    Watts Up With That?
    Anthony has all the facts. There are many more but his is the one with the technical data that you seem to want, and can point you to the rest.

    As for my point of view, it’s as I said. CO2 is as important as oxygen for life on earth. To regulate it as a pollutant is like saying oxygen kills, and it should be reduced in our atmosphere. And I should add, there is no proof that humans have had any effect on the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, despite what Al Gore and his cult want you to think.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: