Manmade CO2 Is At 11!
The Global Warming "scientists" are calling for the removal of a slice of the huge pie of atmospheric gases for the purpose of manipulating global temperature but they're more like folk music-loving critics in a giant opera house trying to adjust this or that pitch in a section of the London Philharmonic (that has an invisible conductor) by forcibly removing a child in the gallery who is blowing a little plastic whistle and adding an extra note (that only a dog could hear) to a stave of the entire musical score. The ratio of the child's note to the symphony in full swing is analogous to the contribution of manmade (i.e. Made in America) CO2 to Earth's atmosphere, and the suppression of that "synthetic" CO2-- shaving off a percentile of a percentile which itself is a percentile of the entire atmospheric volume-- should supposedly adjust the accoustics of the whole orchestra comprised of stringed, wind, and percussion instruments. In the meantime, the "scientists" who insist on altering the economic paradigm to enable the removal of the manmade superfluity (by conveniently controlling the means of production-- which rings a bell much more discordant than a little whistle) try to convince everybody why we must-- and how they will-- by doing stuff like this with the data at hand:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhVWJgIzftE
posted by John | 7:43 AM
10 Comments:
It has a lot to do with "implied causality."
"CO2 rates are rising, and the Earth is warming, so therefore CO2 causes warming" is a kind of faulty reasoning that dominates a lot of people's thinking. The thought that the reverse may be the correct relationship does not enter into it because it is a political football for the left.
"More driver's licenses are being issued, and the number of cars on the highway is increasing, so therefore driver's licenses cause cars" is a similar syllogism. It *could* be that it is the increasing number of drivers that create both more driver's licenses to be issued and more cars to be built. By the same token, we know that the sun's output both varies and has a huge impact on the world's weather systems.
Turn pollution ALL the way up to 11. Awesome!
Oh, I think I have just discovered another activity for Al Gore! He can defend himself in a court of law!
I am not sure that this is a really prudent move, but it is a measure of the back-lash against this silly movement.
And, FJ, I am not arguing against being better stewards of our planet. I hate to see people throw a kleenex on the ground, and I think reducing our waste is a great idea. I think it is silly that a huge portion of my grocery bill is taken up by paying for elaborate packaging, and I hate driving through Dallas because of having to suck in cubic feet of carbon monoxide among other things. What I oppose is raping our economy based on a scientific theory that does not have the luxury of being a fact.
Phelonius: Regarding whether CO2 has any role in temperature, as I commented in the last post:
"I don't want to suggest that the Global Warmers have it backwards (although it has crossed my mind), i.e. that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 actually causes cooling. The Greenhouse Effect is well established, as is CO2's part in that (i.e. it is a greenhouse gas and so does trap heat), but it is a small part, and manmade CO2 production is an even smaller part of that, so there are obviously bigger forces at work that override the very small part we influence."
Are you saying that increased levels of CO2--in and of itself--can actually cause cooling?
FJ: What Phelonius said. I'm all for a cleaner planet and glad that there are regulations in place to check land, sea, and air pollution (Phelonius, a Libertarian, might disagree about the regulations part). Not only that, but considering the fact that less than a century ago we could drink straight out of most creeks, streams, rivers, and lakes but now can't--or shouldn't--more regulations might be called for. However, that's neither here nor there when discussing the merits or demerits of Global Warming theory.
What is uncalled for is the fear-mongering alarmism coming from the Al Gore types and the insistence upon the "consensual facts" of Global Warming when much of the science is theoretical, hypothetical, or out-&-out lies while scientists outside the "consensus"--a sizable enough number-- are slandered and censored and grassroots sceptics like myself are called names like "Head-in-the-Sand Deniers" and those in industry "climate criminals."
Meanwhile, there's something fishy about a "science" which demonizes licensed scientists outside the "consensus" while using politicians and actors and musicians as the authoritarian frontmen for that science.
And then there's the science itself which has problems even a layman can identify, and I'm not talking about giant snowmen in March, but stuff like methodologies for measuring global temperatures today as well as those for the past few millennia, as gauged by an arbitrary standard. Then there's the record of fallacies propagated by "scientific infallibility" (e.g. "Global Cooling/2nd Ice Age in the 1970's). And there's the e rhetoric that is not the language of science but more of political propaganda.
I'm not arguing, just commenting on the "relativity" of many standards...
context is everything.
I like clean air too. I think that we should be honest about the reasons for clean air.
I was listening to a commercial on the radio for the local power plant. It started out talking about the debate on global warming and about the debate surrounding it. The commercial went on to say that regardless of whether there is global warming or what causes it they like having clean air and will do their part to help with that.
FJ: The Global Warming Theory--sorry, I meant "facts"-- insist that an infinitesimal increase in the sliver of the slice of CO2 in the greenhouse gases pie compounds the preponderance of water vapor by a chain reacting--and accelerating-- geometric progression.
The process is understandable, but it's an all-other-things-being- equal kind of game that seems to ignore--or make dismissive excuses for-- stuff like solar flaring, wind currents, CO2 belching volcanoes, and the deforestation caused by both man and nature.
Also, the submitted, decimalized, pin-point accuracy of how much CO2 is produced by each and every CO2 producer (ranging from volcanoes to bovine flatulence, with Exxon-Mobil coming in first--if not after bovine flatulence and/or exhalation, the study of which--moo or poo?--was actually the topic of "serious" publicized research) is incredible.
And indeed there is the relativity of standards.
The goal-posts can be moved easier than Billary's standards for victory.
Kelly: Of course.
perhaps we should all just stop breathing for about three minutes everyday?
That's a great idea Nanc. I bet if we all held our breath for a doable 30 seconds a day, why...
NANC! That's a GREAT idea!
There could be a World Hold Your Breath Day where every human being--billions and billions of us-- holds their breath for thirty seconds to Save the planet!
That's a LOT of CO2.
Post a Comment
<< Home