Gut Rumbles
 

May 04, 2006

no argument

From my comments:

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. at May 4, 2006 12:52 PM

Just one problem, Nathan. What does drinking mercury have to do with CO2 in the atmosphere? We don't exhale mercury with every breath the way we do CO2, nor do plants need mercury for the process of photosynthesis. I fail to see the connection, or the logic in your argument. But that's typical of what passes for reasoning in the environmental movement today.

To steal a phrase I read the other day--- that's about the non-est of non-sequitors I ever heard.

Comments

I read somewhere -- I can't recall the source, but it said that when Mount St. Helens erupted back in the 80s, that it released into the atmosphere, in that huge eruption, over 1,000,000 times as much CO2 as the the combustion engine has since its invention.


It's kind of like spitting in the ocean.

Posted by: paulb on May 4, 2006 05:02 PM

My thoughts on global warming are that it is a cyclical phenomenon upon which human activity has had little influence, and to try and "fix the problem" by crippling the world economy is foolishness. So there, I think we're in agreement.

Obviously, mercury has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. The post I was commenting on used an elaborate (albeit well-written) analogy to accomplish one thing: to show that CO2 makes up a very small proportion of the earth's atmosphere. My point was to illustrate that this fact, by itself, does not logically lead to the conclusion that the CO2 doesn't matter.

I do enjoy the blog, I suppose I'll stop trying to be a troll now.

Posted by: Nathan on May 4, 2006 05:39 PM

I understood the point you were making, Nathan.

Posted by: rightisright on May 4, 2006 07:38 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.