About those comments...

By far, any comments I have gotten (a few, not many) have all had to do with 'Blowhard Smarming' ('Global Warming'). I read them and thought to myself, "well, somebody out there doesn't like or agree with me on my views on 'Blowhard Smarming'. That's ok, everyone has an opinion and you know what they say...'opinions are like Ford Mustangs, everyone has one.' I think they are missing my point on why I don't believe it is anything other than the usual left-wing propaganda designed to hype a made up crisis. It is to me, and if you really examine it, just that, another scare tactic by conspiracy theorists, much like the 9.11, Elvis and JFK conspiracy's that seem to float around on the net.

If you remember the '80's when Reagan was elected (a 49 state landslide with no doubts about the election) it was widely thought and circulated through the left-wing circles that Reagan was going to start WWIII with the Soviets and we had the whole 'nuke freeze' movement with idiotic gestures like the city of San Francisco or Berkeley declaring themselves 'nuclear free city's'. Huh. If the Soviets did launch a 'nuke-cu-lear' strike on America, somehow I don't think they would take into consideration that San Francisco or Berkeley were 'nuke free'. Nukes don't discriminate and seeing as how San Francisco is a major US Navy port, I think it would be safe to say that they would have had no compunction about lobbing a few that way. Thank God it never happened. The other conspiracy theory involved the Iranian Embassy Hostages and the timing of their release. It was said that George H.W. Bush, Reagans' vice president was dispatched over to France in a SR-71 blackbird (play Twilight Zone music here) to negotiate with the Iranians over the release of the hostages. That was fueled by the release of said hostages just hours into the Reagan presidency. It was and is, utter hogwash. But, the left was determined to produce smoke where there was no fire. So much so that then speaker Thomas Foley, commenced hearings to investigate the matter, only to come up empty. His own words were, and I paraphrase, "We have no evidence, and precisely because we have no evidence, and because of the seriousness of the charge, we must conduct hearings," and Congress actually conducted investigations finding nothing and just wasting time and taxpayer money to do so. Talk about a circle jerk.

Okay, so now, the crisis-du-jour is 'Blowhard Smarming'. The left would have you believe, giving in to one of their powerful, pet powerbases, that 'global warming' is a real threat to the world. Okay. My question is, if indeed 'Blowhard Smarming' is really happening as a result of man-made activities, what can be done about it?


What do you think, if it's real, can be done to change it? and what is the standard that you use to adjust the climate back to? and how do you do that once you find the base standard? I have yet to see a table that says, 'well, this is what the climate should be doing, this is what we are aiming for.' The earth's eco-system is not static, it is dynamic, always changing. Otherwise, life as we know it probably wouldn't exist.


I mean really, what are you going to do to change the climate that is going to reverse the 'damage' done by man? I guess you could shut down all the factories, putting millions of people out of work in the process. Or, you could ban automobiles and all industries related, once again, stopping the economy cold and bringing the country to a halt. I say country as the environmentalist would have you believe that the US is the main culprit. Well, how can that be? China and India have bigger populations than we do. And, it stands to reason that they must then have more animals, cows, pigs and sheep that they use in ways to feed and clothe their populations. They also have automobiles and factories and China is fast becoming if not now already, a global economic super-power. And what about cow flatulence anyway? Anyone remember all the commotion about cow farts and how that was contributing to 'Blowhard Smarming'? And if that is true, what about people, sheep, ducks, dogs, cats...etc? Gee, has anyone thought about that?

And then we have Europe, all of Asia, Australia, Eurasia, Africa, South America, etc. And this is probably where some pinhead says, 'well, we had a chance with the Kyoto Protocol and we didn't sign it." Yeah, and guess who didn't sign it when it was offered? not President Bush, but Clinton. Even he believed that it was more harmful to our economy. Many nations that have signed on don't even adhere to what it calls for. So, the mere signing of a 'treaty' is going to change anything? didn't stop Hitler, didn't stop Russia, hell, signing a treaty doesn't mean anything.

Science does not work on consensus. Telling me that 'X number' or 'Many scientists believe that 'Blowhard Smarming' is happening, is not proof. That's like saying, '4 out of 5 dentists prefer Crest.' Well, who are these 4 dentists who prefer Crest and why doesn't the 1 dentist like Crest? Could it be that he knows something the other 4 don't? and since he doesn't agree with their findings, do the 4 go out and say that he doesn't know what he is talking about when he obviously has a dental degree too otherwise, he wouldn't have been asked in the first place. Giordano Bruno had the audacity to suggest, that space was boundless and that the sun was and its planets were but one of any number of similar systems: Why! -- there even might be other inhabited worlds with rational beings equal or possibly superior to ourselves. For such blasphemy, Bruno was tried before the Inquisition, condemned and burned at the stake in 1600. Galileo was brought forward in 1633, and, there, in front of his "betters," he was, under the threat of torture and death, forced to his knees to renounce all belief in Copernican theories, and was thereafter sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his days. So, do you think they might have not endorsed Crest?


There are too many variables involved. Meteorology and Climatology are really more of an art than science. Tell me, as you are reading this, how many times your local weather geek has predicted a storm or good weather, only to come on later, eating crow because his prediction did not occur. If a 'meteorologist' can't accurately predict weather for the next 7 days, how can anyone say for sure that our climate is being changed because of man?


Everything to the left is a crisis. Whether it's healthcare, poverty, childcare, nuclear weapons, war, cow flatulence, toothpaste, etc., they always find a crisis and then exploit their buddies in the MSM offering no proof, or proof of any real measure to back it up, other than finding some willing like-minded 'journalist' who has an agenda to publish what these people say anyway. Working in the media all the years I have, I can honestly tell you that these so-called 'journalists' are usually dumber than a box of rocks and about as sharp as a cotton swab. They only echo what they are told by so-called 'experts'. Many of them do what I call 'drive by' journalism, they jot down a few things, throw it at the publisher or editor and then run off to the nearest watering hole to hang out with their other 'journalist' friends, often talking about other things than the 'story' they 'wrote.' Half the time, if not more, they don't even know anything about the subject they are writing about.


For every scientist that claims that 'Blowhard Smarming' is happening, there are just as many that claim it is a natural thing for the climate of the earth to be doing what it's doing. After all, according to lefties who discount creationism, preferring to believe in evolution as the be all, end all of how we as a species got where we are, and it's been disputed for years that evolution is the real answer, how would you know, from that point, that the earth is not doing what the earth has always done, being the earth. It is after all, a lot bigger than we are and we certainly can't control hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, rain, snow and sunshine, so how can anyone expect to change the climate in any way to begin with?


There are real concerns that people should worry about. How you are going to feed your kids, what school they should learn in, how you treat other people, how to stop fanatical terrorists that want to blow you up simply because you don't subscribe to their view on the world (and one could argue that many environmentalists have become eco-terrorists and are more in number, more so than there have been 'christian terrorists').

Whether or not 'Blowhard Smarming' is indeed happening, and it isn't, is one of those things that are not worth worrying about. The surface of Mars is heating up too, does that mean that the Martians are up there driving SUV's? Do they have an equivalent of Al Gore that tools around the planet in his private spacecraft giving lectures on 'Blowhard Smarming' for Mars?

Really, what can you do? buying carbon offset credits is not going to change things, except make the company that sells them rich. Worry about something that is real and not something that there is no proof positive is happening. Science does not work by consensus, never has, never will. Scientists are fallible human beings and many things that people have said before have never come to pass. It was predicted years ago that at this point in our existence, we would be overpopulated, with little food and wars breaking out over water. Hasn't happened.

Quit scaring the kids about it, much like my generation were frightened by the thought of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Children have a lot to worry about just growing up without some pinhead granola-crunching-sandal-wearing-tree-hugging adults adding even more. Worry about something real like how you can be so easily duped by a naive and ignorant press that buys into this stuff and a few nutcases' that don't have the super secret magic knowledge decoder ring to give them the indisputable proof. After all, Elvis did die, we did land on the moon and it was a lone nut with a gun that killed JFK.