October 21, 2007
Some rants on Climate Change fear-mongering...
People are so ignorant. Global Warming and cooling has been occurring in cycles throughout history. No amount of money is going to change that. What governments SHOULD be doing is concentrating their environmental policy on REAL environmental issues, like smog, water pollution, and controlling the use of pesticides and toxins. The environmental movement, rather than sitting there "blowing hot air" about greenhouse gases and other bullshit concepts like "carbon footprints," they should go out and plant some trees, pick up litter in the park, stop putting pesticides on their lawns, maybe do something that actually helps make the world a better place to live in.
Money wasted on Kyoto bullshit should go to initiatives, like planting more trees in urban and suburban areas, making some of the beaches along the Great Lakes swimable again, and repopulating fish in lakes, streams, rivers and oceans.
But that's the problem with getting people to understand science. Virtually no one in the press or the public really understands the idea of "climate change," they just assume that the conclusion drawn is infallible when anyone who looks at it with any seriousness will understand that it is a theory, and that climate statistics can be distorted to demonstrate practically anything.
The theory also conveniently ignores things like the fact that the earth was warmer in the year 1000 AD than it is now, that much of the melting ice on Greenland is only a few hundred years old, that the temperature has been going down since 1998 and is at the same level as the "dustbowl" years of the 1930's, etc. The politicians don't understand, or really care to understand the issue. They've latched on to it because it is a perfect issue for them, no one really understands climate change, or has any reliable way of measuring it, politicians can threaten all kinds of horrors while boasting that insignificant initiatives have made enormous progress.
If we focused on problems like smog and water pollution that are visible and progress could actually be measured, politicians would have a great deal of difficulty, because failures would be apparent to everyone and once they are finally solved, the problems wouldn't continue to serve as bottomless pits for government cash and interference.
Money wasted on Kyoto bullshit should go to initiatives, like planting more trees in urban and suburban areas, making some of the beaches along the Great Lakes swimable again, and repopulating fish in lakes, streams, rivers and oceans.
But that's the problem with getting people to understand science. Virtually no one in the press or the public really understands the idea of "climate change," they just assume that the conclusion drawn is infallible when anyone who looks at it with any seriousness will understand that it is a theory, and that climate statistics can be distorted to demonstrate practically anything.
The theory also conveniently ignores things like the fact that the earth was warmer in the year 1000 AD than it is now, that much of the melting ice on Greenland is only a few hundred years old, that the temperature has been going down since 1998 and is at the same level as the "dustbowl" years of the 1930's, etc. The politicians don't understand, or really care to understand the issue. They've latched on to it because it is a perfect issue for them, no one really understands climate change, or has any reliable way of measuring it, politicians can threaten all kinds of horrors while boasting that insignificant initiatives have made enormous progress.
If we focused on problems like smog and water pollution that are visible and progress could actually be measured, politicians would have a great deal of difficulty, because failures would be apparent to everyone and once they are finally solved, the problems wouldn't continue to serve as bottomless pits for government cash and interference.
