Driving Over A Cliff And Other Fancy Ideas
Ok. I don't even know how to set this story up except to say... are you sitting down?
Do you recall all of the "sound science" that has been put forward to deal with Global Climate Change? Some examples of resolutions involved eliminating cars that use petroleum products, eliminating coal or oil fired electrical-generation plants, turning your roof tops into mini-greenhouses and reverting parking lots to grass.
But now, it seems that the world has turned upside down. Or should I say, we have turned out government upside down. How else can you explain the rationality for this idea...?
What the......? "shooting" pollution in to our atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays?!?!!?
Do you recall all of the "sound science" that has been put forward to deal with Global Climate Change? Some examples of resolutions involved eliminating cars that use petroleum products, eliminating coal or oil fired electrical-generation plants, turning your roof tops into mini-greenhouses and reverting parking lots to grass.
But now, it seems that the world has turned upside down. Or should I say, we have turned out government upside down. How else can you explain the rationality for this idea...?
WASHINGTON — The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.
John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed.
One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.
What the......? "shooting" pollution in to our atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays?!?!!?
First question. How are they going to "shoot" this pollution in to our UPPER atmosphere? Wouldn't that take some form of blackpowder and explosive charge? Wouldn't that also create pollution in the lower atmosphere? At the rate that they need to "shoot" pollution in the upper atmosphere and to have it REMAIN at a constant part-per-million level, they could end up creating another Los Angeles smog problem.
Second question. I thought we were supposed to be against pollution? So now it is ok to pollute the earth if the government does it? But, I thought that this new messiah was going to make our planet green and static?
Third question. Has this administration ever lived where it is not HOT!! Ok, the Obamassiah has lived in Hawaii, Kenya, visited Pakistan I think with a non-US visa and Indonesia. Those are not generally thought of as cold places. And he has lived in Chicago for a few years. That area does tend to get cold during the winter. (I bet he freaks about that when the temperature refuses to be static. Wonder if he thinks that man is causing the temps to rise in the summer and drop in the winter.)
But has anyone in this "green" movement taken the time to ask what the people living in our world's northern and sourther latitudes think about the slight warming of our globe? I am sure they are loving it. (Actually, we are now in a cooling trend that might last a decade or two longer) They are able to get more warm days that freezing days. They can have more days to grow more food as more land is cleared of ice. And, with more C02 in the atmosphere, those plants will grow heartier and faster.
You know, after having a record breaking cold snap hit our area Monday morning, I think a warming trend might be a good thing to happen. And by the way, have you seen that the number of hurricanes and major storms has been decreasing as well? That's a good thing too, right?
But then, this political and sadistic push for control of our environment has never been about the benefits to humankind. It is about power and controlling your everyday lives.
And, you can tell that from the way these people talk. They don't present their results in a scientific manor with null hypothesis and the pros and cons of doing nothing or forcing a static environment. No. What you do hear from these type of people is alarmism. Much like this...
Alarmism is not something typically found in scientific caucuses. There is a discussion of facts along with potential repurcussions based on certain possible researchable outcomes.
Is it any wonder that these people are called "Global Warming Alarmists"!
Ok, time for my thinking cap. If we are really going to try something like this, then why not force a major volcanic eruption? Wouldn't that lead to the same result with much less cost? Remember how Mt. Penetubo led to a 2 degree C drop in world temps? And it was an isolated natural event. I am sure we could coax another puff or two out of her.
All in the name of science of course. Oh, and saving the human race from driving itself over a cliff without breaks in the fog.
Second question. I thought we were supposed to be against pollution? So now it is ok to pollute the earth if the government does it? But, I thought that this new messiah was going to make our planet green and static?
Third question. Has this administration ever lived where it is not HOT!! Ok, the Obamassiah has lived in Hawaii, Kenya, visited Pakistan I think with a non-US visa and Indonesia. Those are not generally thought of as cold places. And he has lived in Chicago for a few years. That area does tend to get cold during the winter. (I bet he freaks about that when the temperature refuses to be static. Wonder if he thinks that man is causing the temps to rise in the summer and drop in the winter.)
But has anyone in this "green" movement taken the time to ask what the people living in our world's northern and sourther latitudes think about the slight warming of our globe? I am sure they are loving it. (Actually, we are now in a cooling trend that might last a decade or two longer) They are able to get more warm days that freezing days. They can have more days to grow more food as more land is cleared of ice. And, with more C02 in the atmosphere, those plants will grow heartier and faster.
You know, after having a record breaking cold snap hit our area Monday morning, I think a warming trend might be a good thing to happen. And by the way, have you seen that the number of hurricanes and major storms has been decreasing as well? That's a good thing too, right?
But then, this political and sadistic push for control of our environment has never been about the benefits to humankind. It is about power and controlling your everyday lives.
And, you can tell that from the way these people talk. They don't present their results in a scientific manor with null hypothesis and the pros and cons of doing nothing or forcing a static environment. No. What you do hear from these type of people is alarmism. Much like this...
Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."
Alarmism is not something typically found in scientific caucuses. There is a discussion of facts along with potential repurcussions based on certain possible researchable outcomes.
Is it any wonder that these people are called "Global Warming Alarmists"!
Ok, time for my thinking cap. If we are really going to try something like this, then why not force a major volcanic eruption? Wouldn't that lead to the same result with much less cost? Remember how Mt. Penetubo led to a 2 degree C drop in world temps? And it was an isolated natural event. I am sure we could coax another puff or two out of her.
All in the name of science of course. Oh, and saving the human race from driving itself over a cliff without breaks in the fog.
