And then you have blatantly misleading logic like this paragraph
Speaking of Hummers, perhaps it is environmentally responsible to buy one and squash a Prius with it. The Prius hybrid is, of course, fuel-efficient. There are, however, environmental costs to mining and smelting (in Canada) 1,000 tons a year of zinc for the battery-powered second motor, and the shipping of the zinc 10,000 miles -- trailing a cloud of carbon dioxide -- to Wales for refining and then to China for turning it into the component that is then sent to a battery factory in Japan.
Yes, zinc mining is dirty, so make it cleaner and still have batteries for the hybrids. Plus its been a while that threats of war were made over Canadian zinc, but maybe that is those crazy hokey lovers plan.
Or maybe because of cow farts you shouldn't eat ice cream.
Will purposely makes ridiculous arguments in order to make people think that all changes that could help out planet are ridiculous. Simple dishonest rightwing concept.
Nature designed us as carnivores, but what does nature know about nature? Meat has been designated a menace. Among the 51 exhortations in Time magazine's " Global Warming Survival Guide" (April 9), No. 22 says a BMW is less responsible than a Big Mac for "climate change," that conveniently imprecise name for our peril. This is because the world meat industry produces 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, more than transportation produces. Nitrous oxide in manure (warming effect: 296 times greater than that of carbon) and methane from animal flatulence (23 times greater) mean that "a 16-oz. T-bone is like a Hummer on a plate."Ah the days when scientists used to be respected. A modern dark age we are in. And why exactly is "climate change" a "conveniently imprecise"?
Ben & Jerry's ice cream might be even more sinister: A gallon of it requires electricity-guzzling refrigeration and four gallons of milk produced by cows that simultaneously produce eight gallons of manure and flatulence with eight gallons of methane. The cows do this while consuming lots of grain and hay, which are cultivated by using tractor fuel, chemical fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides, and transported by fuel-consuming trains and trucks.
3 comments:
How many scientists have confirmed outlandish ideas in the past only to have them disproven later? Simply because a scientist or a group of scientists says something is so doesn't mean it is. There are hundreds of scientists who don't believe the global warming theory - how come they don't get equal time? It's because we are encouraging a climate of fear. That really sells newspapers, magazines and TV time.
More people need to become aware of the fact that the earth has gone through climate changes in the past 10,000 years, most of which did not destroy the planet or even come close. Try fostering another agenda. This one smells to high heaven.
Science gets disproved all the time, but the potential for being disproved does not mean that all the science should be ignored.
There is no controversy within the scientific community concerning global climate change. There may be "hundreds" of scientists that disagree but there are tens of thousands of scientists who believe this to be an issue. There are enormous amounts of warming molecules in the atmosphere that got there because of humans. Global climate change is real.
Yes, the globe has gone through fluctuations for much longer than the last 10,000 years, but never has it been this rapid. Those changes did not destroy the planet but the planet did not have our help in making those changes more extreme.
It is not too late to do something. It was only a decade ago that we were freaking out about the hole in the ozone layer (which actually made the earth cooler because it allowed heat to escape). But the ozone hole has greatly diminished due to things we have done. By cutting CFC's we have turned the ozone problem around.
You are being dishonest to allude that this is some liberal grand conspiracy.
Fritz, enlighten us as to what your motivation is for being a global climate change denier.
Isn't it a lot easier to accept that many of the current habits & practices of mankind are having some sort of negative impact on our climate, rather than say, wasting your energy tapping out intellectually starved blog comments?
What do you think is gained if you actually convinced someone global climate change is really just a lie? Maybe because of you, I'll go buy a diesel generator to power my wood-chipper, into which I will feed majestic redwoods for firewood to heat my house, so we can really show Al Gore and our stupid atmosphere what's what.
I guess it just seems a little absurd that you are so desperately grasping at straws to refute a theory that is in your best interest to believe and make minor changes in your lifestyle to accommodate.
So let's hear it Fritz. Help me understand the big picture as you see it.
Post a Comment