-
RSS Subscribe
-
Books
Luis Palau -
It’s Still a Bunch of Hooey
This post is a response to a comment on my post “It’s All a Bunch of Hooey (Man Made Global Warming)” by Velvet Hammer who operates the Ironic Surrealism blog.
Yes, I think Global Warming has become the pop culture icon of this era. When they first started talking about GW (i.e. man made) I was skeptical simply because of the crowd that was advocating it (I remember them during the coming Ice Age scare). Time has proven at least to me that there is an agenda by this crowd and it isn’t one that is concerned with the interest of the United States. Though many of the adherents to this “ism” such as the rock stars, movie stars and other so eloquent leftist politicians are merely joining in for the next best “cause” there are others that have a more Machiavellian motive in this all.
I believe the anarchist and anti-American polar groups have converged on this issue like the perfect storm to bring the U.S. down economically since we are the only remaining super power. Make no misunderstanding but the Kyoto Protocol implemented by the U.S. and fulfilled in its entirety would lodge a serious blow to our economy because of the way it is structured as well as the fact that the other countries are not in compliance and there are yet more countries that represent such a big slice of the world wide economic pie that are not even covered under this Kyoto deal. If we didn’t fulfill it in its entirety, such failure to do so would become a “political’ cause celeb because the US didn’t comply, without even mentioning the other countries that already are not in compliance. This disruption of course would not hurt the likes of Al Gore who has postured his economic enterprise to capitalize immensely on this problem thru this Carbon Credit nonsense.
I am tossed between whether I think Al Gore is going to run for President (which I believe he would like to do) or not since he is on the verge of joining the ranks of Soros and others in the Billionaire Boys Club. His personal purchase “carbon credits” is like the guy that bought the Remington Saver company. He is using it because it is more of a marketing tool and not so much the concept, what a minutely small premium to pay to posture yourself to reap rewards in the 10 figures from this scam.
But when you can’t accomplish this all through science you must do so through humiliation. All those that won’t join the amen chorus of the GW crowd are Neanderthals, selfish, ignorant, uninformed, culturally retarded, YOU NAME IT. Since the movie stars on average have about a 12th grade education (or maybe 12.3), they have to assert their intellectualism through some of these silly causes.
Some have said to me when I get on this topic “don’t you think we should do what we can to conserve resources and protect and improve the environment?” The answer is obviously yes (God has put us in Stewardship of all He has given us) but the question shows me they don’t understand the issue. This is a Political and not an environmental or even largely a scientific issue. They may be dealing it this way, but I’m folding those cards. BTW, I read this morning in the local paper an AP article that Madonna produced 485 tons of Carbon during 4 month of her tour last year. “Live Earth” itself will produce 74,500 tons of Carbon Dioxide (and we would need to plant 100,000 trees just to offset this one event) according to John Buckley of Carbon Footprint, an organization that helps companies reduce their carbon dioxide emissions.
UPDATE 7/10/2007: Mind Control or Mein Kamph?
I just read where Robert Kennedy Jr. was screaming at the USA leg of “Live Earth” until he was hoarse that the people that didn’t believe in Global Warming were traitors.
Robert F. Kennedy’s son, who grew hoarse from shouting. “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.”
Why don’t you check out some of this nonsense HERE
comments
10 Responses to “It’s Still a Bunch of Hooey”
Leave a Reply
Well put Steve. Especially the humiliation point. Who needs science when you can accuse people of being ignorant and stupid. I just had a troll visiting one of my posts this morning basically accusing me of be uneducated and stupid because I have no respect for the false religion of Islam. According to my troll, I need to travel more:) Then again, traveling would cause GW to get worse
!! Oh my, what to do?!
Wy…….Thanks, this just keeps getting funnier. Did you see the report on RFK, Jr’s. rant at the Live Earth festival. We’re all traitors and he wants to treat us like terrorists because we don’t buy the party platform on Global Warming. I put an Update about it on the original post. Maybe your troll friend should travel himself more in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bagdad. If he isn’t the proper flavor Muslim, he’ll have his head in his hand……….steve
Hi Steve,
Barb pegged it in a comment to my discussion of Live Earth. She thought it was more like a revival meeting than a concert. Of course, there’s a science to that as well. Nice to see you back.
Hi w,
I’m heading to your blog next. I hope you don’t mind if I mock the troll.
the Grit
Hi Grit………We’ll they might as well have their Elmer Gantry’s because I believe GW (not Bush) is the “new religion” of the left. And Lord knows they got their share of the Charletons…………steve
Hi Steve,
Just keep an eye out for the GW Inquisition!
the Grit
Wyn, Grit & Grit again jumped in on this one huh Steve… No real takers.
Then a day later your “Raise them up..” post about kids & finances is doing (so far) a little better for you I see.
This is still a pretty touchy subject… People just not so quick to smear it as badly as you seem to be. We need to proceed with caution on this IMO. You’re as righteously indignant con, as the people you berate for being so ridiculously pro.
I certainly understand a conservative approach, but man…
Anyway,
WANTED: Both an ultra conservative to jump the party line & feel as though GW (& the human populations supposed contribution to it) is a legitimate concern & a progressive to jump the the line & feel that it’s all a “bunch of hooey”…
My point being that this is party politics right now unfortunately.
I believe in the past you’ve referred to this type of thing as “political posturing”…
C’mon people, lets not take this & turn it into, “well you’re an idiot”.. “nuh unh you’re a troll”… “well you should get an education”… “well shows how much you know I happen to be a rocket scientist”… “blah blah blah blah”..
Partisan crap is all it’s turning into. With a bunch of talking points & know real knowledge. You know the MSM does this to us.. & we complain about them & then play right along. Think for yourselves on this one & MANY others. Not how your “Party” tells you to. Please…
& I’m speaking to everybody. The 97 conservatives & 3 progressives that read NSL (wink, but seriously). I personally am still sorting through all the BS but in the meantime am compelled to do my part to neutralize my impact on the environment. It’s actually Biblical.
I’m in a hurry & rambled, hope it made some sense? I see you’ve been gone for a few days hope all is well & good in Dublin…
M2……..I’ll add more tomorrow, but glad you are doing your part to mitigate the environmental problems. I suppose that means you are finally getting a hummer because it is more important to be right than popular with the zealots…….steve
M2
i wanted to respond to you post mainly to give you some background on why some might not post and possibly answer to my best ability some of the points you raise.
personally, i appreciate your ability to raise issues and objections to steve’s topics mainly becuase the dialog can function in a way to sharpen ones position and lead to better understanding of alternative views.
i am a physical organic chemist who trained under an atmospheric organic chemist at osu. at the time, the ozone layer was a hot topic (94-99) and we studied the effect of reactive halogenated intermediates on the depletion of O3 into O2 in the upper stratosphere. all told, our research did find depletion, however, the main component was related to chemicals introduced into the stratosphere not by production at or near sea levels, but in situ generation via high flying machines (planes, rockets, satelites etc.) primary to this was the components coming out of smoke stacks and personal human use near sea level to 10,000 ft were already decomposed before they made it to the ozone layer. a conventional way to consider this is to realize that the suns energy contributes so much thermodynamic energy that the really bad compounds are obliterated before they can become reactive intermediates in the ozone layer. unfortunately, this was in stark contrast to what would have been nice and easy to publish, but we submitted the work and it was published and polemics were published in response to our work. the ozone layer debate is still going, but gw has taken center stage.
background aside, due to the nature of my current work, i am strongly encouraged to not join the discussion with information i acquire at my job or in my spare time. i am not a secret scientist or anything, but the impact of the global warming issue is a high revenue topic for most of the scientific community. my colleagues and i have been told that it is not in our best employment interest to author blog discussion topics on global warming or put our names and political beliefs in conjunction with our work title and function. this might seem odd, but it only underscores the sad consequences of how politics can unintentionally remove objective discussion.
though i am not ultraconservative (conservative fiscally, but socially moderately liberal), i do believe that gw is an important topic to study scientifically and implement strategic measures to limit our production of greenhouse gases. my ideas behind this are primarily that humans are a part of the system and thus the easiest of the three main agents to control. as much as some people would like to think otherwise, we are unable to control sunspots and the natural cycles of the earth. the best avenue in my opinion is to persue conservation of resuorces and strategic utilization to avoid overconsumption.
i could not agree more that gw is party politics currently. this is sad because it blurs the distinction between science fact and fiction wheteher one is on the left or right politically.
also, i dont think you have rambled, but i can tell you like to debate and discuss. personally, i do think that gw has become a shouting match as you suggested and it is embarrasing socially and scientifically. however, i am not so sure if nsl is guilty of this on his blog.
the bottom line for me is that gw is something we should care about. on the flip side, we should also care about not buying into the catastropic consequences that some are predicting. there is a maxim that i learned from my research advisor while writing my thesis: “if you torture data long enough, you can get it to say anything you want”. this should be applied to both sides of gw.
matt
Matt…..Nice explanation of many things. Particularly interested in that Ozone thing. Your comments here were very Interesting:
the ozone layer was a hot topic (94-99) and we studied the effect of reactive halogenated intermediates on the depletion of O3 into O2 in the upper stratosphere. all told, our research did find depletion…..
This all lends to a good discussion………steve
I am definately more afraid of the politics trying to bend our minds than I am of anything global, and that’s the truth.
This was another well thought blog.
Barb……thanks, I think this debate will last for some time, maybe even till the next Ice Age
……….steve
Hey Steve,
Interesting debate in the comments. I agree that the real problems have been obscured by political posturing and Al Gore does us no favors by using bad science to frighten or shame people.
My whole problem with GW is not that it exists, from what I have read, it has been a climatic condition that has cycled on the planet for its entire existence. My problem is the insistence that the problem is wholly caused by man and his various industries. It just strikes me as incredibly illogical. Sure we have made a contribution to the environment negative and positive, but we are also the only element in the equation that has been regulated and controlled in our impact of same. So, how then can their be an argument that things are getting worse because of us? Sorry, can’t buy that. We recycle, we conserve, we control emissions, we control waste disposal, etc. etc. and yet supposedly have no impact on changing it. If that is the case, then how can more of the same produce the change that some claim can be attained by changing our behavior?
YOu see my problem here?
Also, if ’science’ can determine we are the cause, then why is it ’science’ can not come up with the solution so we can fix it? Apparently all the solutions thus far offered haven’t worked. What would encourage me to believe that future solutions will be any more effective?
WC
WC……..I agree with you here too. An interesting point (if I can summarize this correctly) that I discovered from Matt above in side conversation is that Mars has experienced a parallel reduction in polar caps along with the earth. Although Mars’ atmospheres’ primary component is CO2 even within that environment it has marked this similar variation as the Earth has. The one constant in this parallel is the Sun. This to me supports the Solar Cycle explanation for GW and has reinforced my belief that Global Warming is not particularly man made (unless you are a Scientologist and believe in the Men on Mars theory - I know the Martians supposedly left Mars eons ago, so just kidding). But if we find a parallel example (in our solar system) that we know has not been influenced by man made CO2 but likely solar activity we have to look at that as at least a strong postulate relative to the Global Warming theory. It would seem to me that it would at least rebut the “settled science” mantra of the left relative to the “man made” component.
You said: “Also, if ’science’ can determine we are the cause, then why is it ’science’ can not come up with the solution so we can fix it?”
I would say science has not determined (proven) that we are the cause. That is why the dialogue from the left is what is fallacious. The crime rests with the likes of RFK, Jr’s and his nonsense. I read the transcript of his speech and also heard a tape of it. The transcript doesn’t begin to capture the bizarreness of the actual performance. I’d say two thumbs up for some kind of Oscar………..steve
all in response to the latest…
science is fantastic in explaining the how’s, but is ill equipped to explain why or even fix a problem.
here is an example…
you are driving on a moderately conjested freeway. a sea of red lights is in front of you and your decide to stop your car. friction is your friend when it comes to you pressing the breaks and the car coming to an eventual stop. scinece can break this all down in nice equations to show the stop was achieved properly and safely.
however, until you get to the bottleneck, you will not know the reason for the delay. it could be an accident or a rubbernecking driver eating while talking on a cell phone trying to cross multiple lanes of traffic for an exit ramp they could have made if they were paying attention. regardless, the reason for and the solution to the particular conjestion are outside the realm of science.
not only can science not test the reason from where your were in applying the breaks, it wont be able to reproduce the experiment for later observation. alot of times, i think all mankind asks too much of science, expecially in the instances that it is unable or ill prepared to furnsih reliable answers.
as far as fixing global warming, many in both camps beleive that it cant be fixed, but it can be limited so that the homeostasis of the earth can be maintained. it would be very anthropocentric to assume that we are simultaneously the problem and the cure. what can be done is to limit the manmade impact and be a responsible steward of the resources at ones disposal.
here is one example of a benefit to limiting our manmade emissions. say that steve and susan decide to see one of the last remaining glaciers on our soil in glacier national park montana, rather than going to florida for their next trip. that glacier which borders with canada has been receeding superfast regardless of who is to blame for gw. it might become nonexistent by 2020 at the current rate of depletion. so, they head west rather than south so they can see something that they might not be able to see unless they travel to one of the poles (highly unlikely due to the time for traveling and the lack of reliable accomodation at the poles for tourists). the unfortunate consequnce is that historical and ecological sites can become endangered until the next cooling period takes a shot at rebuliding them.
so, i guess the take home message is that science is limited to proving reliable answers for the how questions. when the why’s and what is next questions are asked, venture into another area and only use science as an auxiliary. also, if you are the traveling kind, consider taking trips to national parks because ecosystems have been and will be changing drastically.
Matt
You’re typing but they aren’t really reading… They hear, “it’s not 100% man made, it’s the sun” & they feel like we’re doing our part (”we recycle & watch our emmisions” - how absolutely hilarious by the way)… Just crazy.
I appreciate your input.
I do encourage those in the scientific community to speak now… As I’m getting real tired of everybody coming out of the woodwork to speak up against BushCo now that there is only a year & some change left in thier hands (to use that as an analogy - Meaning the damage is done & for so long they were complicit)…
I don’t wanna be late on this because everyone is busy in denial or can’t agree on a few basic principles & yet another significant issue wallows in neglect until we have to declare it some sort of national emergency (which some would argue it already is - “the people who are set up to get rich” that is - all of a sudden republicans sound like democrats)..
But wait, I recycle the eight thousand plastic bottles I drink my water (another scam by the way) out of a year & my Escalades emmisions burn real clean while I use a gallon of gas for every twelve miles I drive…
Okay so nevermind, we’re good.
I wanna change my post to: Go Steve… you tell em, it’s the lefts religion, no way I’m trading in my Hummer for a bunch of zealots. I mean look at Kennedy, what a freak!
M2……..ok we’ll look at it your way:
“You’re typing but they aren’t really reading… They hear, “it’s not 100% man made, it’s the sun” & they feel like we’re doing our part (”we recycle & watch our emissions” - how absolutely hilarious by the way)… Just crazy.”
Where is the balance and measurers we are missing that you practice. I suppose you didn’t take note at all when Gore said it was “settled science” until I or others called it nonsense. I suppose you though the Kyoto was a nice little thing (can’t we all get along) until I or others challenged its efficacy, adherence by others and the damage it would do to the U.S. And then there is that little freak show we talk about with Kennedy, It appears you find comments here off the mark, but the speech itself didn’t bother you when it was given before my and others comment. You see, it is not only what you say, but what you don’t say that clarifies matters.
I didn’t start this B.S. presentation on the environment that Gore did with the “Irresistible Truth”
I didn’t plan the Live Earth party. I didn’t say it was “settled science.” I didn’t tell you to drive a Prius. I didn’t protest the DDT in the 1960’s and get it banned (which turned out to be a canard that killed many due to famine). I didn’t say those that didn’t hold Kennedy’s and Gore’s beliefs were traitors and should be treated as such (what shot a dawn?) THEY did. I just comment on it in proportion to their claims, but this is what you now find problematic.
Even when you say that our claims about their profit motive is a page from the Democrats reveals your presumptions in this area. I can assume you mean that it is the Republicans that are crooks when the Democrats raise the question. You’ll find that I am indeed in favor of the profit motive (done some myself, bet you have or tried also – just like Gore) so why not therefore associate this type of criticism of the Democrats with Republican hypocrisy. They are Charlatans on all the above issues (and others), they know it, those like me know it and it is time that others understood it also. They can’t defend their own science, they can’t defend their own logic so they want to turn this into a shouting match of slander, innuendo, and humiliation in order to leverage their own politics and profits. Have you criticized them for this as eloquently as you seem to defend it. Who are you defending them or yourself? ……..steve
Don’t be mad
Seriously though, crazy weekend ahead but I’ll get back on soon…
M2…. Big Weekend myself. …..sc