Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Smoke em' if you got 'em




I suppose the readership contains members old enough to recall the transformation of cigarette smoking from recommended by doctors to deadly. I'm talking about the sixties and seventies, when the anti-smoking campaign ramped up in earnest. How many saddles will be empty tonight, Johnny Smoke? I even remember an image that hung in my third grade classroom. It featured a toothless old hag with a cigarette clutched between yellowed fingers and the sarcastic assertion, Smoking is very glamorous. The effort infuriated Big Tobacco and its minions.

In the beginning the smokers refused to buy into any of it. The anti-smoking campaign was just another big GOV plot to control you and your life. Welcome to the nanny state. Smoking was perfectly safe.

The very same people who conceded along with everyone else that it's the smoke not the fire that kills when a house goes up in flames would assert absolutely that the smoke they sucked out their Winston was completely harmless.

They smoked. They denied. They wheezed and coughed and hacked. They denied. They got emphysema and cancer and heart disease. They denied. They finally stopped denying the day they stopped breathing for good.

Which brings me to climate change--call it global warming.

Can anyone deny that air pollution exists? We see it. We feel it. We smell it. The crap we pump into the air is lung-clogging filth and we all know it.

Can anyone deny that the earth's atmosphere exists? We all watched the impressive Apollo missions and the considerable challenge the atmosphere posed during launches and re-entry. The atmosphere is a lid on the earth and we all know it.

Yet the denial rages on. And on and on. Perhaps some magic fairy is zipping around, turning all our air pollution into harmless puffs of mist with her magic wand. Perhaps an atmospheric plenum so solid we needed a Saturn V rocket to punch through it mysteriously lets out only the bad stuff, which then disappears into space.

I'm not going to gas on about how long and how hot and how many degrees Celsius. Mr. Gore's Interwebs are available for your perusing pleasure. My conclusion is simple: asserting that the crud we're pumping into the air isn't going to kill us is the same as telling yourself that pack-a-day habit is nothing to worry about.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

When we were all still sucking down the coffin nails, whenever the topic of quitting came up, my Gram Soos, who'd quit years before, always used to say this, "You know who were the first people to quit smoking?" She'd pause, look around at each of us with our Marlboro Lights and Trues and Bic lighters."The doctors," she'd say. "The doctors were the first ones to quit smoking."

I wonder when the scientists will start moving to higher ground.

*  *  *

50 comments:

Bill said...

Anyone who smoked knew it wasn't good for you. I quit when my daughter was born. the earth is 4.5 billion years old and separating your trash or paying a carbon tax is not going to have one bit of difference on how long it will last. All of the dire predictions are wrong because the computer models are bullshit. We can do more to keep our air and water clean and should. But, anyone who thinks they can change the climate has their head up their ass. You can't cool the sun or impact the climate change on Mars, either.

Tony Rugare said...

I guess I have my head up my ass. Science has tackled all sorts of problems once considered insurmountable.Tackling climate change is worth a try. Mankind should not go down the tube without a fight.

Joe said...

Cigarettes were called coffin nails back in the 1920's.

On the other hand, would you accept as "science" a study of the harmful affects of cigarettes based on one hour of research?

Climate records only go back slightly over 100 years. I am not convinced we should scrap our way of life over such a small data sample.

Should we conserve energy -- sure. Should we avoid polluting --sure. We should do all we can to preserve the resources for future generations. Undoubtably America is far cleaner today than it was in 1970. This is good.

Should we abandon the only existing, abundant reliable fuel supply based on a tiny fragment of data -- probably not. Especially when that data is in many cases corrupted by political agendas. In fact, the Earth has not warmed in 15 years.

Should we work to develop alternate fuels-- sure. But closing coal fired power plants without backup is insane, stupid and without merit.

Bill said...

If a scientist wants to "tackle" climate change; be my guest. Just don't tax me to pay for the fools errand.

Erin O'Brien said...

Just one question: Where does it go? Where does the exhaust from my tailpipe go? What happens to it?

Just tell me where it all goes.

You look at this picture and you tell me where all that smog goes.

Erin O'Brien said...

To this day I know lifelong smokers who swear their emphysema and cancer are in no way related to the cigarettes.

Well, I guess I only know one. All the rest died.

Sorry Bill and Joe, you sound exactly like all those denial smokers. Exactly.

Erin O'Brien said...

Joe: "Should we conserve energy -- sure. Should we avoid polluting --sure ... Should we work to develop alternate fuels-- sure."

Okay, fine. What do you want to do to promote conservation and discourage pollution? Say bike lane or carbon tax or light rail and conservatives have a fit and get all red in the face.

What alt fuel legislation do you support, Joe?

Conservatives don't conserve a damn thing and do anything they can to obstruct conservation. Remember the fury over the 100-watt light bulbs?

"But closing coal fired power plants without backup is insane, stupid and without merit."

Who suggested that? This post doesn't even touch on anything like that.

Yabu said...

I think global warming is a farce.

All that Green stuff is great, but we don't have the technology for it, yet. Obama has blown billions of dollars on it. Blown it.

The current reality is we need to go into survival mode.

We need to drill and mine all we can on US soil. We need to become energy independent and use our own resources. We have the them and technology to do it. We buy oil from our enemies, who in turn, use that money to kill us. We're outsourcing our economy.

Most importantly, we need to get that clown out of the White House, and hope and pray we can repair the damage done. Progressive liberals are living in LaLa land...on my dime.

It't not a left or right thing...the left elected him, and surely by now, they understand it was a huge mistake. You know, for example, we could've secured all of our borders with a small %'age of the money Obama has wasted on pipe dreams.

I agree with you, smoking is bad in many ways, nut people choose to smoke. Nobody makes them do it. Smoking is a problem, but it's no where near the top of the list. If someone wants to smoke, have at it...your choice. It's still a free country, I think.

First things first. We need to get our priorities in order.

Yabu said...

nut s/b but...sorry about that.

Erin O'Brien said...

A few too many points to pick apart in your post, Yabu, but I will respond to this:

"It't not a left or right thing...the left elected him, and surely by now, they understand it was a huge mistake."

Compare this to this.

Yabu said...

@Erin

Polls are polls and they are all different. The sad fact is, he got elected by the people. Sad the majority of the people actually believe his shovel ready shit. Would you vote for him (if he could run) again? Tell me 1 thing he has done that has been beneficial to you?

If we don't fix our existing immediate problems, it won't make any difference whether people smoke or not.

Anonymous said...

Ah, wonderful. Yabu-dabu-doo is in the house. Spewing nonsense when a few moments of research could have saved you making a jackass out of yourself yet again:

"We need to drill and mine all we can on US soil." You could have done maybe 90 seconds of research and discovered that net US energy imports in 2011 were 19%, down from 30% in 2005, en route to somewhat around 10% projected in 2035. Umm, that's progress, no?

Or this nugget: "It's not a left thing or a right thing"...followed by "the left elected him." When you sit down to type, is there somebody there to dab the drool off your chin?


Why don't you shock the world. Back up your claim that "we could've secured our borders with a small percentage of the money that Obama has wasted on pipe dreams." List the amount of spending that any credible source cites as necessary for border control. Then cite the alleged "pipe dreams" spending which have used said dollars instead of securing the borders.

Should be pretty quick work for a whiz-kid like yourself.

Or are you just another righty drone who when push comes to shove doesn't really believe in democracy? "The sad fact is, he got elected by the people." A pinhead who is much more comfortable regurgitating falsehoods and nonsense you are unable to look at critically?

MR



Bill said...

I plead guilty! Man made climate change is a hoax. It cannot be proven. I deny that it exists. How arrogant is it to think a few libs are going to control the climate? But, you keep buying big golf carts and reusing your shopping bags. You'll feel better. Keep worshiping your climate change Gods too. Gore will lead you from one of his 20,000 sq ft mansions with solar panels on the roof. Ever feel like a sucker?

DogsDontPurr said...

Um...wow.

Erin, your point is making itself.

Some of these comments are hysterical!

As usual, this is why I love you!!

Erin O'Brien said...

Yabu: Since 2009, when my prospects were in the toilet, things have really bloomed all around me. I see that in my work (just got a new job) ad all the stuff I cover in my writing. The economy is coming back in a big way.

Is that all about Obama? Probably not.

One specific thing he championed and pushed through was getting us the hell out of Iraq, which never would have happened had McCain been elected in 2008. For this, I am thankful. The Iraq war remains to me the single blackest mark on America's recent history.

But who cares about me? Here's one way the conservative Forbes would answer your question.

And some other, more succinct and more crass offerings.

Now then, Bill, not sure who you think believes that "a few libs are going to control the climate" but it's not me. As for arrogant, to believe we can pump as much crap as we want into the environment without consequence is arrogant and then some.

Folks, Mother Nature will win. This is non-negotiable. Joe talks about an "hour of research." Rest assured Mother Nature will take an hour or less--much less--to kick us off the planet if she sees fit. No guns, tanks or computers are going to stop her. Don't believe me? See Oklahoma.

Erin O'Brien said...

Oh yeah .. I'm still waiting for someone who does not believe in global warming to tell me where the smog goes. Anyone?

Anyone? Anyone?

Bill said...

No one believes that we can pump as much crap into the environment as we want without consequence. We're talking about climate change. We've done a good job, with technology, of reducing pollution. Eventually we'll have cleaner sources of energy that are commercially viable. It might make you feel better if you don't drive or take the super polluting bus but, it won't have an effect on the climate.

Bill said...

Smog eventually dissipates. Not easily or quickly but it does dissipate. So does oil. Check out the Gulf Coast that used to be full of fish and clean water. Oh! It still is.

Yabu said...

@Anonymous MR

Insults do not bother me at all..at all, not at all. You need to get a grip on things. You're lost.

I'm not going to fight you in Miss Erin's house. That would be disrespectful. I do have manners and I am polite. This is not the place.

Having said that: You want to fight? Come over to my crib if you have the balls. You have the address. I will kick your progressive liberal chicken shit ass. You don't have a clue. I generally don't research my opinions for a 30 second response on a blog post. They are my opinions from fifty thousand feet, but for your lame ass, I will get all the way down in the trenches.

Like I said, insults don't bother me, and you're not even good at that. You're an asshole.

The ball is in your court. Game on? Your move.

@Erin

Sorry about that MR guy. He loves to insult me. If he wants to due battle, I've given him the field.

You know, it's okay to disagree, that's what makes the world go round. You believe one thing, and I believe another, and that's okay by me.

I agree we should have left Iraq earlier, but what happened in 2008, or anytime in the past, does not make any difference, now. It's done, water under the bridge. People waste a lot of time worrying about the past. We need to worry about right now, and then the future. What's past is prolog. Looking back through history, people made some bad decisions which changed the world, nothing we can do about it. Nothing at all...We learn from the past, but there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. We need to focus on the "now". You're fortunate in that your life has changed for the better since Obama took office. I know a lot of people and their lives have changed for the worse. Everybody I know is in worse shape since Obama took office, and I know people from all walks of life. It is what it is.

Have a good day, and for goodness sake...watch out for Turtles and Macaws.

Cool runnings!

By the way, congrats on your new job...looks to be right up your alley.

Yabu said...

Sorry about the multiple comment responses. I can't read the damn robot killer. Left my magnifying glass in the other room. Just nuke 'em.

Anonymous said...

Yabba dabba, you're golden.

"Insults do not bother me at all..(sic)at all, not at all...You wanna fight?" Umm...yeah, people who aren't bothered by a comment ALWAYS challenge the commenter to a fight. "(I)nsults don't bother me...You're an asshole." Yeah, it just rolls off your back...

If you are unwilling or unable to support any of your mindless blather with any facts, just say so next time. You'll save yourself some time you can put to good use composing hackneyed clich├ęs such as 'water under the bridge', 'What's past is prolog(sic-You probably wanted 'prologue' there)and "we need to focus on the "now".' Inspirational stuff, that. Keep 'em coming.

MR

Oh, and thanks for the invitation to your bog.* But I don't care to spend any time in a right-wing fever-swamp sandbox, and if I did it wouldn't be at the bottom of the heap.

*-not a typo.

Erin O'Brien said...

Yabu, as for the future, despite all the problems I have with Obama (and I have plenty), at least he had the stones to finally stand up and say we have to stop the perpetual war on terror. That was one of his best moments in office. Too bad it came so late. Dan Carlin had some brilliant commentary on this topic.

For the record, you're link back in this comment thread is broken. Here is the correct link to Yabu's site if anyone wanted to visit him.

Bill:

Smog eventually dissipates.

That is beautiful, man, beautiful.

Yabu said...

@Anonymous MR

Fine...you gave up without a fight. You are a coward. A dog ass coward. All bark. If you give up, you surrender.
Easiest fight I've ever one. Off to the camps for you.

Since you believe I'm of inferior intellect, care for a game of chess?

Sweet dreams, sweetie pie.

Anonymous said...

"(E)ver ONE"? I'm guessing you wanted 'won' there.

No need to keep doubling back, Jobu...you've already conceded the fact that you are prone to running your yap sans reference to any facts. By your middle-school attempts at taunts or insults you just demean yourself a little bit more.

"Goodnight, Springton. there will be no encores."-David St Hubbins.

Jon Moore said...

Excellent.
A chess match between Yabu and MR. No left, no right, no insults, no bullshit. Simply a matching of wits on the battlefield of the chessboard.
You can each set up your own board and record your moves here at the OM allowing the sports enthusiasts amongst us to follow along at home.
While some may wonder about the cheating aspect, Yabu, as a cultured, Southern gentleman, I'm sure will do the honorable thing. I'll just have to give the Yankee, MR, the benefit of the doubt that he'll do the same.
What say you MR, will you pick up the gauntlet that Yabu has thrown down?

Anonymous said...

Gee, thanks for the interest*, Alf...last I heard from you, you were blaming "MY" 'fucking government' for the non-existent inflation we're currently still not suffering from. It's no great wonder you see a kindred spirit in Jobu; neither one of you shows the least interest in trying to navigate the fact-based world we live in.

As far as the chess game? I wouldn't want to keep you from Ashley Wilk...err...your 'cultured, Southern gentleman' caller...err...Yabba-dabba. You play him-I imagine playing with yourself gets tired after a while. But I suggest you bend at the knees when you pick up that gauntlet.

MR

*-yeah, interest rates are still surging up towards near-historical lows. It's probably not caused by the non-existent inflation we're not suffering under.

PS-Does Paul Hogan know you've swiped his lid?

Jon Moore said...

Well MR, I guess that's a no. A shame.
BTW, I'm glad you like the hat.

Joe said...

I'll take the bait, only a little late since I have been off polluting the skies by flying around in a jet plane and making evil capitalist monies for my international conglomerate employers.

Where does your smog go? You know where it goes -- into the atmosphere where it combines with other molecules and eventually dissipates. As you know, your car exhaust is primarily made up of water vapor, nitrous oxide and Carbon dioxide. CO2 is then used by plants and eventually transformed into oxygen for us to breathe. if we rid the world of CO2, plant life would die and people would eventually die of oxygen deprivation. Unless a Darwinian change grew us alternate lungs or the ability to breathe nitrogen. Despite the fact that CO2 levels are at an all-time "high" (we have only been measuring it the equivalent of a nanosecond of the life of the Earth), temperatures have remained steady for about 15 years. The computer models were incredibly, drastically wrong.

You asked what alternate fuel I want the Government to legislate. NONE. If a better mousetrap can be developed the private sector will do it. Money is a powerful motivator (hmmm, I wonder why the "scientist" keep coming up with climate models favored by the government and indicates more research is need?) Cleveland's own JD Rockefeller recognized a need to develop a better delivery method for heating oil and in a decade changed houses across America from natural gas and coal oil (and whale oil) to petroleum based products. The free market woks if you give it a try.

Here is the thing, unless you have purchased a totally electric car and installed solar grids or a wind mill to power up that battery, you are a hypocrite. (That electricity you use are powered by coal, natural gas or nukes. All evil in the eyes of the "Climate Changers". There is no viable alternative at this point in time).

Your mini cooper gets marginally better gas mileage (37 vs 34) than my Focus. But more importantly if I want to drive a 12 mpg Hummer, who has the right to tell me otherwise? Do we want to go back to a distant point in time where the air was "cleaner"? have yo useen pictures of London a century ago? Go over to Shorpy.com and look at the turd-laden streets from a century ago. How much smog and creosote do you think wood fires dump into the air?

Artificial CAFE standards have resulted in smaller, more plastic cars and increased deaths on the highways. That is the secret we do not dare talk about. There are environmentalists willing to trade human lives for their cause. Are they any less wacko than those who bomb abortion clinics to "save lives"?

Like progressives from socialist utopias all over the world, from the USSR to China, the Al Gores of the world will climb into their big Expedition or Tahoe SUV, and fly off in their private jet to their mansions and tell the little people how to live.

Erin O'Brien said...

Hypocrite? Where have I ever denied that my own pollution wasn't part of the problem?

My disgust is directed at the whole damn lot of us for getting to 2012 without ALL of it in place: better mass transportation, better use of alt fuels and better applications of passive building techniques.

"Artificial CAFE standards have resulted in smaller, more plastic cars and increased deaths on the highways."

Prove it.

Joe said...

http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/147996

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993371229527975.html

Joe said...

BTW, Iam all for mass transit, as long as the riders pay their way. Let it be self-supporting. The nI am all for it.

Bike lanes, no problem -- I did think putting bike lanes on one of the busiest roads in Indianapolis was foolish. Only an idiot would ride a bike along 8 lanes of traffic.

The bottom line is we can wish there was a magic Star Trek-like anti-matter fuel out there. There isn't. At least not today.

Erin O'Brien said...

Not sure what the first link has to do with anything. As for the second, I LOVE that this opinion piece (of course) does not contain one link.

Why? Dunno

"A 2002 National Research Council study found that the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards contributed to about 2,000 deaths per year through their restrictions on car size and weight."

Why wouldn't he link that study? Can you find a copy anywhere?

And also, do you actually believe I didn't know the Mini would be more perilous in a violent crash than a bigger car? Of course I knew that. I have no interest in researching car safety, but my guess is the Mini is hella safer than the rear wheel drive gas guzzling boats of the 60s and 70s

Joe said...

Operator Error. I copied the wrong link:

http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/saving-gas-via-underpowered-death-traps-34722/

There you go.

Erin O'Brien said...

Despite the headline, Joe, that link attacks vehicle size inequity. And the experts therein DO NOT suggest making all vehicles HUGE. In fact, they blame larger vehicles as posing the real danger.

From the article:

Unifying all light vehicles under the same standard today would inevitably hike the price of trucks and SUVs. That doesn’t trouble Wenzel or Jacobsen.

“My response to that is, ‘Well that’s fine,” Wenzel said. “If consumers still demand pickup trucks and all of those features, it’s not like we’re preventing them from buying them. They just will have to pay more.”

##

“When you buy a large SUV, you’re not paying for the risk you pose to everyone else on the road,” Jacobsen said. And in a framework where the government can increase fuel efficiency without also costing lives, he suggests you should.


For the record, the other link also DOES NOT call smaller cars more dangerous on their own. It focuses on the perils of being in a smaller cars during multiple car bang ups.

As for the magically disappearing smog, nice of you to do Bill's legwork. No links as usual. But if you really do want to make an informed response, as you do your research, think about how long this process of yours takes for say ... 10,000 cubic feet of polluted air (you pick an appropriate PPM contamination rate) to be magically cleaned. Then apply it to something real, like how much of this stuff an 18-wheeler coughs over 100 miles.

Then you start doing some real research: how many miles logged in the US, China ... how much brown air are we chugging out? Then you go on back to your magically disappearing smog formula and crank the numbers.

So, is the Earth's magic smog zapping machine keeping up? When will it catch up?

Sorry, my friend, but you and Bill and Yabu are classic deniers, refusing anything you do could possibly be a big ass mistake.

Take comfort, though. The mistake belongs to all of us. Trouble is we're going to have a hella time correcting it if have the population refuses to pull their heads out of the sand.

Erin O'Brien said...

Lastly, here's a great debunking article by my buddy Phil Plait loaded with links for all you deniers.

Bill said...

I TOTALLY agree with you, Erin, that "we're going to have a hella time correcting it". It being mother nature and her way of doing what she wants just as she's done for the last 4.5 billion years. I still remember the global cooling hoax but I'll be damned if I can find any reports about that bad spell of weather a billion years ago.

Anonymous said...

@Erin-

I was surprised to see another commenter here cite an article from Pacific Standard magazine, a publication of the Miller-McCune Foundation. I don't look at it as often as I would like, but when I do I find it usually to be quite balanced and rigorously fair-minded.

That's why I wasn't surprised to see said commenter misrepresenting a conclusion of that magazine.

If anyone would like to read further from Pacific Standard about climate science, I would suggest Michael Todd's piece from 5/15/13 on the still-overwhelming consensus among scientists that climate change is quite real and that it is impacted by human activity.

Also illuminating is a piece from 9/25/12 by Tom Jacobs on the dismal performance of News Corp's (ie, Rupert Murdoch's)outlets, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, in misrepresenting climate science. Fox News has presented misleading information in somewhat around 90% of their broadcasts about the subject; the WSJ editorial page, in somewhat around 80% of their coverage.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There have been several uses of the word "dissipates" in this conversation. Smog 'dissipates' eventually, implying it just goes somewhere harmless and maybe takes a nap or something benign.

I hate to get all truthy, but perhaps individuals satisfied with the concept of 'out of sight, out of mind' in terms of pollutants should refresh their memories on The First Law of Thermodynamics and The Law of Conservation of Mass.

Brief version: the bad stuff ain't going away where it can't hurt the environment anymore.

Finally, for anyone interested in a very straightforward picture of what warming can or will bring, I should like to suggest a search for something along the lines of "satellite imagery of the Greenland Ice cap, 2000-2012."

MR

Bill said...

Weather. Climate. Cycles. Ice Age. Dust Bowl. Solar Activity.

Joe said...

I am not in school any more, so I am not going to do a research paper. I don't see you trotting out reams of evidence the Climate is heating up. I agreed with you pollution is a problem. I agree we need to find a better energy source. I disagree we should destroy the economy over research that is incomplete and disputed. Is there climate change -- yep it has been going on since the big bang. Is man causing climate change -- maybe. In any case the models used are wrong as can be at this point in time.

Sorry, if I have to footnote every statement, such as the common knowledge on the make-up of car exhaust, then you have made your point. I am not welcome.

I will say this, if you want to lecture us on how we should live then put your money where your mouth is, jump off the grid, recycle 100%, compost. Slap some solar panels on your roof. Get rid of your car. Grow your own food.

Then you can lecture me.

Anonymous said...

Ninety-seven out of a hundred experts is only 'incomplete and disputed' to persons and entities who have a financial interest in rejecting the ninety-seven percent. And puh-LEEZE spare the lame-ass claim that the scientists are only reporting these issues in such a way as to preserve their funding. The notion that there is some kind of world-wide conspiracy of nerds banding together to 'cook the books' so that they can sleep on a second-hand couch in their offices rather than a third-hand couch, and get their beards trimmed quarterly rather than biannually would be funny if it weren't so toxic to common sense.

This is exactly analogous to the tobacco industry's claims that theirs was a benign product right up until they decided to settle and take the deal.

And "get off the grid, Ted Kaczynski's old crib is up for rent"? Right. Nice. Let's exile the neighbor who told you your house was on fire.

MR

Erin O'Brien said...

Okay, Hoose, I'll give you research. You once described NASA thusly: NASA defined America's greatness.

Here's what your "symbol of our scientific might" has to say about global warming.

So, you loved NASA until they say something you no likey? Classic.

Cue the blame-Obama diatribe ...

Bill said...

From the NASA site you linked:

The Challenger expedition, from 1872-1876, was the world’s first global scientific survey of life beneath the ocean surface. Along the way scientists measured ocean temperatures, lowering thermometers hundreds of metres deep on ropes made from Italian hemp during its voyage.

Researchers combined these data with modern observations and used both in state-of-the-art climate models to get a picture of how the world’s oceans have changed since the Challenger’s voyage.

"The key to this research was to determine the range of uncertainty for the measurements taken by the crew of the Challenger," said study co-author Josh Willis, a climate scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

"After we had taken all these uncertainties into account, it became apparent that the rate of warming we saw across the oceans far exceeded the degree of uncertainty around the measurements.

"So, while the uncertainty was large, the warming signal detected was far greater."

This is laughable! I was impressed with the use of Italian Hemp though. No mention of the manufacturer of the thermometers. One has to wonder how they got the thermometer to stay at the temperature, hundreds of meters below, while pulling it back up to the surface.

But really! Of course the earth warms and the earth cools. That's not in dispute. We can't stop that from happening. Remember the cooling scare? I think it was in the 70's?

Bill said...

Also, check out the graph under the consensus tab at that website. What caused the slight cooling trend from 1940 to 1980? I guess you see what you want to see. You want humans to be destroying the planet by living here? OK.

Anonymous said...

Where did all of the pollution from the Mighty Cayohoga go? You Clevelanders left it so filthy it caught fire, yet now the city boasts how clean the waterfront is today.

Where did the filth go?

Erin O'Brien said...

Oh am I glad you asked, anon.

FOR STARTERS we stopped pumping that filth into the river 24 hours a day.

Then, with a massive concerted effort between the people, the GOV and the private sector that was REGULATED OUT THE ASS we started cleaning the shit up. The effort required, well, effort.

Just ask Frank Samsel of the venerable Samsel Supply

"But in a 16-hour day, we could pick up 100 cubic yards of debris and 15,000 gallons of oil a day," he said. "And we had spills that would take four or five days, so there was a lot of stuff on that river."

Did Frank & Co. get it all? Hell no. Mother Nature DOES have a miraculous power to clean herself up--but make no mistake: she didn't stand a chance in hell on the Cuyahoga without the HUMAN clean up effort on the mess we HUMANS made

The Cuyahoga River literally rose from the dead and that resurrection surprised everyone.

Now then, anon, thank you for bringing this excellent example to everyone's attention. As I've been reading up on global warming the last few days, I've been feeling it's mighty hopeless. Maybe it's not. Maybe if we STOP PUMPING MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF FILTH INTO THE AIR ol' Ma Nature will have a chance to catch her breath.



Erin O'Brien said...

For the record, we're busily mucking up Lake Erie again.

No time to read? Do an image search for "Lake Erie Algae Bloom."

Erin O'Brien said...

Now then, I promise not to use ALL CAPS or bold type anymore in this post.

Erin O'Brien said...

GOD I cannot shut up.

I would eat every single one of snide comments about Bill and Joe's "magical smog eating machine" if we start cleaning this mess up and ol' Ma Nature rises to the occasion like she did with Lake Erie back in the 70's.

But to those who think she can get this mess under control without our help, you're in utter denial.

Anonymous said...

or not
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

Erin O'Brien said...

Or not.