|Power Plant Pollution - Wiki image public domain|
The Associated Press is reporting today that scientists believe one explanation as to why the earth's heating trend stopped in the last decade is due to China's excessive use of coal-burning power plants. As reported by the Associated Press:
Sulfur particles in the air deflect the sun's rays and can temporarily cool things down a bit. That can happen even as coal-burning produces the carbon dioxide that contributes to global warming.
'People normally just focus on the warming effect of CO2 (carbon dioxide), but during the Chinese economic expansion there was a huge increase in sulfur emissions,' which have a cooling effect, explained Robert K. Kaufmann of Boston University. He's the lead author of the study published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.This admission would seem to indicate several things; 1) climate science is still very much an unsolved mystery, 2) yet, climate studies start from the notion that human activity is the main driver whether the planet heats up or cools down, 3) therefore indicating, god-like human manipulation can reverse planetary climate trends.
Of course, these are already generally accepted ideas for the establishment global warming theorists -- except for the admission that they haven't got it all figured out. But, the evidence that China's increased use of sulfur-spewing coal power plants has cooled the planet hasn't stopped their dedication to the anthropogenic global warming theory or their ambitions for solutions. Contrary, it has given the climate demigods a new weapon in protecting us from the supposed heating.
Sulfur's ability to cool things down has led some to suggest using it in a geoengineering feat to cool the planet. The idea is that injecting sulfur compounds very high into the atmosphere might help ease global warming by increasing clouds and haze that would reflect sunlight.To be fair, the AP article quotes Simone Tilmes of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado as saying it would be a bad idea to try to reduce warming by flooding the atmosphere with toxic sulfur. "More research is required before society attempts global geoengineering solutions," said Tilmes.
However, even mentioning the possibility of purposely reducing the earth's temperature by releasing chemicals far more harmful than CO2 should alarm genuine environmentalists. And this is just another proposed solution that would seem to do far more environmental harm than good, especially when the effects of CO2 on so-called global warming and its consequences remain speculative. Other recent suggestions range from atmospheric chemical spraying with harmful nano-toxins, rationing and global one-child policies, to even nuclear war.
Notably, never once does the article challenge the anthropogenic global warming theory. It simply refers to it as fact, which would seem to lead to dogmatic experiments, narrow conclusions and potentially dangerous solutions. Granted, most humans can sense that the climate is shifting in noticeable ways, but clearly no one theory has been able to fully explain our evolving climate.
Wacky weather is indeed affecting the entire globe, but very few in the establishment media discuss the effects of the sun, pole shifting, high-tech climate modification, other pollution or many more possible contributors. Instead, this compact news report uses precious space to not report news, but rather to drum home the AGW theory once more:
Overall, global temperatures have been increasing for more than a century since the industrial revolution began adding gases like carbon dioxide to the air...
Atmospheric scientists and environmentalists are concerned that continued rising temperatures could have serious impacts worldwide, ranging from drought in some areas, changes in storm patterns, spread of tropical diseases and rising sea levels.Despite the nefarious means by which human-caused CO2 has become the mainstream culprit in any manifestation of climate change, the theory continues to be sold as fact in nearly every establishment article pertaining to weather and climate as if it would be bad reporting not to mention it.
Sure, it's obvious that 7 billion humans play a role in the health of the overall biosphere. To completely deny that would appear naive. However, to suggest that CO2 is the primary, or the only factor, is simply close-minded science. In turn, coordinating human activity based on this incomplete conclusion is unlikely to halt a multifaceted climate shift and will likely cause further environmental damage.
Ultimately, if experts are arrogantly intent on "fixing" the climate because it is breaking all types of records (least being warming), proposed solutions derived from a narrow theory will never fit the bill. And surely intelligent scientists know that, yet the agenda moves forward.
At this stage, it may be more appropriate to shift our focus from halting something that has yet to even be proven, to preparing ourselves and communities to adapt to possible climate changes that may occur. Playing God with biosphere should not be a solution supported by true environmentalists.