A Modest Proposal to Prevent the Pernicious Warming of our Fair Globe
PJM offers ye a Jonathan Swiftian solution to stem the overheating of our precious orb.
As an additional benefit, the carbon tax will provide the Treasury with sufficient revenue to provide adequate remuneration to many rulers of countries beside our own to induce them to adopt appropriate policies to counter global warming as well. The importance of doing this cannot be overstated. At present, most of the world consists of poor countries whose leaders are seeking wealth by attempting to grow industries. If this were done, many of the inhabitants of such countries might find ways to deviate from their current quaint impoverishment, just as their comparable types did in America and Europe in the past. Were this to happen, their contribution to global warming would multiply accordingly, and therefore, it must not happen. Fortunately, however, nearly all these countries are led by men of such bold character as would gladly keep their nations poor, provided that a sufficient consideration were allocated to them personally to compensate them for their time, trouble, and dedication to the cause of climate stabilization. The carbon tax can provide the necessary treasure to insure such friendly international cooperation, with rates of payoff conveniently standardized and enshrined under the imaginatively titled cap and trade treaty system.
Another good, albeit imperfect, initiative by the Obama administration and its congressional cohorts to stem the tide of global warming is the stimulus bill. I say imperfect, because there are some items in this bill, such as bridge repairs, that might, in fact, contribute towards stimulating, or at least maintaining, the economy. This, of course, is counter to the necessary objective, since, if global warming is to be halted, it is the contraction of the economy that is to be sought, rather than its expansion. Indeed, for those cognizant of the true threat of climate change, the measures contained within the stimulus bill to provide means of support to the unemployed, whether through the provision of paying employment or the extension of relief, can only be viewed with horror. They are after all unemployed; hence, their services are not required. Away with them, I say! What could be more clear; make away with them, and one can make away with their carbon footprints too. Surely, even such dunces as those assisting Mr. Obama in the Congress should be able to understand that. Indeed, in all candor, I can only ascribe their unwillingness to embrace the necessary policy as being due to their venal desire to obtain votes by feeding the riffraff. But at what cost to the planet?
It must be said that the stimulus bill might have been very bad, if not for the vision and leadership shown by Madame Pelosi. In the face of a horde of senators, who in a fit to appease an intemperate public, had inserted a provision to reduce the taxes by some $15,000 of all those willing to buy a house, she stood firm, and excised this madness from the legislation. Had she not done so, the price of houses might easily have been bid up to such a pitch so as to make good the mortgage securities dependent upon them, thereby rescuing those purveyors of credit holding such instruments. Thus freed from their distress, these unworthy institutions would without doubt have commenced again with their irresponsible investments, enabling all and sundry to go about their business, building this and manufacturing that, without any regard whatsoever for the effect of such activities upon the global climate. Fortunately, the great lady was up to the challenge, and the catastrophe was averted, leaving the bill with merely the more modest set of aforesaid defects.
But peace, while defective, the stimulus bill is still a fine piece of work, and fine qualities within it so outweigh its defects as to make it a cause for celebration. For, taken en bloc, what does it matter that the poor are given a few pennies to waste for a while, if at the same time the bloated bank accounts of the churlish middling sort can all be made worthless? Oh, those stout regiments of burghers, so proud of their houses, cars, and careers, so confident of their futures, so heedless in their consumption: see now their doom writ large! They thought that by saving money they would always have cash to continue to consume, consume, consume, come what may. But what will their precious stashes buy them when the government floods the world with trillions and trillions of paper identical to theirs? Were their petty fortunes left intact, their wild collective orders could yet have wrecked untold havoc upon our planet. But now they will soon be made tame, and thus humbled, the Earth made secure from their depredations. To this miracle we must credit the wisdom of the stimulus bill.
That said, if we are truly to deal as we must with the threat of climate change, our horrid health care system must clearly be reformed from top to bottom. This imperative cannot be denied or forestalled, as its adequate solution is the key to unlock the entire dilemma. And while much of what our new president has said in this line gives me great hope, still other remarks indicate a confusion of aims and objectives so severe as to instill some concern that determination might be lacking to push reform far enough to achieve the necessary result. For certainly, in the face of the climate emergency, the time is long since past for politicians to go on prating about improving the health care available to the general public, when the obvious necessity is to make it worse. Our glaciers are in danger! How then, can anyone even propose measures that might pointlessly continue the harmful lives of so many millions of miserable carbon footprinters, who otherwise could so easily been allowed to pass mercifully out of existence? And while I understand that Mr. Obama’s plan will accomplish nothing of the sort, but simply provides an innocent means to increase the overall cost of the health system by shoveling tax dollars into it — which, needless to say, taken by itself is an excellent idea — still it sidesteps the fundamental problem, which is modern medicine itself. It is the practitioners of this craft, as well as their allies among those who seek grandeur by striking a pose as defenders of the public from microbes or other helpless creatures, who, unbound by any finer feelings or sense of environmental ethics, have filled the Earth with those whose otherwise unnecessary maintenance must perforce cause so much damage to its climate.
Now, lest I be misunderstood, let me be clear on this point. I am not against modern medicine itself. By no means. I am simply against its irresponsible practice. That the doctors have saved many refined and worthy people from an untimely death there can be no doubt, and certainly they should be allowed to continue with such noble work. The problem, however, is that lacking responsible governance, they inevitably go too far, and willy-nilly, save innumerable others without regard for the climatological consequences.
Therefore, in order to resolve this difficulty in the most practical way possible, I propose the following simple measure, which must surely be recognized by all people of sound opinions as elegant and proper.
To wit; that it be enacted as the cornerstone of the necessary reform of our health care system, that, prior to engaging in any action that might potentially extend a human life, that a doctor, nurse, or other medical professional simply be required to file an environmental impact statement in which the carbon emission consequences of said life-extension are clearly set forth and arrayed against any environmental benefits that might ensue from the preservation of the individual in question.
This done, the operation would be duly submitted to a responsible official in the Environmental Protection Agency for proper approval, in just the same manner as would be required by those who wish to initiate any other form of enterprise. This would cause no inconvenience to those ladies and gentlemen of quality whose commitment to the cause of climate stabilization earned them sufficient endearment among the EPA staff to merit exceptional treatment. Yet, as a means of preventing excessive activity among the public by irresponsible medical practitioners, such a system could hardly be bettered. Finally, it may be noted that with all insured as per the president’s plan, such restrictions on unnecessary medical operations need have no negative consequences for the income of the health care system, as a sufficiency of tax dollars will be available to support it on any scale or style desired, regardless.
In closing, I only wish to restate my affirmation of good will; that I make these important recommendations simply for the sake of the benefit they might afford our planet, without regard or appeal for monetary reward or public acclaim, and the fact that I have an ownership stake in many large cemeteries has not influenced my judgment on such matters in any way, manner, or shape, howsoever.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Jonathan Swift is the pen name of a scientist who contributes to Pajamas Media.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
34 Comments
1. Self-hating Boomer:Malthus? Zat you?
Mar 17, 2009 - 7:33 am 2. Paul Gross:Delicious! Eat the Rich!
Mar 17, 2009 - 7:59 am 3. BackwardsBoy:It is with quiet reflection that I say to the esteemed author of the above treatise concerning the alleged alarming rise in temperature in all parts of this good and beneficient whirl that so many call home, and gives unto the many who contemplate the outcome of what, to mere mortals and those of low station, seem to be the slightest of celestial variations that our predecessors endured and once called weather, mental gyrations the likes of which are normally witnessed only inside an institution for the insane, that those whose lives are somehow guided, nay driven, by those notions who are not in any way supported by common goodsense and notice of normal variations of God’s nature and creations, have not been bestowed by said Creator of normal methods of deduction or enlightenment.
Mar 17, 2009 - 8:06 am 4. Harry Truman:Good Sir! Well and rightly said. Refreshingly brings to mind the writings of Isaac Newton.
The percolation of the morning bean is not yet complete in the refractory apparatus, but have myself been considering a satisfactory solution to this most unpleasant problem.
As there is a staggeringly quantifiable amount of sulferous HOT AIR emanating from none other than some individuals including Al Gore, and various power cabals commingled in Washington D.C. (erstwhile attributed as the District of Criminals): to wit, I believe this excess and most unpleasant heat that is melting down the Public Trust can be efficaciously dealt with by attaching a suitable hose and connecting fortwith, to the growing Vacuum of Credibility that is the prime result of these most unfortunate and dare I say, planned steps in Social Engineering.
The aforementioned Vacuum could be thus employed through the efforts of the AWAKENED intelligence of those who are true nobles in heart and mind among us; that would include you, kind sir. It is said that a successful revolution can be attained overthrowing the corrupt begun by a small number if their minds, hearts and motives are true.
Mar 17, 2009 - 8:17 am 5. Boris:Thus, this robust Vacuume can be effectively employed to gather up all this most foul Hot Air and those emanating it, and place it forthwith where the sun shineth not. Perhaps we can disuss the finer details at an upcoming TEA PARTY taking place nationaly, though apparently un- noticed by ABC- The All Barak Channel or NBC- National Barak Collusion.
Good Day Sir, and again my thanks for your most fine and Commendable exposition! Godspeed.
Appropriate, since the denialists’ science has yet to advance past 1729.
Mar 17, 2009 - 8:18 am 6. Professor Guvinoff:Your civic duty commands you keep your family warm and cozy by burning dollar bills instead of hydrocarbons, because this exemplary exercise of your free will is at the same time the most efficacious and the most courageous way to reduce your carbon footprint.
Our great hopemaster’s signature will be affixed with biodegradable ink to the bottom of your certificate of devotion to the planet, printed on recycled paper. Save a couple of unburnt dollar bills, so you can make enough light to read it in proper solemnity when Paul Revere comes to deliver it to your door in person.
Mar 17, 2009 - 8:55 am 7. I, ParkdaBus:Let all those who profess allegiance to the Religion of Climate Change be first to offer themselves as sacrifice.
After all, if one also believes in the evolution of the species, then allowing these dimwits the obligation to expunge their seed from the pool will do great wonders to our blessed future!
Mar 17, 2009 - 9:11 am 8. Russ:Wonderful. Too bad it will be lost on those who need it most.
Try this for more pedestrian eco-comedy:
Mar 17, 2009 - 10:13 am 9. Ardsgaine:http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/1a4af347eb/eco-commando-episode-1
The problem with the reductio ad absurdum is that it assumes one’s opponent shares one’s sense of the absurd. Remember when people tried to ridicule the tobacco lawsuits by comparing it to suing MacDonalds for making one fat? Mr. Swift’s witticism will not be so amusing when we have to fill out an EIS for every medical procedure.
Mar 17, 2009 - 10:46 am 10. arhooley:Hilarious. Now, what to do with the corpses that accumulate as the result of unfavorable environmental impact reports? Convert them to oil? Chop and can them? (Portuguese Water Dogs do have refined tastes.)
Mar 17, 2009 - 10:52 am 11. lonesomecharlie:By a wide margin, the largest source of CO2 in the atmosphere is respiration by living creatures. One human exhales as much CO2 in one day as an SUV produces in one and a half hours of operation.
If everyone who is worried by global warming would stop exhaling CO2 for just one hour a day or one day month, we could stop global warming in its tracks.
Our President should take the lead. OK Mr. Obama, take a deep breath and hold it for the rest of the day.
Mar 17, 2009 - 11:01 am 12. Dr. Bukk:Oxygen is the gas that accumulates in a greenhouse. Thus it must be the pollutant, not CO2, which causes the warming in a greenhouse. The only solution is to Round-Up all plant life and rid the planet of that foul gas we inhale, not the one we exhale.
Mar 17, 2009 - 11:44 am 13. Pilgrim1949:As per your familial and business connections, I perceive that this proposal would qualify as a “shovel ready” approach and, hence, be most praise- and monetary-worthy all way ’round.
Bravo! Let those who espouse the radical reduction of this pernicious gasious byproduct of human existence (CO2, which accompanies the other vacuous emenations from their lips) be the first to enlist as volunteers to “set proper example” for the rest of the great unwashed masses, and with utmost haste.
Mar 17, 2009 - 1:09 pm 14. Pee Wee Herman, Community Organizer:Boris, WTF do you know about science? Lemme guess. You used to watch Bill Nye, the Science Guy.
Mar 17, 2009 - 1:25 pm 15. eon:Considering that the “greens” are already demanding that no “stimulus” money be spent on roads or infrastructure (except for their own pet “green” projects), and the continued existence of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (which in the end will, I suspect, be “volunteering” people to become extinct whether they want to be so or not), we see that the most difficult thing about satirizing the worshipers of Holy Mother Gaia is trying to come up with a reductio ad absurdum argument… that they themselves have not already made in deadly earnest. (My use of that adjective is neither accidental nor casual.)
clear ether
eon
Mar 17, 2009 - 2:41 pm 16. Professor Guvinoff:12. Dr. Bukk
To amplify your remarks: There are two time-proven methods for the sequestration of CO2:
One came about a few hundred millions of years ago. We call it vegetation. The other one, only a few thousand years old, is man made (God forbids!), we call it “agriculture” (Yes, I suppose there is something cultural about it).
Both of those processes consume CO2 from the atmosphere, regardless of their pedigree, natural, or artifactual of civilization, or may be we could say, “natural by proxy”?
It’s the carbon the plants are really interested in, because they could not produce cellulose and the other carbon-based compounds necessary for their growth without getting the carbon from somewhere, and the soil is definitely not they can get carbon from. there just isn’t any there.
Now, separating the Carbon and the Oxygen from each other within the CO2 molecule is a mighty trick, which requires a lot of energy, which by the way is why the plants have a distinct preference for sunlight.
Now, what do the plants do with the Oxygen left over after they captured the carbon for their own selfish purposes? They throw it away! Oxygen is the plant’s contribution to global pollution. Oxygen is nasty stuff, one of the most corrosive chemicals known to man, certainly the very worst one if you allow quantity to come into consideration.
Now, shouldn’t we be ashamed of being the lowly breathers of the refuse material from the plants? Actually, we should be double ashamed, shouldn’t we?, because we need oxygen urgently, and we don’t even pay for it! From a purely anthropocentric view, oxygen is the most critical element of our survival, and yet it comes for free!
Should not we rejoice instead for getting free of charge something which the plants (in cahoot with the sun) have worked so hard and for so long to produce in such large amounts from the not even quite 0.04% CO2 content of the earth’s atmosphere?
What’s your preference really, be sorry, or grateful about it?
Anyway, Why do the plants need so much sunlight to break up the CO2 molecule? If we don’t want to use big-science words, we are going to have to say it’s because the Carbon is extremely jealous of Oxygen! That’s not the complete picture, but it’s enough for the issue at hand:
What happens when you enjoy a campfire? Where does all this heat come from? It comes from the eagerness (hint: exothermia) of the recombination between the carbon in the wood and the oxygen in the air! Bingo, CO2 again!
How much heat can this epic reunion produce? Essentially, as much heat as the sunlight required to split however much CO2 had to be divorced by the power of sunlight to provide for the growth of that much wood, a few years earlier. The heat from the campfire is an immediate expression of the solar energy that was consumed a few years earlier by the growth of the tree.
You can consider the heat from the campfire as deferred solar energy, as opposed to immediate solar energy, with a delay of some years, probably less than 50 years, unless you are burning some really ancient timber.
Regardless, the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is a darn good measure of how much CO2 the global vegetation has managed to sequester so far, not too shabby!
So why are we constantly harassed by so many loud mouths insisting with so much passion that we should be worried about CO2 and ashamed of having anything to do with some of its production instead of simply being grateful for this wonderful natural resource? Whitout CO2 in the atmosphere, the plants would perish, which would only be the preamble to our own demise, because we could not survive if their gaseous garbage was not so abundantly provided in the air we breathe so urgently!
When the synthetic fuel technology comes to maturity (10 years or so) it will produce fuel by using algae or other microorganisms to capture atmospheric CO2 and synthetize hydrocarbons by using the energy of solar radiation, as plants have done for eons! When these processes are refined enough to reach industrial scale, CO2 will be recognized as a valuable feedstock, not a mean weapon in the hands of the green Devil, to be despised and disposed of at any price, even at the price of shutting down the economy!
So, get rid of whatever manufactured guilt you may have collected by listening too much to the gorists of all stripe, and oppose any justification they profess for imposing any carbon tax, in any form, it’s only ludicrous!
Shouldn’t there be a difference between american ingenuity and the talent to invent new excuses for making the government more expensive? Let the snake oil merchants slip on their own vanity and smite the ground, but let’s be nice about it and allow them to fall on the grass instead of the bare soil. Could that be the first step towards gratitude as an alternative to reflexive fear mongering?
We already have solar energy! The forests and the farm fields are gigantic collectors of solar energy and perfectly functional carbon sequestration systems at the same time!
So what about oil, the other nasty weapon wielded by the Devil of the green religion? It’s also a reserve of deferred solar energy, but the deferral period is in the order of a few million years instead of merely a century or less as in the case of a wood-burning stove, which by the way the greenistas are quite fond of, for some mysterious reason.
If you dig into the technologies related to energy, you will find that the biggest technical challenge is not energy production, it’s energy storage (all the headaches in the very active field of battery technology development these days are acute problems in chemical energy storage)
What is oil, really? It’s serendipitous energy storage!
That’s why it’s so useful and practical. We just have to find the geological (or geo-illogical?) structures where it might be trapped, and let it out! This is a divine gift of energy storage, quite a nice stepping stone on the way to learn the art (a.k.a. the technology) to produce storage on purpose instead of storage by accident.
This technological effort is a mighty good deal: It will make the energy less expensive and more practical. Should not that take precedence over trying to make the government more intrusive and more expensive, which can only be explained as an act of collective panic triggered by the barytone delivery of the gorist prophecies?
Mar 17, 2009 - 2:42 pm 17. Self-hating Boomer:Professor Guvinoff,
Nice summary. Here’s the problem. The cap-and-trade system isn’t what it’s claimed to be. The powers that be aren’t pursuing it for any environmental reason. They’re paying off the green groups for supporting the Plastic Messiah, but mostly, it’s a revenue generating device. The real reason why they’re so doggedly determined to make this happen, is the money it will generate.
Which poses a problem for anyone who actually produces a carbon-neutral energy scheme as you’ve described. Any such system will bankrupt the federal government, once they’ve gotten used to this income. That’s why they’ll never allow it.
Why do you think they took nuke off the table? Why aren’t the Saudis screaming bloody murder? They don’t want us to change our energy technology or our usage. They just want a piece of the action.
The Chicago way.
Mar 17, 2009 - 4:33 pm 18. XWL:You want to stem global warming, I have two words that should suffice as an answer, “Nuclear Winter”.
Mar 17, 2009 - 6:13 pm 19. KZ:Self-hating Boomer,
That’s a pretty smart comment. I agree, once energy use has been fully redefined as a sin requiring a sin tax, a cap & trade system will ensure no real progress is made toward resolving the so-called problem.
Mar 17, 2009 - 6:57 pm 20. Chuck S.:Stanch, not staunch. Other than that, very well done.
Mar 17, 2009 - 7:17 pm 21. Professor Guvinoff:Self-hating Boomer, KZ,
Carbon neutrality is not something you and me need to sweat. Nature does a good job of regulating carbon all by itself, thank you very much. There is more carbon dioxide diluted in the oceans than there is in the whole earth’s atmosphere. Are we supposed to tackle that one, too? It is only arrogance to think that we can do anything of significance to affect weather phenomena one way or the other. Let’s remember that the power source of the planet’s climate system is the sun. Whatever we try to do is puny in comparison and does not even begin to tinker at the edges of it. Forget it!
That cap-and-trade scheme can only be as nefarious as it is unnecessary. It can only be some way of milking some cow, and it’s for us to understand that WE are the cow in this master plan! Cows are not known for their combativity (barely one notch above sheep?), so we better show that we are more like lions in fact. Write to your representatives and help them understand why you’ll be sending someone else to the beltway the next time around. Politicians are the real cowards. Let them take care of the cowering, it’s their specialty.
In the meantime, watch out! while he is carbo-scheming with our money, some foreign power is going to notice the distraction, and play rubber ducky with our Plastic Messiah pretty soon.
Mar 17, 2009 - 9:03 pm 22. Jim Baker:“Now that was funny, right there. I don’t care who you are, that was funny. In fact, if you don’t see where that’s funny, you should just shoot yourself right now. I tell you what.” -Larry the Cable Guy-
Mar 17, 2009 - 9:17 pm 23. gjg:All the data reflect the Urban Heat Island Effect. We did a comparison of matched urban and rural sites in the US over 111 years. Very informative.
Here is a little video that explains it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcsvaCPYgcI
Even a sixth grader can under stand it.
Mar 17, 2009 - 9:22 pm 24. theBuckWheat:I have a better “modest proposal”. Honesty is always the best policy. Honesty is even “sustainable”!
Why not just admit that Global Warming is a HOAX, a popular fad, like Xmas, it is just plain, flat, wrong to believe that natural climate change can be or even should be mitigated by humans.
It has now been demonstrated that global climate change is a function mainly of the level of solar activity.
see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/17/beryllium-10-and-climate/
Mar 18, 2009 - 5:58 am 25. Laftrakio Hurd:Here’s a more direct way to decreases CO2 emissions, and I daresay Swift would like it better: Eat the environmentalists. A boiled environmentalist, while probably as distasteful on the plate as during his previous carbon-spewing existence, might yield as much as ten pounds of chop, plus whatever else could be put in a stew.
Mar 18, 2009 - 8:31 am 26. Shef Rogers:Pretty tasteless, publishing this on St. Patrick’s Day.
Mar 18, 2009 - 10:45 am 27. Linda Mae:I strongly believe in conserving our natural resources by protecting our environment. Why? Because it is our home. This global warming bunk has been proven a hoax by at least 32,000,600 actual scientists here and many more from other countries – who were not “on the payroll” as bunkers state. I believe common sense needs to pay a roll in what we do. It is idealistic to save a – whatever – but not to the point that it interferes with the good and rights of others. We do have species come and go. I remind my friends about the first ice age – and the disappearance of those cute dinosaurs, for example. That certainly counted as global warming and we were not to appear for many years later. It is obvious that our politicians have dollar signs in the cap and trade plans. The whole concept is just ridiculous. I also tell my friends to “help” by holding their breath just 5 minutes out of every hour. Some may create their own cap and trade program by offering to hold their breath so that someone else can use theirs. Often, I hear the argument that even though GW may not exist, it is still good to worry about our environment. I answer a loud NO. The end does not justify the means. To seek protection of our environment based upon a lie is not excusable. Common sense and good science needs to be practiced. I am tired of those who keep repeating the old party line about peer reviews, etc. I’m tired of reading more articles in our papers which are blatantly untrue. I cannot believe any intelligent person who has taken time to investigate the issue can buy into the lie that is called global warming. Oh – pardon me, it is now being called climate change because it has been cool these past 10 years. Sorry.
Mar 19, 2009 - 12:15 am 28. Maurizio Morabito:This was such a letdown…there has to be a way to _demonstrate_ that the best solution to global warming is the selling of children as food…or at least a new market in the bodies previously belonging to the unextended human lives…
Mar 19, 2009 - 7:42 am 29. Bill R:Interesting Comedy, but just that. It does not make the grade of Satire because it’s points are largely inaccurate. For example… Mr. Obama supports a carbon cap, which is different in many ways than a carbon tax. Mr. Swift sorely minimzes and does little to explain the many real and pernicous effects of the warming of our fair globe.
I do like the earlier observation posted here that using language from the 1700’s is a good reflection of the development of denialists “science”.
Mar 19, 2009 - 11:07 am 30. Bill R:Linda Mae it has not been “cool” the last 10 years… according to NASA’s Goddard Center, the authoritative record on global temperature, the last 10 years have been among the 12 hottest years ever recorded globally. What you are confusing is that 1998 was the hottest year ever, and no year since has been as hot… but the subsequent years are all among the hottest years on the “modern” record. Please do get your facts right.
Mar 19, 2009 - 11:12 am 31. Agamemnon:Bill R could not be more wrong.
Here is a graph of four government/university sources showing that the planet is steadily cooling:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ALL_SINCE_2002.jpg
In addition, it includes the results of the 3,000 Argos bouys that also show that the ocean is cooling, in addition to the troposphere and the Earth’s surface cooling.
Money has corrupted organizations like James Hansen’s NASA/GISS and the UN/IPCC. As a result they put dishonest spin on the numbers, such as “the hottest years ever recorded.” It has been shown conclusively that the 1930’s were hotter than the 1990’s. The planet has been cooling at an ever faster clip for the past decade:
http://www.nationalpost.com/893554.bin
And the 100% political appointees in the UN’s IPCC have been flat wrong:
http://www.itsonlysteam.com/sitebuilder/images/it_started_in_2000-570×435.jpg
Mar 19, 2009 - 6:14 pm 32. JED:The entire global warming hypothesis is questionable as it throws in measurements from 110 years ago with new science and measuring techniques. This effectively changes the instruments which changes the data on the scale of years to measure geologic time. Then the politicians got a hold of it and with their funding capacities and agendas which further prostituted the objectivity.
Mar 20, 2009 - 7:43 am 33. C_A_B:One of the blog writers said it well when he said, “Show me the computer model with 1950’s data that predicts 1980’s weather.”
Hey there, is it not true that the oxygen we enjoy so much in the atmosphere originated in carbon dioxide devolved from calcites that tectonic flow pulled up “exprofoundis?” (The original atmosphere was mostly nitrogen.) I think the geologists believe that pretty solidly now. So could monkeying with the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere possibly endanger all life on earth by reducing the sources of oxygen required to adjust to unknowable very long term fluctuations in the planet’s condition?
Mar 22, 2009 - 8:48 am 34. Jim Baker:welcome to the site Bill R. You join Steve P, David S, Boris and My Own Guy as the Obama trolls here.
Mar 22, 2009 - 5:00 pmHere is the information upon which you have been misled: The world is not running out of fossil fuels and there is no good reason to expect the oil and gas industry to create alternative forms of energy to compete with what they are producing.