.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
The Expansionist
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
 
Keith Olbermann Is Wrong Again. It is really infuriating when people who should know better say inexcusably stupid things, such as the fact that a big piece of a glacier in Greenland has broken off and is drifting out to sea proves that we are suffering climate change. Oh? I hate to break it to Mr. Olbermann, but this is AUGUST: summer. Mr. Olbermann is shocked that ice melts in summer. What the f* is wrong with him? (He also ignores that parts of the Southern Hemisphere have been subnormally COLD at exactly the same time as parts of the Northern Hemisphere are subnormally hot.)
+
None of the predictions of "global warming" has suggested that temperatures would be 13 degrees hotter from 2009 to 2010, only that over the course of 100 years, the temperature might rise by about 4 degrees. So unless the prognosticators of "global warming" were wildly wrong about the size of the temperature increase, what we are seeing this summer is NOT climate change, just weird (and awful) weather.
+
There are two distinct issues as regards climate change, in the sense of "global warming": First, is it happening at all? Second, and far more important, does human activity have anything to do with increasing planetary temperatures; and, conversely, can we do anything to reverse the trend? Those are ENTIRELY different questions, both of which need to be examined by people who are not astonished and appalled that ice melts in summer.
+
Let's look at bits of evidence all over the planet that the Earth was, at some unknown time in the past, much warmer than it is now: coral islands. There are thousands upon thousands of coral islands all over the world. Let us think for two seconds. What is a coral island? A coral island is a mass of coral that was once underwater but is now above water. Coral does not grow above water. So ALL coral islands were once underwater. That presumably means that the seas were once higher, in turn because the planet was warmer. When was that? So long ago that people have no records of any such thing, and thus also so long ago that human activity could not possibly have had anything to do with planetary temperature. Indeed, if sea levels are lower now than they once were, and human activity had anything to do with it, we would have to conclude that human activity produced global cooling. No one is arguing that, but there are thousands of people willing to argue that human activity today is causing global warming. Not bloody likely.
+
People didn't cause the Ice Ages. People didn't cause the Ice Ages to end. We are in an interglacial period, between Ice Ages, and there is no way to know how hot the planet became in prior interglacial periods. Nor do we know what caused Ice Ages nor the retreat of ice sheets, as in Greenland today. Perhaps the "normal" planetary temperature is much warmer than it is today, and the oceans "should" be 10 or more feet higher, whereupon those coral islands will become coral reefs again.
+
There are two aspects to the asserted buildup in the atmosphere of "greenhouse gases": (1) production and (2) destruction. Carbon dioxide is plant food, and in nature is broken down into oxygen and biomass (destroyed) by green plants, from tiny ocean-growing algae to gigantic sequoias and the 200-foot-tall canopy trees of the tropical rainforest. Those plants are being destroyed wholesale, not by the First World, whose algae populations and forests are in very good shape, but by the Third World, which is destroying forests and poisoning the oceans. So who is blamed for "man-made global warming"? The First World, of course.
+
The premise that underlies Keith Olbermann's childlike faith in the theory of "anthropogenic global warming" is that human beings can reverse global warming, if only we choose to. Oh? How?
+
The only way we could possibly reverse the trend in fossil fuels, the production of methane by cattle, the destruction of rainforests and oceanic phytoplankton, and all the other little things that, put together, are supposed to be producing global warming, absent anything else happening — no planetary wobble, no greater output of energy by the sun (altho the sun is supposed to be warming over its "lifespan") — is if the human population of Earth were to be REDUCED DRASTICALLY. No one would be talking about "man-made global warming" if the population of the Earth were 4 billion and falling instead of 6.86 billion and rising.
+
So why is no one talking about reducing planetary population? Because we never speak to base causes, only to steps up from the base, in this case, MANY steps up from the overpopulation that is the base cause of almost all planetary problems. The First World isn't overpopulated. For the most part, its population is stable or even falling. No, pretty much all planetary population increase is in the Third World, which already comprises about 5.5 billion people.
+
Why, then, don't we tell the Third World to stop littering this planet with children it can't support? Because that wouldn't be nice. The problem is Third World deforestation, pollution, and desertification, all of it produced as a consequence of overpopulation. Attacking the First World won't do a damned thing about planetary devastation. We are not causing it. We can't stop it, unless we provide the Third World with what it most basically needs: contraception. A billion vasectomies, a billion tubal ligations, and two billion doses of Jadelle/Norplant.
+
This is the way to develop the so-called "developing world" — which of course, in the parlance of today, means deteriorating world. Control the population long enuf for the people to get an education and build their economy without the constant drain of unfeedable mouths. Since this is at once the way to fite the ruinous ravaging of the environment that is produced by overpopulation and to help the people of the Third World achieve a much better life in very short order, it won't be done. No, pundits will just natter on and on about the problems that DERIVE from overpopulation, and never fix the base problem that produces all the others.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 4,414 — for Israel.)



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

Powered by Blogger