Came across a couple of articles on climate change this week.
The first one is interesting: Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide. As a quick read this played to my scepticism of media who blinkeredly tell us carbon dioxide is the main cause of global warming. Lifecycles of the sun or oceans are rarely factored in despite having a massive impact on the environment.
A quick Google search reveals the contrary view. I read both articles and now what should I think? The contrary view is the mainstream view yet I still see no real arguments - nothing that admits our solar system and planetary environment is complex.
So, onto Allan Savory: How to fight desertification and reverse climate change
On its own, the Wall Street Journal article is just a point of view, but placed together with a well researched analysis by Allan Savory and I find evidence that takes into account the complexity of our environment.
The humility of Allan Savory is immediately compelling. For him to admit he got it wrong big time is an amazing confession and then to devote his life to finding out why is inspiring!
There is no greed evident here. No Big Oil conspiracy. Simply an honest and practical attempt to resolve one of the biggest problems our world faces: desertification.
Who is Phil Plait? Reading his bio on Slate.com he claims "He is a skeptic and fights the abuse of science, but his true love is praising the wonders of real science." Admirable and yet he comes across as arrogant and I have yet to meet an arrogant person I can trust.
Here are some questions for Phil Plait and anyone else who professes to love "real science":
If billions of hectares of land could be transformed and recovered - how much carbon dioxide would be taken out of the atmosphere?
If the majority of desertified land could be reclaimed and turned back to green - how would this impact global warming?
If desertification could be reversed - would the increase in carbon dioxide and one percent increase in global temperature matter?