10.25.2007

going green [in response]:


I posted something up about a radio-host I'd heard that morning, expressing his opinions about the concept of "global warming" and "going green." He was talking about how unappreciative he was for the whole thing, and anyone jumping on that "bandwagon." After checking back today, I realize we have received a rather lengthy comment, disagreeing with my opinion. We aren't sure who the person is that left the comment, nor is this really about that- simply a response to the novella that, I hope, sums up his / your take on the situation.

This is what the comment said:

What “ticks me off” is how many people have fallen for the whole Global Warming phenomenon. The entire environmental protection movement was hijacked years ago by socialists and communists as a way to curb private property, chisel away at capitalism, and basically damage the very fabric that this country was founded upon. What better way to take away someone’s basic rights than to put the notion in their heads that they are responsible for natural disasters, from increased strengths of hurricanes and tsunamis to heating up the entire planet’s temperature so that glaciers are melting and polar bear cubs are dying. In the words of John Stossel “Gimme a Break!”

I know that facts to liberals are paramount to kryptonite to Superman, so you may want to stop reading at this point, especially if you have high blood pressure. Thirty years ago, the top scientists around the world (not unlike the same who are on the whole Global Warming bandwagon) were predicting that the earth was in a state of Global Cooling and went on and on about how many people would die because the crops that were planted around the world would have less days to grow before they had to be harvested. I guess Global Cooling wasn’t as sexy as Global Warming because shortly after we didn’t enter a new ice age, the same alarmist scientists poured themselves a big glass of shut-the-hell-up.

Defeated, they waited until the earth naturally went into an age in which the temperatures are naturally rising – something that has happened since the earth was created! Then, they came back in full force, led by the human robot himself, Al Gore. Gore was a sore loser after the U.S. Supreme Court had to step in to prevent the liberal Florida State Supreme Court from allowing the liberal Florida State Legislature from rewriting election laws once it became apparent that the 2000 presidential election results rested on the hanging, dimpled, and pregnant chads of the Sunshine State’s ballots. So, after crying and whining for several weeks in late 2000, he eventually conceded after every recount, before and after, showed that he was a loser. Like the defeated climatologists in the mid-70’s whose Chicken Little-like cries of “The sky is freezing! The sky is freezing!” didn’t catch on, Gore became the leader for the Global Warming cause. Of course, when he was in the White House with Clinton for 8 years, he didn’t seem to do too much then, did he? I guess it’s easier to complain about someone else in office than to ask your buddy Bill to do something like pass the Kyoto Accord that would severely hamper businesses all over the country. BTW, didn’t every single Senator vote against the Kyoto Accord during Clinton’s presidency? I thought so.

Even though man has no more control over Global Warming than we do over how hot the sun is or how far away the moon is, you do have to admire the ability of the media, Gore, and pretty much every leftwing actor in Hollywood who has jumped on the whole concept of “going green” and how they have managed to convince the sheeple in America to buy into what they’re selling without looking at the price tag. Not only have they guilted many adults into feeling bad for enjoying our way of life as compared to other countries – having our own homes, cars to drive where we want and when we want, having air conditioner in our homes and offices, being able to provide for our families and take the occasional vacation, and so on – but they have since gone after school children with their liberal nonsense, going as far as teaching them that because mommy and daddy use incandescent light bulbs, don’t turn off their water while taking showers, drive cars, and so on, that they are responsible for Global Warming that results in polar bear cubs and penguins dying each year. And like most liberals, grade school children tend to believe what they are told because they don’t have a fully developed brain that can rationalize situations and, for lack of a better term, wade thru the bullshit.

In a nutshell, Global Warming is nothing more than a tool of the liberals in this country – people who hate the United States of America, and everything that it stands for and was built upon – as well as people from other parts of the world who are simply jealous of what we have, both in terms of personal freedom and private property rights. Since the scientists and climatologists whose research is funded by government grants realize that they will lose their jobs if they speak out against Global Warming, naturally they continue to perpetuate the growing myth. However, most of the scientists who signed the Kyoto Accord that started a lot of this nonsense have since recanted their position of Global Warming because their results were cherry picked and manipulated much the same way that the recent results from more than 1,000 individual studies were manipulated to suggest that second hand smoke causes certain kinds of cancer when the original studies couldn’t even conclude that first hand smoke caused the same kinds of cancer. But thanks to the agenda of the media and other liberals, entire cities are now turning what was once an annoyance to some into cause to infringe upon the rights of individual property owners (as in, the restaurant and bar owners).

What better way to convince the masses to do something that a minority of people simply don’t like than to convince them and others that their actions are hurting the entire planet and killing off species of cute little animals? I’ve heard grown men say that they were raised in this era of Global Warming guilt and they actually felt bad – before learning that it was nothing more than a way to control them and how they lived their lives – about driving his car to work everyday in order to support his family. But this is exactly what the liberals want – people to feel bad enough to change their lifestyles. While they preach equality and say that everyone should have the same basic things in life, what they really want is everyone to be equal…equally miserable. Look at Gore himself. He lives in a Tennessee mansion that uses over 20 times more electricity than the average home and flies all over the world in his private jet. Yet, he talks repeatedly about how everyone else can leave a smaller carbon footprint by giving up their cars, changing their light bulbs, unplugging all of their appliances when they aren’t being used, and, if they are like him and can afford to enjoy the fruits of their labors and the freedoms that our forefathers died to provide for them, and as a way of easing their guilt, they can do like he does and use as much electricity as they want…so long as they send money to a company (which he owns, BTW) to plant trees in their name. I wonder how many of those trees are currently burning out of control in California, in part because of the years and years that the tree-hugging liberals refused to allow clear-cutting that would’ve eliminated most of the brush and old-growth trees that are currently on fire.

I doubt if anyone reading this is going to change their ideas about Global Warming. But maybe, just maybe, somebody will get off their arse and do a little research, other than at AlGore.com, CNN.com, ABC.com, etc., and learn a little more about Global Warming and other ridiculous attempts by liberals – from the media to Gore to actors – to control peoples’ lives. And the next time you’re watching your local evening news and the pregnant weather girl (oops, I mean the pregnant weather chick) comes on and shows that today’s high beat the record from 1892, ask yourself why it was so hot in 1892. How many SUVs were on the road back then? How many factories were spewing smog into the atmosphere? How many of your grandparents were destroying the earth back then? Of course, that same sort of logic can be applied to other things as well, like second hand smoke, for example. How many nonsmokers die of second hand smoke each year after being subjected to years and years of going on road trips as children with parents smoking in the front seat? Or, how many employees who worked in offices in the 70’s and 80’s where smoking was prevalent have since died because of second hand smoke? As a matter of fact, how many people have died as a direct result of second hand smoke? The answer…last chance to turn away before your little liberal ears start to bleed…is 0! Which, ironically, is how much of an impact man has on Global Warming…0%!


Erin and I are always up for a good discussion, and are happy we've provided a place to express our opinions, as well as for the people reading this blog to express theirs, as well. However, we hope we are setting a better example by trying to look at the world at hand, design included- not using slander and aggressively distasteful comments similar to those provided above.

Just as suzanne wrote, we agree:


This type of attitude totally ticks me off as well. It's the same with those who say "global warming is a hoax." Well....ok...believe what you want....but shouldn't one take care of their environment anyway? Aren't we the care givers of earth?


I'm sorry to have gotten back on my soap-box in response to this comment, but after seeing it, I wanted to say that this is NOT our goal here. We love feedback and we love debate, but discussing this planet should be feasible without political slander and an abrasive attitude.

Looking past the global warming issue and into the resources we are quickly running out of: even IF it's natural in terms of rotation for the planet to heat and cool in waves greater than we have immediate expectations for, we are (without a doubt) using more of our natural resources than we ever have in the past. What happens when those run- out? A natural era is going to naturally replenish our supply of oil? I'm sorry, but even if you don't buy into the idea that "baby polar bear cubs" are dying and homeless because of our selfishness, and even if you don't believe that the use of coal is helping that disaster, I find it hard to look past the amount of resources we have left as it quickly runs out. Who was it that said something like "we have sufficient resources for man's need but not for man's greed?"


As Robert Orben said, "There's so much pollution in the air now that if it weren't for our lungs there'd be no place to put it all."

4 comments:

Danny Brooks said...

To Erin, Suzanne, et al:

First, I will answer your question as to who I am. My name, as I stated previously, is Danny Brooks. I live in Davidson, NC and have been a Senior Programmer/Analyst for the past 8 years, with an additional 8 years in the Information Technology industry prior to that, as well as a former Commodities & Futures Broker. And not that it matters, but I am 38-years-old, married for the past 8 years, WASP (While Anglo-Saxon Protestant), and the closest political party that I have the most in common with is the Libertarian Party, which thanks to the republicans and democrats in NC is no longer a recognized political party in this state. About the only two things that I disagree with the LP on are their positions on illegal immigration (i.e., open borders) and gay marriage. I am all for less government involvement in everyone’s personal lives. I don’t hate Bush like the vast majority of liberals that I know. I do strongly dislike him for his blatant contempt for the U.S. Constitution, especially in not protecting our borders during a time in which we are not at war with one or several nations, but very sick individuals whose perverted religion tells them that it’s okay to kill anyone who doesn’t share in their religious views. Unlike past presidents who have served during a time of natural and manmade disasters, from Hurricane Katrina to bridges collapsing to wildfires, Bush has managed to find what they could not – constitutional authority to hand over money from the federal treasury to individuals to help them out. Columnist Walter E. Williams has written several brilliant, concise, and easy to understand articles on this very subject. The links for a couple are as follows:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2005/09/21/is_it_permissible
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/09/13/constitution_day
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2005/02/09/not_yours_to_give

Also, the first four paragraphs The Life of Colonel David Crockett (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html) goes into more detail of his historic speech as a U.S. Representative.

On a side note, Walter Williams has also authored several columns on the subject of Global Warming that you may find of interest:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/03/28/global_warming_heresy
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/04/10/phony_science_and_public_policy
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/08/08/silencing_dissent
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/09/26/global_warming_hysteria

But probably the one article that Mr. Williams has published that you should all read is entitled “Running out of oil” (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/07/19/running_out_of_oil). Not only does he explain the economics behind the cost of gasoline, but he also notes that we currently have more than 1.1 trillion barrels of oil (enough at current usage rates to fuel the world’s economy for 38 years) plus another 2 trillion barrel of “recoverable” oil, all in 606 words. In addition to Mr. Williams’ research, I have learned thru independent research of my own that oil wells that were once capped after decades of flat oil prices (meaning that it wasn’t worth the effort to continue pumping oil out of the ground because the prices were so low, something that can easily be compared to other commodities during the same time period to show that they are still lower than they should be) have recently exceeded their previous peak production levels. Simply put, wells that were thought to be depleted or nearly depleted have recently been shown to have more oil than they previously had. Some scientists have published papers that strongly suggest that fossil fuels are not a limited resource as was once feared, but are actually growing instead of shrinking. Now, I realize that this punches a huge hole into the whole environmental terror mindset that says we need to drastically cut back on our use of fossil fuels so that we don’t run out.

As far as conserving natural resources go, specifically oil, I don’t think that people should be bullied into curbing their personal use by advocates of gloom and doom who, whether knowingly or ignorantly, don’t exactly espouse the truth. Back in 1919, the U.S. Geological Survey predicted that world oil production would peak in nine years. During the 1970s, the Club of Rome reported that, assuming no rise in consumption, all known oil reserves would be entirely consumed in just 31 years.

Does this mean that oil should be expected to last the life of the planet? Probably not. Should we explore alternative resources? Yes and no. Yes, in the long-range, should explore such energy supplies as nuclear, and to some extent, even solar and wind. But no, we should not overlook the cost of jumping onto the ethanol/solar/wind bandwagons in an ignorant attempt to save a planet that is not dying, and contrary to Gore, doesn’t have a fever. An often ignored fact of ethanol, for example, is that it costs more to get the energy from corn, sugar, or whatever the raw product, that it’s worth. In order words, it costs somewhere between $1.20 – $1.40 to get $1.00 worth of energy in the form of ethanol. The only way that the public would buy ethanol is because the government gives such huge tax subsidies to its producers. Without the subsidies, it very few people would be stupid enough to overpay by such a huge difference between ethanol and gasoline. Unfortunately, the same is true of wind and solar power – it simply costs too much to produce. In the cast of wind power, the amount of land used for windmills, as well as the cost of the windmills, is drastically higher than fossil fuels. And even though the sun is free, the cost of solar panels for homes, as one example, when compared to the savings from homeowners’ electric bills make it more expensive in the long run. Recent studies have shown that hybrid cars cost way more than the small savings in gasoline when compared to comparable cars. The bottom line is that the gasoline powered combustible engine is the most economical means of transportation in the world. And until an alternative means of transportation (and/or fuel) is developed, people simply are not going to give up the freedom, convenience and relatively economic expenses of their own cars. The only case that could be made for keeping windmills and solar panels was last season on the CBS series “Jericho”, which was set in the wake of nuclear fallout and the small Kansas town had no other means of electricity.

There are always going to be people who genuinely want to do what’s best for the earth, and that’s fine. They can shower once a week and jump around while the shower is off half the time all they want. They can spend more of their own money than they will ever recuperate by buying their own hybrid cars, solar panels, whatever they want. In other words, they can pretend that they are Europeans or living in 18th century America. It’s when they try and convince others to fall in line with their own views and lifestyles, or worse, when they use the force of government to force others to fall in line that I, and a lot of others, have a problem.

traphic signs said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traphic signs said...

To Mr. Brooks:

I'll give you a bit of background, as you have provided for us. I'm a 23 year old recent graduate from a department in Interior Architecture. I currently work for an architectural firm, learning the ropes of the professional world's version of Architecture, Interior Design, Environmental Graphics, Graphic Design, and whatever else we can come up with to develop the built world as our clients demand it.

I don't know a lot about "going green" - I'll admit it. Having gone to school with a department crazy about Bill McDonough & An Inconvenient Truth, and now bordering on taking the plunge into studying for my LEED certification, I'm trying my best to wrap my head around this dilemma. I've met and known people who are huge advocates against the global warming issue- they seem to share many similarities in their viewpoints as you. They often used the terms "conspiracy" and "deceiving the public" to counter the various arguments about how devastating the effects on our earth are, as a result of our greed.

I will agree with you- I don't know enough to argue back- there are plenty of studies in every direction, and I hate to tell you that I'm naive enough to believe everything I'm told, I watch or I read, however... I also know that with such a generous following is worth (at least) listening to. I'll read your articles, and I'll remain open-minded at the same time. However, I find it hard to believe that any person has the ability to argue with the simple principle that we, in all aspects of life, don't have a responsibility to clean up after ourselves. Treehugger or not, as adults and people we have a duty to realize that we have (relatively speaking) not been here all that long, and we DON'T know everything. If preservation doesn't take THAT much extra effort, and in turn can actually make our environments (locally and globally) a lot cleaner, why not, right?

I agree, at this point, this is all a matter of opinion- probably one of the reasons it is such a touchy subject, so for now I will make an attempt to continue learning before jumping to too many conclusions / judgements. I appreciate you sharing your point of view- we all have room to learn.

Please don't hesitate to share future findings with us as you find them worthy, and should you find anything else interesting, we welcome your feedback. As two girls who are in their early 20s, we probably won't attempt to argue with your political viewpoints as we are (or at least I'll speak for myself here) still making those decisions for ourselves. Take care, Mr. Brooks.

Danny Brooks said...

Thank you for your recent post and most importantly for not taking this whole debate over Global Warming too personally. Also, I hope that I didn’t imply that just because there are different sides to the whole Global Warming debate, as well as the environment, whether or not we are about to run out of oil, and so on, that we should not be responsible and, as you put it “clean up after ourselves.” An interesting point made by the Libertarian Party in favor of having private individuals and companies being in control of more of our land and less being held by the government, either on a state or national level, as in parks, is the simple question of who is more likely to keep it clean and free of garbage, even toxic waste. If the government owns a lake or park, then everyone feels entitled to use it, but they don’t always throw their trash away after camping or they may toss an empty Coke bottle into the water. By contrast, if someone rents a cabin at a private lake from someone who has a vested and financial interest in keeping the land and water as clean as possible, then that owner will make campers aware that they should properly dispose of their trash and will probably hire people to patrol their land to do the same. Another example is the comparison of our roads with our own driveways. I’ll admit that I have been guilty, although very seldom, of throwing an occasional small piece of trash out of my car window. And I’m sure you’ve seen people toss and empty bottle or even a bag from a fast food restaurant onto the side of the highway. What do you think the chances are that the same person would drive up to their own house and throw an empty drink bottle or fast food bag into their own yard? Usually, it never happens. The reason is that they own their land.

When it comes to large corporations dumping massive amounts of toxic chemicals and waste into the oceans just because if they are caught and fined the maximum amount it will only be a fraction of the cost had they properly disposed of it, that’s a little different. While I don’t necessarily agree with larger and larger fines, unless they actually exceed the cost of proper disposal fees, there isn’t much else that can be done. The reason I’m not for larger fees is because it only gives more and more money to the government. If Exxon-Mobile is fined an extra $5,000,000 this year for dumping their waste into the Atlantic Ocean, that’s just $5,000,000 more for the government to waste and it doesn’t affect anyone else’s taxes by lowering them one penny. On the other hand, is it right to simply imprison a CEO who has no idea, and can’t possibly know, what every person in his company is doing? Not unless you can prove that the CEO, or whoever you go after, specifically told someone to dump a bunch of waste into the ocean, which probably won’t happen. So, I do agree that everyone should be responsible for cleaning up after themselves.

Unfortunately, the whole environmental movement, which I’m sure has as members a lot of good people who do honestly care about the environment and want to help save the world, has been, for lack of a better word “hijacked” by others with an agenda. And I’m equally sorry to say that this agenda is more than a little nefarious. It is used, by some, not all, as a way to try and force people to live their lives differently, if only by making them feel guilty for enjoying the fruits of their own labors. And in this day and age, cars are burning cleaner than they ever have and with each year, more and more of the old glunkers that get really bad mileage and used to burn “regular” gasoline (you may have to ask your parents about that one) are being taken off the road due to age. And they are being replaced with cars that get higher mileage and burn cleaner.

You are also correct in stating that you can easily find studies on both sides of the Global Warming debate, even though the media undoubtedly keep about 99% of those critical of manmade Global Warming suppressed. But just because one side is more passionate than the other or appears in the New York Times on the network evening news more, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is founded in legitimate science nor that it is even true. I haven’t looked, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you could find some places online that claim that child pornography and pedophilia are okay. That doesn’t mean that they are, regardless of how many websites are out there stating the opposite. One thing that most people on the side of man being a cause for Global Warming probably won’t say (aside from where they get paid, i.e., the government or someone else with an agenda) is that so far, not one single computer model that claims to prove that Global Warming is caused by man has ever been agreed upon by all scientists who know what they are talking about. And when it comes to true science, it doesn’t matter what your political stripes are, something is either true or not true. If you drop an apple out of a tree, the law of gravity states that it will fall until it hits the ground, or something else. If a democrat scientist, a republican scientist, and Libertarian scientist dropped an apple out of tree, it would not magically float for the democrat scientist…it would fall. A few years ago there was a very famous model used to prove Global Warming called the Mann “Hockey Stick” that pretty much started the whole Global Warming phenomenon. You may want to check out the following website for more detailed debunking of it: http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm.

Take care, Ms. Traffic Signs.