Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/04/2009 11:19:24 AM PST by Bobkk47
IMAGINE a scientist came up with a way of solving "Global Warming" without ending the use of fossil fuels and other measures which threaten to destroy the US economy.
One would think that Al Gore and his research team would be delighted and would be pushing the scientist's findings to a wider audience.
But buried in a recent Newsweek story is an example of how Gore's team tried to change some Inconvenient Science to suit their agenda.
According to Timothy LaSalle, who Gore consulted for solutions to Global Warming, we could solve the "problem" of CO2 emissions by clever use of agriculture and technology. the response of Gore's team was to try and change his science.
The Newsweek article states:
"If we feed the biology and manage grasslands appropriately, we could sequester as much carbon as we emit," says Timothy LaSalle, CEO of the Rodale Institute, who presented at two summits. The political clash is this: if you tell people soils can be managed to suck up lots of our carbon emissions, it sounds like a get-out-of-jail-free card, and could decrease what little enthusiasm there is for reducing those emissions—as one of Gore's assistants told LaSalle in asking him to dial down his estimate. (He didn't.)
This is an outrageous interference in science for a political purpose. But what is the political purpose? Al Gore has called for stopping the use of fossil fuels and the complete restructuring of the economy in the US within ten years but when offered a chance to remove "harmful" CO2 from the atmosphere his team tries to change the science.
Could it be that Mr Gore and his team want the US economy and its free market system to be overturned regardless of the science? Could it be that they do not want to know about any science that does not allow them to tax and interfere in the lives of every American?
We heard a lot in the media about the Bush administration apparently rewriting science for political reasons. Will the media now highlight Al Gore doing exactly the same?
It isn’t about climate. It’s all about controlling the West’s means of production and lining the pockets of the Politburo with trillions of dollars from the ponzi scheme of selling carbon credit indulgences.
It would be a sad day for many.
Gore’s investments designed to reap windfalls when Government enacts cap and trade would be worthless.
Two numbers gut the “Global Warming” hoax:
1) according to the IPCC itself, it takes 1 trillion (i.e., one thousand billion) tons of CO2 to raise the temperature of the globe by 1 degree F.
2) According to the IPCC itself, last year all of mankind produced 30 billion tons of CO2.
Conclusion: to prevent the raise in temperature of 1 degree F, all of mankind would have to stop producing all CO2 for 33 years.
That includes banning the burning of coal, gas, gasoline, any petroleum product for electricity or transportation, using tractors to grow crops; even the burning of wood to allow cave dwellers to keep warm in winter (pre-stone age). 33 years of no artificial heat.
So any politician advocating the use of government to reduce our “carbon footprint” to “save the planet” is either ignorant or a liar and a thief (or all three).
Don’t plants absorb CO2?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.