Wednesday, May 26, 2004

The "all-time"ate Scapegoat

I'd have a headache, too

I was reading an article on the magazine I've sworn 87 times not read, Rolling Stone, about how "the sceintists" say Global warming has allready started, and becuase America doesnt participate in the summits that are held, we're all doomed to die. Infact, the article went on to speculate whether or not the movie "The Day After Tommorow" could happen...
Well, here, i'll be analytical about the entire article:

a) It starts off talking about a heat wave that killed thousands in France in august of last year, saying that it wasnt an act of God, that it had mans finger prints all over it. and this is due, to global warming, and fossil fuels. of course, we know this becuase... oh wait, it doesnt talk about that.

b) Global warming is no longer a theory, some distant doomsday. It's all too real -- and it's here now. Indeed, the only serious debate in the scientific community is not whether we are changing the climate, but how much and how bad will it get.

Oh really? what about the people who arent sceintests, and who arent, as many seminar speakers have been pointing out, doing expirements once, and then not researching the other side. I hate referring to them as "the scientists", i for one, do not think that its a label of intellegence or credibillaty, as everyone else is dupped into thinking. this sentence is one big hype, and we are to believe this writer knows this, becuase some sceintets we dont hear any more about, say so. I question whether or not sceince can even bring this thesis about. I've never read any article about how this information is obtained, and how we
know the means of obtaining the information arent theorys in and of themesleves.

c)"One event is not evidence," says Houghton. "But if you get these happening rather often, then you begin to see a trend."

Right, but its a known fact by these sceintests that the last time a trend or warmth happened, it lead to an ice age. and there might of been other trends, but we dont have the recorded history of alltime, therefor, yeah, its gotten hotter the last 300 years, but we havent the ability to accurately measure weather patterns before those 300 years. and many say such semi-recorded events such as 'noahs flood' most likely were small(scholars speculate the biblical tale was based on a small flood of the area, not the world) weather realted happening as a part of another trend that fluxated back to the 'neutral' stage we were apparently at 300 years ago.

d)Take the world's glaciers. Kilimanjaro's permanent ice cap in Kenya -- Hemingway's "Snows of Kilimanjaro" -- is melting at an astonishing rate. In fifteen years it will completely disappear

Another biased writing tactic. infact, does the author (Tom Dickinson) actually beleive people will consider him a teller of the future. for proof that we dont know this melting will happen, watch the weather channel for your area and than watch the weather outside. i was told just this weekend that a strom with winds upwards of 60 mph and terenchel rain was headed for the Iowa City/Coralville area. It never came. I could explain other logic, and theories on predictions, but i think this sums up that bullshit.

e)Once Bush became president, however, reducing carbon emissions was the first promise he broke -- and his record has been all downhill from there. Only two months after taking office, the administration withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, the global treaty that the United States signed in 1997 to set strict limits on greenhouse emissions. Instead, Bush instituted a voluntary emissions plan that has been an abject failure: So far, only fourteen companies have pledged to curb their CO2 output.

Heres a big kicker, Dickinson of course doesnt tell you why the "Bush-runs-the-entire-government-because-checks-and-ballances-dont-exist administration" left Kyoto (i dont know either, which is why this article would be wise to tell you), and somehow leads us to beleive its Bush's entire fault that thes companies arent enforcing this. I wonder what Momar Khadafi's enviornmental plan was, or Beruit's, or even Mexico's. becuase, this isnt a joint fuck-up, its not even a senate or judicial branch fuck-up, just Bush.

f)Seven months later, the White House made wholesale revisions to the climate-change chapter of the EPA's "Report on the Environment," playing down human influence, deleting references to the health impacts of global warming and inserting climate data funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute. The EPA withdrew the altered chapter, acknowledging in an internal memo that it "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change."

Oh shit..yeah, man, sorry, forgot that the EPA was God, and should be regarded with such fervor.

g)Bush can rely on key Republicans in Congress to block any efforts to curb pollution and stave off disaster.

But of course, the democrats wont try and prevent this block, becuase, what we really need is more things to blame solely on the President.

h)James Inhofe, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, dismisses global warming as a "hoax." In a speech last July, Inhofe compared the IPCC to the Soviets and extolled the virtues of what he called a "CO2-enhanced" world. "It is my fervent hope," he concluded, "that Congress will reject the prophets of doom who peddle propaganda masquerading as science in the name of saving the planet from catastrophic disaster."

Well, they say this guy is wrong becuase...oh wait, no, once again, thats not in there. Lord forbid he goes against God, i mean, the EPA.

i)As inhofe railed against global warming from the Senate floor, one "prophet of doom" was quietly working to defend America from global warming. Now in his eighties, Andrew W. Marshall is so renowned for his visionary powers that his admirers call him Yoda. But Marshall doesn't work for an environmental group such as Greenpeace, or even for what Inhofe calls the "Gestapo bureaucracy" of the EPA. He works for the Pentagon. As director of the Office of Net Assessment, a small branch of the Defense Department charged with identifying long-term threats, Marshall had been worried about worldwide climate reports ever since the military's disastrous experience in Somalia. In 1993, a U.S. helicopter was shot down in the capital city of Mogadishu, and the body of an American soldier was dragged through the streets. What was the U.S. doing there in the first place? Guarding a famine-relief effort that had been precipitated by a severe drought. If localized dry weather could lead to Black Hawk Down, the Pentagon worried, just imagine what kind of trouble a sudden shift in the global climate could bring.

Quite simply this is saying: haha, you cant say its just the EPA, becuase other people not involved agree, which of course isnt supposed to happen in your argument. he is right about Mogadishu, becuase it'll allways be us fighting for/protecting people the U.N forgets to remember.

j)As Europe plunges into a Siberian chill, the rest of the globe continues to sizzle. Sea levels rise. Megadroughts strike worldwide, spawning dust bowls and destroying crops. The world suffers from "catastrophic shortages of water and energy supplies." Earth's "carrying capacity" -- militaryspeak for the number of people it can feed - drops radically. Given the deadly shortages of food, civilization erodes as "constant battles for diminishing resources" become the norm. "Every time there is a choice between starving and raiding," Schwartz writes, "humans raid." America turns inward, attempting to shield itself from the flood of refugees from the drought-stricken Caribbean. Hostilities arise between the U.S. and Mexico as both countries jockey for water from the Colorado River. Europe considers invading Russia for its food, and Japan eyes Russia's oil. Africa starves. Bangladesh is unlivable. Famine drives chaos in Asia. "Envision Pakistan, India and China - all armed with nuclear weapons - skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers and arable land," the scenario suggests. "In this world of warring states, nuclear-arms proliferation is inevitable."

"Once again," the report concludes starkly, "warfare would define human life."


Ok..then heres what made me laugh out loud.

This apocalyptic vision is not a prediction, Schwartz insists, but rather a scenario at the "outer edge of plausibility."

Honeslty, i thought Dickinson would say 'but reality' again, but even he doesnt have the heart to lie to us even further. Yesterday a solar flare had a 10% chance of wiping out the entire human race. Same shit, different scare tactic. But of course, Dickinson should make sure he gives Jerry Brukhaimer more ideas.

k) But limiting global warming will take a combination of aggressive policies -- and the full participation of the United States. "The United States emits something like one-fourth of the world's carbon dioxide," says King, the British science adviser. "There's little doubt we need American leadership." Increasing fuel standards is essential: Cars, trucks, ships and airplanes account for almost a third of global emissions. Planting more forests would help absorb carbon in the atmosphere -- China is currently spending $8 billion to plant nearly 9 million acres of new trees. Even a little energy efficiency would help: The amount of energy burned by 9 million American homes could power 19 million in Europe. Ultimately, though, putting the brakes on global warming will mean shifting to energy sources that are less destructive to the atmosphere. Even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the world's most famous Hummer fan, has called for investment in a "hydrogen highway" in California, paving the way for CO2-free cars.

And i suppose Awwnold came up with that on his own, not like Bush said we should do it and everyone got mad and bitched about health care and tax cuts.

l) "I'm talking about nasty surprises," [Scientist Shneider] adds. "Are there more of those lurking? Undoubtedly."

What if they're aren't, and thats my point in this post, maybe America backed out of Kyoto becuse they didnt wan't to waste time on something that hadnt been researched against, so you can comment all you want on this, i'd like to see what you think, or just see you call me a war-mongering bastard. But its not my fault, Bush's allwoing of Co2 allowed for the dinosaurs to die out and start this whole mess, jeez.

5 Comments:

Blogger Byron said...

Of course I had to respond.

>I've never read any article about how this information is obtained, and how we know the means of obtaining the information arent theorys in and of themesleves.

This is an article in a rock magazine, not some science digest. If you want to know how scientists figured out about global warming, you should look it up.

>we dont have the recorded history of alltime, therefor, yeah, its gotten hotter the last 300 years, but we havent the ability to accurately measure weather patterns before those 300 years.

What difference does it make?

>for proof that we dont know this melting will happen, watch the weather channel for your area and than watch the weather outside.

I don't know there's much correlation between predictiong the weekend's weather and predicting weather trends over the long run. You said it yourself that the planet is getting hotter.

>Heres a big kicker, Dickinson of course doesnt tell you why the "Bush-runs-the-entire-government-because-checks-and-ballances-dont-exist administration" left Kyoto (i dont know either, which is why this article would be wise to tell you)

Obviously we opted out because we couldn't uphold our end. This was actually mostly due to the recent trends with SUVs. You should look it up.

>Oh shit..yeah, man, sorry, forgot that the EPA was God, and should be regarded with such fervor.


Oh shit..yeah, man, sorry, forgot that the George W. Bush was Jesus (and a scientist, apparently), and should be regarded with such fervor.

>But of course, the democrats wont try and prevent this block, becuase, what we really need is more things to blame solely on the President.

Man, you're worse than D-COY. Do you think these Republicans give a shit about you?

>Well, they say this guy is wrong becuase...oh wait, no, once again, thats not in there. Lord forbid he goes against God, i mean, the EPA.

He's wrong because he's wrong. If you disagree, explain to us why he's right.

>Quite simply this is saying: haha, you cant say its just the EPA, becuase other people not involved agree, which of course isnt supposed to happen in your argument. he is right about Mogadishu, becuase it'll allways be us fighting for/protecting people the U.N forgets to remember.

None of this was in the article. You just made that up.

>Honeslty, i thought Dickinson would say 'but reality' again, but even he doesnt have the heart to lie to us even further.

Maybe he wasn't lying the whole time.

>Yesterday a solar flare had a 10% chance of wiping out the entire human race. Same shit, different scare tactic.

A) What does this have to do with anything?

B) How do you know there wasn't?

>And i suppose Awwnold came up with that on his own, not like Bush said we should do it and everyone got mad and bitched about health care and tax cuts.

Since it's such a dumb idea, is there any way we could credit to them both, jointly?

>maybe America backed out of Kyoto becuse they didnt wan't to waste time on something that hadnt been researched against

Maybe some people feel comfortable speculating without doing any research.

>so you can comment all you want on this, i'd like to see what you think, or just see you call me a war-mongering bastard.

War-mongering bastard.

11:28 PM  
Blogger John Servo said...

>This is an article in a rock magazine, not some science digest. If you want to know how scientists figured out about global warming, you should look it up.

this is the only thing you needed to say, and its true. I decided to do it just becuase. it was orignaly going to be a post about how people think Everything traces back to Bush, and how i can say it doesnt becuase i know how the government works, and am not under the 'speculation' we are being lied to. it might of been dumb that i wasted words on a rock magazine, but you said this and then deffended the dumb rock magazine aritcle at points,although mostly while just pointing out my argumentive weaknesses.

>>we dont have the recorded history of alltime, therefor, yeah, its gotten hotter the last 300 years, but we havent the ability to accurately measure weather patterns before those 300 years.

What difference does it make?

it means the earth is in fluxuation, and we dont have any previous diasters (save 1 speculated but evident ice age) to say it could happen again, nor can we accurately predict the future, but ..."You said it yourself that the planet is getting hotter" becuase it is, but i didnt say we had have a bad jerry bruckheimer movie next year, like this guy says. Dickinson hints to the fact that this is unlikely, but still doenst do that becuase he wants people to be scared, theres a large chance something can happen, and chance it won't, we dont know. really I should have said that i was trying to show how bad journalism is sometimes..

>Obviously we opted out because we couldn't uphold our end. This was actually mostly due to the recent trends with SUVs. You should look it up.

what about SUVs, thats why we pulled out? I have done research. From Edmunds:
"There is no conclusive proof that vehicle or industrial emissions have any bearing on either the short-term or long-term temperature of the earth's atmosphere. "
and besides, i doubt someone like bush who "doesnt listen to reason" would think that SUV's were a problem..if thats your point

>Oh shit..yeah, man, sorry, forgot that the George W. Bush was Jesus (and a scientist, apparently), and should be regarded with such fervor.

i'll just use your own words: "None of this was in the article. You just made that up."



>Man, you're worse than D-COY. Do you think these Republicans give a shit about you?

i dont know, i dont know if John Kerry gives a shit about me, or God, or Buhddah, or Alah. and besides, what does this have to do with point that Dickinson thinks it 'impossible' to stop Repubs.



>He's wrong because he's wrong. If you disagree, explain to us why he's right.

if im worse then D-Coy, your worse then Gertude Stein. Maybe he is wrong, but thanks to this article, i have to go "look that up".

>>Yesterday a solar flare had a 10% chance of wiping out the entire human race. Same shit, different scare tactic.

A) What does this have to do with anything?
-its the same kind of thing, it just scares us, we just here things in the news about how all this could happen, it doesnt matter.
B) How do you know there wasn't?
-thats my point.


>Since it's such a dumb idea, is there any way we could credit to them both, jointly?

....one big juvinille WTF to this. so i suppose we should just increase the prodution of Deisel cars...uh...becuase...that..helps better...then...reducing fossil fuel with hydrogen? with all this complaining, its going to be lose lose for the predsident(s) in every situation.

5:44 PM  
Blogger Byron said...

I'll respond to this now before I get really drunk, but I probably won't be back until tomorrow morning.

>"You said it yourself that the planet is getting hotter" becuase it is, but i didnt say we had have a bad jerry bruckheimer movie next year, like this guy says.

At points throughout your little essay, you make it sound as if this fact is debatable.

>what about SUVs, thats why we pulled out? I have done research. From Edmunds:
"There is no conclusive proof that vehicle or industrial emissions have any bearing on either the short-term or long-term temperature of the earth's atmosphere. "

Not the long-term temperature of the earth's atmosphere, the Kyoto treaty.

>i dont know, i dont know if John Kerry gives a shit about me, or God, or Buhddah, or Alah. and besides, what does this have to do with point that Dickinson thinks it 'impossible' to stop Repubs.

I didn't mention John Kerry, but I doubt if he gives a rat's ass about you either. Besides, he wasn't the one you came on here defending as if he was your pa.

>if im worse then D-Coy, your worse then Gertude Stein. Maybe he is wrong, but thanks to this article, i have to go "look that up".

I'm worse than everybody.

A) That still doesn't make it relevant to this discussion.

B) But nobody said there was either. A 10% chance is a 10% chance.

>....one big juvinille WTF to this. so i suppose we should just increase the prodution of Deisel cars...uh...becuase...that..helps better...then...reducing fossil fuel with hydrogen? with all this complaining, its going to be lose lose for the predsident(s) in every situation.

Both candidates do suck. Nobody thinks hydrogen fuel cells in cars is a good idea except Bush, Schwarzenegger and the people they pay to say that it is. I'm pretty sure they even had to back away from that position after it was announced in the State of the Union address a year or so ago.

9:18 PM  
Blogger JMJ said...

vote for John McCain

12:33 AM  
Blogger John Servo said...

I'm sorry if im making this seem like one big Bush Backer Post, but really I'm not crazy about the guy. But he isnt in charge of everything that happens and this article seems to think he is. Thats enough of this, im gonna start working on my 10 best comedies (T.v or movie) of all time.

2:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home