The Billings Outpost

Arguing global warming

Another liberal mantra is the horrors of carbon dioxide and the fiendish things it does to the global atmosphere. What it actually does is increase the flora, which then increases the oxygen level as oxygen is a waste product of photosynthesis. As the fauna increases, the general health of the planet is improved.

Even if man could do something to “help” the “situation,” the certified climatologists indicate that it would take 1,000 years for there to be even an infinitesimal change. These same genuine climatologists tell us that the real villain in climate change/control is the activity of the sun. As the sun heats up one area of the Pacific, or if this same area cools slightly, then there is a resultant change in the weather. The liberals would have us believe:

1. The earth has never had a warming trend before; therefore, coal and oil in the poles just cannot exist.

2. The earth has never had a cooling trend; mastodons and their cousins just devised a cunning way to freeze themselves instantly.

3. Polar bears did not survive through this fictitious global warming  trend or they came into being after that trend and key holed their arrival with the cooling trend that never happened after the warming trend that never happened.

4. Montana was never really a tropical inland sea area. Someone just snuck in all of those shells and fossils, not to mention all of the remains of the giant lizards in the dino family. One could go on and on, but you get the point.

It seems every time someone devises an alternate energy device someone else starts screaming that it is going to ruin the planet. Wind farms, for example, are sources of absolutely clean energy production. But the liberals/environmentalists start screeching that these farms will damage the pristine landscape.

Solar furnaces, such as the Sandia Laboratories, are capable of producing massive amounts of clean energy and they are shot down. Tidal currents are also a source of “free” energy. The list goes on and on and every suggestion is bad mouthed by one group or the other.

If we can use fossil energy, and they hate alternative energy sources, just what do they expect the people to do? It is rather like the enviro group who lobbied for use of the small fluorescent lights and now there is a problem with disposing with the mercury. Anyone want to shoot themselves in the foot?

Keith Babcock

Lockwood

 

Copyright 2012 Wild Raspberry Inc.

Top Desktop version