Will Media Expose Global Warming Con Job?
Special Report | By Jerry Carlson | February 1, 2008
In March 2007 the UK’s Channel 4 broadcast a biting documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle. It debunked most of the major
arguments of Al Gore’s Oscar-winning video, An Inconvenient Truth.
The Chinese
word for crisis is a combination of the two ideograms Wei,
which means "danger" and Ji, which means "opportunity."
In
the past several months, a new "crisis" has heated up the controversy
over man-made global warming.
A
few major-media writers and TV personalities are actually reporting statements by credible scientists who are challenging the assumption
that carbon dioxide is the primary force causing global warming.
There's
a real possibility that big-name journalists will break ranks and pursue
their next Pulitzer Prize by exposing the lack of scientific consensus
on CO2 as a planet-heating pollutant.
That
would create a crisis of confidence among the activists, researchers
and global-governance apparatchiks who want a global carbon tax to build
their political and financial power base.
As
an agricultural journalist, I find this a fascinating new development
in the climate controversy. I've studied weather and climate for more
than 50 years. In the early 1970s, I wrote a short book, Tomorrow's
Wild Weather, which warned what could happen if there was a long-term
continuation of the cooling trends in the mid-latitudes since the 1930s.
As climatologist Reid Bryson advised me at the time, a cooler climate
in temperate zones would have been serious for world agriculture: Westerly
winds would intensify, making U.S. weather more extreme. Africa's
Sahel desert would expand much farther southward, spreading famine across
northern Africa. The data looked ominous: Average temperature in the
48 U.S. states had fallen by more than six-tenths of a degree Celsius
since 1930.
This
cooling attracted widespread press coverage and even some political
pressure-to reduce "aerosols" or fine particles of pollutants
which must be making our atmosphere more opaque. But the "New Ice
Age" scare faded as more refined data emerged and the longer-term,
slow recovery from the Little Ice Age resumed.
I've
continued to follow the climate controversy, especially since the 1997
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Since that conference, billions
of dollars in government funding have generated floods of research data,
a myriad of computer models, political posturing and the Kyoto Protocol.
The New Data
Most
of that data is freely available to scientists and others on the Internet.
Using it, hundreds of highly qualified climatologists and other scientists outside the fraternal network of the UN Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change have challenged climate prediction models and other
assumptions of the IPCC's reports. While there's consensus that
climates change over time, climatologists are sharply divided over the
interactions of the many potential causes. As research emerges, CO2 as a primary warming force becomes harder to defend with hard data.
These
challenges are starting to fracture the UN's pretext for global governance
over carbon emissions-including imposition of carbon taxes and "carbon
credit" trading supervised by UN agencies. Giving the UN a legal right
to impose a carbon tax- "cap and trade" in UNspeak-would provide
an income stream to UN agencies which would greatly increase political
power of UN bureaucracies. And their track record with large amounts
of money, such as the Iraqi Oil for Food program, is not encouraging.
However,
if the scientific case for CO2 as a primary climate pollutant
crumbles, so could a global carbon tax.
Individual
climatologists have disputed conclusions of the UN Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change even before the first IPCC Assessment Report
in 1990. The IPCC has issued a series of reports, each focusing on CO2 as the primary "greenhouse gas" causing the continuing warming recovery
since the Little Ice Age.
One
of the first organized scientific counterattacks sounded on April 6,
2006. Sixty accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines
signed a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, urging that
billions of Canadian tax dollars appropriated to implement the Kyoto
Protocol on climate change "will be squandered without a proper assessment
of recent developments in climate science."
They
wrote that if today's extensive climate knowledge and measuring capabilities
had existed in the mid-1990s, the Kyoto treaty "would almost certainly
not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."
That
scientific challenge received little prime-time media attention. The
Canadian government's administration and legislature mostly ignored
it.
Film Exposes Gore's Deceptions
Then,
in March 2007, the UK's Channel 4 broadcast a biting documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle. It debunked most of the major
arguments of Al Gore's Oscar-winning video, An Inconvenient Truth.
For example, the Antarctic ice core data dramatized in Gore's show
actually reveal that increases in CO2 have generally followed increases in temperature. The lag is
typically on the order of 800 years.
The Swindle documentary roused furor and scorn among carbon-as-cause
believers, who attacked Channel 4 as offering a "great propaganda
gift" to "climate-change deniers." But the credibility and rationale
of scientific sources on the documentary endured the attacks. No factual
challenges were forthcoming against the scientists' arguments.
The
controversy over this TV show, the first journalistic challenge against
CO2 as primary world thermostat, may have encouraged others
in the scientific community to point out that despite roughly $50 billion
for climate-change research over several decades, the case against carbon
dioxide faces more uncertainty as the evidence grows, not less.
One
such challenge comes from Dr. Bob Carter, Research Professor at James
Cook University and paleoclimate analyst with more than 30 years'
experience, including 95 research papers.
In
an Accuracy in Media guest column in April 2007, Carter emphasized:
"The evidence for dangerous global warming forced by human carbon
dioxide emissions is extremely weak. That the satellite temperature
record shows no substantial warming since 1978, and that even the ground-based
thermometer statistic records no warming since 1998, indicates that
a key line of circumstantial evidence for human-caused change-the
parallel rise in the late 20th century of both atmospheric carbon dioxide
and surface temperatures-is now negated."
This
challenge and others from eminent scientists roused the carbon theorists
to their ramparts. On the website www.realclimate.org, Gavin Scmidt
and Stefan Rahmstorf presented a 1980-2006 chart of global temperature
showing that the trend of deviation from "normal" in that 26-year
period remains up. But they made no attempt to explain why shorter-term
deviations vary more widely than the longer-term anomaly, which puts
the globe at about 0.4 degrees Celsius above its long-term "normal"
using the GISTEMP Land-Ocean Index computed by the Goddard Institute
for Space Studies.
Throughout
2007, hundreds of highly qualified climate scientists individually challenged
the presumption that global regulators can, and must, manage the world's
thermostat by curbing 50% - and possible eventually 100%-of man-made
carbon dioxide emissions.
Continuing Debate
The
most lively media arena for the CO2 emissions controversy
the past two years has been, by far, among Internet websites and blogs.
The Science and Public Policy Institute (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org)
offers a wide-ranging forum on the science of climate change.
Websites
like the SPPI bypass major-media gatekeepers and the UN organizers,
who carefully monitor any non-governmental organization wishing to attend
an IPCC climate conference. Example: At the November 2000 Conference
of the Parties (COP6) climate parley in the Hague, Netherlands, the
only non-governmental organization to oppose the Kyoto Protocol was
Sovereignty International (www.sovereignty.net).
The
websites provide newspaper, radio and TV reporters a rich diversity
of data and analysis on the issue. Usually, any posted article contains
an opportunity for immediate rebuttal. These websites may embolden scientists
to speak out more frequently in a forum unconstrained by peer review.
The
volume of new climate data is accelerating, which means that media-amplified
claims like the linkage between climate warming and hurricanes can be
challenged more quickly. For instance, the SPPI site points out
35 factual errors in Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."
On
Dec. 20 2007, the biggest-yet assembly of scientists challenging the
Kyoto pretext of CO2-as-villain was posted by Marc Morano
on the minority page of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works. This extensive digging by Sen. James Inhofe's staff
summarized comments from over 400 prominent scientists who disputed
some aspect of man-made global warming in 2007. These scientists'
observations fill some 120 pages when printed out from the website.
But they hardly made a ripple on prime-time TV news.
This
Senate site says, in part: "Over 400 prominent scientists from more
than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major
aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming.
These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in
the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized
the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al
Gore."
Sen.
Inhofe's staff observes, "Even some in the establishment media now
appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists.
In October, Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the
obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather
than shrinking."
A Contrary View
But
on the first day of 2008, a very significant contrarian voice emerged
in an astonishing place: The New York Times.
Science
writer John Tierney's editorial slashed deep:
"Today's
interpreters of the weather are what social scientists call availability
entrepreneurs: the activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists
who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of
a new form of sinfulness, burning fossil fuels."
As
a long-time journalist myself, I saw a larger significance in Tierney's
op-ed piece, which point out that when it comes to covering climate
change, only politically-correct news avoids the spike.
Here's
that significance which my journalistic instinct perceives: Tierney's
courageous analysis implies that the command center of CO2 orthodoxy, the New York Times itself, will allow any journalist to reveal the rips in the CO2 emperor's clothes.
The Questions
The
Pulitzer Prize of 2010 just might go to the contrarian newsperson who
challenges climate scientists and carbon-tax advocates with questions
like these:
1.
Why don't advocates of restricting and burying CO2 ever mention opportunities of longer growing seasons and higher CO2 availability for crops?
Agronomic
research shows that doubling atmospheric CO2 levels to about
700 parts per million raises corn and soybean yields 20% to 40%. We
see more opportunity in using CO2 for higher crop yields
than in burying it under the sea floor. Greenhouses commonly enrich
their atmospheres with carbon dioxide.
Historically,
advances in civilizations have accompanied warmer, wetter epochs in
climate cycles. Dr. Raymond H. Wheeler and hundreds of research assistants
documented this with a lifetime of analysis beginning in the 1930s.
If the climate follows Wheeler's cyclical pattern, we may well be
entering a warmer, wetter epoch which will benefit agriculture.
Two
decades ago I had many visits with physicist Iben Browning, a climate
researcher and author of many works including Climate and the Affairs
of Men, written with Nels Winkless III and published in 1975. Browning
documented that past climate change has impacted humanity in massive
ways, such as the barbarian invasion of China and the Phoenician presence
in Stonehenge Britain.
He
reminded readers in his 1975 book that the climate since 1925 had been
unusually mild and beneficial; that a cooling could occur anytime.
And
Browning told me that as he refined his computer models of climate change,
"We get our best correlation with measured climate data when we ignore
the presence of man and his use of carbon-emitting fuels."
2.
Why is the IPCC's projected future global warming almost linear or
accelerating, when it's well-known that the greenhouse-gas impact
of CO2 fades sharply with each incremental
increase of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Some
background: The trendline level of CO2 in the air measured
at Mona Loa, Hawaii, was 385 parts per million (ppm) in January 2008.
When observations began at Mona Loa in 1958, the level was 315 parts
per million.
Since
1990, annual increases of CO2 have ranged from 0.5 to 2.6
ppm. At a trendline rise of about 1.8 ppm per year, it will take 35
years to increase atmospheric CO2 to 450 ppm. CO2-control
advocates claim this high a level has never occurred in 650,000 years,
and would force devastating global warming.
However,
the dominant "greenhouse effect" comes from water vapor in the atmosphere.
CO2 causes only 3% of infrared heat blocking, and the physics
of CO2 are such that the greenhouse effect of each added
increment of CO2 shrinks on a logarithmic scale.
An
analogy: If one layer of insulation in your ceiling traps half of the
roof's energy loss, adding an identical second layer traps only half
the loss escaping the first layer. Each added increment of CO2 in the
atmosphere has a logarithmically diminishing greenhouse effect.
Although
physicists proved this years ago, you won't see it in the dramatic
graphs of Al Gore's slide show, An Inconvenient Truth. It projects
a nearly parabolic soaring of global temperature from a linear rise
in CO2.
Advocates of man-caused global warming defend their case by saying that
although CO2 itself has only a 3% role, it amplifies warming
by various feedback mechanisms.
"This
is a hypothesis, not a proven fact," counters Dr. John Christy, Director
of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Other scientists argue that current climate models underestimate the
cooling influence of cloud cover.
3.
Over long epochs revealed in ice cores, why have CO2 uptrends often followed new cyclical temperature uptrends, rather
than leading them?
Temperature
and CO2 cycles deciphered from Antarctic ice cores reveal
that new temperature uptrends in CO2 levels have typically
followed new temperature uptrends by 600 to 1,200 years. If that has
been the case historically, it's hard to claim that CO2 caused those temperature uptrends to begin.
One
of the most dramatic screens in Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient
Truth, shows a chart where temperature and CO2 levels
wriggle through thousands of years in apparent synch with each other.
Flashed
on a wide screen for moments, the long series of cycles appear tightly
coupled. Audiences gasp. Gore declares that to deny this linkage is
the "silliest thing I've ever heard."
But
the statistical correlations of these measurements derived from ice
cores are highest when temperature data is mathematically lagged about
800 years after CO2 data. This indicates that temperatures
rise first, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follows.
If
you look closely at a section of Gore's chart, you can see in the
red and white lines that the new temperature uptrends (white line on
the bottom) begin many years before a new uptrend in carbon
dioxide (red line).
This
relationship makes sense. Warming oceans release CO2. It
takes decades for the world's oceans to warm after a long cooling
cycle. University of Colorado research indicates that as Earth started
to warm after the most recent Ice Age, the oceans have released some
600 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere as CO2.
Also,
why do ancient climate records extracted from ice cores show global
cooling cycles in the wake of CO2 increases? Some scientists
argue that the world's vegetation increased, locking CO2 into "carbon sinks." That simply helps make my agriculturist case
that a world richer in CO2 could be a greener world.
Even in recent years, climate variations have occurred over decades,
despite a steady rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Radiosonde
data revealed wide annual temperature swings in the troposphere, including
drops of 0.8 degree below average after 1930. In the mid-1970s, I was
writing newsletters for farmers when this "global cooling" fanned
media stories of coming climate disaster. Our farm news and advisory
organization, Professional Farmers of America, held "World Food Crisis"
conferences to study how global agriculture might cope with a potential
worldwide cooling.
Today,
global-warming activists shrug off the fact that during the 1930-80
cooling in North America, CO2 was probably rising at 1 to
2 parts per million annually - close to the annual rate it is rising
today.
In
fact, the long glacial cycles suggest we're coming due for a cooling.
Tim Patterson, director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, says:
"It is global cooling, not warming, which is the major climate threat
to the world." The dip in lower-latitude temperatures in the past
few years might be an early clue to such a cooling. I anticipate that
if it does occur, Kyoto Protocol enthusiasts will claim credit for rescuing
the planet.
4.
Are we farming in a relatively CO2-deprived
epoch? The plant kingdom metabolizes carbon dioxide and exhales oxygen.
The animal kingdom metabolizes oxygen and exhales carbon dioxide. Nice
design.
Some
climatologists claim that the current 385 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere is "unprecedented" in 650,000 years of proxy data
from Antarctic ice cores. But other scientists say those estimates from
isotopes underestimate the amplitude of CO2 variation. Still
other research, such as fossil analysis, indicate that the atmosphere
has exceeded 2,000 ppm of CO2 repeatedly over the past 300
million years, fueling abundant plant growth resulting in today's
strata of carbon stored as coal.
Crops
grown in air with enriched CO2 content make more efficient
use of water and nutrients. Growing up on a farm, I've seen how young
crops surge with fresh vigor after cultivation stirs the soil under
a crop canopy. Mixing oxygen into the soil triggers a burst of underground
biological activity. That causes a faster release of CO2, which is quickly metabolized by the fast-growing crop.
5.
How can CO2 "coupling" explain global temperature drops in 1965-77, and a sharp
rise after that? I assembled the accompanying global temperature chart
covering 1946-2007 using data from Britain's Met Office Hadley Center,
with special help from an astute researcher, Holly Titchner.
The
chart includes monthly smoothed data from ground stations back to 1945.
It includes weather balloon data, which became reliable enough to include
starting in 1958. Beginning in late 1978, it shows data from satellites.
This is one of the most comprehensive estimates of long-term global
temperature I could find. 
A
straight linear trend of global surface and tropospheric temperature
would show a rise of about 0.6 degree Celsius during 1945-2007. However,
Britain's Hadley Center researcher Peter Thorne and six colleagues
cautioned in a 2005 Journal of Geophysical Research paper "This linear
trend agreement is misleading. Almost all of the tropospheric warming
is the result of a step-like change in the mid to late 1970s which has
been ascribed to a ‘regime shift,' particularly in the tropics."
I
asked the Hadley Center to describe "regime shift."
Manager
David Parker replied: "The regime change around 1976 was probably
connected with changes of atmospheric and oceanic circulation and heat
transports in the Pacific. These changes are somewhat similar to those
experienced with El Nino and La Nina but are less focused
on the equator and occur on time-scales of several decades. There was
a warming regime-change in the 1920s and a cooling regime-change in
the 1940s. There may have been a cooling regime-change in the late 1990s,
partly obscured by global warming."
This
quote from Parker, a participant in the IPCC, emphasizes the complexity
facing researchers who write computer models of global climate change.
I translate it as: "There's an awful lot we don't know about climate
change."
Let's
look at some of the promises and pitfalls of climate models, which are
the primary basis for carbon taxes and the CO2 theory of
climatic forcing.
6.
What justifies such extreme confidence in long-term computer models
of projected climate?
One
poster-child controversy is the "Hockey Stick" computer model of
past and future climate, developed primarily by Michael Mann, Associate
Professor in Pennsylvania State University's Department of Meteorology.
His
team used a statistical technique called "principal component analysis"
(PCA) to simplify the large array of variables.
Mann's
model result was published by the IPCC as proof of unprecedented, man-made
global warming. The model flattens the temperature changes of the well-documented
Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age. The model generates a dramatic
uptrend in recent years, then a parabolic rise in global temperatures
over the next few decades. 
Several
statistical experts have declared Mann's study invalid, and went on
to point out the "peer review" involved was primarily among Mann's
mutually supportive colleagues.
Mann
and fellow researchers still use the same statistical approach, and
the hockey-stick formation remains in IPCC-published charts as
evidence for man-caused world warming.
A
friend of mine who teaches graduate-level statistics uses Mann's climate
model as an example of how not to apply principle component analysis.
As used in the climate model, "it will generate a hockey-stick projection
99% of the time when applied to purely random data over time," says
my friend.
This
misuse of statistics was verified by Canadian researchers Steven McIntyre
and Ross McKitrick, who offer a rich array of other evidence at this
web address:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
Also,
see Steven McIntyre's website at:
http://www.climateaudit.org/
Incidentally,
my college-professor friend asked to remain anonymous, saying: "If
I became branded on this campus as opposing man-made global warming,
I'm afraid it would be used against me-to deny tenure."
Another
long-time skeptic of the UN's global climate models is Dr. Reid Bryson,
who at age 87 still works daily on his own, unpaid, at the Center for
Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin.
His
sixth book is just off the press. It's written to help researchers
build models of regional climate history. Colleagues often cite him
as the "father of scientific climatology." Our acquaintance with
his work goes back 30 years, when his book Climates of Hunger alerted us to the Northern Hemisphere cooling episodes leading into
the 1970s. At the time, Bryson's book expressed a hope that this cooling
might reverse, which would rescue agriculture from disasters like those
during the Little Ice Age.
Fortunately,
Northern Hemisphere temperatures did rise again, during and after the
1970s. But Bryson reasons that the upturn was caused by natural cycles
such as varying transparency of the earth's atmosphere, not by CO2 from hydrocarbon fuels.
He
sticks with a conclusion of his 1977 book: "We can't expect to control
the forces that affect climate."
Bryson
points out that most computer simulations of climate are designed like
short-term weather models. He says: "Impossible. You cannot do that."
The
reason: Interactions of our planetary circulation and solar system are
unknown, complex, unpredictable - and interwoven with feedback. Wrong
assumptions propagate with each computer-simulated cycle of global circulation.
After a few iterations, "you're down to zero accuracy," says Bryson.
"Who even believes a 10-day forecast?"
But
the weather-model approach to general-circulation climate models persists
because many of today's climatologists were trained as meteorologists.
These models have generally predicted more warming than has actually
occurred, says Bryson.
For
more than 60 years, Bryson and a wide array of colleagues searched for
causes of climate change. They found signals in Earth's orbital changes
and the slight wobble on its rotational axis. They studied a natural
influence largely ignored by other climatologists: variations in transparency
of Earth's atmosphere, caused primarily by sulfur dioxide and other
aerosols emitted by volcanic activity. The transparency data correlate
with Earth's temperature variations in the past 100 years.
7.
What is the real, long-term cost in lost production and human well-being
worldwide from distorting energy markets and creating global mandates
against hydrocarbon fuels?
In
the summer of 2007, I cited an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
chart showing that their lowest-cost projection of stabilizing atmospheric
CO2 at 450 parts per million would be $350 trillion in 1990
dollars. That chart came from the IPPC's Climate Change 2001 : Synthesis
Report, Figure 7-3. When I asked the IPPC for a current verification,
their message to me on Jan. 18, 2008 pointed out that the data had been
"corrected." 
The
original chart, which had apparently been on the IPPC website since
2001, was mistakenly high by a factor of 100. The lowest-cost assumption
for achieving stability at 450 ppm was now corrected, six years later,
to just over $3.5 trillion in 1990 U.S. dollars. The highest estimate
now is about $17 trillion, or almost 500% higher than the lowest estimate.
Here's the current IPCC chart, also available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-2001/correctionfig73.pdf
Yet
there are presumptions that the U.S. can cut its use of CO2-emitting
fuels by 80% for only a slight reduction in gross national product over
the next several decades. It's doubtful that China and India will
do likewise.
One
certainty about this "crisis:" It's the scientific debate of the
century. It's far from being scientifically resolved, even
though world policymakers will persist in making far-reaching energy-rationing
rules based on unproven theories.
Threat to Freedom
Vaclav
Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, says that using global warming
hysteria to justify global governance and energy-taxing schemes is today's
biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity.
It has, he says, "become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda
problem."
If
policymakers plow ahead with capturing carbon, I'd like to see them
place much more emphasis on how agriculture and all of humanity can
benefit by converting CO2 into food and building humus. This
is a beneficial and stable carbon reserve in the soil. It's a waste
to simply bury carbon.
Carbon
is the cornerstone of biological life, and the "carbon is pollution"
presumption leads toward bizarre proposals like pumping CO2 deep underground. In fact, a recent scientific proclamation claims that
reducing CO2 emissions to zero would not stabilize climate
change. The scientist says it will be necessary to extract CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it.
If
the regulators do enforce carbon sequestration, they might review how
ancient tribes in South America's tropics applied one of the most
simple and beneficial ways to convert carbon stored in tropical forests
into greater food production.
Using
earthen firepits to create charcoal from jungle trees and undergrowth,
they mixed raw charcoal into their tropical soils. This "biochar"
provided microscopic niches for microbes and fungi, touching off a bloom
of soil biological life which supported food crops for centuries. This
"Terra Preta" or "dark soil" has been rediscovered by ecologists
in the past couple of decades. Terra Preta soils remain productive despite
the heat and moisture of the tropics, which otherwise oxidize organic
matter and leach away crop nutrients from tropical clay and sand.
The
low-tech building of biochar almost vanished after 1491, when European
diseases arrived in South America and killed most of the indigenous
population.
Helping
people adapt to inevitable, natural climate change, in ecologically
sound ways, would be much more productive and beneficial to humanity
than building a global-governance bureaucracy financed by taxing hydrocarbon
energy and run by top-down regulations.
Jerry Carlson, Pro Farmer Editor Emeritus, holds a Master’s degree in journalism from Iowa State University. After starting a journalism career as an Air Force officer, he became Managing Editor of Farm Journal magazine in Philadelphia. In 1972 he and a colleague, Merrill Oster, founded Professional Farmers of America, a national news and advisory service for leading farmers and ranchers. Jerry started several newsletters and Internet services within this company. He retired from Pro Farmer in 2001, but remains active in writing about farmland investments and restoring biological health in America’s cropland. Jerry can be reached at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
8 Comments | Post a Comment
The media will only expose it if they can profit more from the exposure than from reporting about the global warming.
I love how the governments are starting to tax everything on pollution nowadays, and although I’m all for a “greener earth”, some of the price increases related to polution are getting daft.
We also have tax rises in the UK due to the global warming issues. I think the only good thing to come out of the media frenzy is that people are starting to take on board that we are a very wasteful society and that recycling, conserving energy and generally just being more considerate about the natural resources we use cant be a bad thing.
It’s not carbon dioxide. Expect soon to see the jidhadists blame global warming on the Jews.
There are many ways to help supporting the actions towards protecting our environment. In my daily life, I :
1. Use less tissue and papers. Reuse them as possible.
2. Use water effectively, though it’s a bit harder when taking bath.
3. Use less plastic when we go shopping, to market, or any place where transaction occurs.
free ads
June 13 at 7:44 am | #1 | Link
please send to me about media@ enviroment