This article is hilarious!
Global Warming For Dumbasses
Unless you disagree with it, at which point you can just write it off as no big deal.
Thanks, Matt. 🙂
thank you for the handsome comment you made on your blog! You’re not to bad yourself
The video wasn’t even watchable with every third word ending in buffering.
How rational is it to force nations to retract usage of fossil fuels and dependence on coal for electricity by implementing higher costs to end users when no adequate (reliable, widespread and economically feasible) replacement system has even been set up. There is also no viable bridge systems in place for transition.
The pie-in-the-sky ideologies of the environmental movements have not rationally thought things through. This begs the question; what is the desired end result of the movement? Is it absolutely no usage of earth’s natural resources?
Do the materials used for producing windmills and solar systems not come from and a result of ravaging the earth? Even if we lived in caves and our only nutritious sustenance were naturally grown grains, the process of digging those caves would be considered raping the earth and altering its esthetics or uncover inorganic substances that may be transposed into our atmosphere and water supply. Let’s not forget impeding or destruction of biodiversity and impending species extinction caused by eating the grains.
As far as the impending climate disaster is concerned, do you choose to believe the science that governments paid to produce (with established motive), even in the face of massive contradicting evidence?
The inherent problem with man’s wit is we foolishly think we are in control.
No, the inherent problem with man’s wit is no that we foolishly think we are in control. It’s that we mistake what we can change and affect with that which we cannot.
Your comments are interesting, and I agree with your critique of many environmental movements being “pie-in-the-sky.” Which is why Conservance isn’t like other environmental organizations.
To begin with, an adequate replacement system isn’t in place for one simple reason. It’s been blocked by power companies and some environmental groups. We haven’t built it, so of course by today’s projections it can’t meet the demands. If we started building now however, clean sources could account for over half of our power generation within five to ten years. Combine that with upgrades to our delivery system and we would have quite an efficient system, and five to ten years after that who knows?
Also, I’m a conservationist meaning we can use resources, but it must be responsibly. So your prehistoric cave man vision, while it might apply to some environmental groups isn’t applicable here.
Furthermore, you’re right, there aren’t many transitions in place. Because the money that goes into researching them, is a pittance compared to the money invested into oil companies, automotive companies, even banks by our government. If we reprioritized our grants and subsidies, then these technologies would be in place and they would exist.
Lastly, the contradictory evidence is neither massive nor government funded. It’s privately funded by industries and individuals. Whose research is unbiased?
I can supply you a list of government agencies that funded scientific research that supported and perpetuated the global warming or climate change alarmism. A whole host of agencies are in collusion, national and international. The biggest red flag was using natural events and contorted their meaning from something rather innocuous to something ominous. The second red flag was they changed their chosen name to be more inclusive.
The amazing part of this C02 controversy is that people are not willing to admit that the planet can and does look after itself, we have minimum impact. The earth is in constant motion cleansing and renewing itself. This does not mean we should be irresponsible or put all our eggs in one basket but we simply cannot kill the planet with the same constituents that built it. The atmosphere gets cleaned by weather; rain wind clouds etc. redistributing gases and other particulates to different areas of the planet where they are also needed. If we had an excess of C02 in the atmosphere there would also be a reduction in the earth’s natural methods for adding more, eg. volcanic activity. It’s an ecosystem and C02 is still a trace gas in our atmosphere. We would be much more adversely affected if the C02 concentration dropped…oh they tried using that scare tactic too.
In medicine, up to 5% carbon dioxide (130 times the atmospheric concentration) is added to pure oxygen for stimulation of breathing after apnea and to stabilize the O2/CO2 balance in blood.
In summation, The alarmism was government conceived and funded, the scientists speaking out against AGW, constitutes the massive contradiction. This whole frenzy was orchestrated to play on your guilt, making you think you are at fault. They further drove it home by falsely raising the stakes so high (you’re killing the planet) the issue became unignorable.
In reality, it’s our responsibility to keep government in check because government and government handling of special interest groups is the root of the problem. Government wants our money and more power to control us. Hence the global warming scare was used to authorize a clampdown on energy producing industries (also removing fossil fuel subsidies)that raises our energy costs before alternate systems are in place and gets a green light to save us and set up a world currency system using carbon credits.
Actually, President Bush changed the name in order to make it more appealing and less threatening to business and Republicans.
I am willing to admit that the planet can look after itself, but only if humanity would stop polluting. I know that in the grand scheme of emissions, humanity doesn’t contribute as much as other sources; But we’re also eliminating the components of the natural cycles that would allow the earth to maintain it’s natural balance. The one you’re relying on to keep the planet clean and in order.
Furthermore, I’m not specifically saying CO2 is bad. I’m saying that man made pollution is bad period. Your argument about CO2 increases or decreases doesn’t make much sense. How does weather affect a volcano erupting? Show me that research. Nor does dismissing CO2 as a trace gas make much sense either. There are plenty of trace gases that are incredibly deadly.
And I don’t see how this alarmism is going to give our money to the government. In fact it’s going to cost everyone money. From the individual up to the government, it would be better for governments to deny Global Warming and dismiss it as a scare.
Finally, you’re “massive contradiction” in the scientific community amounts to less than one percent of the entire scientific community. And your claims of government wanting more power and setting up a world currency seem to be nothing more than the alarmism that you critique the government for attempting.
Here are my resources and supporting data:
And if you disagree with that, then I encourage you to live next to a power plant. A nice coal burning one.
“And I don’t see how this alarmism is going to give our money to the government. In fact it’s going to cost everyone money. From the individual up to the government, it would be better for governments to deny Global Warming and dismiss it as a scare.”
Cost the government? Government doesn’t have any money, they use your money. They may have it printed but money on its own has no value. The value is backed by good faith and credit of the United States. The good faith and credit is the ability to pay back debt and this is largely determined by the GDP. Government does not create wealth, it consumes it.
That’s incorrect. Governments do create wealth. What would the US dollar be worth without the US government? Nothing. And actually when the government “uses” our money it’s in exchange for goods and services. Things like infrastructure, laws, police, foreign affairs, domestic security. The things you use everyday, take for granted, or keep you safe from harm. Is there corruption? yes. Is it perfect? no. Does it work? so far it has.
But to engage your larger argument: Which would you have in control? A government where the citizens have some say and voice in what occurs or a corporation where you have no say or control over what happens? Or would you rather prefer anarchy where the weak fall victim to the strong or cruel?
There wouldn’t be a US government without taxpayers funding it. Government expropriates from us to run government developed organizations. The goods and services you mention do not make money, but consumes it.
Regarding which I would have in control…those are not my only two options. Government officials are supposed to be public servants they are employed by us, we should have the say how everything is run not the other way around.
“How does weather affect a volcano erupting?” I didn’t say weather affects a volcano erupting, I said the atmosphere is an ecosystem, it cleanses itself; if there was too much C02 in the atmosphere, weather redistributes it. Volcanic eruptions are one of earth’s natural methods of re-introducing C02 into the atmosphere.
“And your claims of government wanting more power and setting up a world currency seem to be nothing more than the alarmism that you critique the government for attempting.”
Two entirely different animals; mine is bringing attention to covert operations of greed and power through no personal gain (in defense of an attack/fighting back). Their alarmism is creating mass hysteria playing on people’s fears and vulnerabilities, using life giving forces they cannot live without as the stakes, involving science that the average person has not studied and is more than likely going to have to accept and commoditizing air we breath and water we drink for an enormous payout and an incredible power grab.
As for the massive contradiction, if you don’t think there are enough Scientists that disagree with AGW to warrant discussion, caution or an evaluation of the matter and your standing, then just keep your mind closed.
This is global warming for dumbasses:
See high school teacher count rice.
See bachelor degree in biochemistry try to fake expertise in atmospheric science.
The inference she’s attempting to make is the pollution portion is too small to matter.
What is her evidence? Her evidence is “see it’s small.”
In grown folk land, we call that a rhetorical tautology. Instead of evidence supporting her conclusion, her conclusion is her conclusion.
Your teacher gets an F in science, and an F+ in sophistry (because skilled sophistry should not be so transparent. Come on!)
Additionally, she’s expelled for trying to fake expertise in atmospheric science with a four year degree in another field.
And condemon, really, why would you go to a proctologist for a broken finger?
The rise of CO2 is only one part of the equation, and if we can reduce the amount that humanity emits then why don’t we?
This example completely ignores deforestation, the loss of biodeversity, the rising acidity of oceans, the dying off of algae and coral, and the many other factors involved in climate change.
When these factors reach their tipping point it’s all over. Call it Kobayashi Maru.
Dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico, loss of wetlands…
Alabama Power company makes MUCH more money pumping mercury and CO2 into the air in my community than they would cleaning up their act.
And that crap video circulates to serve as a dispute? It’s insane.
Loss of biodiversity? Are you not a proponent of evolution. I’m going to need evidence regarding the algae and coral, because a rise in C02 increases organic activity.
What is the normal range for C02 concentration and oceanic acidity?
Deadzones are more than likely not really dead, but this and loss of wetlands are natural shifts…nothing you can do about it. Hey, I liked the crap video, I thought it very fitting and funny but your reaction was priceless. Try this one; http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#
I would argue that a loss of biodiversity is counter to evolution. Owing to the theory that we all started from the same single celled organism, and now there are billions of different lifeforms on the planet earth. I posted the answer to your CO2 and ocean acidity question with your other comment.
And yes we can prevent a loss of wetlands. We aren’t talking about something affected by the 20,000 year wobble of the earth that causes the Sahara to alternate between desert and grasslands. We’re talking about here one year, gone the next. Or here one day, plowed over and filled in the next. Even though the economic benefits of wetlands (filtering and cleaning of water, prevention of flooding) in the long term, outweigh the short term economics of destroying them.
And the video isn’t crap. It’s a piss poor argument. I mean just a bad argument.
I didn’t find the answer to my question; What is the normal range for C02 concentration in the atmosphere and the normal acidity level for the ocean?
There’s more answers for you here;
To answer your CO2 questions, in the air it’s supposed to be 280-300ppm. In the ocean, it gets tricky because CO2 is dissolved and changes into other elements, so the best way to measure is to look at the pH balance of the ocean. Which is currently at 8.104.
To engage your article: You’ve already stated that governments are using this to create control, and you believe that behind closed doors Democrats and Republicans are really working together, so your citing of a senate report would seem contradictory. Should I believe your previous arguments, then that reports validity is instantly called into question.
Furthermore, yours’ and Sandlers’ definitions of cap and trade are faulty. They aren’t commoditizing air, but CO2. A greenhouse gas and as you’ve stated merely a trace element in the atmosphere. So why are you concerned if an exchange in Chicago is trading a trace atmospheric element? .04% is hardly a majority market share.
Lastly, I would urge you to compare 400 scientists and the current 31,000+ scientists against the entire body of scientific work. Also, that 31,000 number is suspect, because its definition of scientists includes engineers and others who are not scientists in the pure sense of the word. I would argue that misrepresentation is more damning to the deniers position than anything else.
Nobody knows the norms for C02 concentration and oceanic acidity; there is insufficient data over a too short a period of time to determine.
“To engage your article:” you have superimposed two different posts, don’t convolute the argument by using excess information, because you have misrepresented and/or misunderstood both.
“Furthermore, yours’ and Sandlers’ definitions of cap and trade…” This was not my definition but of the cofounder, Richard Sandor of the biggest cap and trade market in the world, tell him he’s got the definition wrong. “He believes that wealth will be created in the commoditization of air and water. Here’s another source; http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/dyp_cxchf_china-can-be-pre-eminent-market-for-air-and-water-trading-sandor-717202.html
Not to mention C02 is a component of air, generally called oxygen, controlling one is definitely controlling all. Was this an attempt to negate, downplay or ignore Obama’s involvement in this organization which would be reason enough to push through cap and trade?
I’ll admit, I laughed. Good post.
Thanks, was wondering when your next comment was going to come. What do you think so far? Am I becoming just another environmental blog?
Well, you’re the only environment guy I bothered putting on my blogroll. I like it.
I’m going to need to start an endorsement page and put that quote front and center on it
Pity, this was shaping up to be an interesting debate. Oh well.
For the sake of friendship, I’ll ignore your beliefs about the corruption of government, interesting definitions, and personal attack on my supposed closed mindedness if we ever debate again. In fact I’ll ignore your entire stated and published position on everything.
To make sure there are no hard feelings: I apologize for reading your blog, understanding your position, and using your own arguments against you. Forgive me for vigorously debating your position.
You didn’t use my arguments against me, you misunderstood another post I publishe d and interjected it into the argument.
Don’t even pretend you tried to understand my position, you were too busy coming up with an opposing argument to refute my position.
Bottom line…it’s not about the environment, it’s losing American sovereignty, total destruction of the middle class and the American economy to give way to a one world government. Not that I’ld expect you too, but don’t take my word for it; read the Copenhagen Treaty, the Cap-and-Trade bill and then read revelations. Man is inherently evil, give him power as in government, this equals corruption.
There is no argument…look around!
For the record it’s “revelation.” And you state in another comment that “Government officials are supposed to be public servants they are employed by us, we should have the say how everything is run not the other way around.”
Yet you state above that man is inherently evil, and power “as in government” will corrupt him. Make up your mind! You want us to run the government (which we do), yet you think that everyone is corrupted by power.
And yes I did read your position, I do understand where you’re coming from. Except your arguments lack cohesion. I get it, you’re worried that this will usher in a new era of government control, greed and corruption.
You’re right, there is already corruption, greed, and government control. At the very least we could use it to benefit everyone and everything on the planet.
I stand by what I said: You have stated before that you believe there is no real difference between republican and democrat, that government corrupts and is seeking power, but then you cite a government written document by one of those “corrupted individuals” you think are using global warming to seize power? How does that even fit into your world view?
And if it really were the case, wouldn’t we have seen some larger moves toward global climate controls? Instead of just rhetoric and back pedaling?
Look around yourself, you have no argument. Beyond fear mongering and bad research funded by companies that stand to lose billions of dollars
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.