Have you heard the term “Cli-fi“? This is a newer segment of fiction which has climate change as the main focus. It’s also known as eco-fiction, which is a good phrase, because anthropogenic climate change is pretty much fiction to start with. Of course, it tends to be very, very preachy. Despite all the “carbon pollution” sucking trees killed to publish in paper version. Anyhow, here’s another one
(Brisbane Times) An Australian scientist has written a new children’s book, just in time for Christmas, that weaves the impacts of climate change into a story about Santa Claus, his reindeers and an evil billionaire.
Author Dr Ian Irvine, who has been a scientist for over three decades, first came up with the idea of marrying Christmas and climate change together for his eBook The Last Christmas, The North Pole is melting! two years ago.
“I have always been interested in environmental issues and it just sort of seemed to me that a great idea for a Christmas story for young kids would be about what it would actually be like for Santa Claus, the elves and the reindeer if the North Pole is melting,” Dr Irvine said.
The story focuses on the littlest reindeer, Vixen, and her challenge to save Santa’s village and workshop from billionaire villain Mr Sneer who wants to steal Christmas for himself. In the background of the story, the ice at the North Pole slowly melts away.
“It seemed like a great story idea that the ice at the North Pole is cracking up, what is going to happen to Santa and the elves, but more importantly, what is going to happen to the kids at Christmas,” Dr Irvine said.
So, what’s the point?
Dr Irvine said the narrative needed to be engaging so that kids could understand the underlying issues of the book while also helping parents talk about climate change to their children.
Can’t kids just be kids and enjoy the Christmas season, without being turned into emotional train-wrecks, creating climate anxiety, by hysterical parent with political agendas based on junk science? In Warmist World, the answer is no.
BTW, why are members of the Cult of Climastrology having kids in the first place? They tell us that kids are bad for climate change.
*it should noted that this book is scheduled to be released in e-book form, not a dead tree edition.
In terms of carbon balance think about how the life cycle of trees work. As a tree grows and lives it takes atmospheric carbon dioxide and converts it to non-volatile carbohydrates including the structural celluloses, locking the CO2 in place until the tree dies and decays or until the wood is burned. Decay and burning both release CO2 back into the atmosphere but only as much as was incorporated in the first place. If one replants replacements for the trees harvested for wood/paper CO2 stays in balance.
Trees also respire (i.e., burn carbohydrates in the presence of oxygen, releasing some CO2 – but are NET consumers of atmospheric CO2 – yay trees!). In fact, trees and other plants probably add more CO2 to the atmosphere than we do by burning fossil fuels!! But they remove much more than the add, hence the NET. The oceans add more CO2 to the atmosphere than does man, but the ocean is also a NET consumer, removing more CO2 than it emits! But they remove much more than the add, hence the NET. The concern is if we do not replace the trees we harvest.
Fossil fuels are different in that their life cycle is in millions of years. When we burn coal and oil, we release CO2 that has been locked away for millions of years as complex organic molecules and there is no quick way to resequester it, at this time. We are adding much more CO2 to the atmosphere than we remove, mostly by burning fossil fuels, hence the carbon cycle is out of balance, and atmospheric CO2 is increasing steadily.
Simple physics dictates that increasing atmospheric CO2 (methane is also doubled) will increase the heat retention of Earth, as we’re seeing now.
We get it.
Deniers“Skeptics”, almost all conservative and/or libertarian ideologues,don’t likehate the proposed solutions (carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, responsibility for damages etc) so they attack the science of climate change. This will eventually end as more and more rational people recognize the truth of global warming. But the “skeptics” will still hate the solutions.Fact 1: The Earth is warming from CO2 humans are adding to the atmosphere.
Fact 2: The rapid warming is causing problems that are going to worsen as we continue to warm the Earth.
Kids are more resilient than you imagine. We grew up with monthly drills, hiding under our school desks avoiding Russian nuclear attacks. Young Catholics were told they’d burn for eternity unless they played with the priest. Today’s kids are afraid of young men wearing body armor, armed with AR-15s, walking into their school and shooting them. They can absorb the truth of global warming.
Teach has never bothered tolearned what an actual “renewable” is. He just knows that if “they” like them he must be against hem and support fossil fuel burning
oh!! and electric cars are bad and we should never try and develope them.
Sorry, J, the earth isn’t warming from additional CO2, and again you have no proof that it’s “rapid” because you have nothing to compare it to.