If trees don't fall, will oxygen knock out carbon dioxide and silence the global warming alarmists?

As the left celebrates still another reckless, self-aggrandizing presidency, an even more historic force is about to change the nation's landscape while also altering the daily routine of its citizens.

We are going to save the trees.

To do so, we are going to give up our newspapers.

It is a bargain many of us on the right will gladly make, having concluded that the trees are of absolute value while the newspapers are, as often as not, of value mainly for the unintended mirth that they provide.

I spent most of my career at two newspapers, the Minneapolis Tribune and the Detroit Free Press. Both were first-rate newspapers. Both are in their third reincarnations since I left. A newspaper analyzing any other industry in which leading institutions are changing hands that often would refer to "death throes" and speculate on how long the stricken will survive.

The odd thing about the impending demise of the newspapers is that no one mentions the impact this will have on the issue mainstream newspapers love most - global warming. Leaving aside the question of whether global warming is real, or whether it is caused by human beings, the number of trees that remain in the forest obviously bears on the question.

Human beings breath in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Trees and other plants, on the other hand, absorb carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. It seems obvious, even inescapable, that the more trees there are in the forest the more oxygen, and the less carbon dioxide, there will be in earth's atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is the main villain among the greenhouse gases that global warming fanatics blame for the meager evidence that global warming actually has been taking place. They have persuaded millions of Americans, including leading politicians, that carbon dioxide is largely to blame for a rise in the average earthly temperature of less than one degree over 100 years.

On that slender reed, alarmist Al Gore has built a fortune and collected a Nobel Prize while persuading politicians to hasten their destruction of the American economy by enacting a carbon tax.

Instead of enacting that tax, why doesn't Congress demand a scientific study of the impact of increased tree preservation on the future level of carbon dioxide.

Would the New York Times, now approaching extremis, dare to editorialize against that?

For the last decade, circulation of many newspapers has been falling off a cliff. As a result, fewer trees have been cut down to make newsprint. During that period, it turns out, global warming has expired everywhere except in the fevered brains of liberal journalists and politicians on the make.

In other words, more and more trees have been singing "I'm still standing" during a period in which global warming has vanished and global cooling seems to have set in.

Is this coincidence? Or, is the window closing on one of the most successful hoaxes in history?