Can I help you? No, we don't sell pesto sausage, but we do have little weenies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
where we're always glad to see you
Can I help you? No, we don't sell pesto sausage, but we do have little weenies.
About Me
Searching for that perfect gift?
Linkages
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(170)
-
▼
January
(30)
- Reduce your carbon footprint, eh
- Collateral Damage
- There's something about
- You know what they did to horse thieves, right?
- For Sale
- Shocked, shocked, I tell you.
- Singles Ad of the Week
- I am officially impressed
- Dog bless us all, everyone
- Bulldog back on top 10 dog list after 75 years
- Manimals on the loose
- I'm sure you've all seen the
- Elmo loves you
- Finally!
- I hear Microsoft
- I got your deniers denial right here
- Does Judith know about this?
- International Auto(?) Show
- Uh-oh
- I will balance the budget
- What'd you expect?
- He always liked to jump
- Hot enough for you?
- George Bush has the Blog
- Separated at birth?
- The Man who never was?
- Your chance to vote in New Hamshire
- Watch this and share it
- Too much fun
- Why do I always miss the good parties?
-
▼
January
(30)
15 comments:
thanks for posting this, Crow. i posted it on dawnne.com and otherwhirled.com
Amazing. Just fabulous. I envy his students. Must be cool to have the presenter as your science teacher, no?
Wonderful find, SC! Have spread it around!
i think the nobel przie committee made an error
I don't have the time or expertise to blog but I'll certainly spread the word. Splendid analysis!!
Compare that Bush went to war in Iraq on a bet that Saddam had WMD and he reasons that no action is needed to stop GW as the risk is less? This, the cunning logic from Bushco.
Fabulous! I keep asking what they have against cleaning up the world.
Posted at Bluedaze
This will be up at my blog on Monday. Wow. Very great video to share- thanks.
done.
I got side tracked- this will go up later today!!
Done!
And btw, thanks for the comment and the idea. St. Joseph is silently toiling under my lawn as we speak.
The climate-change argument presented in the video begins and ends with a false and horrifying assumption.
Let's assume the temperature of Earth will rise a degree or two in the coming century.
The argument assumes that man can undertake changes that will neutralize the effects of the warming.
The madness of the argument surfaces at two points. First, the impact of a little warming. Water levels would rise if all the glaciers and all the polar ice caps melted. All that ice represents a vast quantity of fresh water -- the stuff that is NOT available in sufficient quantities in much of the world.
This year, in Africa alone, over a million people will die because they lack clean fresh water. A million people will die. This year. They will die from diseases contracted from dirty water.
A warmer planet would increase the amount of fresh water available to those regions that currently lack needed supplies. Of course, all the extra clean water would extend the life spans of Africans and increase food demands.
Second, and more influential, is the fact that Prosperity is the cause of increasing energy consumption. It is energy consumption that is identified as the cause of the warming.
Thus, to reduce the warming humans must reduce the spread of prosperity.
That means it's better for the poor to remain poor and unable to purchase energy-consuming products like cars, trucks, airplanes, homes, heaters, air conditioners, etc.
Meanwhile, every new person on Earth increases overall global energy consumption. Worse, for your argument, is Prosperity. As poverty is replaced by prosperity, energy consumption rises.
Thus, by increasing the prosperity of Earth's 6.5 billion residents, we will see increasing energy consumption.
Higher efficiency means nothing. If we doubled the miles-per-gallon of every car on Earth, but tripled the number of cars on the road, energy consumption would rise. That's prosperity in action.
Then there is the growing population. Demographers say we will see a population of 9 billion by 2050. That's an increase of 2.5 billion in about 40 years. I think the estimate is low. Those new Earthlings will arrive in a world where prosperity is increasing faster than ever. China and India are moving ahead at astonishing rates.
In short, there is no possible method of reducing energy consumption -- unless the world's population decreases.
More people equals more energy use. Fewer people MIGHT use less energy. Maybe.
But once again, advancing prosperity is defined by rising per-capita energy consumption.
So which people will agree to consume less energy? Which country?
Who will subject themselves to the repressiveness of a government aiming to reduce prosperity?
Obviously such lunacy would require a reduction in life spans. Africa would become the model. Let diseases run rampant and allow the average person to die before age 50. That would help.
Meanwhile, the idea of a global reduction of energy consumption is more accurately defined as the creation of a global marxist state. One where the government rations your energy consumption and enforces poverty wherever possible.
Since an increase in population equals an increase in energy consumption, this repressive world government would limit reproduction. China has its limits -- one child per family. And of course in China and a few other areas aborting females is common as a result of family-planning policies.
Thus, your worry about global warming means your reproductive rights will disappear. The state would dictate life. Maybe you would not object, but the state would disapprove of Catholicism because it is a religion that encourages large families, opposes abortion and opposes most birth control.
In short, the goals and strategies for fighting global warming are the foundation of the worst government action the world could inflict upon the human race.
Like they say in New Hampshire, Live Free or Die. In the Brave New World of Global Temperature Control, we'd live without freedom and die young anyway -- if we even continued to reproduce.
Anonymous presents some interesting comments, but most of the arguments have answered repeatedly.
The video is about risk assessment. If there's no AGW, and we do nothing, no problemo. If there is AGW, and we do nothing, we are in big, big trouble.
The other two combinations present other risks along the continuum.
What would it take to convince you that AGW is real and that we need to do something?
Prominent scientific organizations saying so?
Done.
The Chairman of Exxon saying so?
Done
The Pentagon saying so, and identifying AGW as a security risk?
Done
Seeing AGW have a direct effect in your life?
Maybe not done yet, but do you want to be a spectator in your life or an active participant. If I'm bearing down on a wall at 60 mph, I don't wait till I hit the wall to apply the brake.
I dare you to spend the time to watch all the associated videos.
Regards.
sorghum, an increase in global temperature is irrelevant to the argument.
Let's start with the assumption that global temperatures are rising. I'll spot you that.
Then what? Like I've said, there is no way to contain aggregate increases in global energy consumption short of genocide or birth control.
The energy equation is very simple -- and its outcome is unavoidable. More people EQUAL more energy use. Period.
Today the leading car company of India announced it will begin marketing a $2,500 car. The company expects to sell 250,000 cars this year, and see explosive growth ahead.
It is aimed at new first-time car buyers. India and China will see huge increases in cars.
Meanwhile, as I've said, the real enemy of the Global Warmists is Prosperity.
Global increases in prosperity will accelerate the energy use already underway due to the rapidly growing population.
Even if we double the distance a car will travel on a gallon of gas, the number of cars is set to increase many times more. Thus, aggregate energy use climbs like a rocket.
Do you hope to force people to sit still rather than travel? Meanwhile, as life-spans increase, people will consume more and more energy. Heating and cooling of homes will consume more energy.
Africans might obtain air conditioning. Africans might experience life with 24/7 utility service, clean water, and effective disease control. All that will extends lives and lead to big increases in energy consumption.
We will expend more and more energy farming and transporting food to growing population.
Long story short, it is futile and pointless to believe that it is possible to reduce man's energy consumption.
One last point. You mentioned hitting a wall. Utter nonsense.
There is a good side to Global Warming. Melting polar ice caps and glaciers would release vast quantities of fresh water into the atmosphere. Greenland might become the world's next breadbasket if temperatures rise and farmers can cultivate the soil.
In other words, the Global Warmists are engaged in folly. It is preposterous to believe that we can predict the impact of a warming trend and simultaneously claim we are powerless to harness the changes a warmer planet would deliver.
Gods, that's asinine.
Alright, ok, snark is snark. I'll spend a few brain cells and rebut some of the larger points to Dude's statements. Seems a waste, though.
So somehow if the polar icecaps melt that translates directly into more fresh rain-water globally? Umm.... how? They melt INTO THE SEA.
Suppose, however, that melted icecaps (and ignoring the concommitant rise in global temperatures resulting from a reduction/negation in our 'global sunshine mirrors') DO cause an increase in world-wide rainfalls, as Dude says.
OK.
Right... but OK.
So.
So. So F-ing Greenland is to be our new breadbasket because the formerly-fertile lands have been run arid? OK. Could happen. Given Gulf Stream shifts which favor this occurance (and I might add a WHOLE lot of variables come into play in said scenario - Greenland could be rendered Ice Age material and NO fertile lands might be available that haven't already been plowed under asphalt). Given time. Sure. Sure.
How much time? How much time until F-ing GREENLAND becomes Breadbasket-To-The-World, ne? 10 years? 20? 50?
Mm.
Time the world's powers will spend somehow successfully asking their respective populations to remain calm... to please NOT riot because there's no water from the faucet, and the food trucks will only be SLIGHTLY delayed this week, but next week everything will be better.
We GO TO WAR over SUSPECTED shortfalls yet-to-be-seen.
But no, no... F-ing FAMINE will cause us all to self-study and bite the bullet for our futures... at least until Greenland gets its legs about it and provides mana from heaven to all the world's masses, ne?
Conflict, strife, war... endless war over even life's basic resources... and in the WMD age, ne?
I'm sure it'll turn out OK.
Gods forbid we try to restrict unadulterated growth in either population, WMD treaties (else honoring those we HAVE NOW) or conspicuous consumption.
Especially, Gods forbid, conspicuous consumption. Why, somewhere somewhen might even be able to by-definition classify that as Marxist.
Note: who F-ing cares what it's called?! The next Dark Age will REALLY be a Dark Age, do you dig it?
F-ing asshole.
Post a Comment