We are all in the test tube together. What if we do nothing?
From: Sorghum Crow’s General Store
About Sharon Wilson
Sharon Wilson is considered a leading citizen expert on the impacts of shale oil and gas extraction. She is the go-to person whether it’s top EPA officials from D.C., national and international news networks, or residents facing the shock of eminent domain and the devastating environmental effects of natural gas development in their backyards.
- Web |
- More Posts(5116)
Hal Daul says
The stark headline appeared just over a year ago. ‘2007 to be ‘warmest on record,’ BBC News reported on Jan. 4, 2007. Citing experts in the British government’s Meteorological Office, the story announced that ‘the world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007,’ surpassing the all-time high reached in 1998. But a funny thing happened on the way to the planetary hot flash: Much of the planet grew bitterly cold… Given the number of worldwide cold events, it is no surprise that 2007 didn’t turn out to be the warmest ever. In fact, 2007’s global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006—and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001. The record set in 1998 has not been surpassed. For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate—it’s up about 4 percent since 1998—the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO2 is the cause of climate change. Yet so relentlessly has the alarmist scenario been hyped, and so disdainfully have dissenting views been dismissed, that millions of people assume Gore must be right when he insists: ‘The debate in the scientific community is over.’ But it isn’t. Just last month, more than 100 scientists signed a strongly worded open letter pointing out that climate change is a well-known natural phenomenon, and that adapting to it is far more sensible than attempting to prevent it. Because slashing carbon dioxide emissions means retarding economic development, they warned, ‘the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.’ Climate science isn’t a religion, and those who dispute its leading theory are not heretics. Much remains to be learned about how and why climate changes, and there is neither virtue nor wisdom in an emotional rush to counter global warming—especially if what’s coming is a global Big Chill.
The climate-change argument presented in the video begins and ends with false and horrifying assumptions.
Let’s assume the temperature of Earth will rise a degree or two in the coming century.
The argument assumes that man can undertake changes that will neutralize the effects of the warming without destroying life.
The madness of the argument surfaces at two points. First, the impact of a little warming. Water levels would rise if all the glaciers and all the polar ice caps melted. All that ice represents a vast quantity of fresh water — the stuff that is NOT available in sufficient quantities in much of the world.
Despite the naysayers, this is good news for thirsty people.
This year, in Africa alone, over a million people will die because they lack clean fresh water. A million people will die. This year. They will die from diseases contracted from dirty water.
A warmer planet would increase the amount of fresh water available to those regions that currently lack needed supplies. Of course, all the extra clean water would extend the life spans of Africans and increase food demands.
But in the world of Global Temperature Control, the planet would benefit if more people died.
In fact, the Global Temperature Control people would see the benefits of ending medical advancements. Too many people living long lives equals a big problem when you are attempting to cut energy consumption.
The new Government of Global Temperature Control would spot the benefits of a small investment in tobacco, alcohol and drugs. That government would understand that no medical treatments for cancer and cardio-pulmonary problems caused by smoking, drinking and drugs would reduce energy demand in a big way.
Second, and more influential, is the fact that Prosperity is the cause of increasing energy consumption, which causes the warming of the planet.
It is energy consumption that is identified as the cause of the warming. Prosperous people use much more energy than impoverished people.
Thus, to reduce the warming, humans must reduce the spread of prosperity.
That means it’s better for the poor to remain poor and unable to purchase energy-consuming products like cars, trucks, airplanes, homes, heaters, air conditioners, etc. It’s better if they die young.
Meanwhile, every new person on Earth increases overall global energy consumption. Worse, for your argument, is Prosperity. As poverty is replaced by prosperity, energy consumption rises.
Thus, by increasing the prosperity of Earth’s 6.5 billion residents, we will see increasing energy consumption.
Higher efficiency means nothing. If we doubled the miles-per-gallon of every car on Earth, but tripled the number of cars on the road, energy consumption would rise. That’s prosperity in action. That’s happening.
The number of motor vehicles could easily increase by a multiple of 10 without an increase in population. Thus, even if mileage increased by a multiple of 5, we’d still at least double energy consumption. However, it’s far more likely we will see the global population of motor vehicles increase by 10 rather than fuel efficiency increase by a multiple of 5. You get the picture.
Then there is the growing population. Demographers say we will see a population of 9 billion by 2050. That’s an increase of 2.5 billion in about 40 years. I think the estimate is low. Those new Earthlings will arrive in a world where prosperity is increasing faster than ever. China and India are moving ahead at astonishing rates.
In short, there is no possible method of reducing energy consumption — unless the world’s population decreases.
More people equals more energy use. Fewer people MIGHT use less energy. Maybe.
But once again, advancing prosperity is defined by rising per-capita energy consumption.
So which people will agree to consume less energy? Which country?
Who will subject themselves to the repressiveness of a government aiming to reduce prosperity?
Obviously such lunacy would require a reduction in life spans. Africa would become the model. Let diseases run rampant and allow the average person to die before age 50. That would help. To enforce limitations on aggregate energy consumption, we’d have to limit life spans. Hence, we’d have to execute people reaching an appropriate age.
Meanwhile, the idea of a global reduction of energy consumption is more accurately defined as the creation of a global marxist state. One where the government rations your energy consumption and enforces poverty wherever possible.
Since an increase in population equals an increase in energy consumption, this repressive world government would limit reproduction as well as setting a maximum life span. China has its limits — one child per family. And of course in China and a few other areas aborting females is common as a result of family-planning policies.
However, in our new Global Temperature Control world, the state would order abortions.
Thus, your worry about global warming means your individual reproductive rights would disappear. The state would dictate life. Maybe you would not object, but the state would disapprove of Catholicism because it is a religion that encourages large families, opposes abortion and opposes most birth control.
In short, the goals and strategies for fighting global warming are the foundation of the worst government action the human race could inflict upon itself.
Like they say in New Hampshire, Live Free or Die.
In the Brave New World of Global Temperature Control, we’d live without freedom and die young anyway — if we even continued to reproduce.
There is so much bullshit in you comment that I hardly know where to start. What an active imagination.
sharon, tell me why and how you think it’s possible to change the world with respect to the frightening outcomes offered by the video-geek.
If you think you can coerce every person on Earth to sacrifice and get in line behind the notion that decades down the road a problem MIGHT arise that we must ALL address now, you have zero understanding of human nature.
The goals of the Global Temperature Control people can only be achieved through genocide or a world dictatorship that is brutal beyond all imagination.
Here comes the rise of the machines. India’s increasing prosperity is multiplying its contributions to global temperature change. Nothing will stop the mobilization of over a billion Indians:
Automaker Unveils World’s Cheapest Car
By GAVIN RABINOWITZ,AP
NEW DELHI (Jan. 10) – India’s Tata Motors on Thursday unveiled its much anticipated $2,500 car, an ultra-cheap price tag that brings car ownership into the reach of tens of millions of people.
Company Chairman Ratan Tata, introducing the Nano – the world’s cheapest car…
With a snub nose and a sloping roof, it can fit five people – if they squeeze.
While the price has created a buzz, critics say the Nano could lead to possibly millions more automobiles hitting already clogged Indian roads, adding to mounting air and noise pollution problems.
Chief U.N. climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri, who shared last year’s Nobel Peace Prize, said last month that “I am having nightmares” about the prospect of the low-cost car.
The basic model will sell for for 100,000 rupees – $2,500.
The company has said they expect the car to revolutionize the auto industry, and analysts believe the Nano may force other manufacturers to lower their own pricing.
For now, the car will be sold only in India, but Tata has said it eventually hopes to export it.
As rising middle class incomes drive demand for cars in India, automakers expect the ranks of car owners in the country to expand dramatically in coming years.
In 2005, Indian vehicles released 219 million tons of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas blamed for global warming.
By 2035, that number is projected to increase to 1,467 million tons, due largely to the expanding middle-class and the expected rise of low-cost cars, according to the Asian Development Bank.
“The cheaper and cheaper vehicles become, the quicker those pollution levels will increase,” Leather said.