SCROLL DOWN TO SEE THE HOMEPAGE SPOTLIGHT
Welcome! Click to Enter.
 CLICK TO ENTER cliquer pour entrer |
** MEMBER #1439 of the CANADIAN PAPER MONEY SOCIETY **
(CLICK HERE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE BACKGROUND MUSIC!!)
|
FUCK YOU, KYOTO!!  A special pre-election climate change primer Here is the problem with human-induced global warming: it does not exist. However, this minor point has not stopped millions of people from believing that it does. While I do not normally mind when people have different beliefs from my own, in this case, these different beliefs threaten my way of life and the standard of living enjoyed by millions of people around the world. The Al Gores and David Suzukis of the world would have us believe that the industrious capitalistic societies of wealthy nations are ruining the planet. Throughout the past several decades, these Chicken Littles have concocted several end-of-the-world scenarios that turned out to be anything but true. Do you remember acid rain? Nobody talks about that any more. What about holes in the ozone layer? We were all supposed to go blind because of that. Then, in the 1970s, there was the big Global Cooling scare that resulted from a slight cooling trend in global temperatures during the years 1945-1975. Here is the only common ground shared by both the global warming fear-mongerers and the sane people of the world: The Earth has warmed up 0.6 to 0.8°C in the past 125 years. If you ask me, that's not a whole heck of a lot. Climatologists tend to agree, citing temperature variations throughout the past several thousand years. The Vikings inhabited Greenland during the years 1000-1200 A.D., and they (the Vikings, not the climatologists) even managed to farm the land in that now frozen landscape. Following the Medieval Warm period, global temperatures cooled in a period known as the Little Ice Age. The year 1816 was known as the Year Without a Summer, or "Eighteen Hundred and Froze To Death", and this incredible year in which major snowfalls occurred in Quebec City during the month of June is the result of several volcanic eruptions, the biggest being Tambora in the East Indies. Volcanic eruptions eject massive amounts of particulate matter into the atmosphere where they are dispersed globally and cause less of the sun's cosmic rays to reach the surface of the planet, resulting in global cooling. The Pinatubo volcanic event in the Philippines in 1991 was relatively small compared to Tambora and Krakatoa, but it managed to cause a global temperature drop of about 1°C, and the summer of 1992 was much cooler than normal. So a temperature variation of 0.8°C in 125 years is minor by comparison, just to put things into perspective. Scientists also agree that the climate of the Holocene (i.e., the past 10,000 years or so since the end of the last major period of glaciation) has been relatively stable compared to the glacial period that preceded it. For the research I did for my PhD thesis, I examined unusual carbonate deposits in periglacial landscapes, and these deposits were formed at a time when the Arctic was several degrees warmer than at present (during a warming event called the Hypsithermal). We humans flatter ourselves to think that we have such a powerful influence over the planet and its natural processes that have been operating for billions of years before we arrived. And yet we find ourselves bombarded with media reports telling us our politicians are prepared to spend billions of dollars to combat global warming. The fact that the mentality is starting to infiltrate political parties on all sides of the spectrum is even greater cause for concern. I expect this sort of nonsense from the NDP and other socialist extremists. These people are always looking for a crisis so they can grab the media spotlight and sell themselves as the only Ones capable of finding the solution. When no crisis exists, they fabricate one (like the homelessness crisis). The socialists are attempting to (ironically) capitalize on the average working shlub's unhappiness with the world around him/her. While humans are living longer, healthier lives than ever before, we still have to work hard to enjoy a decent standard of living. In fact, our lives seem to be growing more hectic despite being told that "computers will make our lives easier" and other such lies. The average person today lives in an urban environment in close proximity to large numbers of other people and yet does not know or speak to his/her neighbours. We have been forced to tolerate our fellow human beings and the diversity they bring to our society, and yet forced tolerance is starting to breed intolerance. I don't pretend to be an anthropologist or to speak for experts on human behaviour, but I feel that Canadians are becoming more miserable over time, and while nobody has really been able to put their finger on the root cause, the effects are becoming clear. We are becoming more socialist every day, meaning we despise smart, successful people and we try to pull them down in an attempt to "level the playing field" and make everyone equal. Capitalism is the antithesis of socialism as it rewards the successful individual. So the socialists openly rebel against anything that is beneficial to some people and embrace ideas that are detrimental to all people. Industry and production have traditionally operated to the detriment of the natural environment. Now, the environmental movement is pushing back, making industry less efficient and more responsive to concerns like pollution. While we all benefit from cleaner water and air, there are no people who make any money from the environmental movement. Or are there? Where there is misinformation, there is somebody making a profit. The socialists have capitalized in recent years on the blatant inability of the average person to grasp scientific principles. It does not help that a lot of scientific research over the years has contradicted itself, thereby making the average person highly sceptical of new information. With the advent of the Internet, the average person can listen to whomever they want and believe whatever they want, and they don't need proof of anything. Thus James Burke was right when, in his 1985 ten-part blockbuster television series The Day The Universe Changed, he announced that "if the truth is what you say it is, then say it". The average person knows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas. The socialists want us to believe that CO2 is a pollutant, and that is bullshit. The average person does not know that CO2 is an odourless, colourless gas that is used by plants during photosynthesis to produce the oxygen we respiring organisms need to survive. CO2 makes up only about 350-400 parts per million (0.035-0.040 %) of the Earth's atmosphere. That's small compared to the 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen we take in with every breath. CO2 is not even the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Water vapour accounts for over 90% of all greenhouse gases. So shouldn't we be trying to eliminate water instead of CO2? Ahh, but CO2 is a more efficient greenhouse gas than water, you say. That is true, but the much greater abundance of water vapour in the atmosphere leads to water vapour being responsible for the lion's share of the so-called "greenhouse effect". Methane (CH4) is a more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2, but methane makes up only about 1.8 parts per million (0.000 18%) of the atmosphere, and so it is likewise insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Scientific research done by Dr. Jan Veizer appears to corroborate the idea that water vapour was far more influential on climate change throughout Earth's history than was CO2. What is even more compelling about Dr. Veizer's findings is that CO2 levels in the atmosphere appear to have trailed climate change instead of forcing it. In other words, when the Earth's temperature went up, CO2 followed. CO2 did not cause the temperature rise. The Earth's biggest source/sink of CO2 is the oceans, and because CO2 is less soluble in water at higher temperatures, warming of the surface of the oceans causes CO2 to degas, thus increasing the atmospheric concentration. Also, increased biological activity by marine crustaceans during warmer periods could also have the same effect. By precipitating dissolved carbonate to form their shells, they force the dissolved inorganic carbonate balance in the oceans toward CO2. (On a side note, I had the distinction of being a presenter at a session of the Ottawa Isotope Research Group in 2002 where Dr. Veizer was a speaker. The amount of data that went into Dr. Veizer's findings was staggering and I was almost in awe of his work before I could take to the floor to make a presentation of my own mediocre work. Only about half the people in the room left after Dr. Veizer's talk. The other half stayed to hear me! I should be proud of that.) Past climates responded to natural variances in cyclical celestial processes. The Earth's orbit changes over time. Over a period of tens of thousands of years, it goes from being more elliptical to more round, and any change in proximity of the Earth to the sun has a direct correlation to the amount of solar radiation received on the surface. The tilt of the Earth's axis varies slightly such that it leans more toward the sun at some times more than other times. The rotation of the axis throughout the orbit changes over time in a process called the "precession of the Equinoxes". All three of these processes are collectively called "Milankovitch cycles" and have been successfully used to interpret the Earth's paleoclimate in terms of major periods of glaciation and interglacial warming. On shorter time scales, the activity cycles of the sun appear to control Earth's global climate, including the 11-year "sun spot" cycle. Despite growing evidence that human-induced global warming does not have any scientific merit to support it, many people choose to believe it and support measures to reduce CO2 emissions. Many people choose to support Canada's ratification of the Kyoto Accord because they think it will help to combat pollution. This is simply not true. As I have already stated above, CO2 is not a pollutant. Reducing CO2 in the atmosphere will not make anything cleaner. Anyhow, everyone who is alive and breathing produces CO2. Are we going to have debates over the validity of keeping a pulse? Will the relatives of dead people fight each other in the courts to gain the deceased person's carbon credits? Will women be told not to have children because big families "promote global warming"? Give me a break. The one-child social engineering policy of China is really doing wonders for that country. So much good, in fact, that I hope the socialists will try to promote that idea in North America. The NDP will find itself removed from Parliament and its existence in a hurry. The Kyoto Accord is nothing but a socialist policy to ruin industry and production in first-world nations and redistribute wealth to third-world nations. In fact, Kyoto runs contrary to pollution concerns by making the biggest polluters in the world, namely China and India, the major recipients of the redistributed wealth. The fact that the Kyoto Accord is nothing but socialist crap should be abundantly clear in the way it assesses people in different countries as inherently equal. China and India have huge populations, but on a per-capita basis, they produce a lot less CO2 per person than countries like Canada and the European Union. As a result, China and India have carbon credits while we in Canada have to reduce our CO2 emissions to compete with the hundreds of millions of Chinese peasants who do fuck-all except exist. The fact that Canada is a cold climate area where we have to burn fossil fuels to keep our nipples from freezing off in winter does not seem to resonate from these idiots who would put us on par with people who live in warmer climates. Another clue that Kyoto is the product of a corrupted socialist conscience comes from the fact that there's no enforcement of CO2 emission reductions except through penalties or the purchasing of carbon credits from nations like China and Russia. If the Kyoto protagonists were deadly serious about making us reduce our CO2 outputs, wouldn't they be better off threatening us with embargos and through world organizations like the United Nations? Instead, they want to tax us... Hmmm, if you're like me, then every time you hear the word "tax", you think of Liberals and soft policies that accomplish nothing (like charging 20 cents deposit on wine bottles in lieu of curbside collection for recycling). Liberals are not interested in solving anything. They just want to increase revenue and fill their own pockets. They couldn't care less about environmental issues that don't yield a profit from them. And so Kyoto is palpably nothing more than an attempt by socialists to cripple the economies of the leading industrial nations and funnel billions of dollars into Communist countries that share their extremist political philosophies. The father of the Kyoto Accord, Maurice Strong, lives in China and has large investments in the Chinese economy. Can you say "conflict of interest" or "insider trading"? To meet Kyoto targets, Canada would have to take incredibly drastic measures, like close all power plants that use coal and natural gas and ban all cars. They KNOW we can't meet targets that are befitting of a banana republic, so it is inevitable that we will end up sending large sums of money to other nations. The global warming fear mongers paint bleak pictures of what the world will be like if the planet warms up. Cities will be flooded! Polar bears will drown! Hurricanes will pulverize the coasts in record numbers! These prognostications are based entirely on fantasy. When the weather office predicts conditions for three days from now, they are wrong more than 50% of the time! How the fuck are we going to know what the climate will be like 50 years from now? You might as well phone Mistress Cleo and pay her $5.99 per minute; she's a lot cheaper than the alternative! If we have a clue about the future, it comes from the knowledge that the period of high sun spot activity that we are currently experiencing will end in 2011, after which the climate should start to cool. It is true that polar regions are more greatly affected by climate change than low-latitude regions. However, even if the northern polar ice cap melts, the net effect on sea level will be zilch because the ice cap is floating. You need to melt ice sitting on land to increase sea level. The Antarctic ice sheet holds about 80% of the world's fresh water reserves, and if it melted, you could bet sea level will rise. Here's the problem, though: the average temperature in Antarctica is between -35°C and -50°C, depending on whom you ask. An increase of 1°C per century will do nada to the ice sheet. The calving and melting of Antarctic ice at the perimeters of the sheet are natural processes that have as much to do with snow budgets and ice flow. Many people seem to subscribe to the theory of constancy which states that processes currently operating have always been in operation throughout history. As such, they believe that nature is perfectly balanced and never changes. If that was true, human beings would never have evolved, and life on Earth would never have started in the first place. People see themselves as a threat to natural ecosystems, and they are in some ways. When a species is in genuine danger from human activity, it should be protected. Consequently, I find that it is doubly heinous when environmentalists use misinformation about protecting species that are not threatened for some other purpose. Such is the case of the polar bears. Scientists and native people in polar regions alike are reporting record numbers of polar bears, but if you only ever listen to people like David Suzuki, you would think polar bears are going extinct because they are drowning from lack of sea ice. The fraud about the status of polar bears has been documented in Lowell Green's latest book. Concerns are being raised that polar bears are moving onto land to give birth instead of on sea ice. This has much more to do with bears being attracted to garbage dumps than with depleted sea ice. Moreover, because garbage dumps are endorsed by environmentalists as the proper way to dispose of waste, we're actually doing the right thing! (Groups like the Sierra Club and the Green Party are opposed to high-efficiency incineration of garbage, by the way.) If environmentalists want a species to worry about, they should follow the plight of the Yangtze River dolphins. China's Yangtze River is so polluted, the dolphins are actually going blind as an adaptation to being in water that is virtually opaque. I first learned about the Yangtze River dolphins from reading Douglas Adams's book Last Chance to See... . Can someone please explain to me how sending money to China to buy carbon credits is going to help the Yangtze River dolphins? If anything, helping China's economy to grow will increase pollution in China and around the world, and that would likely be the final gasp of the dolphins. If you are unconvinced that any of the above statements I have made are true, or if you simply want to learn more, I encourage you to visit the Friends of Science website (http://www.friendsofscience.org). If most of this discussion goes way over your head and you still think global warming is something to worry about, perhaps I should try to appeal to you on a baser level. Consider the following. The Earth has warmed up as much as 0.8°C in the past 125 years. Every year in Canada, though, the temperature warms up some 50°C between January and July. Fortunately, Canada has the best weapon for combating global warming: it is called WINTER. From August to December, the Earth's natural cooling system kicks in and drops the temperature by 50°C, and then we're right back where we started! Isn't that neat? We don't have to send money to China to enjoy freezing our asses off four to five months out of the year. Winter is ABSOLUTELY FREE (after you pay your property taxes, of course). So next time you're shovelling your driveway or huddling in the bus shelter for warmth, just remember that NONE OF THIS IS COSTING YOU A RED CENT. What's that you say? You don't like winter? Then isn't global warming the solution, and not the problem? As much as we Canadians dislike the cold, we feel the need to preserve it, as though we'll be running out of cold air any time soon. Winter is part of the Canadian cultural identity, and it meshes perfectly with our growing socialist tendencies of enacting policies that impact everyone negatively. If winter weather was actually warmer, some people would actually enjoy it, and that wouldn't be fair, right? 
If you're STILL not convinced that doing absolutely nothing is the best solution to combat global warming, and you feel the need to be drastic because all your friends are granola-crunching, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, cappuccino-sucking Enviro-Nazis secretly enamoured with Stephane Dion, I have two solutions to propose. The first is that we simply ship two million Liberals to China. With fewer people idling their SUVs in front of the local beer store or Tim Horton's drive-thru, we are sure to make the Kyoto targets without impacting our economy or changing the quality of life. Unfortunately, as much as Liberals love China, I doubt they will move there voluntarily and it's sort of against the law to abduct our own citizens. So I have another solution that will make life simpler for all of us, especially for me...CARBON CREDITS - ONLY $10,000.!! That's right! I am an authorized dealer of carbon credits. How else can Al Gore own a dozen heated mansions and fly all around North America without causing irreparable harm to the environment? For a one-time payment of $10,000. (or four easy monthly payments of $6,969.), you can have the freedom to drive your car to work and eat fast food every day. You have my blessing to heat your home in winter until the mice in your attic die of heat exhaustion, and to run your air conditioning 24/7 in summer. Heck, go ahead and fart in the elevator at work. That's guilt-free fresh bowel air your fellow employees will have the pleasure of sucking back. How can I possibly offer you so much freedom for so little money? Here is what I will do in return for turning over my credits: You don't want those poor Yangtze River Dolphins to DIE, do you? Please make your payment in the form of small non-consecutive bills inside a brown envelope or paper bag and send it to: Mark Marschner c/o Elizabeth May Second stall from the end Men's public washroom Ottawa International Airport >> Do the right thing and buy your carbon credits today... ...OR ELSE THE PONY GETS IT!!! 
So, do you think I'm a fraud for selling carbon credits? I'm not perpretrating any bigger a fraud than the politicians who want to ratify the Kyoto Accord and waste our tax dollars chasing votes. Our tax revenues should be spent to make our industries cleaner and more efficient, to treat our sick and elderly citizens, and to make our city streets safer. Arm yourself with knowledge and demand answers from our politicians. They can't get away with lying to us when we have the truth on our side. Global warming is not a real issue; it's just a lot of HOT AIR. |
ENTER HERE (click below)...
