It's all a lie. Everything that you've been taught about global warming was a lie. The water's going to rise 50 ft in 50 years. Fire vortexes engulfing whole chunks of land. And spawned mutant species of coral due to extreme weather. Is there any proof?
First of all, global warming is just a simple fabrication went crazy by a group of environmentalists. All they wanted is some sympathy funding, so they made up this story. And now, children are taught that this as a fact in science class. Political leaders take this as an excuse to get elected into office, and the media takes control, spinning even wilder stories to get more sales. and we believe it like little ignorant children, because we feel good inside if we recycle.
A moose produces more greenhouse gas than 13,000km of car travel. There may be more cars than moose, but not enough cars to satisfy the entire methane producing population. Two volcanic eruptions create more greenhouse gases than the entire industrial revolution. 290 parts of CO2 per 1,000,000. We humans are too worthless to ever compete in a footrace with mother nature.
Oh and there's more, climate temperatures were always on the constant fluctuation (oxymoron!). Climate temperature fell during the WW2, temperature rose during the 1990s, and dropped in 2008, 2009. Ice caps, as you heard are falling. FALSE. They are actually growing. Alaska's Hubbard Glacier advancing 7 feet per day. the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) admitted that they've under reported Arctic ice extent by 193,000 square .
And I was in china this year, and everybody said that Huang He's sea level dropped, creating more dry land.
Greenland was named Greenland because it used to be green. Now, it's all ice. That's global warming?
And to finish it off, if fox news is 50% sure that there is rain on Monday, how can they be 100% sure that we will all die from heat in 50 years?
11 comments:
Brave post! Well done.
These are some more links to alternative explanations for global warming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_forcing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots_2.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html
Anyway, I think that there are some upsides to this green craze, though. While I remain neutral as to whether global warming exists (sure, the earth is getting warmer, but is it because of thousands of dirty, smelly power plants or because of the grand forces of the spheres?), I do notice some positive effects of "save the Earth" thinking.
First, global warming has directed people's attention to conservation. People are looking to save or reuse everything from paper to cell phones. Recycling bins are constantly full instead of constantly empty, and landfills are smaller. Regardless of the impact of conserving things on the environment, I think that less waste and more efficiency is definitely a good thing.
On a similar note, no matter what the effects of pollution is on the large scale, living under gray skies and choking smog is rather unpleasant. Even if pollution restrictions don't save the world, they will at least improve air and water quality in the immediate area.
Another benefit is the introduction of more efficient cars. Conserving fuel may or may not be good for the environment, but it certainly is very good for wallets. The introduction of MPG requirements will certainly benefit the consumer. (One question: is now, when the car companies are barely surviving, a good time to introduce these restrictions?)
In summary, I am unsure about the effect humans play in global warming. There is certainly evidence both ways, and a human explanation for global warming just doesn't work out, as you explained. But I don't think that the "save the environment" is bad. It has led to more conservation, better local air and water quality, and products designed to help not only the environment but also the consumer.
What do you think? Is the "save the environment" mentality beneficial to creating new industries and spurring innovation in existing ones? Are we most productive when we have a clear goal in mind?
Well, Obama is a "god" in Illinois.
If Obama says global warming is a fact, then it's a fact.
If Obama says my hand was once touched by an alien, then it was.
Did you know that the cash for clunkers made the government look like a clunker? Making a car and transporting all the materials to make the car make the car inefficient economically when you use it.
A car 20mpg requires 3 years to offset the pollution in the atmosphere
Only something like the prius can offset the pollution used to manufacture it in about one year.
Anyhow, I think that many people are grateful that cars are more fuel-efficient. I would imagine that it saves quite a bit of money for gas, don't you think?
This was the crux of my point. These things might not have a huge impact on the environment, but they certainly affect the economy and the consumer positively.
Umm, if the government is paying thousands of dollars per clunker being traded in, doesn't that just makes our national debt substantially larger, not that it's large enough already.
Higher MPG's are a good thing. Other programs might be useless, though, and I think that you do have a good point.
Here's something to munch on:
"If everybody is wrong and you are right, does that make everybody right and make you wrong"
So, how do you like my improvements on my site?
Let us first define the philosophical meaning of truth as a working definition...
Seriously, though, you would have to think about what it means to be right and what it means to know something to answer that question. How do we know that the sky is blue? Is it because a majority of people confirm that the sky is blue? No, that can only count as opinion. But the sky must be blue, because we can scientifically prove it! (Something else to think about: does that mean that cavemen didn't know the color of the sky?) But who says our science is correct?
Yes, the site looks pretty good, and I like the addition of tags. Looks like you plan to develop this blog into a pretty big project. Go for it!
I also like how the fish food is visible. :)
Also, what do you think about self-study? I think you probably have much to say, since you learned Chinese by yourself/with your parents!
Okay, pretend we're idiots here. Assume scientific observations are impossible, and everybody thinks the sky is red, except you who thinks its blue. Even if you revolt against the mass majority, they will rule you back, with more people to back them up.
Ex. Let's take Ptolemy for example. He thought everything revolved around the Earth, and everybody believed him, and accepted what he said was the truth. Even when scientists argued that the earth was not the center of the universe, the scientists were denied and even killed.
But during Ptolemy's time, everyone thought that the Earth was the center of the Solar System; it was a universal fact, just as we now know the Sun is at the center. But back then, that belief was just as false as it is now. So clearly majority consensus doesn't verify truth.
So what does? Will it help if we ask what makes the world real? If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?
If you lived back then, and knew nothing of the truth, and only that the earth is in the center of the universe, you would accept it as a fact, and it is a "fact" back then, even though we pretty much acknowledge something else now.
If it is unrecorded then no.
A cow can appear out of nowhere in the universe right now, and we didn't know it, then it basically happened, but to us, it didn't happen. The cow would be nonexistent until we find it.
That's one way to look at it.
Post a Comment