Happy Earth Day! It’s A Shame Warmists Won’t Sacrifice For Their Beliefs

Regardless of the roots of Earth Day, where some proclaim it was a far, far left “holiday” designed to promote communism, the ideals of a healthy environment, clean air, clean water, clean land, saving nature, are worthy goals. Unfortunately, like most real environmental issues, the “climate change” wankers have hijacked the day. But, that’s not what is being lamented in this USA Today article

Tuesday, as we observe another Earth Day, there is broad public support for cleaner air and water, and as a nation we have taken dramatic steps to improve the environment.

The coming challenge is what to do about climate change, which a nearly unanimous collection of scientists says is real and potentially calamitous if we don’t act now to reduce greenhouse gases.

“Climate change” has nothing to do with the environment: there has always been changes within the environment, and the Earth has survived. Things change. Here’s the big point

Yet, the American public – in fact, the global public – seems unmoved by the threats, and some deniers still cling to positions that echo the DAR’s attack on the environmental movement back in 1970.

Indeed, a Gallup Poll in March found that only about a third of the American public worry “a great deal” about climate change and global warming.

That finding reinforces two attitudes that have not changed over the past four decades:

First of all, we aren’t motivated to do anything about environmental problems until they are staring us in the face. Only when our foul air caused breathing problems, and water became too polluted to drink or wade into, did we spend the money for federal, state and local governments to tackle the problems.

Second, the vast majority of us won’t sacrifice our high-consumption lifestyles, put jobs at risk or pay a high price to protect the environment. Give up our big SUVs? Pay higher gas taxes? Spend more time in the dark?

Even “green” consumers who ride bikes are part of the problem if they are always connected to the Internet. Various studies estimate it increases our electricity consumption by 10% to 20% (and it’s dirty coal that generates most electricity). Then there are the pollutants emitted by the giant data storage centers.

Obviously, the solution is for Warmists to practice what they preach, to give up their fossil fuels, make their lives “carbon neutral”, right? Er, no

If we are to save ourselves and our planet from ourselves, the answer now – as back in 1970 – is the same: science and technology. Better purification systems have cleaned our water and air. Car exhaust emissions are down because of catalytic converters and engineering changes that make vehicles more fuel efficient. Light bulbs are more energy-efficient.

Is anyone surprised in the least that Owen Ullman, who was there right at the beginning of Earth Day back in 1970, refuses to recommend that Warmists practice what they preach? What I recommend is that Warmists stop linking real environmental issues to this idiotic political issue of “climate change”. Unless they are will to walk the talk.

I did get a chuckle out of Mr. Ullman lamenting the use of the Internet, considering that the vast majority of people who read the article will do so on the Internet, rather than the dead tree edition.

PS: For any who might think I’m full of it regarding the graphic, no. I do all I can to be environmentally friendly. I’m not perfect, but I do work hard to keep the air, water, and land clean.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

6 Comments

Comment by Jeffery
2014-04-22 10:17:42

You continue to make this deeply flawed argument.

1. You have no idea how much carbon-based energy “greens” use. If you did you would present that evidence to support your hypothesis. It’s clear that blue state denizens emit much less CO2 than red staters. Your evidence is that Al Gore flies to meetings.

2. You do not support with logic your insistence that “greens” must solve global warming alone, without the support of deniers. Why don’t conservatives solve the deficit by giving up their own federal subsidies (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, tax breaks)?

3. You argue that since “greens” do not forgo every and all conveniences that they must not believe their own cause, hence they are hypocrites, hence the theory of AGW is refuted. That is like saying anti-abortion conservatives who claim abortion is murder but fail to use every means, even illegal, to stop it are hypocrites, hence abortion is good. That is like saying any anti-deficit conservative who takes federal monies (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, tax breaks) is a hypocrite, hence deficits are good.

Of course, each case in 3 above is an ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with the actual arguments about global warming, abortion or deficits. That your best argument against the theory of AGW are personal attacks speaks volumes about the strength of your arguments. (We can safely ignore your paranoid conspiracy theory that a cabal of foreign communists/progressives wants to establish a one world government by taxing the burning of oil and coal).

The Earth has warmed 1.4F in the past century or so – before this period of rapid warming, the entire range of temperature excursions throughout the Holocene (~the past 10,000 years) was 1.4F. The Earth’s temperature gradually dropped over 10,000 years from the early Holocene high (likely a bit cooler than now) to the so-called Little Ice Age. The total slow drop was 1.4F. We have warmed 1.4F in the past century or so. What physical processes are responsible for this rapid warming? A hotter sun? No. Cosmic rays? No. Changes in the Earth’s orbit? No. Magic? No. Greenhouse gases? Yes.

Why did the Earth warm out of the last glacial period? Subtle cyclic changes in the relationship between Earth and the Sun that increases the solar energy received by the Northern Hemisphere. This caused the glaciers covering much of the Northern Hemisphere to slowly recede further reducing the reflectivity (albedo) of the Earth, further increasing the absorption of solar energy. There is no evidence that this process is occurring now.

The Earth’ long-term climate IS always changing but not by magic or at random. Significant heating (like now) and cooling events have physical causes.

 
Comment by Jl
2014-04-22 10:48:38

“Blue states emit less CO2…” Irrelevant. “Why don’t conservatives solve the deficit by giving up there own federal subsidies?” Those thingsyou list aren’t true subsidies, as we have paid into those programs with our own tax money. “Anti-deficit conservatives who take federal money…” Again, for the most part it’s our money, as we have into through taxes. Where do you think federal money comes from? Is it “magic” as you like to say? You again offer your flawed 1.4f argument, saying this rapid. As repeated many times, rapid compared to what? Going further back as you do we don’t have comparable temperature records, and we certainly don’t have comparable 100-year records. You cite the “last 10,000 years” as if that is significant. Time wise, that’s sorta like taking one or two seconds out of the last 100 years as your data, and proclaiming that it proves your point. It doesn’t. You still have no evidence that what warmed or cooled the earth previously isn’t happening now, though of course the warming has stopped.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2014-04-22 11:15:21

That citizens in liberal states emit less CO2 IS relevant, obviously.

We all pay taxes, we all accept the subsidies. Give yours up or admit that you’re a hypocrite.

The Earth has warmed rapidly the past century. It took 10,000 years to cool 1.4F and 100 years to warm 1.4F. That seems pretty rapid to me. There is no evidence in the temperature record of 1.4F excursions in such a short period. Is it possible the Earth warmed 1.4F one year and cooled off 1.4F the next? Yes. Is it probable? Of course not. If your argument is that we can’t effectively rule out any possibility – that anything you can imagine may have happened, than you win! Maybe the entire universe was created 10 seconds ago with all the historical information and memories implanted at that time. Prove me wrong.

What is the importance of the past 10,000 years? Human civilization, that’s what. All of human civilization occurred during the Holocene when global average temperatures were a little lower than now down to 1.4F cooler than now (Little Ice Age). We’ve warmed 1.4F since and will warm at least another 1.4F in the next century. Why are you so anti-human?

Warming has not stopped. You reveal your abject ignorance each time you repeat the lie. It’s dumb, even by denier standards.

 
Comment by William Teach
2014-04-22 13:29:03

It’s clear that blue state denizens emit much less CO2 than red staters.

Proof? In fact, multiple studies indicate that the more urbanized areas put out more CO2 than less urbanized areas, and Liberals tend to like to live in said urban areas. It is not about red states vs blue states, but Blue vs Red areas.

That said, I didn’t bring the issue up. You did in your attempt to deflect from the Fact that Warmists are big f’ing hypocrites.

It took 10,000 years to cool 1.4F and 100 years to warm 1.4F. That seems pretty rapid to me.

Alas, no, because huge numbers of data sets and reconstructions show that multiple Holocene warm periods were warm than the current on.

And were, exactly, are you getting the 10k years to cool 1.4f?

Warming has not stopped.

Got proof? Because the current “pause” has lasted longer than the previous spike of 1980-1995. Reading a crystal ball to look into the future is not science.

 
Comment by Guy
2014-04-22 19:20:57

Well, you are hypocrites, your breezy “data” is an absolute lie, and you conveniently cherry-pick your climate data to capture the single most stable period in Earth’s history as far as we know.

 
Comment by jl
2014-04-22 20:59:11

J, you seem unable to grasp that 10,000 years is nothing compared to the earth’s climate history. “There is no evidence in the temperature record of 1.4f excursions in such a short period.” Thanks for making my point for me. “There is no evidence”, because comparable records don’t go back that far. In case you forgot, there weren’t daily temps taken from thermometers 10,000 years ago. That’s why the data isn’t comparable. Sorry. “Is it possible the earth warmed 1.4f one year and cooled 1.4f the next year? Yes. Is it probable-of course not.” Here, J uses his clumsy slight-of hand to change the time parameter. One year? We were talking about 100 years/10,000 years. Nice try. Here’s how it should have been worded: Is it possible there have been 1.4f periods of warming over a hundred year time span during the past 4.5 billion years? Of course- a person in 7th grade math could figure out that probability. Is there proof that the warming (that’s stopped) isn’t caused by the same factors that warmed it in the past? of course not.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10637 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE