I have a BS in environmental sciences and never have considered this possibility.Yesterday I read chapters of a book written by Lang Xianping, a professor of Economics, Ph.D graduate of Wharton Business School. He gave some pretty convincing analysis indicating that CO2 causing global warming is a complete lie. Everything is political and commercial.
First he analyzed where this theory comes from. It turns out that it came from a never-before-heard university somewhere in Britain, and somehow became a global slogan. He cited evidence that the CO2 caused by human activity is tiny comparing to other natural factors such as dead plants or those originally dissolved in the ocean. The truth is, he argued, that long term (say 10000 years) temperature rise and falls are normal, and the current global "warming" (which is only a normal phase of slight temperature rising), as any diachronic changes, is caused by something called sunspot, essentially a sun activity. Therefore, the sunspot activity led to temperature rise, then led to the CO2 in the ocean to come out and increased its amount in the air. That is it. It seems the current version of the story is reversed. Then why the lie? In the West, if any scientist says this is a lie, then they might get expelled from their position(true?). First, we have the scientists and environmentalists applying for large amount of funding every year because of this--let's face this, a lot of government officials are not exactly scientific savvy. Second, he argued that people on Wall Street are getting substantial money by charging those releasing a big amount of CO2 every year. If this is true, then large scale plots as those seen only in the fiction, do exist in real life.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
NEWSLOG
|