In my ongoing campaign to assure you that the sky is indeed falling*, the end of the world is nigh, and dogs and cats will soon be living together while glaciers devour your back yard as your house floats out to sea in the Alaskan tropics during this Worst Year Ever For Hurricanes, I bring you:
35 Inconvenient Truths
Or the Nifty PDF, if you’d rather keep a copy to share with all your friends.
Enjoy.
by
Tags:
Certainly I’ve considered the societies and their statements. I’ve also read the science myself, and followed the money.
I’ve also played this game before. Twenty years ago, we had a coming ice age. Now we have a coming global warming. And while cherry-picking the data supports either contention, or any other contention you’d care to forward—actual personal investigation beyond what “everybody says” doesn’t support either, and never did.
It’s a power grab.
I am coming late to this party, but I’d just like to point out that the article and website that Holly points to in her blog post is very obviously biased in an ultra-conservative direction. It’s also interesting to me that most of the “articles” on the site are rebuttals to Al Gore and his book/movie. Al Gore is not a scientist! Where are the so-called objective debates among the real scientists?
Also, has Holly, or any of the posters here who agree with her, considered that the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, the American Chemical Society, the American Institute of Physics, and the American Astronomical Society have ALL issued statements indicating that available evidence strongly points to human-caused climate change and that immediate action is needed?
While there is still much uncertainty in terms of what exactly might happen or when, is it any wonder that Al Gore and others are trying to create a greater sense of urgency in people? I don’t believe the ends justifies the means, necessarily, but you have to admit that in most cases human beings are self-centered and short-sighted, and if something they are doing in the moment has long-term consequences most would say “I don’t care”. If it were me, I would try hard to emphasize that there were consequences that would be seen in one person’s lifetime, just so people would get up off their lazy self-centered butts and do something!
And what about the fact that the level of melting in the Arctic Circle is higher than it’s ever been in recorded history? I could go on and on. The REAL news and REAL science journals are full of evidence, if you are willing to go out and read them. I find it ironic that the conservatives are always whining about how the media is biased toward liberals, when in fact their so-called rebuttals are always FAR more biased and unrealistic, if not patently FALSE.
Ah, OK, I get you about the carbon, though I still don’t know that I’ve noticed. I have a cabin in a low valley outside Wasilla in which I’ve spent the winter…veryvery cold (though friends in Fairbanks would scoff at that statement), about 10 degrees colder than “downtown” Wasilla on some days, but the air was great. We’re out of the wind, too, but maybe the stuff just goes in another direction.
Anyway, I agree with ya, mostly. So there.
And it’s always good to hear from another Alaskan.
{8′>
Just a simple conversational reply, since I feel like I’ve thoroughly embarrassed myself already. 😉 Regarding the carbon issue– my chemical astuteness is lacking, so I’ll present best I can from experience and conversations that have occurred. I think the major problem is that I meant ‘gaseous carbon compounds’ instead of raw carbon. Forgive me my discrepancies.
Speaking as someone who has spent their entire life in AK as well… Various kinds of emissions like car exhaust, because it’s both ****ing cold out and because the emissions are heavier than oxygen, will sorta sink down into the lower altitudes in the interior and stay there for a bit. I don’t know precisely the meaning and mechanism behind it, but apparently when traffic picks up on a cold morning, the air down there really sucks to breathe. Stinktastic and probably just a little heavy. But no, I’m not referring to charcoal-gunk all over the place.
In hindsight I could have said all I wanted to in a very concise way, so I’d like to try again without being a wordy prat. Two things: ‘It’s good to have a local perspective,’ and ‘just because Gore may be full of it, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take the time to look at the whole case objectively before deciding for yourself.’ Looking back, a lot of what I said… is completely irrelevant. What about me isn’t these days, though? I just hope Miss Lisle can forgive my falliability in her blog.
Oh, and in case that was just a wee bit over-the-top sarcastic for anyone to tell: yes, that article kicked some serious gluteus maximus.
I personally am just thankful that that nice old man told me to order a handy Sky-Crumbling Prevention Kit off of that informercial. You can prevent global warming AND the apocalypse for only four easy payments of $99.95. So take that, all you people who say global warming is a farce! The stars will fall and I’LL be in my fortressed house drinking not-fair-trade coffee and shredding rainforests of paper!
Speaking as an Alaskan who used to travel all over the state until a couple of years ago…huh? Carbon? Is that another name for snow?
Anyway, sorry, this just tickled my funny bone. Soot from volcanoes I know about, and I’ve seen it covering everything–I do mean everything–up to a couple of inches deep. Also I love those freakishly frigid nights. But this carbon thing just confuses me. Unless it actually is _white_ carbon. In which case a lot of frustrated cross-country skiers, among others, will begin sacrificing moose or anything else handy to get some more carbon during the frustrating brown months. Green’s good, and white’s good. But brown is just ugly. By comparison to other Alaskan seasons, anyway.
Also I think some animals actually _eat_ plants. I try to avoid that myself, but I’ve heard it happens in the wild. Ick. I’ve expanded enough without trying to match the food supply–I’ll leave that to populations.
I agree with you about the tone of the article, though–it put me off a bit. However I did form the impression that the weaker arguments could have been left off or in some cases replaced by better choices to the same effect (been doing some googling on the topics involved). But that’s not really a fair statement as I should be more specific to allow rebuttal, so…hmm. Guess I ought to shut up, then. So I will, because the only reason I’m writing is that anything Alaskan hits me where I, well, live.
Also this isn’t my blog, and it’s not my place to argue with people here…though it is kinda fun, when done in fun. So: YMMV, and I don’t mind whatever your beliefs might happen to be. Could be you’re right on all counts, anyway.
I just haven’t seen the carbon. But I don’t seriously propose that that means it’s not there. Somewhere. Which valley are you referring to?
I’m not sure I’m entirely comfortable with the tone of that article. For a scientific rebuttal, it feels strangely political at points, personal at others
Probably the thing that really bit me the hardest though was the ‘carbon dioxide is not pollution’ thing. Why? Because plants thrive on it. In a sense, I suppose that excess of pure oxygen is pollution to them. But, if the change in levels is enough to have a significant benefit to plants as a result of their respiration… it’s worrisome in regard to how that may be a detriment to the other side of the spectrum. A less healthy variance in animals? Who knows. Nature isn’t about purity so much as it is equilibrium, and I don’t really have the facts to back up any concrete statements, so I won’t.
I will say that I’m sick of seeing the uncertainty used as a hand-waving way to write-off concerns for the environment. The world is changing constantly and pumping an increasing amount of chemicals out there, well– even if it doesn’t cause disasters, it sucks. The way carbon accumulates on a cold winter day in the valley in interior Alaska is far from pleasant, even if it isn’t causing massive extinctions.
The last thing I believe is something like ‘if we keep driving cars, we’ll live in Waterworld in 2050.’ But people still need to be aware what /will/ happen when they put in a large amount of chemicals into their local environs. Things can change for better, for worse, or so nominally no one will care. I worry that the extreme scope of the ‘global warming’ argument might overlook aspects that still affect our lives, even if not in a grand sense.
It’s still important to cherish and protect what we have. Even if that means seeing the beauty in those freakishly frigid arctic nights.
Sorry to rattle on so much. I’m curious on your perspective, but it’s also cool if you just delete this mess. :3
Well, I live in Texas, so frankly if we have global warming, I’m not sure we’d notice! 🙂 An ice age, especially from around April to September would be kind of nice actually.
We had about 3 weeks of summer this year. In September. Otherwise, we’ve been cool and damp, definitely not the hot/dry midwest the global warming experts predict.
But, hey, it’s Iowa. Don’t like the weather? Wait five minutes. 😉
Mt great grandmother – born 1886, died 1977 – used to say that.
Yup. I just haven’t been able to catch a break from those hurricanes this year. And that Ice Age this summer. Whew. I’m sure it will warm up this winter — and maybe the rain will stop while we’re at it.
Me? I’m lobbying to get those cows to stop expelling greenhouse gases. And while we’re at it, let’s expend a ton of energy designing cattle chow so they aren’t so gassy in the first place.
I could go on…but there’s a chunk of sky on my neck.
Leave a Reply