Gut Rumbles
 

May 04, 2006

global bullshit

I just finished reading State of Fear, by Michael Crichton. I recommend that book to all who want to know a few dirty little secrets about environmentalists and the organic fuel (bullshit) that they run with on.

Take the fearsome menace of rising CO2 levels in the earth's atmosphere for example. EVERYBODY "knows" that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is warming the planet and WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!! if we don't do something about it, despite the FACT that CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere and it is essential for the existence of plant life.

What are we worrying about? Imagine the earth's atmosphere as a football field. Let's color the field to represent the gases surrounding our delicate planet.

Let's use red for nitrogen, and paint the field RED from one goal line to just over the OTHER 22 yard line. A little more than 78% of our atmosphere is NITROGEN, which is a "toxic" gas if you try to breathe it by itself. (Nitrogen KILLS a few people every year in confined-space entries.

Use blue for oxygen and paint from the 22 yard line down to the one. That's the part of the atmosphere that keeps us alive when we breathe. See what you've got? Yep, with just nitrogen and oxygen, we've covered 99% of the football field with paint. What's left?

Most of it is argon, which we'll paint pink. Whoa! That brings us to within three and a half inches of the goal line. Wait a minute! We're runnin' out of field here. Where's that evil, deadly CO2 we keep hearing about from global warming hysterics "experts?"

It's ONE FUCKING INCH of what's left. Paint it black, but you're gonna need a small brush to do it. As Crichton writes, "That's how much CO2 we have in our atmosphere. One inch in a hundred yard football field."

"But ROB," I hear you ask, "what about the INCREASE in CO2 over the last fifty years? You know... that big, man-made jump in CO2 levels that's being blamed for stronger hurricanes, melting glaciers and rising sea levels? Huh? What about THAT???"

That frightening increase in CO2 would amount to 3/8 of an inch on our football field. Not even HALF of an inch. Try to remember this fact the next time some environmentalist asshole starts screaming and wringing his hands about CO2 levels as proof of man-made global warming. Then, slap the silly bitch for being a got-dam fool.

There's your science lesson for the day.

(UPDATE: Good reading here, too. I still say that when people attempt to scare you to death and then demonize those who question them, they're lying to you.)

Comments

Well shit guess we had better not tell you about the trade winds then...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1767125,00.html

Posted by: jamesoldguy on May 4, 2006 12:05 PM

I have to wonder what caused the global warming that ended the last major ice age; Neanderthal camp fires? Or mastadon farts?

Posted by: BobG on May 4, 2006 12:11 PM

So say you drink a gallon of water each day, represented by a 100 yard football field. Every day, somebody comes by with a vial of liquid mercury and drops some in there, not very much, but some. Say 99 yards, 2 feet and 11 inches represent your clean, fresh spring water, and that one inch now represents your daily dose of mercury. Maybe I just speak for myself, but I don't think I'd be wanting to drink that gallon of water every morning anymore.

Global warming certainly is overhyped and all the "experts" tend to be political fear-mongerers, no argument there. However, just stating proportions in and of themselves doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

Posted by: Nathan R. on May 4, 2006 12:52 PM

"However, just stating proportions in and of themselves doesn't prove anything one way or the other."

So how much of YOUR money are you willing to send to china or eastern europe or into space as far as that is concerned based on "Hot Air Science"?

Posted by: TC on May 4, 2006 01:16 PM

Nathan, hug a tree, kiss an owl and don't try blowing smoke up my ass. Here is an example snothead, one medum size volcano eruption puts more C02 and other so called toxins in the atmosphere in one hour than mankind has put in the atmosphere since the beginning of time. So much for so called scientific theories about man destroying the planet.. Get on that lemming train bud.

Posted by: jamesoldguy on May 4, 2006 01:21 PM

Wow. A post about math without the seemingly obligatory blurb about being an English major.

Posted by: Arcs on May 4, 2006 01:39 PM

Rob, this is put as best as I have ever seen~ do you mind if I flagrantly copy this and jam it down the craw of all the barking moonbats that I have to endure up here in the People's Republic of Minnesota, the State Where Absolutely Nothing is Allowed?

Posted by: Grant on May 4, 2006 02:00 PM

Actually, it was more of a science lesson from an English major. Thanks for the illustration A-Man.

Posted by: Sarge on May 4, 2006 02:18 PM

When I first read State of Fear, I wasn't sure if Crichton was kidding but his website adds more infor on the not-so-much global warming issue. There have also been points in time when there was far more Co2 than there is now. Besides, for the amount of time our planet has been here, and the fact that temperature stats have been taken only for maybe 100 or so years, many not accurately, how seriously can we take a 0.6 degree increase in temperature over 100 years. It means nothing.

Posted by: Jeannie on May 4, 2006 02:36 PM

Just pure BULLSHIT.

Posted by: Catfish on May 4, 2006 02:54 PM

I'm doing my part, to reduce the amount of CO2 in the air. I drink my beer, as rapidly as possible, reducing the time the CO2 bubbles have access to the air. Then, I cover my mouth when burping.

Act locally, think globally!

Posted by: dc on May 4, 2006 02:54 PM

I've given up on you guys on this issue but you folks do remember that Crichton is a writer of Fiction and not a scientist, right? Just asking.....

Posted by: Libby on May 4, 2006 03:23 PM

I learned something today. I have to look into it more, but the simple analogy has the ring of truth to it.

Posted by: Mrite on May 4, 2006 03:38 PM

Chrichton is mostly a science fiction writer but he also does his reaserch. Most science fiction writers do if they are worth a damn.

It is hard to deny that there has been some global warming over the past 100 years. But it is also hard to convince me that humans have caused it. The fact that most believe ( other than the religious right wing who still insists the earth is only 6,000 years of age because the bible tells them so) that the earth has warmed up and cooled off hundreds if not thousands of times keeps me from being to worried about it. Humans are resilient and have the ability to adapt to damn near anything. Hell, if we could put up with eight years of Bill Clinton and his witch of a wife we damn sure don't want to get upset by a little global warming. I for one look forward to a lower heating bill....

Posted by: GUYK on May 4, 2006 04:00 PM

Libby, you may as well give up. I've heard your "reasoning" before and it ain't based in fact. Read Crichton's book, THEN tell me it's fiction--- after you check out the heavily foot-noted SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES backing up everything he says.

Sheesh! Forget reading the book before you criticize. Just be a good environmentalist, cover your ears with your hands and shout, "I can't HEARRRR YOOOOOU!!!!"

Posted by: Acidman on May 4, 2006 04:56 PM

"I've given up on you guys on this issue but you folks do remember that Crichton is a writer of Fiction and not a scientist, right? Just asking....."

You might like to check his credentials; he is not just a writer.

Posted by: BobG on May 4, 2006 06:26 PM

Loved the book! Good science and a few facts thrown in for good measure. Shows how the treehuggers can manipulate the facts to thier advantage.

Posted by: Dean on May 4, 2006 06:36 PM

A-man my dear, you haven't begun to hear the scope of my arguments. I'm too polite to burden you with the weight of my informal research on the subject, not to mention I don't think global warming is the problem as much as climate disruption. I'm worried about the jet stream more than the temperature.

But like I said, I hang around here to listen, not preach. Your arguments haven't convinced me I'm wrong either, but the difference between us is I don't mock you or imply you're stupid for coming to a different conclusion than I did.

In any event, you're right I didn't read the book but I wasn't criticizing his conclusions. The book has been out for a long time now and I was merely remarking on this trend I've noticed where he and his book are being given scientific status since, whatever its well grounded basis, it's still a work of fiction.

He's a fine writer and I love his work. Coma knocked me out. Jurassic Park not so much. Do you also believe those are true? I don't recall but I bet he has scientific references in the back of those too.

So the only point I'm trying to make is that despite his creds, Crichton is a science FICTION writer with a long standing and well documented skepticism on global warming. So sorry if I'm not willing to take his word as gospel anymore than I'm willing to take the word of those with an opposite bias, on their face value alone -- no matter well written the presentation.

Posted by: Libby on May 4, 2006 06:43 PM

Have you heard of the "global dimming" phenomena ? Microscopic particulate like soot & particulate acts as seed in clouds. As you remember from your TiO2 days, lots of seed causes smaller particle size. Clouds in heavily polluted areas contain lots of seed (soot, particulate). Water droplets in the clouds coalesce around the seed, but do not drop to earth as rain, too many nucleation sites. The clouds then become huge reflectors of the sun's energy, rainfall decreases, major disruptions of the Earth's meteorologic climate. Look up "global dimming" and "pan evaporation rate" . Less photons from the sun, less evaporation (sunlight is the major driver of global evaporation, wind, temperature and difference of humidity being others). I'm not a believer of global warming by any means, nor am I a scientist....but this actually seemed to be a very plausible scientific theory (to me anyway).

Posted by: Bill on May 4, 2006 07:57 PM

Libby, Mr. Crichton trained as a doctor, although he left before going through residency. That means he is trained as a scientist and in the scientific method. I would say he is more than qualified to do his own analysis of the given facts and be listened to, at least as a starting point of a discussion.

A dirty little secret about the meteorological community is that the THEORY of global warming has as many, if not more, opponents as proponants. Those that do espouse it use computor models that, should you imput the known factors present in say, 1914; the weather patterns shown in the models are far different from the true conditions that actually occurred. The proponants are just more adept at using the "Chicken Little" approach to obtain funding, maybe because they are more willing to use unscientifically proven theories as fact than the opponents are. They put unproven, and as yet, unprovable, theories and suppositions in terms of facts, while the more honest just admit that, yes, there has been a .06 degree rise in the last hundred years, but no, they don't know WHY.

They propose economically disastrous policies and cry foul if anyone objects to putting their heads on the chopping block altar of their flavor of the week disaster scenerio.

I can remember when the flavor was the coming Ice Age (caused by man, of course) in the early seventies. I also remember how it was forcast by the same person that just another five million people being born would tip the scale into global catastrophe in the late sixties...Today, 2 billion people on the earth more, and the overall conditions of the Earth haven't changed in any appreciable way.

Posted by: Delftsman3 on May 5, 2006 03:37 AM

Delftsman I'm not saying I'm not willing to listen to Crichton. I read all the sides of the issue, all the time. Near as I can tell, nobody knows for sure and I realize that funding for research can skew the conclusions -- on both sides. I'm not willing to blindly accept it as a given but neither am I willing to discount it out of hand without studying all the arguments.

Seems to me we're still a long way from proving it one way or the other. I don't advocate for a lot of panic driven legislation but I still worry about the price we would pay for being wrong. That's what I do -- I worry and sometimes I just get tired of being treated like some earthy crunchy bimbo just because I'm trying to look at both sides of the issue.

Posted by: Libby on May 5, 2006 08:59 AM

Here's an oldie: "Collectively, human activity releases approximately 7 billion tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere. Natural processes release 150 billion tons each year. In other words, humans are responsible for less than 4% of the CO2 release each year, and not even remotely close to 98% of the total."

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/05/Bogusscience.shtml

Posted by: disconnect on May 5, 2006 09:23 AM

Rob... I also want to know why these GW moonbats ever heard about the Solar System Warming that has been noted the past few years...
Mars... shows signs of warming
Jupiter... ditto
Pluto... ditto
Something is happening in our neck of the woods as well... and the common factor is Sol... yeah the Sun has been putting out more energy dudes!
Awww why waste our breath... :-)

Posted by: RobC on May 6, 2006 05:51 PM

If the moonbats want to complain about C02, they can take their gripes and go to India and China. Anything the US does about CO2 will be completely overshadowed as those two have their industrial revolutions. Even if the US stopped emissions completely right now it would only be a drop in the barrel.

Another interesting fact that is rarely mentioned is that the worst country in the world for CO2 emissions per acre is Iceland, due to the volcanos (which, by the way, are what keep getting the Earth out of our ice ages, for BOBG who asked).

Lastly, the effects of CO2 that we're feeling today are from the industrial revolutions over 100 years ago. The Carbon cycle (ie emission to burial) takes so damned long that we'll be feeling the effects of today's CO2 for quite some time.

Mind you, some argue that the only reason we're not in an Ice Age right now is because us shaven apes have been burning fossil fuels.

Posted by: Roy on May 6, 2006 08:54 PM

I remember global cooling very well. The top scientists of the day weighed in. Articles were published about painting the ice-caps black to absorb more heat. We're were going to die! this was followed by zero population growth, then the ozone hole , now global malarky. We've had 15 snowstorms this year; one of the coldest on record, yet nobody seems to care.

Posted by: Ron on March 17, 2008 09:23 PM

Well I'm a little disapointed that global warming might not be as real as the Chicken Little family would have us think, I was looking forward to lower heating bills. Plus all the shit hole cities that would be under water in the future to the benefit of all, not to mention how much closer the beach would be for lots of people. I recently watched an old Japanese movie named "The Evil Brain from Outer Space" that offered at least as much useful science as has been coming from Chicken Little, I think they should watch more low budget TV!!

Posted by: Capn on January 5, 2010 04:09 PM
Post a comment














*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.