| |
|
Listen to DJ's Songs! |
|
|
 |
|
The Green Double-Standard |
|
|
|
|
"We can't keep producing all of this CO2! It's not sustainable!"
Well, what about a $4,000,000,000 budget? That's not sustainable, yet these wanna be conservatives are unwilling to concede what sustainable actually means.
Read on for my full rant on the subject and be prepared to be upset, offended and hopefully leave with some food for thought.
Happy Earth Day everyone.
The first Earth Day inspired a Republican administration (Nixon) to form the EPA and NOAA.
At the time, good ideas that were built on protecting citizens from the
environmental impact of one another. At the time, pollution from
automobiles and factories were threatening the air and land. In other
words, one person's pollution was affecting other people's lives.
Millions
were spent in finding solutions with science. It was a good thing.
Carbon Monoxide levels have dropped and people are breathing easier.
Science pointed out the problem and science solved it within a
political landscape.
But today I am absolutely vexed with an
issue. And that is that the current notion and behavior of the EPA is
treating Carbon Dioxide the same way. This would be fine, except that
the science is not obvious.
The EPA was in spirit built around
protecting humans from humans. But now it seems that it is becoming a
method of humans controlling humans, little more.
I've said this time and time again but I'll continue droning on until someone out there PROVES me wrong.
There
is no tangible scientific evidence that directly proves Carbon Dioxide
is a cause for Global Warming (or Global Climate Change if you're a
coward, or Global Weirding if you're a complete wacko).
All evidence
I've seen thus far is based completely on a method of reasoning called
syllogism. Syllogism states that if A is true and B is true, then C
must be true. For example, you say that the Earth is in a warming
trend when there is more CO2 in the air, therefore CO2 caused the
warming trend. No thought is given to the adverse for some reason
(that Global Warming CAUSES an increase in CO2 levels).
I have been
doing research in what time I can spare on this and I haven't seen much
devoted into the science of proving CO2 as a primary insulator gas.
What I have seen is FAILED experiments in this area. Try as they may,
they simply cannot prove that CO2 is an insulator. Yet the debate is
over. Conform or be kicked out of the scientific community.
Perhaps CO2 is an insulator and we are somehow modifying the natural balance of the Earth.
Mt. St. Helen's blew more CO2 into the atmosphere than the entire industrial revolution combined. Global temperatures did what? Cooled.
The
ocean, when warmed, releases megatons of stored CO2 into the
atmosphere, yet temperatures find their way back down. Interesting.
Doubt
me? PROVE ME WRONG without using the famous and extremely flawed Al
Gore argument, which contains very little science and a lot of
syllogism andconjecture to arrive at his conclusions. Manbearpig. Enough said.
I'm
going to say something next that is going to upset a great many
people. Global Climate 'science' is not science but a religion. And
politicians in Washington have bought into it. Let me explain why I
think this is, and get to the point of the DOUBLE STANDARD.
Honestly,
I think that a good lot of the population and especially politicians on
each side of the isle have bought into this because they are afraid of
going against a popular notion in the culture. Much like Nixon
founding the EPA (with advice from Ben Stein, by the way) concerns over
a problem that has gotten a lot of media attention cause a response
politically.
But look at the difference in the response. The Nixon
Administration decided it would be prudent to form a study organization
that would investigate these impacts. He went to Congress and they
approved, and gave this organization sweeping power to levy fines and
even taxes to achieve that end. I don't think if any of them, right or
left, could have seen what it would become they would have signed their
names to the bill.
Now, with a movie and a world in panic over
something that can't even be proven, with all voices of opposition
silenced and called names (as many of you are doing with me in your
mind as we speak, if you're even bothered reading this far)- science
has become ruled by politics. Politics dictate science. Heil Obama!
Not good enough?
Consider this primary Scientific Double Standard:
A
common argument among those that claim radical action is required and
that we can't wait for science to catch up, is that our current
production of CO2 is NOT SUSTAINABLE. Yet watch these people if you
tell them that a $4,000,000,000 budget is NOT SUSTAINABLE! They
dismiss you as crazy!
Well here's the problem- if at your core
you are a conservative, you will claim that neither is sustainable and
there must be a balance found. You cannot simply dismiss one and
embrace another carte blanche.
You must, if you have a truly scientific mind- be aware of all the
potential problems with each side and you live your life according to a
set of 'prove it' kind of principles. Well anyone who stops to think
for a few minutes can see that $4,000,000,000 every year can't be
sustained because that kind of wealth doesn't actually exist in the
US. Even if we become completely communist and 100% of everyone's wealth now belongs to the state, there isn't enough to sustain $4,000,000,000 every year.
Perhaps we should make a movie... "The UnConvienent Truth: How
Government Spending will Kill Your Children in Cold Blood and then Rob
Their Houses" Too much? But you get my point, I hope. Perhaps
fighting fire with fire would be appopriate here.
Yet those who claim radical action is necessary keep going on about how we cannot sustain our current levels.
Well, if we do continue to allow what politicians
worldwide are doing to 'combat' these issues without stopping for true
scientific study, our economic system WORLDWIDE will collapse.
If we're all broke, who's going to be able to afford a windmill or solar panel?
If
you force all the auto manufacturers out of business, who will make
cars run on what we can afford already and have plenty of (gasoline)?
I'm
sure you can pick apart flaws in this article, and I'll happily accept
any REAL scientific data. I'm a busy guy these days and don't have
time for the same arguments being put in a new cloak. Show me that CO2
caused by human activity is without a doubt causing climate changes and
I'll accept it. But even if I do, I still will NOT accept the
government's role in regulating beyond reasoning.
I'm a Green
Conservative. I care about my impact on other people's life. I care
about spending less than I need to on energy. But where the government
of the United Sates of America is going with forcing broad-reaching and
unrealistic expectations for something with very little proven
environmental impact is simply wrong.
Remember, the Green
Conservative notion is that we are conservative in all aspects of our
life. We make a PERSONAL choice to reduce our impact, but believe it
is wrong to FORCE someone else to do the same. This is America, damnit!
We're supposed to be free to make our own decisions and going beyond
that is selling out the very things our founding fathers wanted for
this greatest nation.
I urge all of you to fight bad politics
influenced by bad science! But above all I urge all of you to fight
for personal liberties and the power of influencing good decisions over forcing decisions for others.
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
When you click the ads below, you help DJ keep his sites up and running for free!
|
|
Who's Online |
|
We have 4 guests online |
|
|
