Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for the ‘environmentalism’ Category

SO, IS WARMING GOOD OR NOT?

Posted by Andrew Roman on June 22, 2010

hot-day

Temperatures in and around New York City, over the past several days, had been almost August-like. A couple of days ago, in fact,, the mercury was aggressively flirting with the dreaded 90 degree plateau. I say “dreaded” because I freely admit to being in the minority when it comes to warm weather. I simply hate the heat. Summer – outside of baseball, vacations and longer days – is my least favorite season, followed closely by winter (although I make concessions for Christmas when I actually hope for winter-like weather).

I am a spring and autumn man, with leanings toward the fall.

I’m one of those who will gladly take 60 degrees over 80 degrees any day.

While in the car over the past several days, with 80-plus degree temps becoming the norm, I’ve been hearing the local DJs and weather experts make exuberant comments like, “A gorgeous day in New York City!” and “As beautiful as it gets!”

One weather guy actually said, “If it were like this year round, there’d never be anything to be sad about!”

Obviously, he didn’t mean it literally (seeing as there are plenty of grumpy people in warmer climates), but his sentiment was universal among the radio personalities in New York I had the chance to sample over the past few days: heat is good!

“It’s gonna feel like paradise today!”

“Get out there and love it while it lasts!”

Blah-blah-blah …

Setting aside my personal animus for any temperature above 80 degrees, I couldn’t help but shake my head and laugh while listening to these people sing the praises of the unseasonable heat wave.

How ironic, I thought.

These radio folks were the very same ones who, a couple of months earlier, were positively crazed with Earth Day and the potentially horrific effects of global warming. These same hot-weather cheerleaders were only a couple of short months ago warning everyone within earshot of the impending doom awaiting all earthlings if conscientious enviro-friendly anti-warming action wasn’t taken immediately. I couldn’t as much as spit at a radio that day without hearing something about Earth Day, the environment, the climate and anything “green.”

It was all-Earth Day all day.

In fact, it received more play than National Holocaust Remembrance Day and Washington’s Birthday combined – times ten. These summer-loving microphone jockeys spent every possible moment sharing “green” tips, planet-saving helpful hints, environmentally gracious suggestions and overall climate-protecting measures. Indeed, if I had a dollar for every time one of these retro-hippie DJs and hippy-dippy weathermen went on about climate change and global warming, I could almost afford a McDonald’s Value Meal in Manhattan.

How … discerning.

Can I then assume – with global warming and climate change as one of humanity’s most pressing and critical issues – that hot can be selectively good? Like, for instance, after a long, cold winter of being cooped up in the house reading The Daily Cos?

And if there are sun tans still to be worked on, bikinis to be worn, sand castles to be built and boardwalk concessions yet to be patronized, are rising temperatures then acceptable to the greenies? At least some of the time?

And if the environmentalists truly believe that a cooler planet is better, why ask us to be “green” of all things? Doesn’t “green” imply growth, warmth and prosperity? Don’t trees, plants, shrubs, leaves and grass generally thrive in warm weather? Isn’t that when they are at their “greenest?”

Leaves actually fall off and die in cooler weather.

Most trees become bare when the cold sets in.

Grass often turns brown in the winter.

Shouldn’t the color of environmentalism be brown? Or gray?
wordpress statistics

Advertisements

Posted in environmentalism, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

HOW I WILL SPEND MY EARTH DAY

Posted by Andrew Roman on April 22, 2010

As I did last year, I’d like to take this opportunity to share with you how I intend to spend Earth day, 2010.

As a rule, I prefer to keep the details of my personal life as private as possible, but in this age of environmental awareness and climate dysfunctionality, I thought it might be illuminating to share some of the more choice tidbits that are taking up slots on my Earth Day docket, the forty-first annual Earth Day.

I’ll forego the morning hygiene rituals and move right into the meat of my morning.

The first thing I will do upon rising is run out to the driveway and warm up my diesel-engine car for thirty minutes (even though it doesn’t need it). I will then enlist my twin daughters to help me turn on every television and radio in the house after giving each toilet a good flush. I will, of course, make sure we throw sizeable wads of triple-ply bathroom tissue into each bowl before doing so.

And don’t think I won’t be scolding them if they forget to leave the refrigerator door open.

I will, of course, then have them separate the laundry into thirty-six different loads and place them on the floor around the washing machine so that we might needlessly run the washer and dryer for three weeks.

After we finish breakfast – which we will eat on styrofoam plates – I will max out my carbon credit card by throwing the empty plastic milk container into the regular garbage pail instead of the recyclables can.

(I’m a wild man, I know).

I will then drive my daughters to school while puffing on a cigar with the window open, making sure the exhaled smoke fills as much of the lower atmosphere as possible. By the time I return home – emitting fifty miles worth of diesel engine pollutants into the air along the way – I will stop off to buy paper towels and more bathroom tissue. (While I do keep Handi Wipes in the kitchen under the sink, I find reusable rags somewhat disgusting. It’s easier and far more satisfying to fill my garbage cans – and ultimately the landfills – with endless clumps of paper towels.

In fact, I know I will get so caught up in the spirit of the day that I will purposely create spills in the kitchen just to go through an entire roll of super-absorbancy paper towels before 11AM. It will be as exhilarating as it will be inspiring … and messy.

As far as bathroom tissue is concerned, let’s just say there won’t be many septic tanks sending me happy notes.

I will then walk around the house arbitrarily spraying aerosol cans into the air.

Borrowing my friend’s fossil-fuel munching Hummer, I plan on driving around in circles until I find a Chinese Restaurant that specializes in MSG-laden foods and uses only energy-inefficient gas guzzlers to make their neighborhood deliveries.

Following lunch, I will go back to the supermarket and buy up all of their reusable “enviro-friendly” green shopping bags so that everyone who visits the store after me can get their groceries stuffed into those landfill choking “plastic” bags.

Before returning home, I will pull off to the side of the road and let the Hummer idle for three-and-a-half hours while I cut up the reusable grocery bags into kitty litter box liners.

Then, as I pull into my driveway, I will remember that I need to go out and run twelve more errands. I will drive the Hummer into Manhattan and purchase a little egg timer (as suggested by some of the Earth Day literature I had been looking at yesterday) so that I might be able to time my showers in the future to save water … and the planet.

Baths kill.

When I finish with my dozen errands, I will drop off the Hummer at my friend’s place and sit in my idling diesel car for fifty-eight minutes as I reflect on my busy afternoon, puffing on yet another cigar, contemplating the earth’s fragility and the Mets’ lousy offense.

Later, I hope  to find some time to plant a tree in honor of Earth Day, as President Barack Obama and former-President Bill Clinton did last year, but I’ll almost certainly wind up eating two Yodels and cleaning up after the dog instead.

After a quick bout of global warming-inducing flatulence, I will watch an episode of “The Critic,” take a Tylenol, and go to sleep.

It will be a day I’ll never remember.

Happy Earth Day everyone!

wordpress statistics

Posted in American culture, environmentalism, Global Warming, humor, Liberalism, Science, Silly Stuff | Tagged: , , , , | 6 Comments »

MORE POLLUTION! THE EARTH NEEDS IT!

Posted by Andrew Roman on April 20, 2010

It's his fault!

From the “Huh?” file …

I know I’ve said this before, as have many others, but if the radical environmental movement continues on its current path, the “parody” industry will surely go bankrupt. The unemployment lines will swell disproportionately with the ranks of out-of-work comedy writers, disenfranchised satirists and down-on-their-luck stand-up jokesters. Publications like “The Onion” could go extinct.

For example, there was a time when someone could say “global warming causes global cooling,” and it was considered absurdly funny.

Today, it is accepted as reality by the environmentally hysterical.

Long ago, when the Maharishi of myth, Al Gore, would arrive for a lecture on global warming in sub-zero temperatures, it was hilariously ironic.

Today, it is explained away as a natural consequence of man-made climate change.

Each day, it seems, new paths to the inevitable catastrophe awaiting us all come to light.

The latest cause of the planet’s rapid approach to a steady boil is none other than that old planet-killing stand-by, pollution.

But it’s not what you think.

The rub here is not that there is too much pollution, but that there is too little.

Eli Kintisch of the Los Angeles Times says cleaner air could speed up the global warming process:

You’re likely to hear a chorus of dire warnings as we approach Earth Day, but there’s a serious shortage few pundits are talking about: air pollution. That’s right, the world is running short on air pollution, and if we continue to cut back on smoke pouring forth from industrial smokestacks, the increase in global warming could be profound.

Cleaner air, one of the signature achievements of the U.S. environmental movement, is certainly worth celebrating. Scientists estimate that the U.S. Clean Air Act has cut a major air pollutant called sulfate aerosols, for example, by 30% to 50% since the 1980s, helping greatly reduce cases of asthma and other respiratory problems.

But even as industrialized and developing nations alike steadily reduce aerosol pollution — caused primarily by burning coal — climate scientists are beginning to understand just how much these tiny particles have helped keep the planet cool. A silent benefit of sulfates, in fact, is that they’ve been helpfully blocking sunlight from striking the Earth for many decades, by brightening clouds and expanding their coverage. Emerging science suggests that their underappreciated impact has been incredible.

I promise you this is not a leftover post from the 1st of April.

I have not (to the best of my knowledge) had any heavy narcotics slipped into my single-serving fruit cup.

I am not an animal.

Apparently, we never knew how good we had it when we had more of a devil-may-care approach to pollution.

As a child, I gave a hoot and didn’t pollute. Little did I know I was turning up the burner on Mother Earth.

I never realized how much of a bastard I really am.

Damn you, Woodsy Owl!!!

wordpress statistics

Posted in environmentalism, global climate change, Global Warming | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

IF YOU BUY SOME FOOD, I’LL TAX YOUR BAG …

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 3, 2010

It isn’t only the fishes in the deep blue sea who will be thrilled. It won’t only be the oaks and maples who will breathe a sigh of relief. And don’t think that power lines everywhere won’t be doing their electrified happy dance at hearing the news. The District of Columbia has decided that they’ve had enough of polluted rivers, besieged tree branches and inundated power lines. They’re even standing up for poor storm drains.

God bless America’s capital city. They’ve put a five cent tax on each plastic bag DC shoppers use when they go shopping.

The new tax went into effect on New Year’s Day.

From the great Breitbart website:

“I signed this law in July to cut down on the disposable bags that foul our waterways,” said Mayor Adrian Fenty in a statement last month, saying that one particularly urban waterway, the city’s Anacostia River, has been particularly befouled by the plastic shopping bags.

“Our research shows that plastic bags are a major component of the trash in the Anacostia River,” said Maureen McGowan, interim director of the city’s environment department.

“By taking disposable bags out of production and out of the waste stream, everyone who goes to the store can help keep the waters clean,” McGowan said.

And Fenty noted that part of the money collected will be spent toward cleanup of the Anacostia.

“We want everyone to know that you can save the river, and five cents, if you bring your own reusable bag to the store instead,” the mayor said.

To prepare for the change, the city government has distributed some 122,000 reusable shopping bags to elderly and low-income residents who complain that their limited spending power will be further hampered by the levy.

Of course, it only makes sense to have taxpayers pay for other people’s shopping bags.

But if the goal is to genuinely keep thsoe pesky plastic bags from destroying Mother Earth, how about this idea … why not have the store pay shoppers five cents for each plastic bag they bring back from previous shopping trips? After all, those plastic bags are, too, reusable, aren’t they? The store can then be given some sort of tax credit for helping to keep the planet safe from the plastic menace. I’d be willing to bet that kind of incentive would yield better results than the “tax our way to cleaner rivers” approach.

Oh wait … democrats … taxes … taking money out of people’s pockets … never mind.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, environmentalism, Liberalism, Taxes | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

TURN IN YOUR “CITIZEN OF THE WORLD” CARD

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 17, 2009

On the periphery of reality, where the myth of global warming has set up shop, there is a great deal of disappointment being directed at President Barack Obama, particularly from his fan base overseas. While banners across the globe implore Barack Obama to somehow “Stop Climate Change” – presumably so there can finally be one constant, unvarying temperature for all of humanity – the President is discovering that “hope and change,” while sufficient to move a whole lot of street vendor paraphernalia, amounts to nothing more than empty buzzwords poised to disillusion those fated to reside in the real world.

While it certainly would have been advantageous – both symbolically and environmentally – for the President to walk across the ocean to get to Asia, there’s a growing sense among the ecologically hysterical (i.e., the left) that the “hope and change” President is sizing up to be a big fat failure.

He just can’t seem to make anyone happy these days.

Germany’s Speigel Online has an opinion piece by Christian Schwägerl called “Obama Has Failed the World on Climate Change“.

Nice title.

He writes:

US President Barack Obama came to office promising hope and change. But on climate change, he has followed in the footsteps of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Now, should the climate summit in Copenhagen fail, the blame will lie squarely with Obama.

The folder labeled “climate change” that George W. Bush left behind for his successor on the desk of the Oval Office in January likely wasn’t a thick one. Although Bush once said that America is overly dependent on oil, he never got beyond that insight. He was too busy waging war on Iraq and searching for a legal basis for extraordinary renditions to pay much attention to the real threat facing humanity. “Forget the climate” seems to have been Bush’s unofficial motto.

Leftist pundits are innately entertaining beings. I enjoy them the same way I enjoy watching those guys who can simultaneously spin fifteen plates on the end of broom handles. They’re admittedly enticing for a few moments, but before too long, I need to get up and get a sandwich.

Mr. Schwägerl, you’ll note, was quick to point out that former President Bush all but ignored the “real threat facing humanity” during his time in office – global warming – and instead busied himself with war mongering and making totalitarians feel bad about themselves. Bush, obviously, never saw his dream of a world without ice caps come to fruition, thanks to a global cooling trend set off by global warming, but Lord knows he tried valiantly to destroy as much as he could.

The “folder” thing was a clever touch, too. (Leftists are inventive, aren’t they?)

When [Obama] took office at the beginning of 2009, it was clear that the success of the UN Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen in December depended almost entirely on the US — that America needed to take a clear leadership role on a problem that could shake civilization to its very core.

On the weekend, Obama announced that there would be no agreement on binding rules in Copenhagen. It was the admission of a massive failing — and the prelude to a truly dramatic phase of international climate policy.

Hold me.

Barack Obama cast himself as a “citizen of the world” when he delivered his well-received campaign speech in Berlin in the summer of 2008. But the US president has now betrayed this claim. In his Berlin speech, he was dishonest with Europe. Since then, Obama has neglected the single most important issue for an American president who likes to imagine himself as a world citizen, namely, his country’s addiction to fossil fuels and the risks of unchecked climate change. Health-care reform and other domestic issues were more important to him than global environmental threats. He was either unwilling or unable to convince skeptics in his own ranks and potential defectors from the ranks of the Republicans to support him, for example, by promising alternative investments as a compensation for states with large coal reserves.

If, indeed, President Obama has “failed the world on climate change,” then I wholeheartedly applaud his grievous ineffectiveness.

The best thing Barack Obama can do for this country is to fail at implementing his initiatives.

Note how, according to Schwägerl speaking on behalf of the disenchanted international community, global climate change should be the “single most important issue for an American president who likes to imagine himself as a world citizen.”

As talk show host Dennis Prager likes to say, “Clarity is my friend.”

Maybe President Obama ought to bike to Oslo next month to accept his Nobel Peace Prize. The gesture would, at least, show his commitment to the cause.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Dumb Liberals, environmentalism, Foreign Policy, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

YOUR GLOBAL WARMING PIN NUMBER?

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 13, 2009

Lord Christopher Smith

Lord Christopher Smith

There are those who go out and create things and those who have contempt for the people who do. There are those who innovate and those who castigate. There are those who believe in the power of the individual and those who put their faith in the state. There are those with common sense and those who are liberal. There are those who understand that climates fluctuate (and always have) and those who thrive on the hysteria of believing the planet is soon to be trampled by carbon footprints.

Enter Lord Smith of Finsbury – British Labour party politician, former cabinet member, former Member of Parliament, Chairman of the Environment Agency, meteorological academician.

In the great big world of pretend, the certainty of a planet on the brink of ruination due to out-of-control carbon emissions is a somber one. In the land of make believe, there is nothing more serious, no greater threat to humanity – not terrorism, not war, not economic strife. All roads lead to polar bears adrift on blocks of ice.

Finsbury knows something must be done.

According to this cerebral powerhouse, all British citizens should be allotted an annual carbon ration – a kind of carbon credit card – which “will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.”

There would, of course, be penalties for those who exceed their carbon emission limits.

No, really.

From the UK Telegraph:

It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity.

Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using. If their “carbon account” hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.

Those who are frugal with their carbon usage will be able to sell their unused credits and make a profit.

How would such a thing work? Would someone who reached their carbon emissions limit be forbidden by the government from, say, buying more gas for their car? And if that someone’s budget doesn’t allow for the purchase of more carbon credits, is that someone out of luck? Can he or she no longer work? Will the green shirts come swooping in on their environmentally friendly bikes and haul that someone away? Will taxes be raised so more money could become available, via government grants and loans (or welfare), to the people who cannot afford to buy more credits?

Is leftism an inherent disease or is it spread through casual contact?

An Environment Agency spokesman said only those with “extravagant lifestyles” would be affected by the carbon allowances. He said: “A lot of people who cycle will get money back. It will probably only be bankers and those with extravagant lifestyles who would lose out.”

However, some have criticised the move as “Orwellian” and say it will have a detrimental impact on business.

Damn those bankers!

Damn them!

wordpress statistics

Posted in environmentalism, Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

BUTT OUT

Posted by Andrew Roman on September 25, 2009

toilet paperThis is not exactly the type of news one likes to wake up to – and I’m willing to bet that except for tree-huggers and squiggly-light-bulb loving greenies, this will not go over particularly well.

You can bet your bottom dollar on that.

Or perhaps more appropriately stated, you can bet your bottom paper on that.

It’s a given among the sane-minded that hardcore environmentalists are a crazed if not consistently annoying bunch. More often than not, their hysterically sappy claims and over-the-top campaigns to save the planet from certain death can be laughed at before being dismissed entirely by those of us still on a first-name basis with our brains.

But there are those rare, notable occasions when even their mindless delirium treads on territory that one not dare joke about.

Some things are taboo.

There is much I can take from these whack-job environmentalists, but when they threaten to wage war on my fluffy, puffy, cushiony, multi-ply toilet paper, you can rest assured, I will not go down quietly.

It’s on.

No buts about that.

David Fahrenthold of the Washington Post writes:

There is a battle for America’s behinds.

It is a fight over toilet paper: the kind that is blanket-fluffy and getting fluffier so fast that manufacturers are running out of synonyms for “soft” (Quilted Northern Ultra Plush is the first big brand to go three-ply and three-adjective).

It’s a menace, environmental groups say — and a dark-comedy example of American excess.

The reason, they say, is that plush U.S. toilet paper is usually made by chopping down and grinding up trees that were decades or even a century old. They want Americans, like Europeans, to wipe with tissue made from recycled paper goods.

It has been slow going. Big toilet-paper makers say that they’ve taken steps to become more Earth-friendly but that their customers still want the soft stuff, so they’re still selling it.

Let me be clear.

I do not want, nor do I accept, any manufacturer of plush, soft, multi-layered bathroom tissue becoming Earth-friendly. I know what that means (as do millions of others who need the security and comfort of plush cleaning materials): coarse, restaurant-grade, scratchy, skin-scraping, copy machine consistent paper.

Ouch, dammit.

I want – nay, demand – toilet paper that is as unfriendly to the Earth as it is friendly to the tush. I work hard. I’ve earned it. And despite what these bellyaching, scared-of-their-own-shadow doom-and-gloomers say, I’ve not hurt my planet one dollop by relying on the good stuff.

Toilet paper is far from being the biggest threat to the world’s forests: together with facial tissue, it accounts for 5 percent of the U.S. forest-products industry, according to industry figures. Paper and cardboard packaging makes up 26 percent of the industry, although more than half is made from recycled products. Newspapers account for 3 percent.

But environmentalists say 5 percent is still too much.

Felling these trees removes a valuable scrubber of carbon dioxide, they say. If the trees come from “farms” in places such as Brazil, Indonesia or the southeastern United States, natural forests are being displaced. If they come from Canada’s forested north — a major source of imported wood pulp — ecosystems valuable to bears, caribou and migratory birds are being damaged.

And, activists say, there’s just the foolish idea of the thing: old trees cut down for the briefest and most undignified of ends.

“It’s like the Hummer product for the paper industry,” said Allen Hershkowitz, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We don’t need old-growth forests . . . to wipe our behinds.”

Ahh, I see. It comes down to whether or not they think we really need three-ply toilet paper to perform our hygenic tasks.

Who the hell do they think they are?

Hey greenies … butt out of our butts, okay?

Posted in environmentalism, Junk Science | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

CLAY BLOCKS AND SHEEP’S WOOL

Posted by Andrew Roman on September 22, 2009

Do as I say, not as I do

Do as I say, not as I do

If you haven’t done so already, please stop whatever you’re doing, suspend anything and everything you may be involved in – except reading this particular blog entry, of course – and heed the words you are about to ingest. Those of you who choose to waste their focus and concerns on such passe things as the War Against Islamo-Fascism (or other right-wing concoctions) not only directly place the lives of their fellow human beings in imminent peril, but also threaten the very well-being and future of the planet.

There are real issues to tend to.

It isn’t about good versus evil. Rather, it is about green versus brown, cold versus hot, envirnomentalism versus dastardly capitalism.

With our globe hanging in the balance, thanks to the ongoing ravages being inflicted on the planet by humankind, the latest admonishions from Great Britian’s foremost thinker and climatologist, Prince Charles, are as relevant as ever. His warning is racing around the globe like angry greenhouse gas molecules on steroids.

We had best pay attention.

The future King of England is urging humans, wherever they may roam – in the name of reducing crabin emissions – to abandon their motor cars in favor of public transportation and walking.

Andrew Pierce from the Telegraph.UK website writes:

The Prince, who has two Jaguars, two Audis, a Range Rover and still drives an Aston Martin given to him by the Queen on his 21st birthday, said developers had a duty to put public transport and the pedestrian at the heart of their housing schemes.
Speaking about the “domination of the car over the pedestrian”, the future King said: “We must surely be able to organise ourselves… in ways in which we are not dependent on it to such a great extent for our daily needs.”

The Prince said the principle of “elevating the pedestrian above the car” was one of the guiding factors of Poundbury – his model development in Dorset. The importance of “pedestrian friendly public space” is central to the Poundbury ethos.

He said that his architectural charity – the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment – was creating a “natural house” using green materials such as clay blocks and sheep’s wool for insulation. It is taking shape at the Building Research Establishment’s Innovation Park in Watford.

Did you catch that? Clay blocks and sheep’s wool.

Splendid.

And seeing as nothing quite brings home the point better than leading by example, it is not unreasonable to inquire of the Prince how long the transformation from stone and brick to mud and fur will take at Buckingham Palace?

What, pray tell, oh future King of England, are the electricity bills at Buckingham Palace each month?

Is the bathroom tissue at the Palace (or on your jet, or on your yacht) single-ply, easily-degradable, restaurant-grade paper, oh King-to-be?

And do you use only one square at a time?

As one blogger wrote, “When was the last time this pampered pooch walked anywhere?”

Another wrote, “On your bike, mate!”

Perfect.

In other news, the world is not warming, it has been a very quiet Atlantic hurricane season, and Michael Jackson is still dead.

Posted in environmentalism, Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

GIVE “GREEN” A CHANCE

Posted by Andrew Roman on September 14, 2009

Such is the nature of the blogosphere … an interesting idea, picture or quote pops up somewhere and before you know you it, it has spread across cyberspace quicker than Barack Obama can febreze the White House bathroom after sneaking a cigarette.

In my view, as long as proper credit is given to the originator of the content, it is perfectly alright to spread it around. It is, after all, the very heart and soul of blogging.

Thus, shamelessly swiping these two pictures from the great Proof Positive blog, who shamelessly swiped them from the equally great Say Anything blog, here is a study in practical environmentalism.

Guess which of these pictures was taken after a rally attended by limited-government, right-wing, free-market types, and which one was taken after a huge gathering of Obama worshippers.

Hint: Which group believes in personal responsibility?

DC_after the inauguration

DC_after the tea party

 

If you guessed that the garbage-strewn scene was taken after a gathering of Obamacrat masses, you were right! It was actually taken after the President’s annointment ceremony in January in Washington, D.C.

Contrast that to the “clean” scene following this weekend’s DC Tea Party.

As Rob at Say Anything writes: Moral of the story: Conservatives clean up after themselves. Liberals expect other people to do it for them.

Posted in environmentalism, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

IT’S HUMANITY – ALWAYS HAS BEEN

Posted by Andrew Roman on August 18, 2009

From the beginning, it's been us

From the beginning, it's been us

It’s about time someone came out and said it. It’s about time someone had the courage to step up to the plate and say what so many of us have been thinking. There’s a certain kind of vindication – a feeling of exoneration and, yes, even victory – in having something corroborated that you’ve always known to be true in your heart, but couldn’t prove – namely, that man’s very existence causes global warming.

While I have no plans to immediately slit my own wrists, there’s no question that I deserve it.

As do you.

And we all owe it to the Earth.

From The Economist:

Anthropogenic global warming started when people began farming.

Imagine a small group of farmers tending a rice paddy some 5,000 years ago in eastern Asia or sowing seeds in a freshly cleared forest in Europe a couple of thousand years before that. It is here, a small group of scientists would have you believe, that humanity launched climate change. Long before the Industrial Revolution—indeed, long before a worldwide revolution in intensive farming, the results of which kept humanity alive—people caused unnatural exhalations of greenhouse gases that had an impact on the world’s climate.

It looks as if humanity has been interfering with the climate since the dawn of civilisation.

While there is so much begging to be said, is there anything that can remotely hold a candle to the notion that human exhalations of carbon dioxide can be considered “unnatural?”

Naturally, my first question would be … What level of human exhalation would have been more “natural?”

It’s not unlike asking a global warming hysteric, “What should the temperature be right now?”

Of course, global warming nutcases, climate change screwballs, and environmentalist whackjobs view humanity itself as being unnatural.

The totality of all existence is natural except humanity.

Posted in environmentalism, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

ORGANIC NONSENSE?

Posted by Andrew Roman on July 30, 2009

organic-food

For some, this may be a tough one to swallow – pun somewhat intend – but according to a “major study” released yesterday, organic foods are no healthier than “regular” off-the-rack, enviro-unfriendly, pesticide drenched foods.

From Reuters:

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because of its perceived health benefits, creating a global organic market worth an estimated $48 billion in 2007.

A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference.

“A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance,” said Alan Dangour, one of the report’s authors.

“Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.”

This also in … DDT saves lives, water is wet, temperatutes fluctuate naturally, and Mike Farrell is beyond annoying.

Posted in environmentalism, Junk Science | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

BETTER PANICKING THROUGH UPDATED LANGUAGE

Posted by Andrew Roman on May 4, 2009

climate-change-1

The term “global warming,” which for a period of time had been unofficially replaced in the American lexicon with the phrase “climate change,” just doesn’t play well with a lot of people anymore. That the world is neither warming (and hasn’t been for several years) nor behaving in any way inconsistent with the cyclical climactic nature of its four billion year life span seems to be irrelevant to those attempting to determine why this is so.

According to John Broder of the New York Times, the term “turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes.” The reality that people may actually be tired of being bombarded day and night with nonsensical threats of a bogus global warming catastrophe doesn’t seem to enter into the minds of the people at EcoAmerica, the “nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm” that conducted a recent poll on the matter.

Rather, it is all in the packaging.

Thus, as liberals are wont to do when evidence, history and facts shatter their contrived calamities and political agendas, they change the label in the hope that the people will buy into the product.

Broder writes:

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”.”

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.

Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists. “We know why it’s lowest,” said Mr. (Robert M.) Perkowitz, a marketer of outdoor clothing and home furnishings before he started ecoAmerica, whose activities are financed by corporations, foundations and individuals. “When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.

Arrogance, thy name is environmentalism.

A question … The fact that “environmental issues” consistently rate near or at the bottom of polls couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that most people understand that the hysteria of impending doom that environmentalists like Al Gore peddle to the masses is pure hogwash, could it?

The idea that most people are not operating in red-alert panic mode over the preposterous claims that the planet is on or near the brink of irreversible devastation absolutely infuriates the greenie-wacko set. The problem, according to EcoAmerica, is that they just haven’t hit upon the right catchphrases, slogans or angles to sell their haggard agenda well enough.

If “global warming, as Mr. Perkowitz suggests, is perceived as a code phrase for “progressive liberals,” who exactly is to blame for that? If today’s environmentalism is associated with “progressive liberalism,” it’s because they are the ones who consistently and repeatedly latch onto crisis after phony crisis, hysteria after hysteria, doomsday scenario after doomsday scenario, with the fate of the planet and humanity hanging in the balance. There isn’t a crisis they won’t promote … or one they have gotten right. From global cooling to overpopulation, from resource depletion to the threat of heterosexual AIDS, from global warming to second-hand smoke, each new challenge is a threat to the very existence of humanity – and ultimately, the earth itself.

They’re batting 1.000.

They’ve been wrong every time.

It makes one wonder what the “perfect” temperature is, or what the “correct” number of people on earth would be, to today’s enviro-warriors.

If “global warming” was anything but political fodder for the Left, why would a name change even be necessary at all? Why would “campaigns” and “strategies” need to be devised to convince people of its very existence? The fact is, years and years of environmentalist screeching about the dangers of human activity and the effect it has on the climate ring less true to more and more people as global temperatures continue to go down – just as they always have after a warming trend. In other words, if the Left (and a few misguided rightists) genuinely believe that the danger facing the planet was clear-cut and irrefutable, why would their agenda need to be prettied up with more favorable focus-group-friendly phraseology?

This isn’t just a matter of finding the right bumper sticker slogan for an unknown product that needs public exposure. Anyone who has been alive and cognizant anywhere in the developed world over the past decade-and-a-half has heard the phrase “global warming” and knows what the phrase implies.

That many have rejected the product  – with many more doing so each day – is proof that clarity of thought is not yet dead – only victims of lefticide.

Posted in environmentalism, Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

YES, CASSANDRA, IT IS GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA – ANSWERING A READER

Posted by Andrew Roman on March 2, 2009

climatehoax

After my article last week, FUNNY GLOBAL WARMING TIDBIT – PESKY DATA – which I invite you to read if you haven’t already – I received a reply from a reader called Cassandra, who took me to task for what she obviously felt was a typical flat-earth, knee-jerk, right-wing reaction to a story related to global warming.

As I have done on many occasions with other readers, I would like to address Cassandra’s post, point by point.

Even if you haven’t read my piece, or the original article I’m referencing, you’ll still get the gist of it all, I assure you.

_____________________________________________

Cassandra wrote:

Why is science “leftist hysteria”? Isn’t the scientific method intended to remove bias rather than foster it?

I respond:

It isn’t science. That’s the point. It is instead “leftist hysteria,” quite rightly classified as such because of what has been a long history of unfounded and universally incorrect doomsday scenarios created by agenda-driven, research-money hungry “experts” with leftist worldviews.

For instance, recall that it is with the same fervor and certitude currently fuelling the increasingly ridiculous “global warming” panic that the abundance of stories and studies were published predicting the United States would be overrun with widespread heterosexual AIDS in the 1980s. It was inevitable we were told.

It never happened, of course, despite “consensus” from experts and scientists.

Thirty-five years ago, we were warned that global cooling was going to ravage the Earth when things were “trending” in that direction. Somehow, the world managed to get a bit warmer, after it had gotten cooler, after a warming period, which coincidentally followed a cooling trend.

Let us not forget how we were admonished that humanity would run out of food by 1990. Remember that?

Or how, by 1997, the O-Zone layer would be so damaged due to human activity that the number of cases of ultra-violet-light induced skin cancer would explode to catastrophic levels.

Surely you remember the fear-mongering of how natural resources would be depleted by the year 2000? or how overpopulation was going to be the death knell to humankind?

When agenda trumps truth in the sciences, it is a bad thing, Cassandra.

Cassandra wrote:

Why do many people assume that a “trend” needs to be linear? For example, isn’t it evident that we currently have a stock market trending down even though there are many up days?

I respond:

First, I know of no one was has denied any warming trend. (By most objective standards, temperatures in recent years have leveled off and are starting to “trend” downward).

So what?

There have been warming trends throughout the history of Earth. In fact, there have been trends that put the most recent one to shame. Recall the Ice Age, for example. Obviously, things warmed up enough to melt prodigious amounts of ice without the benefit of SUVs and disposable diapers.

The “hysteria” of the current position lies in the adopting the trinity of climactic disbelief – that not only are temperatures rising, but that the rise must be proven to be triggered by human activity, and then at such a level as to cause catastrophe.

But of course, the real question here is … from what starting point are you basing your trend? Compare temperatures today to the 1970s, and it is generally warmer. Compare them today to the 1930s, the late 1990s or the eleventh century and they’re cooler.

Second, why is it that global warming alarmists automatically believe the world should be colder now? On what do they base that conclusion? Should it have been colder when the Vikings were growing grapes in Newfoundland, centuries before the advent of the automobile and airplanes? Was it too cold during the Little Ice Age between 1200 and 1800?

Cassandra wrote:

Why was the time frame of the “sensor drift” error left out in the discussion? Isn’t it pertinent that this error started in early January of 2008 and was caught and corrected? How come an error that affected less than two months of real time data (now expunged) refutes decades of other data?

I respond:

How come you completely miss the point I’m making?

The year 2008 was reported as being the “second lowest” in terms of how much Arctic Ice exists. The year before, 2007, was reported as being the “lowest.” If the criterion for “warming” is based on how much Arctic Ice exists, then, by definition, it cannot be getting warmer, if the amount of ice “grew” from one year to the next.

To dip into my bag-o-logic, if I have less money and assets this year than I did last year, I cannot be getting wealthier.

If I weigh less this week than I did last week, I cannot be getting fatter.

Before the “drifting sensor” problem was realized, there was believed to be less ice than there really was. This only reinforces my point.

Cassandra wrote:

Also, I thought it would be helpful so include URLs to the actual NSIDC articles, so here are two primary links to the NSIDC info under discussion:

February 18, 2009
Satellite sensor errors cause data outage: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html

February 26, 2009
Near-real-time data now available: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

I respond:

I sincerely appreciate your links to the original articles. I encourage people to read them.

However, none of it – repeat none of it – does anything to further the argument of those who believe that the world is not only getting warmer, but that it is being caused by human beings, and that the result of those man-made temperature rises are catastrophic for the planet.

Seeing as everything that is happening to this planet right now, climactically speaking, has happened before – many, many times, in an endless merry-go-round of climactic cyclical bliss – and the fact that the planet is somehow still here, in one piece, lends nothing to the credibility of these hysterical assertions.

love-my-co2First off, there is no consensus – nor is there evidence – that CO2 causes global warming. There simply isn’t. There is actually more evidence to suggest that CO2 levels increase after warming begins, despite the “facts” peddled in Al Gore’s largely discredited piece of garbage film, An Inconvenient Truth. Besides, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is so minimal as to be nearly insignificant in terms of temperature. Even doubling the amount of CO2 would have little effect on climate.

Second, I have to assume that “global” warming means only the Northern Hemisphere, seeing as whatever warming has been noted over the past few decades has only occurred north of the equator.

Third, the Medieval Warm period was warmer than it is today. How is that possible without smoke stacks, diesel engines and Al Gore’s mouth?

Fourth, does it occur to anyone on the panicked side of the debate that the loss of a multitude of cold climate weather stations in the collapsing Soviet Union in the late 1980s and 1990s somehow, remarkably, inexplicably coincided with the totality of “global temperatures” rising? The fact is, thousands of measuring stations closed in that part of the world during that “death of the Soviet Union” period. Wouldn’t that fact, at least, warrant some consideration from the supposedly unbiased scientific community? Wouldn’t that seem like a logical point to ponder in a debate that has sadly been declared over by such notables as Barack Obama?

By the way … if the debate is over, why are hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars still needed to study this stuff?

Thank you, Cassandra.

In other news, this damned global warming is burying my car under a foot of snow.

 

Posted in environmentalism, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

ENVIRONMENTALISM FROM THE BOTTOM UP – REUSABLE CLEANLINESS

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 28, 2009

From the bottom of my … well, bottom, I assure you, that even if I was hoodwinked into believing that the Earth was trembling precariously on the brink of calamity due to the excesses and indulgences of human activity, I just couldn’t get this green – not in good conscience. And if ever I were forced to do so, you can bet your bottom dollar (pun intended) it’s because someone either had a firearm pressed to my temple, I was a prisoner of war, or I was convinced that huge prize money was somehow involved.

What on Earth am I talking about?

toiletwipesReusable toilet wipes, of course – brought to you by the good folks at Wallypop.net who encourage you to support “a natural lifestyle.”

It’s the gift that keeps on giving.

Wallypop also offers reusable monthly “cycle pads” for women, as well as more “conventional” items such as handkerchiefs, diapers and breast pads – all in pretty designs and patterns. They even have reusable Elvis Presley sandwich wraps and snack bags.

Here’s what they say about their toilet wipes:

As seen on The Drudge Report and Australian News!

“Alright,” you say, “You’ve convinced me about cloth diapers, and I understand using cloth gift bags and napkins. But toilet paper??” For some people, making the switch to cloth toilet wipes is a huge leap, that’s true. But it doesn’t need to be!

Using cloth toilet wipes actually has many advantages. For one, it’s a lot more comfortable and soft on your most delicate body parts. It’s also more economical, uses less paper, and saves you those late-night trips to the store. And cloth wipes can be used wet without any of the sopping disintegration that regular toilet paper is prone to.

And for those of you who may be thinking, “You know, this sounds like something I might like to try because I love the Earth so much, but what about odor? I don’t want my Febreze bill to go through the roof.”

No need to worry. Wallypop has you covered.

Lately, with all the media attention, there’ve been a lot of naysayers talking about the stench. I can honestly say, our wipes don’t stink. They don’t go into a sealed container. They go into a little (lidded) garbage can in the bathroom. Many people use a wet bag … There is no odor.

Sighs of relief all around.

Wallypop explains:

But, really, you might be wondering, how do I use these?

Using cloth wipes for urine-only visits to the bathroom is so simple it’s hardly worth mentioning. Go, wipe, and then toss the wipe into whatever container you prefer.

Using cloth wipes for other toilet visits is not any more difficult, but there is a certain ick factor involved. Consider how much waste you’re willing to leave on your children’s diapers or wipes when you toss them in the pail. Use the same standards for yourself. Shake, scrape, swish, or squirt off anything you don’t want in your laundry, and then toss the wipe into the pail or container. (Personally speaking, we just wipe and toss in the pail. Our wipes have minimal staining.)

Thanks for sharing.

I certainly do not begrudge anyone for filling voids in the marketplace. More power to them. I wish them well.

But it reminds me …

I remember my grandfather would always keep a handkerchief in his back pocket. After using it, he would wad it up and stuff it right back into the same pocket. As a little boy, I remember thinking how disgusting that was.

“Why don’t you use a tissue, grandpa?” I would ask.

“I like to use a handkerchief,” he would say, which would effectively end the discussion.

I’m not sure how regular bathroom tissue is any less “natural” than reusable cloth wipes, seeing as they are both manufactured from materials found here on Earth, but it occurs to me that bad breath, arm pit odor and bad hair are also “natural” phenomena.

Sometimes a touch of “artificiality” (for the want of a better phrase) goes a long way.

I promise … this is not a slam. I know there are wonderful people out there who prefer cloth – and I know there are puppy-kickers and kitten-smackers who like paper.

I just thought you’d find this interesting.

Posted in environmentalism, Silly Stuff | Tagged: , , , | 12 Comments »