David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma. This is what he writes today (emphasis added):

*********

Year of global cooling

By David Deming

December 19, 2007

Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.

Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn’t increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.

Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.

In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina’s peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina’s apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver’s temperature records extend back to 1872.

Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.

Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power. People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don’t seem so awful when you’re in the cold and dark.

If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you’re hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can’t make this stuff up.

Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

http://http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/26978/ (http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/26978/)

And here I am up to my neck in the white stuff! :(

Two days ago I had to dig my way out of the house after a colossal blizzard.

I just hope people keep believing in the Global warming boondoggle long enough to switch from fossil fuels to cleaner alternatives.

If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you’re hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can’t make this stuff up.



Incorrect! And the Greenpeace guy was exactly right - and THAT'S why the correct term is NOT "global warming" but "climate change."

Despite the list of aberrations provided in that article, the fact is that that the climate IS changing over most of the world - including colder spots - but most of that list are just simply local effects and have nothing to do with the overall average temperature change. From the data already collected and processed, 2007 seems as though it will break all the records as the warmest year ever on record for the entire continent of North America and much of Europe.

You'll notice that Deming conveniently failed to mention that. :bugeye:

But that HAS to be wrong because we have a former vice-president who only makes 35 mistakes in his presentation on global warming and everyone knows that Venus has carbon dioxide in its atmosphere and so many humans feel so guilty for living.

The Earths magnetic poles are switching also scientists believe. This would

reduce the Earths magnetic field by up to 10 percent and let more harmful

sun radiation through to cause even more heating.

The Earths magnetic poles are switching also scientists believe. This would

reduce the Earths magnetic field by up to 10 percent and let more harmful

sun radiation through to cause even more heating.

really? I knew that moved, but switched? Do you have a link? Is there a timetable?

really? I knew that moved, but switched? Do you have a link? Is there a timetable?

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99357.htm

So if the magnetic poles flip, does it matter? And if it happens every 200,000 yrs, when are we due?

As I stated scientists believe we are already in a reversal now which will

last 1000 years. Just how far along we are is also being looked into.

As I stated scientists believe we are already in a reversal now which will last 1000 years. Just how far along we are is also being looked into.

what scientists? Do you have a link to that as well?

what scientists? Do you have a link to that as well?

The tragedy of magnetic pole reversal is a hidden controversy in modern society.

The Earth's magnetic poles have been reversing themselves for billions of years according to magnetic signatures found in the rock of the ocean floor. This reversal occurs approximately every 100,000 to 300,000 years, but one has not happened in about 250,000 years (though different sources claim many different numbers).

The effects of a magnetic pole reversal are varied and argued. We do know that many things rely on the magnetics of the Earth to navigate. The compass market as we know it would be rendered obsolete. Creatures such as birds and crabs that use the magnetics of the Earth to navigate will lose their sense of direction. The process of a reversal does not seem to occur quickly though. There is a period of time when the Earth does not carry a magnetic signature. Most creatures would have ample time to adjust to the change, but the lack of magnetics has other side effects. The sun's cosmic rays are deflected away from the Earth by its magnetics. A loss of this, and we are hit by an increased amount of radiation. The effects of this radiation are unknown, but some type of change appears imminent.

Note that in America the word "National" can be used freely and does not imply any connection to the government. One of our biggest food manufacturers for decades was the National Biscuit Company. (Now shortened to Nabisco.) One of the three main television networks is the National Broadcasting Company, NBC, a private corporation. The National Center for Policy Analysis is a private think tank established and funded by corporate donors for the specific purpose of promoting the right-wing agenda. Lately its crusade has been to contradict Michael Moore's left-wing propaganda with its own right-wing propaganda. It is free to hire people with science degrees from third-rate universities, screen them for their biases and their willingness to do what they're paid to do, and form them into a group to peer-review each other's papers.

This paper is an example of "corporate science," and it has been peer-reviewed with no more rigor than the average post on SciForums--perhaps less, since our membership has a better balance of viewpoints than the NCPA.

Surely we all know that weather is a difficult variable to study, since year-to-year or even decade-to-decade fluctuations can be greater than the overall trend. What is incontrovertible is the increase in greenhouse gases. Physics tells us that, other things being equal, this cannot help but cause an increase in average temperature in the long run.

The world may indeed be on the verge of a temporally local cooling trend. We have no decent way to predict that. We may have what seem like a vast number of recording stations on balloons placed at regular distances and altitudes in the atmosphere all over the globe, but those "regular distances" are so great that the earth's mountain ranges, which have a colossal impact on weather, are too small in comparison to be factored.

Short-term (i.e. decades instead of centuries) weather prediction is more of a craft than a science, and we don't have the infrastructure investment--the toolset--to practice that craft.

If the earth does enter a temporary cooling phase, it could be our salvation, IF we don't just heave a sigh of relief, say "Boy am I glad that's over," and ramp up our production of greenhouse gases. If not, those greenhouse gases remain in the air--at an increased concentration--and will be there ready to kick us in the butt when the temporary cooling phase halts after a few decades or a couple of centuries.

What we do have the toolset to measure is the composition of the earth's atmosphere, and we have found that it has changed and is still changing. This makes the probability of a long-term temperature increase a near certainty. If we have a few extra decades--or an extra couple of centuries--before that long term kicks in, we have more time to adjust our technology so as to halt or reverse that change.

China is now the biggest producer of greenhouse gases and China's government is even more foolish about long term consequences than ours: e.g. their cavalier attitudes about "dirty" coal, the Three Gorges Dam, toxic chemical dumps, and the expansion of the Gobi Desert toward Beijing at a rapid, steady, measurable rate. A major boycott of the Olympics for health rather than political reasons may shake them out of their denial. (The last person I know who returned from a trip to China said the air looked like Los Angeles in 1963 and her son was unable to breathe outside of their hotel room.)

There is nothing wrong with Deming's science, as far as it goes. What's wrong is that it does not go far enough--into the future. It's analogous to a subprime mortgagee saying, "Look Suzie, we can buy this house because the interest rate is only two percent," without analyzing his ability to make the payments five years into the future after the interest rate rises to twelve percent.

Notice that Deming does not even talk about the long-term impact of greenhouse gases. I would certainly be skeptical of any future "studies" performed at the University of Oklahoma.

...China is now the biggest producer of greenhouse gases and China's government is even more foolish about long term consequences than ours: e.g. their cavalier attitudes about "dirty" coal, the Three Gorges Dam, toxic chemical dumps, and the expansion of the Gobi Desert toward Beijing at a rapid, steady, measurable rate. A major boycott of the Olympics for health rather than political reasons may shake them out of their denial. I do not think that either accurate or fair.\Last year China closed more than 3000 coal mines and is building a new nuclear power or hydro power electric generation station every 8 days! They know they have a problem and are working on it more than the US is, - US is only nation now not part of the international effort. The only nation adding more green house gases (when the fertilizer released No2, much worse than Co2, is included) with the alcohol from corn program than if the cars used pure gasoline, instead of E85!

anyone who attacks global warming on the grounds that in some places it is colder than usual is just spouting populist bullcrap that perhaps sounds reasonable but has nothing to do with science and facts.

Well it's getting hot in China...I wonder why. NOT GLOBAL. LOCAL WARMING. POLLUTION is the TOPIC not WARMING. fucking politics getting in the way.

http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/worldguide/satellite/737.jpg

Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. This is shaping up like many recent winters in central Minnesota - December being the coldest month of the year. Used to be January.

It's been very dry, which normally means earlier onset of cold, as well.

Most of the past decade, what has followed has been grey and damp and unseasonably warm right into March, with ice storms and January rain.

I think when I was a kid in Minnesota I saw rain in January maybe twice in 16 years. It was a big deal. It's happened the past 11 years in a row.

The difference is mainly at night. People used to take their batteries indoors, with quick releases on the terminals, when I was a child. Tires used to freeze flat spots often. I bought a serious, lined, snowsuit when I got a job requiring time outdoors and early car starting - haven't worn it in years. Trumpet flower vine covers walls with years of growth - not winter hardy north of Iowa, on the traditional range maps. Possums get hit on the roads.

If Deming hasn't been able to discover a difference in the north central plains of the US in recent years, he hasn't been looking very hard.

Spikes of cold weather do not discount global warming. The important thing is the average temperature.

Spikes of cold weather do not discount global warming. The important thing is the average temperature.

Exactly! And that's precisely what the various ninnies fail to understand. Individual aberrations of extreme cold OR heat are meaningless - it's only the overall AVERAGE that counts. It really, really seems strange to me that they cannot understand such a simple concept!!

But the "individual aberrations" can cause massive crop failures and large numbers of deaths when a slight deviation from the average will harm nothing.

First it was the world is getting warmer and it is man's fault. When that was shown to be untrue the mantra changed to the climate is changing and it is man's fault.
As for whether or not Global Warming is even happening, more and more scientsts are beginning to say it isn't and that the Earth will instead be cooling.

The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001. (David Whitehouse)

Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards. (David Deming)

Ilulissat, Greenland – The July 27-29 2007 U.S. Senate trip to Greenland to investigate fears of a glacier meltdown revealed an Arctic land where current climatic conditions are neither alarming nor linked to a rise in man-made carbon dioxide emissions, according to many of the latest peer-reviewed scientific findings. Research in 2006 found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880's, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955.
A 2006 study found Greenland has cooled since the 1930's and 1940's, with 1941 being the warmest year on record. Another 2006 study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer in the 1930's and 40's and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005. (Marc Morano)
the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.
...lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).
...there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades (Bob Carter)

"Global temperatures have not been rising for eight years. New Zealand temperatures in the last 50 years have gone down with volcanoes and up with El Niños but have no signs of ‘warming'. Christchurch has not warmed since 1917. The sea level in Auckland has been much the same since 1960. (Press Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition)

Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years. (Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics 95: 115-121.)

An article has appeared in a recent issue of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics with a curious title "Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years."(World Climate Report)
__________________

Climate has always changed. You can see this through pollen records. Trees change from pines to oaks to beeches and then back to pines as the climate changes.

There is evidence that rather than getting warmer the Earth is acually getting colder.

Climate has always changed. You can see this through pollen records. Trees change from pines to oaks to beeches and then back to pines as the climate changes.



The problem is that it didn't change so rapidly. It use to take thousands of

years to either warm up or cool down but now its happening in less than 100

years. :eek:

Rave on, Till, rave on.

This current news article disputes everthing you said in you last post: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22244847/

What is your response now??

If this were a poker game I would say, "I'll see your one article and raise you the following articles.



http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com...E2YTRlMjMxNzc=

http://www.epw.senate.gov/109th/Carter_Testimony.pdf

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...-27197,00.html

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/cove...3/letter4/&c=1

http://climatepolice.wordpress.com/2...falling-apart/

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...23&Itemi d=32

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0704/S00023.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0801175711.htm


http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...Item id=38%20

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-cdd092507.php

http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog...es/002234.html

http://www.griffith.edu.au/conferenc...pdf/ICS176.pdf

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0801174450.htm

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im.../consensus.pdf

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V10/N3/C1.jsp

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...global-cooling

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0428170229.htm

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...l_warming.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/avery042507.htm


http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-c...article-167086

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...9-9BDD978FB3CD


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...5-4B6CD20B983A

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/pr...sillusion.html

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...B-DCCB00B51A12

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sp...507/gaz01.html

http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0507/gaz01.html

http://www.penraker.com/archives/007725.html

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...f4cf&Issue_id=

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...4-179EB41CF348

If this were a poker game I would say, "I'll see your one article and raise you the following articles.



http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com...E2YTRlMjMxNzc=

http://www.epw.senate.gov/109th/Carter_Testimony.pdf

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...-27197,00.html

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/cove...3/letter4/&c=1

http://climatepolice.wordpress.com/2...falling-apart/

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...23&Itemi d=32

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0704/S00023.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0801175711.htm


http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...Item id=38%20

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-cdd092507.php

http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog...es/002234.html

http://www.griffith.edu.au/conferenc...pdf/ICS176.pdf

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0801174450.htm

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im.../consensus.pdf

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V10/N3/C1.jsp

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...global-cooling

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0428170229.htm

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...l_warming.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/avery042507.htm


http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-c...article-167086

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...9-9BDD978FB3CD


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...5-4B6CD20B983A

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/pr...sillusion.html

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...B-DCCB00B51A12

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sp...507/gaz01.html

http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0507/gaz01.html

http://www.penraker.com/archives/007725.html

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...f4cf&Issue_id=

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...4-179EB41CF348

One difference show up immediately - my link is to a current news article while MOST of yours must be old and outdated. I started at the bottom and gave up after seeing "page or article not available" several times in a row...

I had no trouble accessing the articles. I have no idea why you did.

Do you have similar problems, with the RECENT article about four hundred prominent scientists questioning anthropomorphic global warming?

I had no trouble accessing the articles. I have no idea why you did.

Do you have similar problems, with the RECENT article about four hundred prominent scientists questioning anthropomorphic global warming?

Here's exactly what I got from the last link and all the other links that were supposed to be on that site before it finally just took me to their homepage:

"Sorry, there is no www.senate.gov web page matching your request. The address may have been typed incorrectly, the page may no longer exist, or the file may have been moved to a new location during our recent redesign."

the climate is changing we are affecting it and it most likely won't end well for humanity

The climate has always been changing. If we are affecting it our effect is so small as to be meaningless. Mankind will survive this much more easily than it survived the last Ice Age.

The climate has always been changing. If we are affecting it our effect is so small as to be meaningless. Mankind will survive this much more easily than it survived the last Ice Age.

whenever humanity states mucking around with nature it really doesn't end all that well for us

Yep. When those cave people started throwing spears into the air everything got all screwed up. Hell, it caused an Ice Age.


If temperature trends had a corellation to man's activities I might be worried but they really don't. The rise and fall of the Earth's temperature is not related to man's activities. Temperatures have risen and fallen much more in the past when man could not have affected them.

Yet, we still dont care.

Well it's getting hot in China...I wonder why. NOT GLOBAL. LOCAL WARMING. POLLUTION is the TOPIC not WARMING. fucking politics getting in the way....

there was an article in National Geographic about China's pollution. There were children in some town who had never seen the sun. Their parents planned to take them on a vacation some day so they could.

I had no trouble accessing the articles. I have no idea why you did.

Do you have similar problems, with the RECENT article about four hundred prominent scientists questioning anthropomorphic global warming? I tried five links random the middle of your list and had the same problem Read did with all of them.

I did take a look at that recent article (linked on another thread here) about the "400 scientists", and noticed that it contained porpaganda styled falsehoods and deceptions in the introductory paragraphs, as well as numerous quotes out of context which do not quite say what they seem to be intended to imply.

It appears to be your contention that steadily boosting the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 50% or more will have little or no effect on the earth's climate. Is that indeed a fair assessment ?

iceaura,
It is my view that Global Warming has been overhyped and exagerated for political purposes. If Global Warming is indeed happening it is a minor problem and is not anthropomorphic in origen.

That does not mean I don't want to clean up pollution and stop burning fossil fuels. I am in favor of alternate energy sources simply because they make the world a more healthy and pleasant place to live.

iceaura,
It is my view that Global Warming has been overhyped and exagerated for political purposes.

Care to explain exactly what those 'political purposes' are and how they stand to gain?

Oh yeah, nothing can be our fault, we only deforested most of the planet, pumped billions of gallons of sequestered hydrocarbons into the air, caused one of the greatest periods of mass extinction in the history of the planet, filtered the large fish from the oceans, damaged the ozone layer... but it's all minor...

One of the political purposes is the crippling of the Western economy. If you read the Kyoto Accords you will see that Western nations bear the brunt of the responsibility for lessening pollution. Nations like China and India are allowed to continue polluting at their current rate and can even sell pollution credits to other nations.

If the Kyoto Accords was really serious it would not give a free pass to certain countries while punishing others.

But it's the western nations that are proposing measures to lessen the problem.

It is my view that Global Warming has been overhyped and exagerated for political purposes. So what do you view as the likely consequences of boosting the CO2 concentration by 50% or more in a century or two - or is it your view that there will be none, or none of any significance ?

None of any great significance.

That does not mean I do wish to increase the amount of CO2 in the air. It does not mean I am not concned about pollution. It does not mean I am in favor of continued use of fossil fuels. It does not mean I am not in favor of solar energy, wind energy, atomic energy, tidal energy, wave energy, geothermal energy or any of the available forms of less polluting energy sources.

If considered as units of pollution per unit of production the United States and most of the countries of The Industrialized West pollute far less than other nations. There is very little burning of soft coal or wood in the industrialized West. There are scrubbers on smokestacks. There are clean water acts, reclamation after mining acts and a host of other acts designed to decrease pollution. The Hudson River, Lake Erie, the Cuyahoga River, the Illinois Barge Canal are all cleaner than they were twenty years ago. The Environmental Protection Agency has been formed. Recycling programs have been put into effect. People are much more aware of pollution and how to prevent it.

The Global Warming controvery has generated an industry of Global Warming hypers whose main source of money comes from touting anthropomorphic global warming and fear mongering. It has gone from science to a form of religon in its zealotry. In my opinion it is a political tempest in a teapot and much more hype than fact.

The problem with pollution is exaggerated. No matter how much chemistry we pump into the air, nothing significant will result. It's just a way to sell environmentalist materials. Recycling is also just a way for companies to profit from trash.

The problem with pollution is exaggerated. No matter how much chemistry we pump into the air, nothing significant will result. It's just a way to sell environmentalist materials. Recycling is also just a way for companies to profit from trash.

Yep. Just like we could never fill up the refuse pits, or the ocean. It's just too big for us to effect.