"The first step towards liberating a Proletarian is vilifying the very entities that he supports and works for, or even aims to be. Global Warming fits nicely into Marxist Theory."
It didn't take long for Mr. Obama to address "climate change" at the 2010 State of the Union address on January 27th. Sure he started off well, talking about the American Dream and rebuilding our great nation, but he made it perfectly clear his climate and energy legislation is top priority and the focus for his administration....in other words spending our money and manipulating the free market. Status quo.
The justification for his proposed spending and aggressive focus on the "green sector"?
Creating jobs, of course.
It's almost like a bad joke. Anyone who mentions unemployment and rebuilding our country just gets an earful of climate change rhetoric. This guy can't discuss anything without tying it in to "renewable energy" or "climate change". Bush may have been in bed with the oil companies, but Obama is banging the bejeesus out of the Energizer Bunny. Perhaps Obama should just listen to GOP Rep. Nan Hayworth of New York who stated "The best thing the federal government can do is stop trying to create jobs." At least Bush never tried to turn us into oil riggers.
But The Gimp has some shocking news for you! Climate change is normal. It's what created the environment that we now live in and flourish. If the dinosaurs had decided to "save the world" and attempt to stop any climate changes, we would not exist today.
So what exactly is changing, and why is it cause for such alarm?
"Climate experts" have noticed "major changes" in the National State Parks in Alaska which they believe are threatening the National Parks and the minute revenue that tourists visiting the parks bring in. One such change is the observed retreat of Exit Glacier and the now useless areas built for spectacular views. Jeff Mow, Superintendant of Kenai Fjords National Park near Anchorage, Alaska stated "We used to build these things with a sense of permanence."
Really? A sense of permanence? So "climate experts" believe that all changes to our planet should be halted now that it's convenient for us and provides the right panoramic views? Nothing is permanent, not in our lives or the lives of planets. How ignorant and narcissistic are these "experts"? Forget that the very fact they see any climate change as negative and controllable actually defines them as NOT being experts on climate. Just because you're a superintendant of a state park in Alaska (does one even need to graduate high school for a job like that?), does not make you an authority on highly complex scientific issues like climate change.
Socialists always want to get involved and meddle around with things that shouldn't be meddled around with. A free market economy, a Constitution, Mother Nature, basic common sense....
Everyone's always talking about Global Warming. I say- so what? Bring it on. It's too damn cold most of the time for The Gimp's taste anyway. Plus I don't like having to put on and take off a jacket all the time. Have you ever thought about what an anchor a jacket is? Winter clothes are so restrictive. The Gimp prefers short sleeves. It provides better freedom of movement. Plus, I'm certainly not complaining about the way females dress when it's hot either.
But the scare mongers and socialist brain washers that constantly bombard us with dire warnings and pointless research studies apparently prefer cooler temperatures and all the inconveniences that come with them. Take for example a recent research study which was splattered all over television and the internet by the liberal media.
Basically researchers used a computer model to create two different scenarios for what the Earth will be like in the year 3000. The first, if we ended all carbon dioxide emissions in the year 2010, and the second if all CO2 emissions ceased in the year 2100. You can probably guess that both scenarios yield equally terrifying results, with the second obviously being exponentially worse.
There's the usual predictions, including- warming of the southern oceans, the loss of Antarctic sea ice and Arctic glaciers, the rising of the sea level, the massive African droughts and tropical storms and other hellish weather patterns throughout the world. Essentially, we're all fucked.
But to really understand how ridiculous and pointless this study is, one has to realize what this computer model is up against here. It's trying to calculate ONE THOUSAND YEARS of data using less than a hundred years of verifiable data. A hundred years out of a possible 4.2 billion to predict the next thousand years? Really?
Let's assume the existing data is NOT inconclusive and that this model is on the right path. What about deviations? For example, how often are weather reports wrong? True, in the last few decades they have been more accurate than in the past, but are they 100% foolproof? If they were, meteorologists would be able to tell the EXACT temperature and weather conditions for any given place at any given time. The fact is they can't. There will be deviations. It may be cloudy, but not rain. The high temperature may be 70 degrees instead of 75 degrees. So with these sorts of deviations occurring over just a 24 hour period, how exaggerated would these deviations be over a ONE THOUSAND YEAR PERIOD? Let's just assume that a computer model is predicting a wildly complex and little understood weather future with only a 0.1 degree deviation per year. Over the course of a one thousand year model, this will result in a absolute deviation of 100 degrees! The most alarming part about this is that the dire computer model's prediction of warming in the next thousand years is with only a 5.4 degree deviation in water temperature from current temperatures! Of course that is all that would be needed to turn our planet upside down, but that's not the point. If scientists can't predict with absolute certainty the weather in 24 hours time, how the hell can they predict the ocean temperature (within 5 degrees) in a thousand years time? Scientific model to base a world economy on or an interesting "video game" for bored and overpaid "climate scientists"?
But forget about all these statistics, just take a look at our global weather over the past couple years, starting right here in America. How can the administration justify their massive climate change spending when the President practically had to take a dog sled to get to the snowed-in White House? Well, blame the record-breaking winter storm on Global Warming of course! Wait, what?
People (especially those on the left), just can't get around the fact that they can't explain or control nature. That fact is, there's a lot we don't know. Scientists are even talking about inventing new physics to explain things like black holes. Perhaps there's an untapped form of science or a fantastic discovery that will explain the complex weather systems and global activity in the future that will enlighten and show us how ridiculous all this panic really is, and how wrong all these so-called "scientists" really are. Hell, we may even be able to CONTROL the global temperature in the next fifty years or so. Don't laugh. Go back only twenty years and try to conceive what we have and can do today. You'd be way off, as too will our own current projections about the future.
I mean remember when doctors used to say smoking was healthy? Most of us can look back and see how ridiculous this theory was. Apparently our President isn't one of them, so maybe this Global Warming agenda makes sense.
Wise people can admit when there are concepts they can't understand while foolish people will always insist they are all-knowing, and won't stop until everyone agrees with them. It's the height of narcissism.
So Obama and his socialist cohorts justify spending YOUR money WITHOUT your permission during a Great Recession to address a problem that not only has NOT been proven to exist, but is about as likely to exist as a flying spaghetti monster.
Which I guess explains why so many people fall for this bullshit.
Like Peter Gleick of the Huffington Post (big surprise) who practically wet himself when he got his hands on this useless global temperature chart courtesy of the NCDC. Do you think Mr. Gleick realizes this graph is based on temperature anomalies and not actual temperatures, which renders it even less accurate?
Hint- A mean deviation anomaly's accuracy is based solely on the accuracy of the "reference value" or "long-term average". Incomplete or inconsistent information used to calculate the "long-term average" magnifies the inaccuracy of the mean deviation anomaly. So this graph, at best, is half as accurate as a graph that measures absolute temperatures.
Really? The total deviation from 1880 to the present is a half degree Fahrenheit? The greatest deviation on the chart is not even three quarters of one degree, and these measurements are in FAHRENHEIT?!
So yeah it's bullshit, but what's the problem? Let those nuts think what they want; surely it's not harming anyone. I mean, they're trying to save lives, to save the world, who cares if it's completely fruitless? We don't bother religions that don't harm others. If you don't agree, simply ignore them. Just live and let live.
But it's not as simple as that. The Global Warming initiative directly assaults consumerism, which assaults capitalism, which assaults freedom. Let's take a look at a simple example-
The government offers a $7,500 tax incentive for people who buy electric cars. That's great for companies that manufacture electric cars and businesses that produce batteries and other parts for electric cars, but what about the companies that don't?
Companies that are producing cars that consumers actually want are at a $7,500 disadvantage to companies that are producing cars that the government wants. How's that for a free market?
But you say people actually do want electric cars and the government subsidy is merely making it affordable for them to "do their part"? Well sales figures of the Toyota Prius in Japan indicate the exact opposite after they dropped from 20 a day to around 8 a day after the government subsidy ended there late last year.
This sort of blatant racketeering would make even Al Capone wince.
Of course renewable energy is a good idea, it's efficient. But the market should dictate its progress, not the government, and certainly not now. Right now the government needs to do what Nan Hayworth suggested and just stop.
Human beings naturally want to control their environment, and erroneously believe they have more control then they actually do. Never is this more apparent than in the highly arrogant "Climate Nazis". They honestly believe that it's their previous ignorant actions that have spawned this "climate change" and that their new "progressive" actions will stop it. They honestly believe they can control the weather and the Earth's future. In other words, they believe they are God.
But the cold hard truth is no one is in control. We're all just along for the ride, and what exactly is wrong with that? Do these Climate Nazis have so little faith in the human race that they think we won't adapt to a new environment?
If there's anything to worry about here, it's Global Cooling. The sun is dying out, that's a fact. We can observe scientific proof that a stars lifespan is finite. We can observe stars like the sun dying in our own solar system and neighboring solar systems. We KNOW that the suns days are numbered, its science.
But hang on a minute! The Gimp just noticed something interesting about the aforementioned graph. It appears that around the year 1885 to 1895, the temperature change is on a distinct downward trend of approximately 0.2 degrees. We can safely assume from this data that 1,000 years earlier the temperature was 20 degrees warmer, indicating we are actually on a downward trend with this small uptick being a simple anomaly!
So I believe in Global Cooling. The proof is there, all you have to do is bend it.
