Monday, March 16, 2009

Super Myths

In todays society, myths, conspiracy theories, and propoganda combine to produce our culture of ignorance. We have no idea what is true, except what we FEEL inside of ourselves, because there is simply so much CRAP that fills our senses in everyday news that we stop listening, except to the most passionate. Unfortunately, the most passionate turn out to be the most wrong (that, or scam artists - See: Miss Cleo).

What really got my attention was the global warming issue. It swept over America a few years ago when Al Gore took to his little electronic manlift with ruler in hand and showed us how we were all going to die if we didn't start throwing ice cubes in the ocean and paying a global authority carbon taxes... Or something like that.

Well, it turned out he was wrong when he was sued by dozens of scientists and had his reputation tarnished as 650 international scientists stood up against the claim that the Earth's warming was caused by humans, let alone that the Earth was warming at all.

In fact, in 2008, it came out that the Earth was COOLING, and who turned out the be the culprit? The Sun! Of course. *slaps head* Silly humans. Always taking responsibility for supposed calamities. Well, when you feel like the global financial crisis is your fault, feel free to immediately begin directing funds into my account. But while we wait for you to get a conscience, I'll allow you to wallow in thought from this list i've compiled exposing the biggest "Catastrophe's & Problems Facing man" which are in fact, myths.

----------------------------------------------------
Scientist: Warming Could Cut Population to 1 Billion

dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com — Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if the buildup of greenhouse gases and its consequences pushed global temperatures 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher than today — well below the upper temperature range that scientists project could occur from global warming.

ORLY?!!??

From Digg:
alanocu
The correct solution to "global warming" is to have the courage to do nothing.Global warmists are like misguided cultists eager to swallow the religion of environmentalism. Jonestown, here we come. Except on digg, we scoff at religion because it's "stupid" and pat ourselves on the back for being so "much more intelligent."

And obviously, our inconsistencies with respect to who is spreading the gospel proves our intelligence to be in tact and our criticism to be fair, as any beliefs not shared with our own are repressed, belittled, buried down (like this comment will be), attacked and deemed as "hate" speech.

I’ve yet to see environmental agencies like 'Go Green or Rot in Hell' consistently badger the government to do something substantial about alternative energies. It’s easier for them to jump on the global warming bandwagon and send copies of An Inconvenient Truth to schools. And seconds later, a deacon appointed by Al Gore is on the home page of Digg for his courage to scare the hell out of kindergartners by telling them we’re killing polar bears and butterflies.And seriously, the sound of bullshit detectors going off is not a strategy.

You can't say you're for the "little guy" when you side with activist judges over the will of the people and put the demands of tree-hugging eco-wackos ahead of working Americans.Do you identify better with Ben Affleck or JoeSixpack? Who is the "common man" and why are we always telling him what he's doing wrong?

Reply to alanocu :
gjokkel
climate change then the pollution
- If we stopped pollution then the lack of drinking water
- If we solved the problem of drinking water then the lack of fossil energy
- If we managed to switch to renewable energy then deforestation
- If we stopped deforestation then overpopulation... etc.

With my most positive attitude I must say that we won't be able to solve every one of these. We are simply too many.If we accept this, then the only question remains:

HOW can the human population be decreased to 20% of its current size in the next 50 years? wow...

Frnnkdlxx

You know, you bring up quite an interesting conundrum and conspiracy. All those issues you brought up that the Super reactionaries back have been proven incorrect:

- If not the climate change then the pollution (we found out that the earth was cooling, not warming - New Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11648 - So they had to move on pollution which Penn from PEnn and teller fame easily exposed as a scam by the corporations for the green revolution which they exploit to no end, when all the trash on the planet could fit into a nice sized city intexas and never bother anyone)

- If we stopped pollution then the lack of drinking water (as if the corporations and organizations who recognize that drinking water supplies are dwindling only because the military and big biz have been contaminating it on purpose! remember when the military dumped millions of tons of vx into the ocean? http://feww.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/oceans-where- ... - as if they've never heard of desalinization plants)- If we solved the problem of drinking water then the lack of fossil energy (and don't get me started on the scam of calling oil a fossil fuel, when it's not from fossils and not rare. In fact, it's an abiotic material, created sort of like magma and many texans will tell you how reserves that they thought had been deplenished strangely come back online after a few years: http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/Sustain ... - and don't forget that in prudhoe bay alaska, lindsey williams explained how they tapped it off and restrict mining their because there' are 3x's the amount of reserves there as in all of saudi arabia!)

- If we managed to switch to renewable energy then deforestation (deforestation, ahh. we all care about it, and if only they told you of how after they devestate an area, the trees GROW BACK....and guess what, TWICE THE THICKNESS. it becomes an environmental nightmare because they are too close to eachother and too thick because of the stumps http://www.umich.edu/~mrev/archives/1997/10-8-97/e ... )

- If we stopped deforestation then overpopulation... etc. (let's not get on overpopulation... ok, then let's. lol. Fact is, all of humanities 7 billion could fit into Texas and have a plot of about 100 acres and a mansion . Earth is friggin huge. Humans are friggin tiny. Sort of like we see the son as huge, but all those tiny dots you see in the night sky are usually much larger than ours. Also, we know that the global elite seek to reduce human population by about 80%, that's from henry kissingers evil self! http://www.schillerinstitute.org/food_for_peace/ki ... )

http://infowars.com

1 comment:

Bhuvan Chand said...

Combating climate change may not be a question of who will carry the burden but could instead be a rush for the benefits, according to new economic modeling presented at “Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions” hosted by the University of Copenhagen.

Contrary to current cost models for lowering greenhouse gases emissions and fighting climate change, a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge conclude that even very stringent reductions of can create a macroeconomic benefit, if governments go about it the right way.

“Where many current calculations get it wrong is in the assumption that more stringent measures will necessarily raise the overall cost, especially when there is substantial unemployment and underuse of capacity as there is today”, explains Terry Barker, Director of Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR), Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge and a member of the Scientific Steering Committee of the Congress.