May 27, 2009, - 11:54 am

Even If You Believe in this Farce, Global Warming Not Necessarily a Bad Thing

By Debbie Schlussel
Many scientists and meteorologists have already proclaimed publicly that global warming is a farce, that there’s no such thing, and that it’s a gimmick of the left to control our lives and our behavior through big government.
But even if you believe in the farce that there is such a thing as global warming, the alleged warming isn’t necessarily a bad thing. And the claim that it directly harms and kills marine life forms has just been disproven.
This week’s “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences” features a study on rising water temperatures and higher amounts of carbon dioxide. The study found that this resulted in increased feeding and growth rates of starfish a/k/a Pisaster ochraceus, indigenous to America’s west coast.
Read an abstract of the study, “Elevated water temperature and carbon dioxide concentration increase the growth of a keystone echinoderm.”

starfish.jpg
Hey, now that these scientists that did the study came to a conclusion that contradicts the enviro-zealots, maybe the eco-left can resort to their usual tactics to shut them up. You know, like attacking their homes and ruining their professional reputations.
But probably not. Sadly, even though scientists Rebecca A. Gooding, Christopher D. G. Harley, and Emily Tang found that so-called global warming does not harm marine life as previously claimed by the global warming crowd, the scientists won’t let that get in the way of their own political views and they still claim that “climate change poses a serious threat to biodiversity.”
As for me, I’ll be disregarding their conclusion that doesn’t follow their research. And I’ll be watching “The Goode Family,” the ABC show I told you about last Friday, which makes fun of the eco-hypocrites and liberal activists who just can’t help themselves to the truth.

goodefamily.jpg

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly




5 Responses

Global warming…if Al Gore has anything to do with it, then it must be be fraudulent!

Jackson Pearson on May 27, 2009 at 12:55 pm

Debbie, global warming is all about big government, money and left wing agendas. There is no good science behind it, or any realistic cost benefit studies for cutting emissions. And personally, I prefer warm weather anyways.

Anonymous1 on May 27, 2009 at 6:46 pm

HAHAHAHA. Do you understand the difference between ‘biodiversity’ and ‘increase in growth of a keystone echinoderm’? Like, seriously. This is insanely basic biology.
I’m sorry to be rude, but you’re hilarious.
PS If you honestly don’t get the difference, the increase in growth of *one single species* does not mean that other species are going to benefit, and in fact may be an additional factor in the decline of other species in the ecosystem as the beneficiary species begins to use up more of the dwindling food reserves. Pisaster ochraceus may do okay for a while. Hooray! Good for them. That does not equal biodiversity.

Bleurgh on May 28, 2009 at 5:06 am

I was never convinced about global warning. Is just a scare tactic for the liberals to push their agenda. I always told told people…who says that this act of nature is actually a bad thing in the first place. If you look upon the past which is able to sort of tell us our future. Global warning and ice ages have been occurring forever. It’s a cycle in which mother nature is re-cleansing the earth in my opinion. As for the polutants that we put into the air it has a mininal affect at best at increasing the natural process. If we were to encorporate all these restrictions it still wouldn’t impede the natural process.

Tenn Scholar on May 28, 2009 at 11:43 am

Let’s assume for the sake of discussion this study is accurate (it probably is, since PNAS is one of the more respected journals).
Now, did you read the first sentence of the abstract? “Anthropogenic climate change poses a serious threat to biodiversity.” That doesn’t mean that every species is going to be negatively affected, just a significant amount of them. To take an analogy in the other direction, if all the oxygen in our atmosphere was suddenly removed, this would have a disastrous effect on the world ecology, even though anaerobic bacteria would be unaffected, and those that die in the presence of oxygen would even thrive.

Veinor on May 28, 2009 at 10:04 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field