Further to a recent article we posted on the absurdity of
schemes, the warmists now claim that they need to cut
down the trees to reduce global warming.
Climate change alarmists have never been apt to shy away from
courting controversy with their dire forecasts of coming environmental
apocalypse, but their latest "solution" takes the
biscuit - they want to pollute the air with sulphur and cut
down pristine beautiful old growth forests to stop global
No you didn't read that wrong - scientists really are proposing
to obliterate majestic canopies of forest that are hundreds
of years old while pumping the upper atmosphere full of an
acid-rain causing pollutant, changing the very color of our
serene blue skies, all in the name of saving the environment.
"Australian scientist Tim Flannery has proposed a radical
solution to climate change which may change the colour of
the sky," reports The Age.
"Professor Flannery said climate change was happening
so quickly that mankind might need to pump sulphur into the
atmosphere to survive. The gas sulphur could be inserted into
the earth's stratosphere to keep out the sun's rays and slow
global warming, a process called global dimming."
Flannery says the process of adding sulphur to jet fuel in
aero planes needs to happen within 5 years, but admits, "The
consequences of doing that are unknown."
Oh yeah sure - makes perfect sense! We don't know what the
actual consequences will be but let's just start dumping a
compound that causes "substantial damage to the natural
environment" into the atmosphere willy nilly in order
to save the environment!
After all, New Scientist tells us that acid rain reduces
global warming so why not accept a little environmental degradation
in order to.....save the environment!
We can also look forward to enjoying the following goodies
should Flannery's proposal gain support, all of which are
associated with exposure to sulphur.
- Neurological effects and behavioral changes
- Disturbance of blood circulation
- Heart damage
- Effects on eyes and eyesight
- Reproductive failure
- Damage to immune systems
- Stomach and gastrointestinal disorder
- Damage to liver and kidney functions
- Hearing defects
- Disturbance of the hormonal metabolism
- Dermatological effects
- Suffocation and lung embolism
As we reported last month, Government scientists have already
been experimenting with the feasibility of bombarding the
Earth's upper atmosphere with microscopic glass particles
to dampen the effects of "global warming," despite
warnings that the process could damage the ozone layer.
But that's not enough. According to climate alarmists, to
save the planet we also need to rip out its lungs - old growth
Since trees absorb carbon dioxide - that evil gas that we
breathe - but then begin to give it off as they age, why not
just cut down all the trees and turn the planet into one big
landfill? That's effectively what atmospheric scientist Ning
Zeng recently told New Scientist magazine, urging the process
of "thinning forests and burying "excess wood"
in a manner in which its didn't decay could sequester enough
carbon to offset all of our fossil-fuel emissions."
"Over its lifetime, a tree shifts from being a vacuum
cleaner for atmospheric carbon to an emitter. A tree absorbs
roughly 1,500 pounds of CO2 in its first 55 years. After that,
its growth slows, and it takes in less carbon. Left untouched,
it ultimately rots or burns and all that CO2 gets released,"
reports Wired Magazine.
Oh the horror! More trees, plants and crops growing and feeding
the world due to increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere!
We can't have that can we!
The solution: "Clear the oldest trees and then take
out dead trunks and branches to prevent fires; landfill the
And you can trust the government and global corporations
to re-plant fresh trees and not use the land to build a new
multiplex cinema or a shopping arcade. Seriously, just trust
Wait a minute, I thought humans were responsible for CO2
emissions? No - now trees are evil and we must get rid of
them. Obviously God got it wrong.
Global warming is a phenomenon that has not been observed
since 1998 and will probably not be observed for the next
10 years, according to scientists who are being forced to
respond to evidence of global cooling, but who assure us the
deadly menace of man-made climate change will return.
Al Gore and his sycophants are proposing that to fight a
non-existent problem, we must effectively poison and rape
the earth in order to help save the earth.
In light of this contradiction, it's necessary to question
who are the real environmental threats to the planet? People
driving SUV's that emit the natural, life giving gas, the
very thing we exhale, and the food that trees and plants crave,
CO2 - or the folks that want to have airliners dump vast quantities
of poison on us while ripping out the world's most precious
and ancient woodland forests?