Thursday, November 12, 2009

Self-inflicted damage

We still have people among us who believe climate change is a hoax or some sort of natural cycle of the Earth, despite overwhelming and unrelenting evidence to the contrary. Another brick in the wall of reality was put in place this week with the release of a federal study showing that nearly half of the lakes and reservoirs across our country contain fish with potentially harmful levels of mercury, a metal that is toxic to us humans. An AP story notes that mercury is a pollutant "primarily released from coal-fired power plants." Coal is a valuable fuel resource in our country, and the industry is a provider of a great many jobs in this area, but it galls me that when someone suggests that we need to do more to control emissions from coal-fired power plants - at some additional cost to consumers - the climate change deniers and energy industry apologists start shrieking as if their hair were on fire. The new EPA study on lake and reservoir pollution is yet one more sign that we need to quit poisoning the world in which we live. It amazes me that with all the technological advances and brilliant minds we have in this country, we are still burning rocks for fuel, but if we are going to do so – and we clearly are for at least decades to come – we must find ways that do not kill us in the process.

Labels: , ,


Anonymous Abish said...

This post is a joke. I can prove it in your first sentence. Al Gore warned all of us of global warming just a few short years ago. Now the name has changed, it's "CLIMATE CHANGE". Why? Cause everytime he spat off at the mouth we would have a record snow fall!

Ever hear of the ice age? Did they melt then come back? Yes. Was that a cycle? Sure the climate changes. We have cycles. We have long cycles and short cycles. Short cycles being spring,summer,fall and winter.

Look, if you want to pay for cap and trade fine. I don't think paying Al Gores company for my carbon footprint will reduce my output. Who wins with this? Al Gore and Goldman Sachs. It's joke!

If you buy into climate change, please by all means find the oldest person you know with a good mind and ask them if it's a cycle or co2!

Mercury in our water is another story. That is bad! What about mercury in vaccinations? Is it good to shoot mercury directly into your body?

Nafta, national health care, cap and trade, corp bailouts, decline of the dollar is all to bring the United States to it's knees. It's liberal to live like third world citizens! Instead of doing everything in the power of the Federal govt to save the dollar the liberals are stepping on the fingers of the dollar as it hangs on the edge of the cliff.

I will share this with you. I think it's Dec 2 on True Tv, Jesse Ventura has a new show coming out. The name of the show is Conspiracy Theories. He will be going out and going to places that are at the center of conspiracy theories. One of the topics will be global warming!

November 12, 2009 at 1:14 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

You certainly covered a lot of ground there. Here's something from NASA to explain the difference in terminology between global warming and climate change:

Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.

Now, here is another story that just moved on the AP wire. But you go ahead and deny reality all you want:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Record high temperatures are occurring more than twice as often as record lows.
According to a new study, between Jan. 1, 2000 and Sept. 30, this year the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420 record lows at various locations.
“Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather in the United States,” said Gerald Meehl, a researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the lead author of the study.
In addition to NCAR, the research was done by scientists at the Weather Channel and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It is being published in Geophysical Research Letters.

November 12, 2009 at 1:22 PM  
Anonymous Seeker of truth said...

You have to ask who funded the studies. Then if the study was a bust, would they be funded to do the study again? In other words, would they make as much money next year? In your search engine type in global warming / climate change hoax, false, myth, natural. Pick one. You will find an equal amont of articles opposing viewpoints. The difference between the two is one was funded by a certain group! The other was done by self means. The global warmers are saying the polar bears are dying off, and the truth tellers tell you the polar bears are on a population rise!

November 12, 2009 at 1:54 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

The vast, vast majority of reputable scientists say that climate change is real and human activity is contributing to global warming. The opposing viewpoints typically come from wingnuts.

November 12, 2009 at 2:02 PM  
Anonymous Seeker said...

Just for you Brant.

November 12, 2009 at 2:12 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

I'll refer you back to what I said in the previous post. Just because some "researcher" posted his "findings" on a Web site doesn't give it any validity. The Geophysical Research Letters, to which this research was posted, is a publication of the American Geophysical Union. And here's what that group had to say about climate change, which would seem to refute the idea that the Earth is doing a really great job of absorbing the extra greenhouse gases:

The AGU issued a position statement on climate change in December 2003 [1], and revised and reaffirmed the statement in 2007 [2]. The revised statement begins:
The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system--including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons--are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

November 12, 2009 at 2:36 PM  
Anonymous Silly liberals said...

I think we should go on the honor system. If you think there is global warming/change please send a $100 money order to Al Gore, then another $25 money order to Goldman Sachs every month. If you don't think there is global warming/change please invest that $25 dollars a mth into fighting globalist. Who do you think would win?

November 12, 2009 at 3:59 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

Most Americans (85 percent) believe global warming is happening now, more than half (60 percent) perceive global warming as a great threat to themselves, and even more (88 percent) believe global warming threatens future generations, according to a TIME magazine/ABC News/Stanford University poll.

Based on those numbers, I'm going to have to say that intelligent people outnumber dolts, so I'm not sure your plan it going to work out so well for you.

November 12, 2009 at 4:11 PM  
Blogger PRIguy said...

It's undeniable that humans have an effect on the climate. It's naive to think that we aren't doing some damage with burning fossil fuels for energy. However, the whole global warming-climate change thing is a joke to me. I think it's the way it's been "marketed" to us. When the threats from the GB zealots fell on deaf or cynical ears for several years, they hauled out the "dying polar bear" argument. Who wasn't touched by the idea of those cute little cubs dying? But with each record snowfall, with each new temperature low in various cities, with each of their arguments being backed by, as Brant calls them, a wingnut (like Stephen Chu, another ubiquitous Obama czar who wants us to paint all the roofs in the world white), the fight lost steam and eventually the topic became climate change.

I have no doubt that we're damaging the ozone and water. However, my main issue with this whole inane argument is, why is it up to the United States to handle all of this? China is becoming a formidable manufacturing power, but you never hear about anyone over there giving a flying f**k about the ozone or what they're doing to the glaciers. And this might sound callous, but by the time all of the horrible effects of global warming or climate change or whatever it will be called in six months or a year happen, I and everyone I know or might know will be dead and gone.

Gore and his "green" companies stand to make an incredible amount of money as the green movement creeps forward. I don't really care if he gets richer. I mean, if he can invent the Internet and serve eight years with BJ Bill Clinton while keeping a straight face and not saying anything, then he just might be the man to save those baby polar bears. As long as he does it before 2012...which we all know, global warming, climate change, or the end of the world.

November 12, 2009 at 4:12 PM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

How do I send 25 dollars to fight a globalist?

If I bought local, wouldn't that fight the globalist AND reduce global warming?

On the other side:
And why would I send it directly to Goldman or Gore? Why wouldn't I put that money into weatherizing my house, upgrading my appliances, or paying a premium for environmentally friendly products that are produced in a sustainable fashion?

And why do I have to start off 100 dollars EXTRA in the hole if I pick A instead of B?

Your experiment is fatally flawed from the get-go

November 12, 2009 at 4:14 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

Pri, I'm really getting a kick out of the 2012 lunacy. People have been predicting the imminent end of the world, rapture, etc. for centuries, and they've sometimes been able to get people to follow them and give them money. But so far, they've always been wrong. If you want to watch one of the funniest shows on television, go to one of your local religious channels and find the Rev. Jack Van Impe's TV show. He and his wife, Rexella, who has had more plastic surgery than Joan Rivers, are downright hilarious. They both claim to have doctorates, so what they say has to be true. Right?

November 12, 2009 at 4:25 PM  
Blogger PRIguy said...

I'll have to see if I can find the pair you mentioned. The names don't ring a bell.

I learned a long time ago that having a degree doesn't necessarily make you smart. I went through college with this girl, took all the same classes since we were the same major...she began every single sentence with the word, "Dude." Through one of those bizarre life twists we rarely understand, I ended up doing freelance writing for her since she got a job I tried hard to get. By then, she had dropped "dude" from her lexicon, but I never forgot the days when I proofread papers for her, helped her in graphics class, and so on. (I confess to finding her quite attractive physically although intellectually repugnant.) Anyway, one can have an alphabet behind his or her name, but that doesn't always equate to intelligence.

I confess to watching a few of those "end of the world" shows, the ones that interpret Nostradamus, etc. It's all so speculative. "This symbol indicates XXXX, therefore, there's the possibility that two thousand years later, it might translate to the end of the world, the rise to power of Hussein, or that we'll have a black president, or that his wife will have a big ass, or that the Redskins will shame themselves in the 2009-10 season."

Speculation and interpretation. It's the equivalent of careful editing in so-called reality shows. That "2012" movie looks absolutely ridiculous. Have you seen the previews? And I'm sorry, but I just can't get past John Cusack as the action-hero type. The Mayans must be rolling over in their graves...haha.

November 12, 2009 at 7:49 PM  
Anonymous Global Warming is fake said...

E please send your money to:

po box 1456
fighttheglobalist, WVA 15322

thank you.

isn't it funny that there is a whole in the ozone but the world keeps turning?

November 12, 2009 at 10:44 PM  

Most Americans (85 percent) believe global warming is happening now, more than half (60 percent) perceive global warming as a great threat to themselves, and even more (88 percent) believe global warming threatens future generations, according to a TIME magazine/ABC News/Stanford University poll.



The same time that had Obama on the cover 9 times in a year? Those polls could never be bought!


November 12, 2009 at 10:47 PM  
Anonymous gangsta said...

i think if al snore would talk about eco system change and the direct causes of man i would listen. hell i would even pay him 15 cents on every dollar i spent to keep my lifestyle. see how funny that sounds? i would pay another man for doing nothing? i don't think al snore should be able to have such a impact on my life if i choose to drive a hummer or fuel cell car. i will stop driving my hummer when al snore stops taking a pvt jet around the world. al snore is a liar and only the sheep follows. who ever rights this blog ought have a good talken too. to who ever writes this blog, you should send $1200 a year to al snore cause your momma forgot to have an abortion! don't you know you are killing the earth by being alive? it's all fake just like who ever writes this liberal blog. i haven't seen you take one side of the right. you are so far left that you can't see str8. i laugh at your msnb post everyday. your mom should be slapped cause she didn't put you in a jar.

November 12, 2009 at 11:21 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

Uh, you might want to take a look at the blog entry right above this one. It's the one where I express my opposition to government funding of abortions. I don't believe that's a liberal position. The literacy council could probably help you with your reading comprehension problems.

November 13, 2009 at 6:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the worlds ends in 2012, it will be doing a us favor. No more politics, taxes, fear of impending doom by global warming and nuclear warfare, no more abortions arguments, no more movies about the end of the world. Now, if there's a line of illegal aliens outside heaven, we have some serious problems ...

November 13, 2009 at 12:46 PM  
Blogger Cylinsier said...

Can someone explain to me why its a bad idea to cut down on carbon emissions and try to keep the earth cleaner? Don't even say anything about global warming or climate change. I don't care about either of those things. I want to know why using cleaner forms of energy and keeping toxins out of our food and water supplies is a bad idea, sans anti-global warming or anti-climate change rhetoric. Keeping ourselves and our children healthy right now has nothing to do with whether or not the climate is changing and who is to blame for it.

November 16, 2009 at 9:13 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home