Peeing All Over Themselves

As we predicted, the IPCC (pronounced I pee see see) 4th Iteration splashed into the streets today, opening a floodgate of political hysteria. The dead tree press dove in head first.

Our own Potland Ogre-onian was steaming with the pungent headline, Life As We Know It Gets Blame For Global Warming.

Talk about your Yellow Journalism.

We could go on and on with this metaphor. Indeed, it is difficult to stop midstream. However, we will shake ourselves out of it.

For the first science-based criticism of the IPCC 4th Iteration in the entire Blog-o-sphere, please see our previous post, The Great State Climate Debate.

We already drained IPCC the 4th of all its veracity. (Whoops, there we go again.)

One aspect of the Ogre-onian report was amusingly absurd. They “reported”:

About 85 percent of Oregon’s release of greenhouse gases is in the form of carbon dioxide. …

The major source of carbon dioxide emissions is the burning of fossil fuels.

Then they broke down the CO2 emissions into percentages: 42.5 power plants, 37.7 transportation, 11.9 industry, 4.6 residential, 3.3 commercial.

Every statement is a scientific falsehood. Note that forest fires are not mentioned, nor is biological decomposition. Individually the B & B Fire in 2003 released more greenhouse gases in two weeks than all human-generated GHG’s that year in Oregon. The Biscuit Fire of 2002 was five times bigger than the B & B. Of course, a great deal more deceased biota rots in Oregon each year than that, releasing CO2 and methane in a natural process that cannot be stopped.

Nationally, 9,725,000 acres burned in wildfires last year, and an additional 2,845,000 burned in prescribed fires and whoofoos. That’s a lot of combustion. When non-fossil fuels burn, the byproducts are virtually the same as fossil fuel combustion. Right? Let’s all have a big Duh moment.

Somehow the Yellow Press can’t see the burning forests for the smoke, and they can’t see the smoke either. They count forest fires as zero emissions. Why? What’s their trip? Does it matter?

If the US Forest Service persists in their current policies of No Touch, Let It Burn, Watch It Rot, they could generate a regional firestorm that will add enough greenhouse gases to the atmosphere to warm the Moon. (That is, if you buy into all that GHG malarkey.)

The bizarre and horrific facts are that the USFS has been encouraged by global warming alarmists to burn America’s forests down now, rather than later, because when global warming hits, they will burn even hotter. So it is better to burn them now, at the cost of billions, at the release of magnitudes more GHG’s than all of civilization produces, and convert our forests to “grasslands” today. In the name of global warming. With a stated policy of “No Regrets.”

And the USFS has bought into that insane policy hook, line, and sinker!

Today’s soaking Yellow Press also included its usual raft of vicious opinions aimed at discrediting and silencing anyone who dares to disagree. Somebody named Nancy Barker (not making this up) claims “there is no legitimate opposing viewpoint to ‘An Inconvenient Truth’”. The problem with that kind of barking is that Nancy is 100 percent wrong, and she knows it, and she desperately wants to shut those opposing viewpoints up, and smear them as tools of the Oil Industry, because she worships Al Gore, and can’t take any criticism.

“The debate is over. Stop the debate. Arrest those who keep on debating. Shut them up. The debate is over. It’s over, I tell you! Shut up, shut up, shut up! Oh yes, and by the way, burn all the forests down. Has to be done.”

*****

No, no it doesn’t. We do not need to incinerate America’s forests in the name of global warming. Bad idea. We need to rethink that one. Come up with a better plan, global warming or no.