Skip to content

A Primer Against Enviromental Stupidity

I think the ‘chicken littles’ are finally clucking home to roost, after ramming all manner of irrational and patheticly biased laws through in various places.  These laws are now truly making problems for our economy, via the eco-demands to limit drilling for oil and not allowing us to build new refineries and nuclear power reactors.  Frankly, I think the people who support the measures that literally are damning our civilization back to the dark ages ought to be the ones forced to pay the higher prices and deal with the ramifications.  Instead, they are hanging on to their patheric little demands, trying to blackmail through political pandering as the present psuedo science that terrifies our poorly educated lawmakers.

I think there are places where ecology is important.  I don’t like pollution that destroys rivers or poisons the earth and causes birth defects and early death.  Businesses who flaunt their power and do truly harmful things that literally ruin communities and lives need to pay.  BUT - we don’t throw out an entire civilization with the pollution.  

One of the other things that truly angers me is this “green” fad.  It is a fad.  Truly annoying technology that is far worse than that which has been banned needs to be exposed to the light of day.  The problem is we’re going to be stuck with some very nasty light bulbs that are a heck of a lot worse than the bulbs they are replacing, so we aren’t going to be able to see cleary.  I think the whole lightbulb sceneario is a statement about the problems we are now facing, because people want feel-good quick fixes.  Dim Bulbs!

1.  CARBON FOOTPRINT STUPIDITY
FYI – Carbon is one of the basic building blocks of life.  If you delete it, you delete all life.  Of course then the Earth would be pure. What a crock! Basically carbon is the new buzz-word for some form of evil.

“…Rather than a metaphor for plague and scourge, our carbon footprint should be a life-affirming exaltation with primordial hopes of reproduction and immortality.  Carbon footprint as villain is temporal, transitory and self-absorbed-a nihilist and narcissist absurdity. Narcissus, you will recall, unable to return the affections of the nymph Echo, was consigned to forever seek the embrace of his own reflection and be captive to an illusion.  So what becomes of the illusion of the zero carbon footprint?  Where does the line of sight beyond a zero carbon footprint world lead?  Well, to steal a reference from philosopher Antony Flew in his essay on death, quoting  the apocalyptic words of Ludwig Wittgenstein, “Outside the visual field nothing is seen, not even darkness…the world in death does not change, but ceases.”…”

Reducing the Carbon Footprint is lethal to plant life  

“…While CO2  is not poisonous to animals, it is a necessary airborne fertilizer for plant life.  Reducing CO2 to slightly less than half of current concentrations would kill off all green plant life.  As concentrations increase, so do plant growth rates and harvests, and many greenhouses and conservatories add CO2 to the air to quickly grow healthy and productive plants.  Yet, we are told this trace gas is pollution.  We are told that CO2 causes global warming that far exceeds natural variation.  We are told, as a result, that we must be concerned about, be aware of and reduce our carbon footprint.  There is much scientific data showing CO2 has very little to do with any planetary warming let alone the catastrophic kind….”


2.  NOBLE FIRST AMERICAN ECOLOGIST MYTH
Then there is the myth of the noble “First American” native American ecologist.  That, too is a crock.  Michael Medved has a masterful column on the subject.

“…Political correctness portrays untamed America before European invasion as a natural paradise, where Indians maintained an exquisite ecological balance, living in a harmonious, idyllic relationship to the natural world. According to conventional wisdom, this pre-Columbian Eden flourished for peaceful millenia until brutal disuprtion by thoughtless, menacing and mercenary white colonists. Stewart Udall, one-time Arizona Congressman and later Secretary of the Interior for President Kennedy, became an early advocate of this point of view in his influential 1973 article, “Indians: First Americans, First Ecologists,” urging modern citizens to follow the native example of treating the landscape with love and respect.…The baseless myth of indigenous peoples living in respectful balance with their natural surroundings and making no mark on the space they inhabited for thousands of years plays an important role in most allegations of Indian genocide, because it reinforces the image of Natve Americans as childlike innocents, no more capable of protecting themselves than the noble beasts they supposedly revered. This vision supports an image of explorers and colonists as intruders, despoilers and mass killers, with nothing to offer the pure, proud peoples of the New World except for disease and exploitation, corruption and decadence, and feeds the toxic argument that Americans should feel guilty about the very origins of our civilization….”


3.  THE IMPORTANCE OF SUNSPOTS
Sunspots are a major factor in climate change – NOT MAN -  We are currently dealing with a very strange low in sunspots to the point where there is a fear of a small ice age.  It is amazingly egocentric to think that we - humans - can actually have a major effect on climate change on a day by day (normal) basis.

“…Incidentally, the Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton minima coincide with the colder periods of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from about 1450 to 1820. More recently it was discovered that the sunspot number during 1861-1989 shows a remarkable parallelism with the simultaneous variation in northern hemisphere mean temperatures (2). There is an even better correlation with the length of the solar cycle, between years of the highest numbers of sunspots. For example, the temperature anomaly was - 0.4 K in 1890 when the cycle was 11.7 years, but + 0.25 K in 1989 when the cycle was 9.8 years. Some critics of the theory of man-induced global warming have seized on this discovery to criticize the greenhouse gas theory….We do not know why the Sun spends part of its time in a magnetically quiescent state, and whether the sunspot minima occur with a regularity that is sufficient to predict when the next quiescent episode might occur.

At present there is no concern about another Little Ice Age. Recent satellite measurements of solar brightness, analyzed by Willson (4), show an increase from the previous cycle of sunspot activity to the current one, indicating that the Earth is receiving more energy from the Sun. Willson indicates that if the current rate of increase of solar irradiance continues until the mid 21th century, then the surface temperatures will increase by about 0.5� C. This is small, but not a negligible fraction of the expected greenhouse warming. 

The relationship between cycle length and Earth temperatures is not well understood. Lower-than normal temperatures tend to occur in years when the sunspot cycle is longest, as confirmed by records of the annual duration of sea-ice around Iceland. The cycle will be longest again in the early 2020’s…”


4.  VOLCANIC ACTIVITY
Volcanic activity is another cause of global climate change – NOT MAN.   This comes from a dim-wit global warming site.

“…One of the possible reasons for climate change on scales of centuries and millennia, like the Little Ice Age, is increased volcanic activity. Great volcanic eruptions release huge amounts of gases and aerosol particles which impact global climate by reducing the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, lowering temperatures, and changing atmospheric circulation patterns. The result is a cool summers and severe winters for the period that follows. Large-scale volcanic activity may last only a few days, although its influence on climate patterns lasts 5 years or so. Multiple eruptions (not necessarily from the same volcano) may be assumed for long-lasting spells of unusually low temperatures. …”

Now, some ACTUAL science on the subject.  Global Warming is causing earthquake activity.

“…Cites to a paper purportedly published by “Nujournal.net” - which seems to be nothing but a vanity webpage for Chalko. The linked “paper” basis for claiming that the “energy imbalance” is causing more earthquakes? Absolutely none. Chalko proves absolutely nothing in this two page joke of a “paper”. It is a joke to even call this junk science as there is no scientific content at all. The wire services will publish any horse manure so long as it is disguised as a press release on global warming at all - and so long as it is not skeptical…”


5.  NATURE IS STRONGER
Nature is stronger than human damage.  One of the things that annoys me the most about the stupidity of “global warming” and the whole green idiocy is the abject narcissism of the “green crowd”.  They assume (ass/u/me) that man is the sum total of the problem.  The problem of that fact is, aside from catastrophic nuclear war, or some nasty versions of pollution, man – human beings – cannot even begin to do damage to the planet the way nature can.  To think that man made global warming can trigger volcanic eruptions is junk science at its very best.   

6.  GREENLAND
Greenland - ever heard of it?  Want to know the history of GREENLAND?  It’s a frozen wasteland, right? If we are causing global warming, why is Greenland colder now that it was when we weren’t causing problems? The problem is the morons who drape themselves in the mantle of climate change are the fools who do not know history.  Those who don’t know history are damned to repeat it. 

“…In prehistoric times, Greenland was home to a number of Paleo-Eskimo cultures. From AD 984 it was colonized by Norse settlers in two settlements on the west coast on the fjords near the very southwestern tip of the island. They thrived for a few centuries, but disappeared sometime in the 15th century.
 Data from ice cores indicate that from AD 800 to 1300 the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a relatively mild climate, with temperatures similar to today. Trees and herbaceous plants grew there, and the climate initially allowed farming of livestock as in Norway. These remote communities thrived on farming, hunting and trade with Norway. When the Norwegian kings converted their domains to Christianity, a bishop was installed in Greenland, subordinate to the archdiocese of Nidaros. The settlements seem to have coexisted relatively peacefully with the Inuit, who had migrated south from the Arctic islands of North America around 1200. In 1261, Greenland became part of the Kingdom of Norway.

Around the 14th and 15th centuries, the Norwegian settlements vanished, likely due to famine and increasing conflicts with the Inuit. The condition of human bones from this period indicates the Norse population was malnourished. Main reasons appeared to have been soil erosion due to destruction of the natural vegetation for farming, turf, and wood by the Norse, a decline in temperatures during the Little Ice Age, and armed conflicts with the Inuit. Jared Diamond suggests that cultural practices, such as rejecting fish as a source of food and reliance solely on livestock ill-adapted to Greenland’s climate, caused by the mini-ice age, which resulted in recurring famines, with environmental degradation led to the abandonment of the colony.  However, other research has suggested that fish were a major source of food for the Norse Greenlanders from the early 1300s on.…” 

Please explain the above in terms of MAN MADE global warming. Well, you can’t. You probably also cannot explain why civilization has its most remarkable growth both intellectually and scientifically during those periods of ‘global warming’? 

7.  REAL SCIENCE
We had a warmer planet in recent geological times – get it warmer.  Not colder, warmer. Deal with it. Human beings have nothing to do with this.  It’s called NATURE. The junk science behind climate change is a total and complete fraud.  It isn’t real science.  If you can use this science to dispute my information, in a logical, “scientific” manner, without the emotion, name calling, damning to hell, tantrums, and threats, please feel free to do so.  I will rebutt with real, actual science and historical record.

“…Scientists who probed two kilometers (1.2 miles) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said Thursday the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed. DNA of trees, plants and insects including butterflies and spiders from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest. That view contrasts sharply with the prevailing one that a lush forest of this kind could only have existed in Greenland as recently as 2.4 million years ago. The existence of those DNA samples suggest the temperature probably reached 10 degrees C (50 degrees Fahrenheit) in the summer and -17 °C (1 °F) in the winter. They also indicated that during the last interglacial period, 116,000–130,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 5 °C (9 °F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away…”


8.  GREEN STUPIDITY - TOILETS
Green stupidity -  Low Flow toilets – if you have an old one, they use far more water than a decent old fashioned toilet did.  If you have a retro-fit one like I do in one bathroom, and a normal one in another bathroom, well, forget it.  It takes a minimum of 5 flushes to get the blasted thing to work.  I’ll take the old fashioned one any day of the week.  One of my friends was complaining about her fairly new one the other day.  It takes at least 4 flushes.

9.  LIGHT BULB STUPIDITY
More green stupidity – those darn lightbulbs.

10.  GORE
Al Gore is an idiot.

11.  RECYCLING IS GARBAGE
Garbage and trash recycling is a crock

“…It is better to recycle than to throw away. This is the most enduring myth, the one that remains popular even among those who don’t believe in the garbage crisis anymore. By now, many experts and public officials acknowledge that America could simply bury its garbage, but they object to this option because it diverts trash from recycling programs. Recycling, which was originally justified as the only solution to a desperate national problem, has become a goal in itself — a goal so important that we must preserve the original problem. It’s as if the protagonist of “Pilgrim’s Progress,” upon being informed that he could drop his sinful burden right there on the road, insisted on clinging to it just so he could continue the pilgrimage to get rid of it….EVERY TIME A SANITATION DEPARTMENT CREW PICKS UP A load of bottles and cans from the curb, New York City loses money. The recycling program consumes resources. It requires extra administrators and a continual public relations campaign explaining what to do with dozens of different products — recycle milk jugs but not milk cartons, index cards but not construction paper. (Most New Yorkers still don’t know the rules.) It requires enforcement agents to inspect garbage and issue tickets. Most of all, it requires extra collection crews and trucks. Collecting a ton of recyclable items is three times more expensive than collecting a ton of garbage because the crews pick up less material at each stop. For every ton of glass, plastic and metal that the truck delivers to a private recycler, the city currently spends $200 more than it would spend to bury the material in a landfill….””

The lunacy of recycling:

“…And that brings us the second type of contamination, food residues. Now, I have long heard of people running their mayonnaise or spaghetti sauce jars through the dishwasher before recycling them. But I had assumed this was an urban legend, since no rational person could justify the time and hot water need to run garbage through the dishwasher. To my surprise, it is actually easy to find examples of cities encouraging this lunacy. I found two examples very quickly, one from Beverly, MA, and one from Mason City, IL.  But it is surprisingly common all over the U.S., in towns large and small. Why would a city do this? Two reasons, and both of them are bad. The first we have already discussed: any costs imposed on citizens is avoided by city budgets strained by the irrational insistence on “recycle at all costs.” Cleaner glass is worth more as cullet, and citizens’ time and effort cost the city nothing. The second reason is more disturbing. A generation of Americans has been indoctrinated into a “save resources, recycle at all costs” mindset. “Recycle!” is used as a moral bludgeon. This is different from “Don’t Litter!” Littering is a collective action problem, a genuine social dilemma: cheaper for me to throw that cup out the window. But I myself would prefer a world where no one throws cups out of windows over a world where everyone does. “Don’t litter” is an attempt to solve a real problem. “Recycle, regardless of cost!” doesn’t solve a problem; it creates one. Laws requiring recycling harm me, the environment, and everyone else. We have to take prices into account, because prices are telling us that we can’t save resources by wasting resources….”


12.  GREEN CAN BE DEADLY
The deadly consequences of “green”.  MALARIA AND DDT!  Because of the stupidity of banning DDT to kill malaria based mosquitoes over 97 million people have died.

“…Goldman is headed by a wealthy San Francisco insurance magnate. Cedar Tree was begun by a Boston pediatrician. The California Endowment is headed by an African-American physician. All support good causes. But the millions they have given Pesticide Action, Beyond Pesticides and Physicians have exacted an unconscionable toll across Sub-Saharan Africa. Good deeds simply don’t offset this carnage. And while for-profit corporations are prosecuted and penalized for every accident – these toxic groups and their bankrollers are not held liable or accountable even for this horrendous disease and death toll.

Their actions violate basic medical, humanitarian and human rights principles. They violate the ethical and social responsibility standards that “progressive” activists say for-profit companies must follow. They ignore the Hippocratic Oath, and the need to help families insure their children against killer diseases, with comprehensive strategies that include DDT and other insecticides – and actually work. Goldman, Cedar Tree, the California Endowment and their compatriots must atone for their sins. How?

Stop funding these heartless pressure groups. Donate to organizations like CORE and Africa Fighting Malaria that are working with the WHO, USAID and PMI to end this needless slaughter, get electricity and other modern technologies people in the Third World – and enable them to stay healthy, work more productively, and build strong family and national economies that can afford modern homes with window screens. Buy some bed nets, and help train Africans in how to use DDT and other insecticides safely, responsibly and with minimal environmental impact, to reduce disease and save lives – now!

Then they can seek forgiveness from families who have lost loved ones – and atonement would be made….”

Some call it Green Power, Black Death   The demands for “Green” and bio-fuels are literally killing people in different parts of the world.  Bio-fuels should be banned as immoral.


13. SOCIALISM
 “Green” is an agenda of socialism. It is a fad.  It is false science worshiping a false god built on a false premise of warm and fuzzy do good feelings like the DDT ban that has cost nearly ONE HUNDRED MILLION lives in sub-Saharan Africa.  It’s called “social justice.”  It is collectivism, destroying our minds.  It is destroying our liberty.  It is robbing us of the ability to make our own decisions.  Humans are a stain on the face of the planet.  We are to be curbed.  We are to have our freedoms limited.  We can’t be allowed to be – free.  Ergo, the brainwashing begins. All of this reminds me of the Sylvester Stallone movie, Demolition Man. In order to protect humanity from all that hurt humanity – freedom was destroyed.

I know how to think for myself.  I refuse to join the hype.  My only “green” demand is that all forms of Styrofoam be banned. I don’t wear synthetic clothing.  I try to stay away from plastics.  And – I always choose plastic bags over paper, and absolutely refuse to be pulled into the hype of using those dumb promotional eco-friendly bags. I use my plastic shopping bags for trash bags.  If you really want to go green, dump the synthetic chemical mess that are those ugly athletic shoes (I’ve never owned a pair in my life and never plan to) and start wearing good leather eco-friendly designs from Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Stuart Weitzman, and the like.  Strike a blow for freedom.  I only carry fine leather hand-bags.  I don’t use the fake stuff from China.  I am not going to pander to “green” and flounder in a chemical bath!  I will also pledge to stay away from any form of synthetic form jewelry and wear only the finest gold and silver, and never any item that would cause pollution.

SOLAR CYCLES

Two years ago this cycle of solar cooling was predicted.

“…The work is based on research of past periods of climatic change, including the Little Ice Age in the 1700s when Europe shivered, the Thames froze over, and harvests failed. At the same time, solar activity dropped and sunspots disappeared from the face of the Sun.

Now leading scientists are predicting that we may soon enter such a period again - although they stress such cooling would only bring temporary relief to our overheated world. In the end, the Earth will still be swamped by huge rises in global temperatures, triggered by human activities, that will affect the planet over the next few decades.

‘If there was a period of low solar activity, it could give us a little more time to combat global warming and to introduce the curbs on the carbon emissions that we need to limit climate change,’ said Professor Joanna Haigh, of Imperial College, London…. Scientists have known for decades that the Sun’s output varies over an 11-year cycle. More recently, they have found what appear to be other, longer cycles affecting its output. These occasionally cause perceptible drops in solar radiation. For example, during the Little Ice Age, which affected Europe from 1650 to the end of the 18th century, astronomers noted that sunspots disappeared completely from the face of the Sun.

‘High numbers of sunspots are associated with increased solar output,’ said Professor Sami Solanki, of the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research, in Katlenberg-Lindau, Germany. ‘Sunspots occur when magnetic fields rip through the Sun’s surface and show that vast amounts of energy are being released deep within its heart. The impact on the Earth can be considerable.’

Studies have shown that when solar output is high, the climate tends to be hot. For example, over the past 30 to 40 years scientists believe the Sun has been particularly active, adding to Earth’s already considerable heating problems. However, things may change in the near future.

One study, by a group led by solar expert Leif Svalgaard of ETK - a consulting firm based in Houston, Texas - has predicted that in the next few years solar activity is set to drop to its weakest level in over a century, with sunspot numbers declining by about 40 per cent over the next decade. ‘Sunspot numbers will be extremely small,’ he said.

This point was backed by Cambridge solar physicist Nigel Weiss. ‘Periods of high solar activity do not last long, perhaps 50 to 100 years, then you get a crash,’ he told New Scientist. ‘It is a boom-bust system and I would expect a crash soon.’

The net result of this sunspot decrease could be to lead to an increase in cloud formation and also to a reduction in ultra-violet radiation reaching the atmosphere. Overall, it would bring about a 0.2C decline in global temperatures, according to Solanki and his colleagues.

That is only a tenth of the rise now predicted to grip the world over the next few decades, however. Not enough to save the Earth from a sweltering, overheated fate but possibly enough to provide a little breathing space in which humanity could take remedial action.

‘Just who might benefit most from any reduction in solar energy is hard to say at present,’ added Professor Haigh. ‘The Little Ice Age was mainly felt in western Europe and the rest of the world was relatively unaffected - possibly because meteorological effects cause solar radiation reductions to have localised impacts. That could happen again, though it is difficult to predict where.’…”


CLIMATE CHANGE?
When liberals wax poetic about climate change, they have a tendency to utilize the nascent science of climatology. They have a tendency to completely ignore the interaction of any number of fields from history to volcanology and everything in between.  The arrogant belief that man, outside of nuclear cataclysm can effect climate is almost laughable. True, massive fires have an effect on temporary cooling.   Meteorologists are working on cloud seeding with silver iodine to bring rain to drought stricken areas and to possibly lessen the effects of hurricanes. But, nature is a heck of a lot stronger than man ever was.

Currently we are going through a very strange period where almost all of the sunspots on the surface of the sun have disappeared, and has been this way for nearly 2 years.  Recently something like 100 of the top people in the field gathered at the International Solar Conference at Montana State University.

“…Dana Longcope, a solar physicist at MSU, said the sun usually operates on an 11-year cycle with maximum activity occurring in the middle of the cycle. Minimum activity generally occurs as the cycles change. Solar activity refers to phenomena like sunspots, solar flares and solar eruptions. Together, they create the weather than can disrupt satellites in space and technology on earth.  The last cycle reached its peak in 2001 and is believed to be just ending now, Longcope said. The next cycle is just beginning and is expected to reach its peak sometime around 2012. Today’s sun, however, is as inactive as it was two years ago, and scientists aren’t sure why. “It’s a dead face,” Tsuneta said of the sun’s appearance. Tsuneta said solar physicists aren’t like weather forecasters; They can’t predict the future. They do have the ability to observe, however, and they have observed a longer-than-normal period of solar inactivity. In the past, they observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period coincided with a little ice age on Earth that lasted from 1650 to 1700…”

MICHAEL CRICHTON, THE VOICE OF REASON

“…In recent years, much has been said about the post modernist claims about science to the effect that science is just another form of raw power, tricked out in special claims for truth-seeking and objectivity that really have no basis in fact. Science, we are told, is no better than any other undertaking. These ideas anger many scientists, and they anger me. But recent events have made me wonder if they are correct. We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist.

The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever “published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review.” )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?

Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was “rife with careless mistakes.” It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocaust denier. The issue was captioned: “Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist.” Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?

When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn’t enough, he put the critics’ essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.

Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That’s why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That’s why the facts don’t matter. That’s why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He’s a heretic.

Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I’d see the Scientific American in the role of mother church….”


This was written by admin. Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2008, at 3:49 pm. Filed under Enviromental Crazies, Liberal Organizations, Main Page. Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.