Messing with Mother Nature
by Jeffrey JenaIn the spirit of full disclosure I am a global warming/climate change denier. I’m not even sure what the term “climate change” means. The climate is changing all the time. Most of us out here in Flyover Land call it “the weather.”
I have often posed the follow question to my global warming alarmist friends. Let’s just say for a minute that you are right and that the slight increase in the average temperature worldwide is caused by man and not a natural variation as seen throughout geological time. Why is this bad? What is the optimal temperature for the survival of the planet? What is the optimal temperature for human civilization to thrive? I live in the Midwest, does Florida have the copyright on good weather? If it heats up just a few degrees I could be wearing shorts and playing golf at Christmas.
Hotter weather would mean longer growing seasons in the upper Great Plains and southern Canada. Greenland didn’t get its name because the early Vikings were color blind, it was green. When I say green I mean green with foliage not “green’ as in taking a stupid canvas bag to the grocery store that won’t give you a plastic bag for your food but will be glad to sell you as many as you want. They’re back in aisle four between the Styrofoam cups and plastic knives and forks.
So, today I am reading my local paper and see an article where the President’s science advisor, John Holdren, has an idea about getting the temperature back down. He says we should shoot a bunch of dirt into the upper atmosphere. I don’t want anyone to get the wrong idea, I am not anti-science. I like science. But I like my science to have been field tested and verified by the scientific method. These guys who want to start shooting crap into the upper atmosphere are the same guys who wanted to spread coal dust and other dark material over the polar icecaps a few years back because they thought the Earth was getting to cold. The same enviro-maniacs who demanded we go out and buy a bunch of “green” light bulbs that turned out to be loaded with mercury.
These are the same kind of folks who don’t want us to eat foods made safer with irradiation and won’t eat a genetic engineered tomato. Geo-engineered weather is not like an ill-considered economic policy, you can’t go back and correct your mistake or hope inflation and future growth will rescue you. I am reminded of the Strother Martin line from Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid, “Morons, I am surrounded by morons!”
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
171 Comments
Climate change is histerical, but not very funny or real. Not real in the sense of CO2 as the bad guy.
Again, another crisis to be exploited by Team Butthead.
Is it time for a new POTUS yet?
Yes, the same type of folk who don't want nuclear power plants, the only real choice for green power.
And I'm going to shamelessly steal this to impress my friends, 'The climate is changing all the time. Most of us out here in Flyover Land call it “the weather”'.
A new twist on an old saying, "If you don't like the Earth's weather, wait a few hours, Obama will CHANGE it."
Whenever I hear about climate change, and how we need to stop it, I respond by asking, "If the climate is changing to adapt to changing conditions on Earth, shouldn't we just let it do its thing?"
They give me the same vapid look that the guys who dump foreign fish into ponds to heal a "problem" give me when I ask them what the possible repercussions of their actions might be.
First of all "Global Warming" is not about the planet heating up, it's about decreasing the prosperity of the American middle class which is a poke in the eye to nations who do not have the same living standards. The "warming" part of it was used because the planet was heating up (due to solar activity) the past decade (as was Mars which, so far as I know, has little man-made activity). Now it's "Climate Change". Of course the climate changes. It's called SEASONAL ACTIVITY! Prior to "Climate Change" the Watermelons (Green on the outside, pink or red inside) were howling about a new Ice Age. We also had a threat of "Nuclear Winter" and a "Population Bomb". All had one thing in common. AMERICAN PROSPERITY was a problem.
When someone can tell me what MAN did to melt the ice that covered Kentucky, then I might listen to their 'man-made' climate change hoopla.
It is just another way for the liberals to make us 'do as they say not as they do' and line their pockets with carbon credit payments and TAXES!
If you're on a conspiracy bent, how 'bout this one. A cabol of globalist came up with an idea that would shift power to Lichtenstein. They picked something so subjective and impossible to refute, and started hammering the message. First in the ivy halls, these pontificators of nonsense started buying their own BS, and it grew and grew. Now they've got what they want. The US's insatiable crave for more energy is stimied – no nukes, no refineries, and yet they are the first to power up their computers and complain about our irresponsible state of affairs. Either that or George Soros wants his picture on the ten dollar bill, but it's Lichenstein people, they want to rule the world!
Arghhh! Mr. Jena, you miss the point badly. Climate change is a political issue. It has very little to do with the veracity of the science either for or against. People need to understand that the ideology of the left is entirely contrived for political purposes. Democratic politicians are not asking themselves "what can we do to save the planet?" They are entirely absorbed with the question "how can I benefit from this politically?" America is facing a takeover by socialist oligarchs. If they succeed, we face a permanent loss of our liberties.
I think he watched too many superspy movies as a kid. Now he's using our tax money to buy himself a weather machine.
Tree huggers drive me up the wall. In the 70's, we were headed for a new ice age. Then we had to panic over global warming. Now, it's climate change. Can't they be a little consistent in their idiocy?
Global warming/freezing/warming/freezing is a fraud — pure and simple. The earth heats and cools. Fact. We've been a huge snowball in space, we've been a big old dry rock. A few thousand years ago (seconds in Earth time), ice covered most of North America and Europe. It's wasn't cave-fired industrial output that caused that ice to melt, and it's not modern industrial output that is causing the earth to warm… er cool. The key fact in all of this, is that the "greenhouse gases" that we produce, account for 3% of total greenhouse gases — the rest come from active volcanoes and rotting foliage.
It really pis…s me off that these socialist bastards are not only making in-roads in destroying our economy under this stupid theory, but they're also (1) keeping us from considering more serious threats — like antibiotics in the water or DNA damaging chemicals, (2) causing food prices to be inflated because of the ethanol boondoggle, (3) keeping us from gaining energy independence because they oppose drilling, and (4) giving conservation itself a bad name.
There is one consistency in their thinking — stop capitalism.
Hockey stick graph.
Not only did we call global climate change 'weather' in the way back time, but global warming was called 'summer' and global cooling was known as 'winter'. Yeah, I know – silly us.
I'm not one for conspiracies but the global warming issue is a de facto conspiracy. NBC "Green Week" is a great way to get the heat off of GE for polluting, it wins them favor with Democrat politicians because it plants their message in the minds of viewers. Global warming will soon be used as a way for companies to downsize using the excuse "we closed that plant because it didn't meet environmental standards." Global warming and the environment are also often used by people from let's say the electricity industry to stop competition from let's say coal by funding so called greenhouse gas legislation that legislates the destruction of their competitor (this has been documented). Also "green" politicians make money from corporate donors who need their "stamp of approval" for their next polluting project. Your vote as a politician is much more expensive if there's a reason it needs to be bought.
http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/
What I find particularly nettlesom is that Mr Holdren is a manifestation of B-Ball Barry's vast powers of executive judgment and wisdom. If one checks the above website, one will find that nature is spewing tons of dirt into the upper atmosphere. I appreciate 'brainstorming' as much as the next guy but some ideas are never meant to see the light of day.
Having said all that, the worst part of this de facto conspiracy is like other posters have pointed out it gives Democrats a way to promote their agenda to control every facet of our lives. I posted the above because this global warming craze is dangerous if you're a pro-free enterprise conservative or an anti-corporate liberal.
CFLs are not "loaded with mercury." They have less mercury than the fluorescent bulbs which are probably over your head right now, yet you don't bitch and moan about those. Why don't you admit that the only reason you are against them is because someone else supports their use? You are simply reactionary, childish, and ignorant. I am embarrassed for you.
You guys were also the "ozone deniers" that were against banning CFCs. In 20 years we were able to successfully stop and stabilize the spreading ozone depletion over the southern hemisphere, despite idiots like you fighting to continue production of the harmful chemicals.
Now of course you move on to your next battle against the evil scientists. You claim "I’m not even sure what the term “climate change” means", yet you just know it's not true? How? Have you read any of the 436,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject? No, you take pride in ignorance. You are like a school child who thinks it's not cool to be smart. You think book learnin' is for the "elite" and they are out to get you. The anti-intellectual sentiment on the right is strong and runs parallel to the nationalist, fascist fervor that you stir up to get the uneducated behind you. This is why you will always lose the vote among the college educated, and as we improve education in our country, you will continue to lose by wider margins. The future is bleak for your archaic ideology
Look at the troll write, write troll write.
blah blah blah same old ignorant talking points
For the last century or so, leftists have been obsessed with mass murder (think Eugenics, "The Population Bomb", abortion, euthanasia, Hitler, Stalin, The Killing Fields of Cambodia, etc).
What better way to legitimize their desire for mass murder than to declare that the very breath we exhale is a toxic pollutant.
Carbon Credit/Climate Change Scam = Al Gore's Consolation Prize for losing in 2000.
Find someone who' s still squawking about that election (there's millions of them) and you'll find they're also the most fanatical, mindless green weenies around. Facts don't matter to them. They're so emotionally attached to "Everything Al" that they simply can't admit that they've chosen unwisely. Like many battered women (and 'Metrosexual Bromantics'), they're going to stand by their man, no matter what, because they 'love' him. Naturally, Al knows this and milks it to the max.
His 'wives' aren't going to call the
real scientistspolice. And even if thereal scientistspolice showed up — maybe because the neighbors called — they'll distract or even fight thereal scientistspolice for him while he makes his getaway out the back. I honestly don't think I've ever seen someone so slimy. This is just my slant on it. Sorry to get all "ranty" on Easter. Maybe I should go hug a bunny, or something.I’m not ready to hop on board any black helicopters, (unless I can man the gunners seat), or swear on my kids heads that Area 51 is hiding space critters, but it still makes one pause and ponder the questions surrounding the “why’s” and “wherefores” of the great climate hoax.
Either way I don’t think this ☞ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynUacAgNPiQ&fe...
can be a very good solution to it all, and indeed in the end, might just start a irreversible cascading effect that would be most unpleasant for all of us.
“Trust the science and the scientists.” Ya, just about as much as I trust congress to clean up their messes with our money.
Not Over.
Hey antefascist, why don't you go find some facts to back up your diatribe? Links idiot, links.
Hey antefascist, why don't you go find some facts to back up your diatribe? Links idiot, links.
Bravo.
http://www.alistz.net
Bravo.
http://www.alistz.net
And yet we can give 436,001 papers saying this is a bunch of hogwash. Al Gore needed to make money and he's wheeling into the bank. Besides, weren''t you the crop of geniuses that banned DDT, that would have clearly saved millions in sub continental Africa? The track record aint so good.
I was there during the 1970's, and all though few people seem to recall it, the leftist propaganda of that day was less about a coming Ice Age, but was consistently about massive worldwide starvation. There was a consistent stream of magazine articles and weekly newspaper stories that all reported with complete certainty that scientists had determined, that by this current decade, the populations of China and India would be so large that it would be impossible for the world to produce enough food.
http://www.AlistZ.net
In my lifetime, the liberal media has fanned the flames of hysteria with Cold War Apocalypse ('60s), New Ice Age Apocalypse ('70s), the Overpopulation Apocalypse ('80s, still simmering), Y2K Apocalypse (late '90s), Meteor Strike Apocalypse (early 2000), and now Global Warming Apocalypse with a bonus feature 'Economic Armageddon and The End of Capitalism'. The liberal media – fear mongering at its finest.
In 20 years we were able to successfully stop and stabilize the spreading ozone depletion over the southern hemisphere
Since the Ozone hole shrinks when ice melts, how do you know that global warming isn't the cause of the 'stabalization' of the ozone hole?
http://www.AlistZ.net
Have you read any of the 436,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject?
Have you? If so, could you cite one scientist, if asked the question: "Given the geological history of the earth, do you believe there will be another Ice age?" who would answer, 'No"?
http://www.AlistZ.net
Have you read any of the 436,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject?
I feel lucky to have a person with so much knowledge on board! I do know that all global warming theory is based upon computer modeling. Could you cite the name of one climate model that is predicitve in nature? That is, if we load in the data from ..say… 1930 to 1960 it can spit out the temperature for the 1970's?
http://www.AlistZ.net
ECO-hypocrisy and lunacy? I don't know what you're talking about.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64e6aed6e1/eco-c...
I do think that global warming is a real problem (in fact, the biggest problem facing us right now), but I'll agree that shooting dirt into the atmosphere may be a real bad idea. Something like that could have real repercussions.
I guess you will stick to OMG THEY HAVE NUKES BOMB THE BROWN PEOPLE!!!1!1
"436,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers…"
Name 5.
I'll just wait for you over here at my kitchen table eating my chocolate bunny till you deliver.
"This is why you will always lose the vote among the college educated, and as we improve education in our country…"
It should read as follows: "As the left improves their indoctrination of the young, empty minded "eco-nazis" by the elite 1968 hippy losers turned collage professors"
Not Over.
"Have you read any of the 436,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject?"
No I haven't. But I do find it very strangely delightful that the number of these papers happens to be a perfectly rounded number like 436,000. It's almost as if you just made up that number for your response. And judging from your wording, I'm led to believe that ALL 436,000 agree that global warming IS and that it is caused by MAN.
Hmmm, would this classify as one of those Man-Caused Disasters that Sec. Napolitano referred to in her testimony?
And once again, the pigs enable this swill.
It should read as follows: "As the left improves their indoctrination of the young, empty minded "eco-nazis" by the elite 1968 hippy losers turned collage professors"
Exactly right. It took me a few years to shake off the liberal haze left by my college professors. It takes an independent thinker to be willing to look beyond what you're spoon fed in college. Unfortunately not enough people are willing (or able) to do that.
I'm going to be my simpleton self by saying something simple: I hate those damned bulbs. They're ugly. They throw ugly light. They look ridiculous in any of my light fixtures. I hate that moment of anticipation wondering if the damn thing is actually going to come on. And when it's time to shuffle off this mortal coil, I'm going to break one open and take a big drink of mercury. Give me tungsten, or give me death!
I was ready to make the same point.
From my first year in school, I was in fear of man ending the world until I started noticing that not a single one of their predictions had come true (I think I started wising up about 6th or 7th grade). By the time I reached adulthood, my contempt for these lemming fear mongers could not have gone lower.
I shouldn't be surprised, but what amazes me about the whole climate change issue is how mainstreamed and accepted it's become. Maybe it's more overt here in California, but the issue isn't even debated here, it's considered an accepted fact. Don't bother arguing the point, it's a done deal as far as this state is concerned. I see stuff on TV everyday that refers to climate change and how we can contribute to whatever "solution" they're peddling. Every time I go to the grocery store I'm one of the few who doesn't bring in my own "green" bags. The libraries are selling them now too. If you try to say you don't believe in man-made climate change and think the "cap and trade" system is b.s. people look at you like you're crazy.
Now my theory is a little more dire than the Stalinist mass murderers. I am talking about the Terminator and Matrix end of days story line. Didn't scientists scorch the sky so the machines would not get there energy from the Sun? Do you think that the scientists that got that idea wrong were also "pinkies from Columbia and Harvard"? Good thing that their science fiction only messes up the planet in Hollywood.
See even dumb ideas like the one posted above cannot effect the planet at all, because there mind is bigger than there actual ability. They are career educators never able to use there talents to fulfill their ideas and theories. They are just men like all of us, and it is people that cannot humble themselves to the magnitude of the planet and the true powerlessness of man in relation to the planet, that have these ideas that we can change the climate for good or worse.
The problem is that there fear mongering and sci-fi theories do effect other aspects of our lives. No more DDT brought more malaria, "green" light bulbs are filled with mercury, the in ability to drill for new water is killing California and strict unreal pollution standards make the lives of the poor and middle class harder to live.
But those career politicians and educators have no need for concern because they are rich and have never had to actually use there actual abilities or test their theories on themselves or there friends, and it is there "compassion" and "theories" that are really "cruel and unusual".
And forty years ago the scientists told us that the ozone layer was getting so thick from automobile emissions pollution that we had to delete certain additives from gasoline while adding others. It worked. The ozone layer thinned (at least in the northern hemisphere). Then came the scientists who told us how horrible it was that the ozone layer had thinned, a hole had been punched in it, and now we were all going to die of skin cancer. I can only draw one of two conclusions from this. Either the scientists have their heads up their wazoos, or air pollution is good for us.
Or maybe there's a third alternative. The scientists could do their work scientifically, without an agenda and without a given result which they must justify by juggling facts and statistics. And maybe they could factor in the natural causes which have always been by far the major cause of any climate change and quit coming up with the solution that everything would be just fine if all human beings would simply disappear from the face of the earth.
I simply break and dispose of the mercury filled CFL's along with the 4 foot, 2 foot and the U- shaped fluorescent bulbs in the garbage. It's hundreds every week because I'm the facilities manager for a building in downtown L.A.
I can dispose of them improperly because I calculated I earned some self-serving carbon credits by using them in the first place.
Gore isn't the only guy who can use the carbon credit scam to his advantage.
Liberals always like to accuse conservatives of wanting to use harmful chemicals and ruin the earth. Conservatives have no objection to new technology that WORKS JUST AS WELL OR BETTER THAN THE CURRENT TECHNOLOGY. Your little electric cars are just sweet I'm sure, but they only work for someone who lives in town. Hybrids handle horribly on ice and snow. Nuclear power is a good, clean alternative to coal, but they don't want that. We use the current design of cars because they work. Same with electricity and all the other technology. If your "green alternative" doesn't work as well, I'm not going to waste my money on it.
It is easy to correlate sun activity with the temperature on Earth, but government funded 'studies' will continue to promote global warming hysteria because it puts butter on their bread. The problem with most of these alarmist 'fads' is they look at one variable to explain the result, even if that variable is minor or one of hundreds of variables. The biggest greenhouse gas out there is water….and liberal oral output.
Wow, that's it, that's your snappy little comeback?
Moulitsas is probably gonna have to revoke your troll badge for that lameness.
Wow, that's it, that's your snappy little comeback?
Moulitsas is probably gonna have to revoke your troll badge for that lameness.
The agenda-driven scientists use a method called postdiction. They choose a result, and then tweak all the prior factors to prove the result is correct. Your 1930 to 1960 question is answered by "yes, if we load in the "RIGHT" data. They've been doing it for years in "scientific political polls." They predict the outcome of an election. They get it wrong. But were they really wrong, you ask? Not according to them. They turn to postdiction. They go back to their data, find where somebody "entered the wrong data," then they enter the "right data," come up with the real result, and claim they would have been right all along if someone hadn't screwed up the data.
Ground level ozone (smog) is a respiratory hazard caused by pollution and is totally different from stratospheric ozone, which prevents life from being destroyed by UV radiation. You are what Lenin called a "useful idiot." You know nothing about the issue but the right uses morons like you to staunchly defend pollution and raping of the ecosystem.
Anybody who denies climate change should read this article about Australia.
Even if you are in the camp that says climate change has nothing to do with mankind you cannot deny that there is a serious climate change going on in Australia. Worth a read.
Sorry, I figured that a real example of mass-murder by you and your ilk would be enough.
Thank you for sharing. Good bye.
Has anyone heard of any environmental impact studies done on the effect that windmill farms may have on climate. All of my computer models predict that they will cause massive droughts and worldwide famine. But since the Government hasn't paid me a billion dollars to make that study, I guess it doesn't count for much.
I was driving through Boston today, the wind was barely blowing, and I saw a wind generator outside of the IBEW union hall and the rotor was turning fast. I guess I was supposed to believe it was making electricity instead of using it.
You guys forgot the Peak Oil Apocalypse (1975-present), which is the only conspiracy theory I've ever heard conservatives buy into — albeit conservatives of the Buchanan/Paul/Rockwell stripe.
Climate change happens. Climate changed has happened since the beginning of the earth. Climate change will happen until the end of the earth.
What will they use dirt guns ?
anti:
(part 1) Calm down. I use CFLs — many of us (who think AGW is a scam) do because utility bills have steered us to them. But most of us WERE NOT using flourescent tubes before this; we were using incandescents. We weren't using Hg-carrying bulbs. The sudden shift in "Green" definition, especially by a largely uninformed and sycophantic press, is the point here.
(part 2)
As for CFCs, yes, many of us opposed the ban. I still do for some fire suppression applications where their safety and effectiveness is unparalleled and in some refrigeration applications. Actual correlation between atmospheric CFC concentrations and size and location of ozone gaps is weak; if you have better data please do reference it and I'll readily admit error. Also many of the replacements are not as friendly to users or system materials.
(part 3)
Finally, it's true: we DON'T know what "climate change" means in current context. Does it mean warming when temperature trends don't match projections of AGW enthusiasts? Does it mean fewer hurricanes (now that megastorms-due-to-AGW theories are bust)? Is resultant record-low hurricane activity of the past 18-24 months bad or good, and is it bad only if you can connect it to anthropogenic causes? There are MANY peer-reviewed scientific theories on the subject (ex-Veep Gore's presentation which included "increasing rates of global catastrophe" was not among them by the way), and I have read at least dozens of them. Read those of the late 90's/early 00's and recognize how many are now quite clearly incorrect; then consider how meaningless "436,000" is.
The future is bleak only if we politically suppress science. As long as you and I can have these discussions openly without repercussions from official authority, we'll be fine.
"You guys were also the 'ozone deniers' that were against banning CFCs. In 20 years we were able to successfully stop and stabilize the spreading ozone depletion over the southern hemisphere, despite idiots like you fighting to continue production of the harmful chemicals."
Thank you for the excellent example of how this con works.
Identify a naturally occurring phenomenon. Claim it is caused by some undesired behavior. Ban that behavior. Wait 20 years. When naturally occurring phenomenon changes, congratulate self for "fixing" it.
Whether it is slaughtering goats, sacrificing virgins, or changing light bulbs, this con has been going on since the beginning of man. The fact that you claim "science" supports you when the entire Climate Change hysteria completely ignores the scientific method is an especially nice touch.
As you probably don't know, here are the steps of the scientific method:
1. Ask a Question
2. Do Background Research
3. Construct a Hypothesis
4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6. Communicate Your Results
The "Global Warming scientists" seem to have skipped stepped 4 and gone straight to step 5. Sorry, but you can't claim that as science.
Oh man, I totally forgot about the Y2K apocalypse. As a software engineer, that one was so obviously over-blown. Despite that, the media and con men kept talking it up so they could sell you stuff.
My dad got suckered into one of those Y2K-preparation conferences. He actually went and stocked the house with flashlights, toilet paper and water. When the big day came, I was actually hoping for some chaos. Alas, all that I heard was the sound of conman laughing about all the money they made.
Of course, they too would tell you that there was no disaster because "they" warned everyone in time.
Also don't forget the SARS/Bird Flu apocalypses of the early 2000s.
I have no problem saying that the climate is changing. That's what climates do. A simple study of geology will reveal that.
Most importantly, climates changed in serious and drastic ways long before man existed.
I'm with you, if they mandate them as the One and Only Bulb, I'm going to redo my entire house to use gaslight. Why? Because they were cool, and would probably PO a hippie. I call it a double win.
Don't forget. There won't be any guns. Just dirt.
Climate has always changed, and always will. There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our own climatic era, which began with the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. During the Holocene there have been numerous sub-periods with dramatically varied climate, such as the warm Holocene Optimum (7,000 B.C. to 3,000 B.C., during which humanity began to flourish, and advance technologically), the warm Roman Optimum (200 B.C. to 400 A.D., a time of abundant crops that promoted the empire), the cold Dark Ages (400 A.D. to 900 A.D., during which the Nile River froze, major cities were abandoned, the Roman Empire fell apart, and pestilence and famine were widespread), the Medieval Warm Period (900 A.D. to 1300 A.D., during which agriculture flourished, wealth increased, and dozens of lavish examples of Gothic architecture were created), the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850, during much of which plague, crop failures, witch burnings, food riots — and even revolutions, including the French Revolution — were the rule of thumb), followed by our own time of relative warmth (1850 to present, during which population has increased, technology and medical advances have been astonishing, and agriculture has flourished).
I like the idea of tossing the dead ones onto the lawns of my local democratic Congressman.
Anti__Let me explain something to you, and I will use very small words so I am sure you know all of them__When I say I don't know what "climate change" means I am not being serious. I am a comedian, what we do is use satire, sarcasm and irony to point out the stupid and ridiculous. I am not sure if you know this but there are guys like me who espouse a liberal viewpoint. You might watch or read them and finally be able to grasp the concept.__Even though I grew up in eastern KY I did get me some book learning and have a couple of them thar degrees from colleges. Hey, I have even teached at one of them thar colleges.( See, that use of bad grammar was an example of sarcasm aimed at you due to your elitist attitude about the common man)__Now, a few questions for you. Can you define the word "fascist' without looking in a dictionary? Can you site any scientific study that says a lessening of the use of CFC's is solely responsible for the shinking of the "ozone hole"? Which has more Mercury, a traditional bulb or and Al Gore Special? Have you ever had a girlfriend who knew you were there?__
Interestingly, the only apocalypse that I think we should be worried about — the possibility that an asteroid could hit the planet and take us out, is the one the liberals don't seem to care about. Maybe because that would require us to move forward in technology and to protect ourselves? Hmmm.
The thing is Jeffery liberals can't grasp the concepts of sarcasm, satire and/or irony. Irony especially, most of them think it's like goldie but just made out of iron instead of gold. We've seen it before, and Top Men have validated the theory many times, far in excess of 436,000 statements made by them have shown this gap in "getting it." So I'm sorry to say, it's pretty much a lost cause.
And yeah the last sentence in your reply did make me do the proverbial LOL too.
"Have you ever had a girlfriend who knew you were there?" — Jeff, that's an AWESOME line!!
Plus, it pretty much sums up how I see this troll.
But don't forget, there's a gummint plan for everything. Gaslight requires gas. Gas causes the greenhouse effect (just ask the cows). We'll be dead in a week if the gummint doesn't stop it. So first they'll regulate it, then discover it's a natural resource that America could profit from thereby killing any plan to use it, then they'll ban all production and refining unless we buy it from a foreign enemy, and then they'll tax its use at 600% of base value. And then we can all read our books on recycled paper by the light of the silvery moon while humming kumbaya. I love it when a plan comes together!
Dear Mod
If the polar ice is melting why is Key West still above water? Dust bowl in Australia? Humm good thing nothing like that never happened in the US! Oh wait it did, seventy years ago! I'm glad Al gore straighted that out. Too bad OK and NE urned ito a giant wasteland.
So, cutting to the chase (no pun intended), we will soon be heating our homes by burning methane gas from Indian cows?
Hippies not dead bulbs right? Because broken glass would be really bad in the summer for children and small animals, but if you meant the other ones, yeah I'm with you.
Aww come on! I bought my pipe and deerstalker hat and everything. I had a plan!
Don't give them too many ideas Andrew, next they'll say that the Iranian and North Korean nuclear and missile programs are all just part of an multi-lateral drive for developing nations to be able to help with the Big Rock when it comes…
The biggest problem facing us? Looked at the stock market, Indian ocean shipping lanes, Iranian nuclear program, North Korean rocket program, national debt, military readiness, rising tide of Islamist tendencies in both the Middle East and Europe, Russian expansionism, unemployment figures, or energy reserves lately? And those are just for starters.
I'm sorry but "global warming" is far from the biggest problem facing us right now, in fact it's so low on the real problems totem pole that the only thing that immediately springs to mind as being less of a problem is the flair shortage at TGI Fridays due to the Chinese jacking the price of bling up. Seriously, buy a t-shirt and some shorts and start looking at the bigger picture here.
I wouldn't worry about that, they hate nuclear weapons. In fact, if we were building a nuke to move an asteroid out of the way, I suspect they would be screaming about the harm we were about to do.
While you're at it, newsjunkie, ask what MAN did to melt the polar ice caps on Mars.
Sure, I can answer your questions one at a time.
1) Fascism started under Mussolini in Italy and it is generally thought to have characteristics such as authoritarian nationalism, corporatism, social darwinism, and a sense of perpetual conflict between nations and races. Most historians place fascism on the far right of the political spectrum. However, since it has been used as a pejorative term, many people advocating right-wing government have tried to redefine it.
2) The scientific study about the ozone layer that you are looking for would be the one published by Paul Newman et. al. of NASA Goddard Space Center.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/world_a...
3) As I stated, a traditional fluorescent bulb contains more mercury than a CFL.
4) I have many female callers that may or may not know where I am at any given time.
Not unless the cows agree. They're sacred, you know.
I don't think you and Andrew are taking this whole thing seriously. I'm going to have to consult with Auntie Fascist.
I don't know what's funnier, your posting or your username.
Kudos!
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/climate_averages/de...
I read the article that you recommended and I found this site. This site allows you to see the maximum average temps for any area in Australia. You can see in a color coded map the temps over 10-year to 30-year averages. You can also choose time periods starting in the earl 1900's. It easy to use and you can compare times and averages, and see if the temperature has gone up or down and when.
Don't believe any article that quote a "leading weather prophet", Australia is always thought of as an apocalyptic waist land, Haven't you ever seen the Mad Max series?
If global warming is real, the consequences vastly outweigh those of your examples, even combined. The extinction of animal species, catastrophic natural disasters, health risks, etc, etc. Of course, I hope that you are right and that global warming is nothing but a myth. But if the fear-mongerers and liberals are right, it is no doubt the biggest problem facing us.
The consequences would outweigh any of those, even if combined? Even if Global Warming alarmists are correct (and there's no proof they are) it wouldn't mean the end of the world as we know it anytime soon. A nuclear exchange within the next couple of years, that would. The economy completely crashing worldwide tomorrow, that would. There are many more clear and present dangers, with immediate mass death results out there than whatever could happen, if global warming is real, in a few decades or centuries.
It's like worrying that since you left the iron plugged in that your house could burn down if you leave, while looking down the barrel of a loaded and cocked gun being pointed at you by a burglar. While there are all manner of dangers that could happen in the long run, if you're about to be shot in the face in the next 10 seconds they're all rather moot.
Ahh but see their hate for nuclear weapons are only the ones possessed by Western democracies, when a Third World despot wants nuclear weapons they're just trying to "level the playing field" which is proper in their minds.
I'm taking it very seriously, I mean I'm even going to have to cancel my violin lessons now too!
And gaseous.
Please no, I'll be good. She scares me. She might say something rude. Oh no!!
Sadly true.
Maybe she'll make us some pie though. Aunts do that right?
The Russians had the same idea years ago, but never implemented it. It's far fetched. I can see Barack Obama doing it because he thinks he's God.
What? Aren't you familiar with the exhaust pipe we've run between us and Mars?
Next time she shows up, we should ask.
No don't ask that, we really don't want to know what their answer would be.
I'm betting though their answer would have something to do with time traveling Mayan astronaut Templars…
You must be logged in to post a comment.