Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report


Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Order Books






Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

20 years


Anti-carbon dioxide schemes
will destroy the planet.

The scientifically unsustainable theories of global warming are bad enough without the ecoalarmists who fabricated the myth in order to justify oil price gouging by the oil barons to curb the demand for oil. Oil company-financed ecoalarmists now offer "solutions" to a global problem that simply doesn't exist. Environmentalists are now using computer modeling to find hypothetical solutions to the hypothetical problem of global warming. What is the problem in their view? Planet Earth is a carbon dioxide junkie. The ecoalarmists believe that, just on the off-chance that their computer models are correct, science needs to have a global warming methadone fix ready to protect the world from its inhabitants.

Unfortunately for the world and its population, the ecoalarmists—who are financed by men with the monetary resources and political power to implement environmental change on a global scale even if they can't convince the world a problem actually exists—have been convinced that man-produced carbon dioxide is the culprit that causes global warming. Environmentalists like former Vice President Al Gore, Jr. don't understand, or care, that carbon dioxide is the substance plants converts to oxygen. Carbon dioxide is the food that increases crop yields globally to feed the world. Drastic cut backs in carbon dioxide will not only reduce crop yields worldwide, it will also make it more difficult to purify the air we breathe. In other words, carbon dioxide is a necessary catalyst in the creation of the three elements we need most to live: food, air and water.

Man-instigated, carbon dioxide-orchestrated global warming is a myth engineered in the mid-1960s (along with carbon dioxide-created global cooling) by ecoalarmists financed by the oil industry to curb the use, but not the escalating cost, of—you guessed it—oil. To make drilling for deep oil economical, the oil barons need a benchmark oil price in the $100 per barrel range. First, to keep oil pegged at the magic threshold, the oil industry needs to create, and maintain, an artificial shortage of the most bountiful commodity in the world. Second, the oil industry needs to curb the human zeal to waste it. Enter the environmentalist. Funded in part by oil industry foundations, the environmentalists' job is to convince the world they need to preserve the environment in its pristine state by preventing oil drillers from disturbing the ecological balance of nature, or nasty entrepreneurs from smelling up our cities by refining it.

The oil industry-funded ecoalarmists like Al Gore scream for drastic cutbacks in the use of oil, arguing that man-generated carbon fuel emissions are causing global warming and that, in fifty to one hundred years, greenhouse gases will convert Planet Earth into a global atrium. At that time, the core planetary temperature will begin to rise dramatically, melting the polar caps and raising sea levels to such a degree that sea level Florida will become Venice-under-the-sea and several island nations around the world will become 21st century Atlantises.

The only problem with Gore's inconvenient truth is that it's pure, unadulterated Chicken Little bunk. Not that global warming isn't real. It is. It just isn't caused by you or me. It's caused by cyclic solar activity combined with planetary greenhouse gases. In other words, blame Mother Nature not people.

Research on the sun's contribution to global warming was reported in the October, 2003 issue of Astronomy & Geophysics magazine. By looking at solar activity over the last 11,000 years, British Antarctic Survey (BAS) astrophysicist, Mark Clilverd, predicted that the sun's contribution to global warming will decrease over the next 100 years. As you will see, what that means is, Al Gore's inconvenient truth is a rather convenient lie.

Throughout the 20th century, solar flares, sunspots and geomagnetic storms, increased in number. According to Astronomy & Geophysics, "...this rise is simultaneous with emissions of greenhouses gases and an estimated increase in solar heat output, which together have warmed the Earth's temperature by a global average of 0.7 degrees centigrade. The solar contribution to the increase is variously estimated to be around 20% leaving greenhouse gases to make up the remaining 80%." Science Daily concluded that Clilverd and his colleagues believe solar activity is about to peak. Clilverd predicted there will be less solar activity in the 21st century.

Space storms will decline by as much as two thirds according to Clilverd's statistical research. Clilverd and his colleagues assume solar heat output will decline accordingly. Which means when we reach mid-century, it's likely we will begin to experience global cooling—which the ecoalarmists will then blame on carbon fuel emissions. Science Daily reported that "...Clilverd examined data from sun spot activity, geomagnetic storm indices and looked at the variation of atmospheric radiocarbon derived from studies of tree rings and marine sediments to make his predictions. [Clilverd admitted that], 'This work is speculative and relies on the idea that the sun shows regular cycles of activity on time scales of 10 to 10,000 years and that its heat output and activity are related...We believe the...effect of solar activity on Earth's environmental system will not increase in the way it has during the last century. We should take this into account when trying to understand the impact of human activity on our climate system.'"

Confirming Clilverd's views was a report issued by the American Institute of Physics from a recent study by researchers at Duke University and the Army Research Office. Their research found new evidence of the link between solar flare activity and the earth's temperature. Their findings call into question the ecoalarmists' view of the influence humans have on the temperature of our environment.

"One of the challenges of determining the connection between solar flare activity and the atmosphere stems from the fact that the motion of the air that blankets our planet is turbulent and complex," the Duke study confirms. "Sudden bursts of solar activity heat the air and its interaction with the earth's surface." The Duke study compares the statistical fluctuations in solar flare activity with the statistical fluctuations of the earth's temperature. Analyses of global and local temperature fluctuations suggest to that Earth's atmosphere directly inherits its temperature fluctuations from the variation in solar flare activity. As science learns to measure solar flares and sun storms better, they will discover that solar activity will ultimately prove to be the largest single contributing factor to cyclic global warming. Providing, of course, that the ecoalarmists don't destroy the planet trying to protect it from its inhabitants for the oil giants who want to conserve what they believe is a rapidly depleting commodity—oil.

Ecoalarmists—who have already spent billions of oil company dollars to sell the oil baron's myth—are now prepared to spend trillions of dollars in crazy schemes to save the world from itself before the world realizes it doesn't need saving. In February, British billionaire Sir Richard Branson offered a $25 million prize to the first company to develop the technology to reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Branson, like the rest of the world's eco-idiots, doesn't seem to understand that carbon dioxide creates the air they breathe—providing we don't starve first from food yields that will diminish in direct proportions to reduction in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If the world doesn't stop the carbon dioxide meddlers, what air is left on planet Earth will be devoid of oxygen because the "food" plants consume to produce the oxygen we breathe is the carbon dioxide the eco-idiots are trying to get rid of.

Planktos, Inc., a Foster City, California company sent its ship, Weatherbird II, into the Pacific Ocean last week to dump its cargo—50 tons of iron dust on the belief that the iron dust will grow plankton which, they believe, will begin to drink up excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The most ludicrous idea yet for reducing carbon dioxide is planting "forests" of artificial carbon-dioxide devouring trees around the world. These trees, acting like carbon-dioxide sponges, theoretically will literally suck the carbon dioxide out of the air. This, of course, will negatively impact oxygen levels since the artificial trees will not convert the carbon dioxide into oxygen, it will simply trap and erase it. Second, if enough carbon dioxide is removed, it could impact crop yields globally, potentially causing food shortages followed by cries from the ecoalarmists that they were right all along.

NASA has just completed a $75 thousand study on the feasibility of creating a solar sun shield. The nation's premiere ecoalarmist computer modeling center, the National Center for Atmospheric Research—the research arm of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research—which is funded by some of the nation's wealthiest foundations—including the Pew Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation and the Carnegie Trust—conceptualized the notion of a solar sun shield comprised of gigatons of sulfur reflectors shot into the upper atmosphere, creating a "sunglasses" barrier between the Earth and the sun. While the current concept is the brainstorm of University of Arizona astronomer Roger Angel, the idea of using jet engines, atmospheric balloons and cannons to get thousands of tons of sulfates into the atmosphere, Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen and nuclear bomb creator Edward Teller proposed the same concept after realizing that when Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted 16 years ago that the sulfate particles it shot into the upper atmosphere cooled the whole world for about a year. The project would cost trillions of dollars with little hope of success. According to scientists at the Center for Atmospheric Research, tens of thousands of tons of sulfates—equivalent to a volcanic eruption—would have to be shot into the upper atmosphere every month.

Perhaps the most effective solution to global warming is simply taking the computers away from the eco-idiots, regulating oil prices by establishing a ceiling on oil prices at $40 to $50 per barrel, and locking up oil company executives who finance eco-terrorism as an excuse to raise oil prices.



Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved