Saturday, February 16, 2008

Environmental Propaganda: Fictional "Map" of the Seas

"Water, water, everywhere, nor any drop pristine, might be the lament of today's Ancient Mariner. Oceans cover more than 70 percent of the planet, and every single spot has been affected by people in some way."

Yep. I don't make this stuff up.  An environmental scientist/group has done a fantasy "map" of the world's oceans for no other purpose than to put out the idea that people are having a bad effect of our oceans.  As the story goes on, it starts talking about how a meter rise in sea level will FLOOD/inundate all of these populated areas ("Oh, the HUNANITY"!!!!--famous radio broadcast as the Hindenburg burned)

This is PROPOGANDA, pure and simple.  HOW does "affected in some way"  (you can't get any more MEANINGLESS than that, especially when the "global warming" people themselves say EVERYTHING is affected by "global warming") translate to the seas "rising one meter"? It DOESN'T.  There is NO real, present indication that the seas are rising.  The agenda behind ths story is revealed by how it MORPHS into "global warming" propaganda.

People are affecting ALL parts of the seas in "some way"?  HOW do you solve that one?  Hint:  NOTHING proposed on "global warming" will do it.  Solution:  ELIMINATE PEOPLE (don't laugh; some radical environmentalists have said we need to REDUCE the number of perople on Earth, and that vast death would be a GOOD thing).

WHO are presently having perhaps the WORST "impact" on planet Earth right now?  It is the radical environmentalists.

I am talking about this push toward BIOFUELS.  Sure, a gradual use of "biofuels", as they become perfected and economic, is probably a good thing.  But this push for a "crash program" of biofuels is a DISASTER for the environment. 

Remember when environmentalists used to worry about the "rainforest" (before putting all of their eggs in the "global warming" basket).  Well, a recent study says that the push toward biofuels encourages the destruction of the rainforests (Brazil is big into biofuels), and INCREASES the emissions of cabon into the atmosphere.  A U.N. official has also called it a "crime against humanity" (okay, over-the-top, but so is "global warming") to TAKE FOOD FROM THE MOUTHS OF THE POOR by switching food producting resources to FUEL.

From here on I mix my own comments with quotes from AOL (under the story in question):

"It's all a transfer of wealth plot!"

Indeed it is. China's response to "global warmng" demands on it: "You are rich, and we are poor. It is YOUR problem." India has done little different. "Global warming" is NOT "science". It is an attempted USE of a vague concept (NOT a coherent "theory" of climate) to advance LEFTIST (and radical environmental), anti-capitalist policies that they were advocating PREVIOUSLY.

You doubt? Ask yourself whether "global warming" PREDICTED a COOL 2007 winter/year for the U.S. and a COOL winter (U.S. again) so far this year. As Michael Crichton pointed out in "State of Fear", there remains NO considtent warming trend in U.S. temperatures since 1880.

"Interesting that the extreme variations and record setting changes in weather have not been addressed by the media with some statistics. It is obvious that this past year has been drastically more catastrophic with respect to weather-related damages and deaths. It's almost like "oh another record rainfall" or "amazing about the tornados." but no aggregate statistics even on CNN."

This shows the intellectual DISNONESTY of "global warming" people. There are NO specific "global warming" theory (again it is NOT a coherent "theory" of climate) PREDICTIONS of weather. There is NO proven link between "global warming" and weather events. As I previously stated, 2007 was NOT a "warm" year for the U.S., and there is NO consistent warming trend of UNITED STATES temperatures since 1880. The winter of 2008 is--so far--no exception. NASA has released figures for January that the average U.S. temperatures were .3 dggrees LESS than the average SINCE 1895.

"Global warming" people want to SAY that ALL bad weather events are due to "global warming", WITHOUT ANY SCIETIFIC EVIDENCE at all.  For the entire history of the Earth, thre has been violent weather.   "Global warmng" people want to associate "bad" weather with "global warmng" because there is ALWAYS some bad weather (including "records"--as there was record COLD this August in New York City) and reocrd COLD and snow both this winter and last winter).  Needless to say, "global warming" has failed to PREDICT any SPECIFIC bad weather because it is NOT a cohernet "theory" of climate.

Hurricane expert William Gray has RIDICULED the idea that "global warming" and hurricanes are connected.  Note that "global warming" has also FAILED to PREDICT the DECREASE in hurricanes since the bad year of Katrina.  Weather is variable (and presently does NOT support "global warming" in the U.S.).  It is DISHONEST to suggest that bad weather events are "connected" to "global warming" with NO scientific evudence supports such conclusion (especially as to single events, as distinguished from the vague assertion that "gobal warming" could result in more violtent weather).

I regularly note that there is NO warming termperature trend IN THE UNTIED STATES since the 19th Century under "winter storm" stories on AOL (including on this blog) .  WHY do I do that, sand suffer the inevitalbe allegation that I am trying to politicize the weather?

I do it for the very reson that specific weather events, and even abnormal YEARS, do NOT support the vague concept (not coherent climate theory) of "global warming".  1936 was the WARMEST year in United States history.  Therefore, the fact that 2006 was TIED for that spot means NOTHING (no "warmng" since 1936).  If you are going to try to say that individual days, months and years "supprot" the "theory" of "global warming", then I am going to continue to point out when the weather does NOT support "global warming" (such as an average to COOL 2007 and COOL--so far--winter of 2008, in the U.S.

"And skip3366, like many others on this board, you should really research "the "THEORY of global warming a little more before condemning it. #1) the suspected consequences are predicted to have the biggest impact on FUTURE generations, i.e. your children's children, and their children after that, this is something WIDELY advocated by scientists, no one has laid the claim that we will walk outside next week and roast! #2) global "warming" refers to the fact that the temperature of the ENTIRE world will INCREASE. this does not mean every place on earth will simply get hotter. CLIMATES WILL CHANGE."

I am not the one who should examine what I am saying.  YES, periodically "global warming" fanatics DO claim that we will ROAST next summer (or that the North Pole will melt in 5 to 7 years, which we can do NOTHING about if it were true).  the above illustrates my point perfectly:  HOW can "global warming" claim to be a coherent "theory"  of climate when it can't predict ANYTHING (including the mythical "temperature of the earth"--the earth does not have a single temperature) a YEAR in advance,but clamis to be able to predict generations in advance.



No comments: