I think it was Karl who recommended the documentary "Cool It" based on
the book by Bjørn Lomborg. I can't recommend this movie enough.
It's on netflix instant streaming and available for rental.
Finally a global warming "alarmist" who's not an alarmist. Finally a
rational thinker who's not a "chicken-little" running around purporting
all kinds of made-up consequences that aren't backed up by *anyone's*
Yes, he believes that it is man-caused, but doesn't believe the sky is
falling or as Al Gore thinks, that we have only 10 years to avoid
catastrophic consequences. This is a guy I would actually sit down and
listen to, to gain his perspective on what evidence he sees that points
to man. Then tell him it's bullshit. :-p (please, laugh at that!)
Please watch this movie with an open mind, no matter what side of the
debate you are on.
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
Personally I don't believe in man made global warming. However all
"solutions" to solve the problem have been glorified new taxes schemes.
The big one being pushed is the Carbon Credit tax. This same solution
was tried in the early part of this century. It was then called Tobacco
Allotments. One of the "great" ideas coming from the New Deal. This has
taken nearly 70 years to get rid of, and now is money wasted on a dying
product. This wonderful idea cost trillions of dollars promoting a
product, that, since its inception, the government has spent trillions
of dollars discouraging its use. Perfect Liberal logic.
We are approaching this like the two blind men and the elephant. One
describe the animal as snake like when he touched its truck and the
other as tree like when he touched it leg.
If you read a chemistry book, and compare the "Solution" it is not hard
to see they are highly questionable solutions. The data supporting
these "Solutions" is based on questionable statistics. (0.3 degree
change can be proven in data with 100 degrees range?), questionable test
data (0.2 change in pH units when the three standards used in the
measurements are no better that plus or minus 0.2 units?), and
monitoring points that were in a farmer's field when the monitor site
was constructed, and today is in an asphalt parking lot.
So from this questionable data the solution to carbon dioxide that they
claimed to be changing the pH of the ocean is to collect the carbon
dioxide from the smokestacks and put it into the oceans. More Liberal
The bottom line is the got-to-do-something thinking and not have any
idea of the total chemistries and weather dynamics involved in the
problems. They think they understand the problem with a couple of
points in growing cities for a short period of a couple of hundred
years, and think they can predict how a systems the works on million
year scales. More liberal egotism.
I was converted when I read the first edition of his book "The Skeptical
Environmentalist." Over and over, like a voodoo drumbeat, the author tries
to employ a balancing test: Is the proposed solution worth the cost (or the
Hold on, let me get the book.
First he states the perceived problem (chapter picked at random):
"We often worry about all the waste piling up, wondering where it will all
can go*... This fear is perhaps expressed most clearly by Al Gore, who is
disturbed by 'the floodtide of garbage spilling out of our cities and
factories.' As landfills overflow, incinerators foul the air, and
neighboring communities and states 'attempt to dump their overflow problems
on us, we are now finally realizing that we are running out of ways to
dispose of our waste'..."
Then he states some facts:
"Each American produces about 4.5 pounds of waste per person per day..."
He then points out how prophets of doom greatly exaggerate the problmem.
"Once again, sum up the entire waste mass and pile it to 100 feet.
Surprisingly, we will only need a slightly larger area - it will fit within
a square, less than 18 miles on each side... In figure 115 this landfill
area is illustrated as being placed in Woodward County, Oklahoma. All the
American waste of the entire 21st century will fit into a single landfill,
using just 26% of the Woodward County area. Of the state of Oklahoma, the
landfill would use up less than one-half of one percent. Of the entire US
landmass, the landfill would take up about one-12,000th - less than 0.009
* All this assumes current technology. Had you asked a New Yorker in 1900
what he thought about the city's transportation problems 100 years hence
when the population of Manhattan had increased eight-fold, he would have
probably wondered where would we get all the necessary horses and what would
we do with all the horse shit.
I've often concluded that many problems in society result from
"progressives" trying to fix an upstream problem that really wasn't much. My
* Homelessness - When the liberals emptied the insane asylums
* Education - When the "educators" thought some new idea was better than
5,000 years of experience.
* Gun control - Where "no guns" implies no gun violence
* Aid to Families with Dependent Children - That resulted in MORE dependent
children and FEWER fathers
You've given me something to think about. I may very well have to add
"climate change" to my list of failed, but not abandoned, responses.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.