"but to deny the reality of environmental destruction is, quite frankly, imbecilic."
Marsha, Marsha, Marsha, (sorry, I had to do that)
First off, it doesn't "suit" me either way concerning the lawsuit by Mr DiCrapio's neighbor. There was obviously a reason why it was filed in a court of law, and must have some merit, otherwise it wouldn't have been done so in the first place. The outcome is to be determined by a court of law, not me, the MSM or any other enitity than the legal system. Now, I would not be surprised if the allegations are true against Mr DiCrapio, as many of these 'celebrities' have no compunction about running roughshod over people, using the tried and true line (and ego) of "don't you know who I am?". It goes back to the old TV saying of "we tried to get a wide shot, but his ego got in the way." Trust me, I have met and worked with quite a few. But what I think about the lawsuit has no bearing on DiCrapio defending, with the usual sheer hypocrisy, the Rev Al and his "Church of Blowhard Smarming & Chicken Little's" and ...
1) I only posted a story that was on the wires and yes, the quote's from Mr DiCrapio are indeed his words. Again, the lawsuit mention was a sidebar to the story and no relevance on the fact that DiCrapio is defending the high priest of "the church of blowhard smarming and chicken littles", the Rev. Al Bore, for his energy excesses. Charity begins at home, isn't that what they say? hmm, Al, why do you need a 30 room mansion for you and Tipper to live in and fuel if you are so worried about "blowhard smarming"? However, I think it shows the hypocrisy of the disciples of the blowhard smarming gang. What's good for them is not good for the rest of us and we had better do and believe what they say, otherwise, well, they haven't said and whatever it is won't happen until about 50 to 100 years anyway when they're (and us) are all dead. The whole 'blowhard smarming' craze is more a part of a political agenda and crisis-du-jour for the looney left and the "just-enough-knowledge-to be-dangerous" crowd.
2) There is no doubt that there is and has been for centuries "environmental destruction" on the earth. I certainly don't consider the eruptions of umpteen volcanoes over the life of this earth to be 'spring cleaning for mother nature' even though it is. The earth and it's eco system is much bigger than we are, and all one has to do to see the proof is to remember the earthquakes, eruptions, flooding and other environmental happenings that have killed millions throughout history. I think it's safe to say that even with all our technological advances, we are still at the mercy of Mother Nature. If you remember the old, old spot for Chiffon butter commercial, "it's not nice to fool mother nature, cos she's can have a bad case of PMS and open a can of whoop-ass on your butt."
The earth's environment is dynamic, say that again, dynamic. It is not static as if it were, we wouldn't be debating this whole sham cos we wouldn't be here!. Centuries ago, in the north of England, they had vineyards, Greenland was lush and the Sahara was a tropical paradise. Am I making this up? nope, you just have to read what the geologists and archaeologists have found digging down layers upon layers of earth to have discovered. Ice ages have occurred for centuries, global heating has also occurred for centuries. The beauty of the earth's eco- system, is that it regulates itself, with no help from us. We are the proverbial mosquitoes on the elephants, nay, the Humpback whales back. What the models that these people are working from can't do, for all it's sophistication, is adjust and count for wind and cloud conditions. They can't predict cloud coverage to a degree of any certainty and the 02 levels in the atmosphere are TA-DA! dynamic! there's that word again Marsha.
3) People or 'Man' as a species, has the ability to change his surroundings. That's why we have houses, cities, countries and all the rest of our modern and necessary works, so it goes without saying that indeed, destruction in some form or fashion is going to happen. You cannot build a road without cutting down trees or moving earth. Houses are primarily made of wood, even still after all the years our technology has advanced. You cannot change one thing without causing change to the other. Now, that last statement is where the disciples of the "church of blowhard smarming" point their finger and say "see, you just admitted that we can change our environment". Well, no I just said that yes, as the old prof said, "you can't destroy matter, you can only rearrange it's molecules."
So, the house that Marsha is in, the very room and the very chair that she is sitting in while typing on the computer to type the comment and the very digital or analog delivery system that allows her to send her comment and post it on my blog came about how? by environmental destruction! someone had to chop down a tree, clear the land, build the house, and her to furnish it, et. al, caused some form of environmental destruction, right?
4) Science, as it well known, does not work on concensus. I go back to my analogy of "4 out of 5 dentists prefer Crest." Well, they prefer Crest, that doesn't mean that Crest is the best or offer any proof it is the best does it? And has anyone bothered to ask the one Dentist why he doesn't prefer Crest? could it be he has just a valid reason not to? inquiring minds want to know.
There are too many variables to consider when you are trying to predict weather patterns. As I have noted before, many a meteorologist has been caught with his pants down predicting weather a week out, so how could scientists accurately predict what the environment will be like 40, 50 or even a hundred years from now? And, the church of blowhard smarming was once known as the church of blowhard cooling and predicted that we would be in a little ice age (in the 1970's using their models then) in the year 2000. Funny, it seems to be hotter today...and dang it, we just went through one of the coldest winters in recent history.
5) Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.
So, what does Reid say?
“Climate’s always been changing and it’s been changing rapidly at various times, and so something was making it change in the past,” he told us in an interview this past winter. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?”
“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.” you can find the rest of the article about Reid here.
Ahem, dude, watch out, I think they might label you a heretic for such blasphemy. You might want to put on a grass skirt, hitch up the oxen, make sure you have some granola to eat while you go get mud to build your house. Oh, by the way, you only get one square for your toilet use according to Saint Sheryl, so the granola might be too much of a colon blow if you know what I mean...
Or for a little more light reading, how about a piece by Prof. Richard S. Lindzer, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, certainly no greeter at Wal-Mart, here
Oh, and if you notice, both men mentioned above are professors in climatology studies, the last time I looked, the Rev Al flunked out of divinity school, so where does he get the juice to claim that blowhard smarming is indeed a fact? And has anyone found out what degree exactly that Pope Leo has? I bet it's not in climatology, probably more in the line of 'mime'.
Notice how "Marsha" attacks me first over the lawsuit against Decrapio. Again, that was a sidebar to the story about defending the "high priest of the church of blowhard smarming & chicken littles". Then she says; "You can harp about global warming being a myth all you want, but to deny the reality of environmental destruction is, quite frankly, imbecilic."
I don't doubt that Global Warming can and may be occurring. I mean, there is this huge ball of Hydrogen Gas sitting out there over yonder that just dwarfs our planet, and I am more of the belief that if the earth is heating up, it might because of 2 reasons, 1) the sun has a bit of indigestion and keeps firing cosmic solar emissions our way. 2) and, as Prof Reid has said, we are coming out of a little Ice Age. Considering how powerful the sun is and the enormity of a solar flare, yeah, one good burp and we're all toast. I mean, even NASA says that the surface of Mars is heating up, and the last time we checked, there ain't no humans up there driving around in SUV's causing all the traffic jams. So, if the surface of Mars is heating up and there ain't people up there, what could be the answer? Well, see above.
And really, don't our kids have something more to worry about than some pointy headed chicken little in his vestment garbs doing a buzzkill telling them that the polar bears are dying and the earth is in peril? I mean, isn't that the same as the liberals telling the children of my generation that the evil United States was going to nuke the friendly Soviet Union and we were all going to die in a nuclear war because we wanted all the Faberge eggs and vodka they had?
And, though I know this has been a bit of a long post, I had plenty of time to work on it, I still have this great quote from someone who left a comment over at the "Puffington Boast" site in response to Saint Sheryl's comments about "blowhard smarming";
"Let me see if I have this right. If I'm a Global Warming Alarmist Disciple, I have to believe:If it is too hot, it's Global Warming; If it is too cold, it's Global Warming
If it is a drought, it's Global Warming; If there are torrential rains, it's Global WarmingIf there are no hurricanes, it's Global Warming; If there are too many hurricanes, it's Global Warming
If there is an abundance of tornadoes, it's Global Warming; If there are no tornadoes, it's Global WarmingIf it's unusually cold or snowy in April, it's Global Warming; If it's unusually warm in October, it's Global Warming. No matter what the weather event, it's Global Warming. Period."
I don't worship at the altar of the "Church of blowhard smarming and chicken littles" led by their Messiah Al Bore with Pope Leo the Crapio, Saint Laurie the confused and Saint Sheryl of Charmin 2-ply. The earth has been around a lot longer than we have and it has survived a lot more than we can do to it. We could detonate all the nuclear weapons in the world and after all is said and done, we would be gone, but in a few thousand or so years, the earth will come right back to doing what it does best, being the earth and the cockroaches will be crawling all over looking to find it's next meal while life begins anew. There is no, I repeat NO, absolute proof that anything mankind is doing is causing blowhard smarming, otherwise it would be over 120 degrees in Washington DC and Hollyweird & Nashville right now from all the gas that is emitting from those places, and trust me, you don't want to strike a match with all the methane floating around there.
Till the next time,