Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
So what’s the answer? Clear cutting?
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, January 12, 2006

One of the reasons I resist the "conventional wisdom" or the "scientific consensus" (an oxymoron if ever I've heard one) about man driven global warming concerns things like this:
German scientists have discovered a new source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change.

The culprits are plants.
Key line:
Scientists had previously thought that plants could only emit methane in the absence of oxygen.
Go figure. In the absense of that knowledge, methane was blamed on the usual suspects:
Methane, which is produced by city rubbish dumps, coal mining, flatulent animals, rice cultivation and peat bogs, is one of the most potent greenhouse gases in terms of its ability to trap heat.
Add in the evidence of increased solar cycles and you have the makings of a, dare I say it, natural warming cycle. A cycle much like we've had in past ages. Imagine that.
"Keppler and colleagues' finding helps to account for observations from space of incredibly large plumes of methane above tropical forests," he said in a commentary on the research.
Kind of shoots the "lungs of the earth" theory in the rear, doesn't it (btw, I've always understood tropical rain forests to be what is known as "balanced systems" at best anyway)?

Other repercussions?
It could also have implications for the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for developed countries to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.
Well not for us. Thankfully we recognized Kyoto was a pig with lipstick on it and chose not to dance with it. Thank goodness.

As for the new finding — now what?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
"Ah...Sing little Birdy?"

Actually the answer is to gather more data before running around and making further wild ass statements about global warming, but that’s not going to
happen because it wouldn’t allow "those who know what’s best" to tell the rest
of us how to live.

Just like the Senators who don’t want Alito, there’s an agenda to be achieved, facts be damned!
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
McQ,

You seem more concerned with ’alternative’ causes and less with the more obvious solutions to the problem.

If burning fossil fuels contribute to Global Warming, whch you acknowledge is a problem, then a reduction will be a good thing.

Yes or no?
 
Written By: symptomless
URL: http://
looker,

Global environmental conditions are actually less connived the US politics. (outsiders point of view).

By "those who know best", I assume you mean those that have an agenda, or profit from, illustrating the global problem of greenhouse gases caused by human influence.

Now compare that to the US Government who rejected the Kyoto accord because it would damage the US economy.
 
Written By: symptomless
URL: http://
Symtomless,

I would be more sympathetic to your position if those countries following the Kyoto protocol weren’t cheating and publically recanting on it.

Take Canada for example, recently the CBC (no right wing organ there) ran a report that showed that the US decreased poluttion by 45% compared to 1.8% for Canada.

Lets say that you managed to get all these cheaters, the US, the real polluters like China to fully implement these protocols, then what would happen? Why in 100 years you could reduce temperatures by 1 degree. Sounds like a winner plan to me.

At least the US is not filled with the hypocrisy of UN sponsored failures like Kyoto.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Geography 101: The Earth is not static. Today isn’t required to be just like yesterday. This year isn’t required to be just like last year. This decade isn’t required to be just like the last decade. In fact the Earth has multiple cycles which controls the weather.

Or was the last ice age a fairytale?
 
Written By: John
URL: http://
Yes or no?

Yes and no.

The whole point is no one knows for sure, do they?

Despite being told they do through scientific "consensus" ... for quite some time.

Scientific consensus will never replace scientific proof ... or at least it shouldn’t for rational people.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Question: What is the most potent Greenhouse gas?

Go on, give it your best answer.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Some people should be a little happier now that the President has negotiated a post-Kyoto agreement with Australia, SKo, Japan, China and India; the last two were exempt from Kyoto. While the new agreement didn’t set rigid standards, few seem to be meeting the standards and deadlines for Kyoto. Also didn’t Governor Reagan mention part of California’s problem was pollution from trees and he was laughed at by the press? I remember reading reports in the SF newspapers about some scientific info on that, but I imagine those scientists have been stoned to death years ago.
 
Written By: Al Reasin
URL: http://
Reaction one: There’s still some Kepplers kickin’ around? Combating scientific a consensus no less. More things change and all that.

Reaction two: Time to sit and wait for a bit. I’m not about to hamstring myself in a futile attempt to change something that might not be a big deal, and even if it were, we might not be able to do anything about.
 
Written By: Joe Canadian
URL: http://
Symptomless - I don’t recall saying it wasn’t warming.
I do recall the recommendation we gather so more info and get our facts
together before we run around and start attacking a symptom that in fact
has nothing to do with the problem.

"Actually the answer is to gather more data before running around and making further wild ass statements about global warming,"

And thank you for going on to prove my very next statement -
"but that’s not going to happen because it wouldn’t allow "those who know what’s best" to tell the rest of us how to live. "

By the "rest of us", feel free as an ’outsider’ to consider the "rest of us" to
be in the US, one of the countries that would most likely:

1) Attempt to adhere to the treaty
2) Be called constantly on the carpet every time we missed our numbers
3) Be most dramatically affected by the restrictions

I still want to know who was monitoring the ozone hole over the Antarctic in 1730, and who lost the temperature numbers from Outer Mongolia gathered
by Tarmajian Yak in 1612, and should we demand a Senate investigation to
determine if George Bush & Halliburton have something to hide by conviently
’losing’ those valuable temperature statistics.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Dale, I know the answer to your question...and it isn’t CO2 or methane. But I suspect you already know that, given the way you asked.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
Dale, I believe the gas you are looking for is Dihydrogen Monoxide. This gas, when in its liquid form has been the cause of death for thousand of people a year.
 
Written By: Chris
URL: http://
I don’t remember exactly, but isn’t the most potent gas sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)? It’s used as a cooling gas in power generation plants and lessee - google...... Yup, I’m right. Most potent.

What do I win?
 
Written By: Robb Allen (Sharp as a Marble)
URL: http://sharpmarbles.stufftoread.com
McQ didn’t buy the "Yellow Rain is bee shit" theory
I don’t see a single reference to bee poop anywhere. When you set up a hypothetical, then attack that hypothetical, well in these parts that’s call ’attacking a strawman’ and doesn’t bode well.

What McQ is saying is 100% correct. If 75% of people believed Saddam was the primary force behind the 9-11 attacks, does that change the fact that he wasn’t?

Consensus is shitty science.
 
Written By: Robb Allen (Sharp as a Marble)
URL: http://sharpmarbles.stufftoread.com
Yeah, that dihydrogen monoxide is dangerous stuff. It’s a very useful household cleaner. But it’s not without its hazards. Dihydrogen monoxide causes a lot of deaths every year, not to mention damage to buildings etc. And I hear the military keeps stockpiles of it!

We should all get together and sign a treaty to ban this stuff!
 
Written By: Wacky Hermit
URL: http://organicbabyfarm.blogspot.com
Has there been any indication from this study whether plants are emitting more methane than they are aborbing in CO2? I would imagine that would be a neccesary consideration if we are talking about the overall effect of plants on greenhouse gasses. There is also that whole creation of O2 thing, which can hardly be overlooked.
 
Written By: Rosensteel
URL: http://
For more facts relating to the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide, the following site contains a significant compilation of its dangers: www.dhmo.org/facts.html

And not listed, i believe that approx 95+ % of all greenhouse gas are comprised of DHMO in answer to Dale’s query.
 
Written By: Mageslayer
URL: http://
For more facts relating to the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide, the following site contains a significant compilation of its dangers: www.dhmo.org/facts.html

And not listed, i believe that approx 95+ % of all greenhouse gas are comprised of DHMO in answer to Dale’s query.
 
Written By: Mageslayer
URL: http://
For more facts relating to the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide, the following site contains a significant compilation of its dangers: www.dhmo.org/facts.html

And not listed, i believe that approx 95+ % of all greenhouse gas are comprised of DHMO in answer to Dale’s query.
 
Written By: Mageslayer
URL: http://
Hey this town in California’s got dihydrogen monoxide taken care of. They’re on the ball!

Yours, TDP, ml, mdl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
For more facts relating to the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide, the following site contains a significant compilation of its dangers: www.dhmo.org/facts.html

And not listed, i believe that approx 95+ % of all greenhouse gas are comprised of DHMO in answer to Dale’s query.
 
Written By: Mageslayer
URL: http://
Mageslayer, please stop hitting F5 or "refresh".

Hit Home up top and come back to the thread. Refresh duplicates posts.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Wasn’t aware of that, my appologies =(
 
Written By: Mageslayer
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider