Despite the politics and the best intentions, man-made global warming is simply false. The sun is the heater of our solar system and all the variables that go into it - orbit, solar activity, weather patterns, and countless other things we understand and don't understand create what we know as the climate cycle. However, the sun is the engine of our climate - always has been and always will be. In fact, the sun is so powerful at dictating the temperature of the Earth that our planet would not support life as we know it if our orbit around the sun was a little closer or a little farther away from the big red ball.
Our planet is incredibly adaptable and the concept of homeostasis (a balance) that we see throughout nature takes place on a macro scale as one system acts to counterbalance another system. If this did not exist we would not be here because our Earth has survived some major events far beyond our imaginations. How is climate measured by the earth? Is it in centuries, millennia, or eons? We don't really know. However, from a geological standpoint - we are irrelevant to the Earth, our solar system, and the universe. The crap (yes, it is crap) we see on the news about warmest year ever, warmest decade on record, etc etc is ridiculous. We measure time in generations. Those are statistically irrelevant to the age of the Earth (either by creation or primordial soup) and a speck of dust to the universe.
If you look at the money we are spending to combat a non-existent issue (I can't call it a problem because a rise of the mean Earth temperature by a few degrees would be beneficial to mankind, animals, and plant life) it is sickening. This has become a political pinata that fearmongers can hit with a stick to get candy and gain control over us. Almost every answer they propose to the issue involves taxes, crony-capitalism or programs that benefit them and their friends, and a nanny state where human activity can be controlled. I would be glad to debate the issue from a simple science standpoint and while none of us (certainly myself) knows exactly what will happen in our lifetimes the science of the sun indicates a period of slight cooling in the immediate future. This is why even the diehards have changed the terminology to "climate change" instead of global warming. It is not getting warmer and it has definitely been warmer in human history than it is presently.
To help them accomplish their political goals, they have declared one of the most vital gases on our plant (CO2) as a pollutant. Without it we would all die. Simple. It does not harm us and it benefits plants, which in turn, benefits us. Furthermore, if you objectively study the unproven model of greenhouse gases and their effect on micro-climate (none of us will see a macro-climate during our lifetime) you will find that CO2 is not a cause - it is an effect. It is a minimal effect to their own model so why did they target it? Easy answer, it is the easiest to regulate and tax. They also completely ignore the "natural" sources of CO2 that dwarf the activities of man.
As someone who studied (and loves) science the whole charade frustrates me greatly. In my lifespan (again irrelevant to "climate") I have seen hysteria about a coming ice age, heard about peak oil (energy), the population bomb, peak food, and most of all - global warming. None of these have come true and you can go read the predictions yourself - they are all over the web. If we trust the hypothesis what happened to their predictions? They did not happen. Period. None of them have come true. We find more oil all the time because carbon and hydrogen plus heat in the crust of the Earth creates oil and gas. We find ways to more efficiently create energy and food and the standard of living of the global population statistically increases.
With that said, we should take care of our air, water, and in general (like all things in life) leave a better place for our children and grandchildren. There is a place for the EPA and a place for laws and regulations to influence human activity in so far as it impacts the environment. However, I will endlessly debate that we could do far more good with the money we spend (seen and unseen) on this problem by making the world a better place (simple things like clean water and basic sanitation would greatly improve life in the third world) and in turn, that would likely increase the wealth and health of those people who in turn, like us, would eventually have more wealth to spend keeping the world clean. That is a proven cycle in human history. Wealth is the best thing for the environment. Poverty is the worst.
The EPA has gotten carried away and there needs to be a cost-benefit calculation to their actions that everyone can see and understand. I think many of us would be shocked at what some "environmental protections" have costs us in real terms versus what the benefit has been to a region, the nation, and the planet. On top of that, look at some of the "green" solutions they promote! Ethanol gasoline inefficiently using food as fuel that harms motors, mercury filled lightbulbs that will make landfills (using their own numbers for acceptable mercury) superfund cleanup sites, attacking the timber industry fueling massive wildfires and causing regional economic depression/poverty, ineffective wind turbines that kill birds, bats, and bees, etc etc. The list is long and shameful so one has to ask the simple question - who benefited from such decisions and programs?
In so far as "wood burning" is concerned it does not impact the macro-climate in any measurable way. However, it can definitely impact your neighbors and communities (micro-climates) if everyone is choking on woodsmoke (due to inversions and stagnant air). I would argue that such an issue should be addressed at the local level. EPA has already taken the biggest corrective action by setting basic standards for wood burning devices, but they won't stop there if history shows us anything - they will continue to regulate and tighten controls until there are no more woodstoves. I have even heard proposals in some environmental fanatic circles that they would like to put "measuring devices" on our stacks so they can "tax" us for our output (since they already heavily tax power). That is where an agency without adequate oversight ends up.......... the nanny state.
