Jocko said:
History has taught us that when science becomes politicised, regardless of by whom, our understanding of complex truths seldom benefits.
Cheers, Ian
I fully agree.
I think David V. Bassett pretty much covers it in the below statement..
Though it has not come to our attention what effect the emissions from submarine volcanoes has on so-called "global warming", or whether the planetary conjunction(s) of this past April/May 2002 could have had any triggering effect on their erupting, we would agree that man's contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is considerably less than nature's. Nature contributes some 200 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere annually, while mankind contributes only 7 billion tons--a mere 3.5% of then total. In fact, research studies ['Discover',Dec.1994, p.32 & 'Science', vol. 230, p.164] indicate that antediluvian carbon dioxide concentrations were at least 8 to 10 times greater in the past--0.3% of Earth's atmospheric composition compared to today's 0.03%. Even if the level of certain greenhouse gases is increasing, this does not necessarily facilitate alleged global warming. Conversely, such an increase may be beneficial since most plants grow better with higher CO2 concentrations--which may explain the extensive biomass of fossilized vegetation and the massive coal seams of the rock record deposited by the Genesis Flood!
Consider also the following astute insights of Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) in a House speech entitled, "The Reality of 'Global Warming'", which he presented on June 12, 2001:
". . . global warming is not a scientific imperative. It is a politically-driven theory. . . .
Climate science seems to be a very recent entry into the pantheon of scientific study. Prior to 1980, there was only a handful of climatologists. Now they seem to be everywhere. Try to find a researcher on global warming who is not in some way tied to some sort of research contract by the Federal Government. Now, could it be that the reason for the increase in the numbers of global warming advocates has something to do with the access to government funding for research? . . .
How about water? Water comprises three-quarters of the world. Given the sheer volume of water on this planet, it surely has a tremendous impact on the temperature of the air. However, there are no accurate global ocean temperature readings that go back more than 10 years, and those that do are primarily based on satellite observations of surface temperatures. Those readings do not include deep water. In fact, we have absolutely zero understanding of deep water temperatures, and almost no understanding of deep water ocean currents. How can we possibly ignore that data when trying to calculate something as overwhelming as global warming? Global warming studies did not take into consideration the ocean temperature, and sometimes when they did it did not give them the right facts, so they just went on to something else. . . . most of the sources for CO2 and the other so-called greenhouse gases are naturally-occurring and not manmade. . . . Volcanic activity, for example, can add more to the atmosphere in a few weeks than all the internal combustion engines on this planet over the last decade. Termites and other insects, for example, are such a large source of CO2, and it [sic] is a larger source of CO2 than all of the industrial plants in the civilized world. Rotting wood is another offender that dwarfs any human contribution to this so-called threat.
I do not hear many calls coming from the people talking about global warming to bulldoze the rain forests. If they really believe in global warming, the rain forests, the rotting wood and the insects in those rain forests are the worst contributors."
David V. Bassett, M.S.
