December 10, 2009

Global Warming: What is the 6% Solution?

Monique Chartier

The Climate Conference commenced Monday in Copenhagen. President Obama has promised that the United States will abate its greenhouse gas emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels over the next decade and by 83% by 2050.

Adding to the madness, the EPA ruled on the same day that greenhouse gases, "emitted by factories, motor vehicles, livestock and just about everything else on the planet, natural or manmade" are a danger to the public health.

Recent revelations about the culling and grooming - not to mention wholesale deleting - of data have wrought considerable damage to the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming. (On that score, can someone please bring Al Gore a calendar and gently inform him what decade we are in?)

One fact that has never been disputed, though it has mostly escaped the debate for some inexplicable reason, is the degree to which man is (not) responsible for the hypothesized cause of global warming. All of man's vast activity on the planet amounts to only 6% of the total greenhouse gases generated (original link here), with Mother Nature generating the other 94% of greenhouse gases.

Now, that strikes me pretty much as a game ender to the whole discussion. If, indeed, man's measly 6% is the tipping point for global warming (already a very shaky proposition), obviously, cold turkey is the only solution. But without a substitute fuel, going cold turkey on fossil fuels means no heat, no lights, no electricity, no cars, very little food, no stores, no manufacturing and an unemployment rate of about 95%. ["Help Wanted: Experienced hunters and gatherers. Must have own transportation ox."]

If, however, proponents of the theory of AGW wish to overlook this fact as well as the considerable flaws that have developed in their theory, they need to answer one question.

What fuel, comparable in availability and affordability, do they propose to substitute for the fossil fuels 1.) upon which we heavily depend and 2.) that less developed countries look forward to depending upon so as to improve their quality of life?

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

["Help Wanted: Experienced hunters and gatherers. Must have own ... ox."]

Very funny Monique!

Seriously though, you don’t want to give the wackos up in Copenhagen any encouragement. I’m sure this is exactly what their worldview is. While the elitist ruling class will, of course, continue to live a life of luxury, burning fossil fuels as they jet around the world – as have done spectacularly this week, the rest of us will feel fortunate to have four legged transportation.

Posted by: Frank at December 11, 2009 9:57 AM

Copenhagen oughta be the meeting point of two groups the world doesn't need-elitist hypocrite climate gurus and Moslem suicide bombers-the confluence would be a boon(or boom!!) to mankind.

Posted by: joe bernstein at December 11, 2009 10:01 AM

Another point-anyone interested in reading an incisive and brilliant response to the "Bonos" of the world vis a vis the Western response to Africa's problems should just google "Dambisa Moyo"-she is an economist originally from Africa-she has REAL credentials,unlike some drug addled "celebrities"who constantly "educate" us.

Posted by: joe bernstein at December 11, 2009 10:05 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.