It's amazing how quickly very bright people can be converted to a new religion.  In this case, the religion is Global Warming - which is based not upon science nor upon fact, but simply upon belief.  It's a gospel spread all too willingly by the mass media, and thus it becomes not only easy to believe, but virtually inescapable.

A very bright guy sent the following note:

> I tend to agree, that our world goes through cycles.  It's difficult
> to make grand, sweeping statements based on data over a short period,
> but there does seem to be an effect that humans are having by putting
> so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, through tearing down rain
> forests, burning fossil fuels and the other things that so many
> humans do.  Since our only natural predators any more seem to be
> bacteria and cancer cells, and those are diminishing, the human
> population is increasing at a great rate.  Well, we find that humans
> engage in predation upon other humans (the most current example being
> Darfur).
>
> I don't buy so much into the Malthusian theory that we'll grow in
> numbers beyond our ability to provide for ourselves, so that a
> significant number eventually will starve to death, but it is hard to
> deny that we're putting a strain on the ability of our planet to heal
> itself.  It would be nice if we could reduce our contribution to the
> increase in CO2, or maybe develop systems that will absorb it.

This is a smart guy (albeit a lawyer), but he lacks a background in biology and atmospheric chemistry, and so appears to fall victim to the media-enhanced sensationalism of AlGore and Sheryl Crow, among other eminent alarmists.

However, the facts don't support alarmism:  By no means all, but a very significant percentage of rain forest is removed due not to "tearing down", but to "slash-and-burn" agricultural practices - that is, farmers burning it down in order to grow crops.  Much rainforest land is actually nutrient-poor, as the greatest percentage of nutrients are held within the biomass itself.  Slash and burn returns the nutrients to the soil, but only temporarily, and as the land quickly becomes unable to support crops, the farmers move to another patch of rainforest and repeat the process.  Of course, in some places, such as Bolivia, rainforests are in fact torn down and converted into rangelands for cattle.  As well, a percentage is logged for hardwood production.

In Sumatra and Borneo, this is not the case - rainforests there are being torn down - but why?  The answer (which may or may not surprise you): palm oil.

One of the unintended consequences of the rush to biodiesel has been the increase in profitability of palm oil; this has resulted in increased incentives to increase its production, to the detriment of these island ecosystems.  The habitats of Orangutans and a myriad of other species are being systematically destroyed - to produce palm oil.  Although palm oil is used in products ranging from butter-flavored microwave popcorn to soaps, the current drive to produce ever more can be directly linked to the "environmental" folks who adhere to the religion of anthropogenically-mediated, catastrophic climate change.  You can drive your alternative-fueled vehicle and feel good about yourself because you're not burning "fossil fuel".  The fact that you're contributing to wholesale ecosystem destruction can be conveniently ignored because - hey!  You're doing your part.  You're not burning "fossil fuel", and so you're helping to "Save The Planet".  Makes you feel good, doesn't it?

But really - that's all that matters these days:  feeling good about yourself.  It doesn't matter whether or not your actions are positive, negative, or completely irrelevant.  The only important thing is: it makes you feel good.  That's the "in" trend, these days.  Why, I know a guy who actually unplugs his electric toothbrush most of the time, and just runs on battery power.  Every little thing you can do will help to "Save The Planet".  I'm convinced that the capacity for grasping irony and the ability to detect stupidity have simply been "educated" out of a growing number of the American public.

And so they "worry" about "carbon footprints".

As for CO2 itself, I believe that the issue is exceptionally overblown, and here are some of the reasons why:

CO2 levels in 1960 were at 313 ppm or .0313% of the atmosphere.
As of Jan 2007 CO2 was at 383 ppm or .0383% of the atmosphere.

That's really not a significant increase, especially when one takes into account the fact that the major atmospheric component of the greenhouse effect is attributable to water vapor (~70%).  If you really want to be all concerned about anthropogenic contributions to global warming, then what should you fight against?  Carbon dioxide emissions - or irrigation?

Irrigation clearly elevates the percentage of atmospheric water vapor, which as has been established, represents the major component of the greenhouse effect on our planet.  From my perspective, if one is truly concerned about the human contribution to global warming, there is only one logical approach to the problem:  you should commit suicide.  By doing so, you'll stop exhaling that nasty carbon dioxide that so worries you.  As well, you won't be eating any food, so your suicide - combined with those of other global warming lemmings - would significantly reduce the need for agriculture (and thus, the need for irrigation).

Gore used as the best "evidence" available in An Inconvenient Truth the hockey-stick predictions for global temperatures based on past correlations of global temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels.  During the past half-century, global temperature has increased - by 0.5 degrees Centigrade.
However,  since atmospheric CO2 doesn't drive temperature, but instead increases as a result of changes in the biosphere that accompany increasing temperature, this prediction is without basis in fact.  And what is the primary force driving temperature change on the planet, again?  Water vapor.

Moreover, often ignored is the fact that CO2 is required for plant metabolism.  They take in CO2 and release O2 as a metabolic by product.  And of course, O2 is fundamental to animal metabolism.

These are by no means the sum of the bases for my arguments against global warming alarmism, but they're as good a jumping-off point as any.  Although some may feel that it's hard to deny that human activity is straining the capacity of the planet for self-repair, I've not seen any evidence other
than statements of feeling in this regard.

Some tribes of American indians routinely set fire to huge swaths of grasslands, and did so literally every year - for centuries.  Alarmists today would claim that such activities were "killing the planet" and so action must be taken to "save the planet".  Again, I've seen no evidence that would support such claims.

If the alarmists of today had been around (and given so much credence) a century and a half ago, there would be no great American "breadbasket", nor much of anything else that we routinely view as a normal part of everyday life.  Frankly, it might have been better:  your attention would be focused upon staying alive, rather than "Saving The Planet".