"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." The Statue of Liberty (P.S. Please be so kind as to enter through the proper channels and in an orderly fashion)

Location: Arlington, Virginia, United States

Friday, March 23, 2007

The Facts

Above: The baby sun of Teletubby Land

The facts to keep in mind when being bombarded with hysterical propaganda by the anti-CO2 Global Warming crowd are short and simple:

(1) The premise that increases in manmade CO2 correlate with a rise in atmospheric temperature is a faulty one (if not outright false):

Temperature records and reconstruction show the opposite effect.

"The Planet" began belching out significant increases in manmade CO2 during the economic boom after WWII.

Global temperatures concurrently dropped for three decades.

It should be added that prior to WWII--and the postwar industrial boom-- temperatures had been rising for over a century.

(2) An increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere does trap heat. However:

CO2 makes up .054 (point-zero-five-four)% of all gases in the atmosphere.

Of that .054%, greenhouse gases make up a small percentage.

Of that small percentage, 95% is water vapor (a greenhouse gas).

Of that 95%, 99.999% is of natural origin.

Human beings cause .001% of remaining water vapor and a small percentage (if not percentile) of the remaining 5% of greenhouse gases.

If that's not infinitesimal, then it's negligible (perhaps as negligible as a temperature increase of one degree over a century, which does not discount a correlation per se, but certainly one not worthy of critical mass hysteria; au contraire, warm weather is always cause for celebration).

(3) Earth does not have a "normal" temperature we can use as a standard (unlike human babies). It is subjective to the status quo, and anyone fixated on any one degree and stamps it with scientific "approval" is a humbug.

(4) The "baby with the fever" is the flaring sun.

That's all you need to know.

Enjoy the beautiful, balmy weekend.


Blogger Kelly said...

AAAAAAHH!! Don't scare me like that!!

I used to use Teletubbies to get a dozen cub scouts to behave.

After I get over my shock I may come back to comment about the rest.

Besides, kids are saying we need to go.

5:20 PM  
Blogger John said...

Please stop showing the Teletubbies to the cubscouts.

I know it has a narcotic effect and could help kids chill out, but so do narcotics.

Anyway, the more I look into this Global Warming business, the more sinister the scam begins to appear, for this reason: It doesn't take a rocket scientist to get to the bottom line of this (which is that CO2 makes up a piddling .054 of the atmosphere, and a percentage of that are greenhouse gases, and 95% of those are water vapor, and only .001% of that is caused by humans), and the pushers of The Agenda can't be so dense as to miss it.

They *must* know that they're pushing junk science. They must know that manmade greenhouse gases cannot *possibly* influence global temperature by the premise of CO2 emissions any more than bovine flatulence-- or burps--does (Houstonmod's ignorant heckling notwithstanding, there is actually *well-endowed* research going on that is trying to figure out which end of the cow--moo or poo--causes our baby planet to get feverish--inconclusive to date, btw).

So what's up?

Follow the money (in the form of grants), and listen carefully to the proposed "solutions" and recognize that they oh-so-conveniently accomplish what far-left environmentalists, socialists, and communists (all three being birds of a feather) have been prescribing for over a century (but have been rejected under their respective banners): Regulation of the free market and control of industry.

We should look very carefully at the players who decide energy policy in the United States (this carbon credit business came out of nowhere and may very well reach everyone's doorstep soon). I'm not too worried about Bush's people (even though Bush has shown a disturbing tendency to cave since the mid-term elections, beginning with the sacking of Rummy and then paying lip-service to the Kyoto crowd in SOTU), but this new congress is going to make much mischief.

11:24 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

I would actually threaten to make them hold a teletubby (we used to have one or two at our house before I wisened up.) if the cub scouts didn't behave. I did it in jest. They all towed the line, nonetheless cause not one of them wanted to be caught holding one.

Anyway, on Global warming...the money trail is always a good starting point, but ya, POWER is very high up there on the motivator list.

Think about it...the whole idea of "walking" communities and reliance on "public" transportation leaves us dependant on government.

It's not just global warming. It's protection of the environment as a whole. Yes, it is good to have cleaner air, but when we are preventing progress because a wet section of ground could be a bird habitat...or even a potential bird habitat...we should look at WHO is behind the opposition to that progress. WHO is benefitting from this? And WHY???

1:00 AM  
Blogger John said...

Consider who and/or what has the most to lose: Industrialists and Capitalism (considered by the left to be the roots of all evil--unless, of course, they donate lavish sums of money to their political parties and causes).

I'm not arguing about how much pollution is acceptable. Pollution stinks and we most certainly should pick up after ourselves and keep the environment as sanitary and fresh as we can.

Few people think twice about the fact that we can't--or shouldn't--drink water straight from a lake, river, or stream today, though we could have a century ago.

However, despite the fact that the global heating crowd tries to link their agenda to fighting pollution (something we can all agree on), that's neither here nor there when insisting that manmade CO2 is responsible for greenhouse grilling (which if it is, as argued, means that our means of production need to be curtailed--if not choked).

5:24 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home