Are Dams a Major Global Warming Contributor?

Don't give up that SUV just yet. A new study shows that dams are worse than burning fossil fuels! Just when you were sure it was SUV's, or livestock, or moose, or those evil babies, you get the global warming rug pulled out from underneath you for the umteenth time. The new evil is those dams!

From: AccuWeather.com Global Warming Center - AccuWeather.com's Global Warming Center is an open forum that looks at every side of the issues of global warming and climate change with scientific clarity. (Take note of the last few words "climate change with scientific clarity." let's see how clear and scientific they really are.)

In their article they trot out an "expert" who says dams "emit very high quantities of greenhouse gases even comparable to, in some cases even much worse than fossil fuels like coal and gas." said Patrick McCully, executive director of the International Rivers Network in an article from News.com.au McCully said global estimates blamed dams for about a third of all methane emissions worldwide!"

Patrick McCully says dams emit "greenhouse gases even comparable to, in some cases even much worse than fossil fuels like coal and gas." This is the clear science that AccuWeather.com Global Warming Center brags about? This is absolute nonsense!

Well, which is it? Are dams comparable to or much worse than fossil fuels? This is not a scientific statement, it is braindead propaganda being accepted by the global warming faithful as science. This report does not document studies or methods and is highly suspect. Let's take a look at a "scientific chart" released a few years ago that supposedly breaks down the sources of methane emissions.
Where in the "scientific chart" above are the dams which are responsible for being the greatest contributors of global greenhouse gas emissions? If this story by AccuWeather.com is correct then this whole chart is way, way off! These inconsistencies don't bother the fanatics and true GW scientific believers and they never will. Certainly such a gigantic cause of global warming couldn't have been missed before now!

The real problem with all of this blatant nonsense masquerading as science is the fact that they don't address the issue of greenhouse gas offsets delivered by the dams themselves. Dams are responsible for about one terrawatt of energy production worldwide and irrigate lands where plants can grow and absorb CO2. Without dams we would have to burn almost a billion tons of fossil fuels more every year. Why won't they ever, ever tell you about that? Because they hate dams, and are rabidly anti anything man-made. Such is their obsessive-compulsive disdain of humanity.

So, now we are supposed to believe that dams produce more methane than all of the tens of millions of square miles of swamps, marshes, wetlands, jungles, and bogs on earth combined? Where is the evidence? How did they measure the methane emissions around dams? Did they cover them with some really big plastic bag to trap the methane and measure it?

The emissions refered to in the article are also known as swamp gas. Swamp gas is said to have fooled many into believing they have seen ghosts or UFO's. This is a case of swamp gas fooling the faithful into believing they have seen a dam.

Swamp gas has been known by several names: ignis fatuus, will-o’-the-wisp, corpse candles, jack-o’-lantern, and marsh gas. A multitude of reliable references to and descriptions of this natural phenomenon have been found in prestigious journals such as Nature, Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, and Symons Monthly Meteorological Magazine. Some of these references are global in scope and span the years from the 19th century to modern times.

Characteristically, swamp gas is found in peat bogs, mud flats, marshes, swamps — and now dams wherever stagnant water coincides with the decay of organic matter.

In the early 1990’s, in defiance of IPCC projections, the methane concentration in the atmosphere abruptly stopped rising, and has remained nearly constant since then.

A recent scientific experiment has also yielded results pointing to the fact that all plants produce methane, and as the climate warms they produce more. In fact 600 million metric tons of methane a year are produced, 225 of those produced by plants. Now, the question is if warming produces more methane then why has the methane level been constant for more than a decade? Could it be that scientists really don't have a clue? Yet more scientific quackery!

Here's what the climate scientists have to say in their article concerning methane emissions.

I am quoting from their article - "What are the implications of all this for our ability to predict the future of the methane cycle? Let’s summarize what you’ve just read. (in their article) According to one set of papers, atmospheric methane could be suppressed in the future by controlling land fires. Or it could be that methane variations are mostly produced by wetland emission, driven by climate change as well as land use decisions, according to another set of papers. Or methane could resume its rise, toward a new steady state, because it is driven by increasing fluxes from melting permafrost peat and hydrates, according to observations on the ground.

The bottom line I take away from all this is that the available studies come to a strikingly divergent range of conclusions. We know a lot about the methane cycle, but as far as forecasting the near-term future, we have no clue. No one would build a nuclear reactor if our understanding of the underlying chemical dynamics were as fragile as this. Instead, we are taking the reins of a planetary biosphere. This is disturbing."

There you have it. "but as far as forecasting the near-term future, we have no clue." It would seem that based on their chart and the newly found evil of dams that they don't have a clue about the past either.

Let's wrap this up with a little common sense. Dams contribute to methane emissions, but they also deserve credit for reducing CO2 emissions and growing vast amounts of vegetation which uptake CO2. Dams are good! They are good for people and the environment. Period!

UN: Meat The Lead Cause Of Global Warming!

Just when you were sure it was the evil SUV's causing global warming the UN comes with a report blaming our consumption of meat. Read the article here Not to be outdone by the UN the ultra-leftist People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has offered a not so surprising solution.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization issued a report stating that the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined. Wow! More than all forms of transportation combined? I am speechless, not really. That's the sort of stuff I've come to expect from the most corrupt bureaucracy on the planet.




They (PETA) offer lots of salient gems such as: "Environmentalists are still pointing their fingers at Hummers and SUVs when they should be pointing at the dinner plate," said Matt Prescott, manager of vegan campaigns for PETA.


The UN and animal rights groups who almost always overlap in their missions, have coalesced around a message that eating meat is worse for the environment than driving. They and smaller groups have started advertising campaigns that try to equate vegetarianism with curbing greenhouse gases. But hold on just a second, is this good science?

What causes flatulence? (the most evil, destructive and offensive of greenhouse gases) Could
the proposed cure cause more flatulent emissions than it is meant to eliminate, thereby worsening "runaway global warming"? You bet it will, but that won't stop them, they won't even flinch.

The agenda should be clear by now-Eliminate the west's standard of living which they have worked hard for and redistribute the wealth to those who will not work.

Matt Prescott said that his group had written to more than 700 environmental groups, asking them to promote vegetarianism, and that it would soon distribute leaflets that highlight the effect of eating meat on global warming. He also said "You just cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist." Sounds a bit tyrannical to me. These people are all the same, they will not live and let live. They want control-they are control freaks! The most evil and destructive of human character disorders. They are little Hitlers willing to lie, kill, steal and more to control the thoughts and lives of others.

Now we will demolish their argument that vegetarianism will curb green house gas emissions. How will the proposed conversion of all people to the vegan lifestyle increase the flatulent green house emissions? Let's use a little basic science mixed with a little common sense.

Let us assume that over 6 billion people convert to a near vegan lifestyle. Bear in mind that there will still be most livestock left in the world since we will still need wool, leather, lanolin, milk, cheese, pet food, and other indispensable animal products.

We will only be able to reduce the current livestock population by 50 million or so. At the same time there will be 6 billion plus vegans. So for every cow eliminated we will have roughly 120 vegans.

Just a side note. In another article here at the Free World Survey we covered a story concerning moose. It seems the moose produce far more flatulent gas than cows. Click here to read how moose and other wild vegetarians emit global warming gases in copious quantities.

Vegans emit more flatulent green house gasses than meat-eaters. What causes flatulence?

Mammalian green house emissions are produced by the ingestion of flatulence-producing foods which are typically high in certain polysaccharides (especially oligosaccharides such as inulin) and include beans, lentils, dairy products, onions, garlic, scallions, leeks, radishes, sweet potatoes, cashews, Jerusalem artichokes, oats, wheat, yeast in breads, and other vegetables. Cauliflower, Broccoli, cabbage and other cruciferous vegetables that belong to the Brassica family are commonly reputed to not only increase flatulence, but to increase the pungency of the flatus. In beans, endogenous gases seem to arise from complex oligosaccharide (carbohydrates) that are particularly resistant to digestion by mammals, but which are readily digestible by microorganisms that inhabit the digestive tract. These oligosaccharides pass through the upper intestine largely unchanged, and when they reach the lower intestine, bacteria feed on them, producing copious amounts of flatus. In the case of those with lactose intolerance, intestinal bacteria feeding on lactose can give rise to excessive gas production when milk or lactose-containing substances have been consumed. For more documentation click here

Please note that meat does not cause flatulence! So, we give up one flatulent animal (a cow) and gain 120 other flatulent animals. (vegetarians) I don't know what volume of noxious gases are emitted by cows, but surely it cannot be more than 120 global warming chicken littles.

I have quoted this before, and I'll quote it again in the interest of saving the planet and on behalf of the sane people. Marie Antoinette would have said:

Let Them Eat Steak!

      

      

Beano And The Beast!

The enviro-wackos have a real situation on their hands. New studies show that moose are major culprits in global warming. Of course all herbivores/omnivores such as deer, bears, ducks and others emit high amounts of flatulent methane, (the most evil of greenhouse gasses) but the moose in particular is in the sights of the global warming faithful.

The crux of the problem is that there are millions of moose worldwide. Norway alone has over 100,000! This from Fox News:

"Researchers in Norway claim a grown moose can produce 2100 kilos of methane a year, equivalent to the amount of CO2 caused by a 8077 mile car trip, der spiegel reported. Norway's national animal releases methane through burping and flatulence... considered more harmful to the environment than carbon dioxide. There are estimated to be more than 100,000 moose in Norway."

What can be the solution to this gas-tly problem? Some of the faithful want to give them Beano!
They argued in committees over a slogan for days and the top picks were: Beano for Bullwinkle! and Beano in every beast!


The catchy slogan - Beano in every beast! won out after it was pointed out by scientists that all vegetarians emit more methane than meat eaters. Therefore we cannot single out Bullwinkle because all vegetarians are to blame for global warming. Will vegetarians convert to eating meat to save the planet? Don't count on it.

But I say, Beano for vegan beasts! Save mother Earth from their noxious gasses now! Just as I suspected there's nothing like a big juicy steak to fight global warming, I think Marie Antionette said it best;

Let them eat steak!