Global Warming Stinks.
This just in from the global warming lab. A new study finds the real reason for global warming isn’t actually chlorofluorocarbons or carbon dioxide emissions at all. It’s something more silent but deadly than anyone ever imagined. The study finds, get this, cattle flatulence as a significant contributor to greenhouse–ahem–gases. Yes, the claim made by the Food and Agriculture Organization and reported in yesterday’s Christian Science Monitor says cattle flatulence is affecting the planet’s fickle ozone layer and causing climate change. You can’t make this stuff up.
Folks, listen: it was somewhat believable why petroleum guzzling SUVs came under attack for their adverse effect on the planet, and so the world acquiesced to the demands of pseudo-science and everyone bought a hybrid car.
But now… this. Cows can’t even pass gas without someone fingering them in the latest lineup of global warming whodunnit. One minute these gentle creatures are harmlessly nibbling grass out on the farm, and then -POOF- they’re suddenly the latest cause of Hurricane Bovina.
This raises a few questions. The obvious one is, where’s PETA in all this? But further, where’s the American Dairy Association? Will nobody stand up and defend these animals’ freedom to pass greenhouse gas as a fundamental right? If a cow can’t break wind on the farm, then for the love of God where is a cow to turn?
And why target only cattle? What about elephants? What about horses or whales? And finally, what is the proposed solution… bovine portions of Bean-O for every bull, heifer and calf on the planet? Gigantic cow corks?
At some point–though exactly where or when doesn’t yet seem apparent–the global warming madness has to stop. It stinks.
| Category: cow flatulence9 Comments so far
Leave a reply
Global warming is not madness. Clearly a plethora of more useful, educational articles exist that could have been the catalyst for the first blog entry in this new forum for conservative Oregonians. Both the subject chosen (animal flatulence) and the language used in this post (”global warming madness”, “somewhat believable”) trivialize something that is a real issue.
Not madness? Surely you jest! CO2 represents only .04% of the atmosphere, whereas water vapor an average of 2%. Water vapor absorbs MORE IR energy than CO2, and their absorptive spectrum is significantly overlapped. Imagine putting a window shade on a window that absorbs 30% of incoming light, allowing 70% through. Now apply a second shade: 30% of the 70% is blocked, so now 49% is left. Then a third: 34% remains. Each shade blocks less and less of the original light. CO2 represents the 51st “window shade” applied to incident IR energy in that spectrum. It is physically impossible for it to be the CAUSE of the warming.
Now, let’s chat about solar flux, magnetic as well as light energy. I note that proxy studies have shown that ice ages happen to correspond with reduced amounts of certain isotopes that result from the particles in the solar wind, indicating less sunspot-induced mass ejection by the sun. Then along comes the Danish basement cloud chamber, where they have demonstrated that cosmic rays, which are more likely to be deflected from the solar system when the sunspot cycle is active, create cloud seeds in the atmosphere. More sunspots ==> higher solar magnetic field ==> fewer cosmic rays ==> fewer clouds ==> more energy striking the earth ==> warmer temperatures. And guess what we’ve been experiencing for a couple of centuries? That’s right! Lots of sunpots!
.7 degrees C in a for-crying-out-loud century, and the same folks that hate your SUV and hate the prosperity of the U.S. come up with a treaty that punishes the largest carbon sequesterer (the U.S., as Columbia Univ. showed in 1998), all to try to slow us down so China and India can catch up. Go figure.
Bad science, socialist politics, lies on top of lies, and now the PETA/vegetarians are in on the act and want us to stop eating hamburgers. It’s a PERFECT subject to discuss here. Not to mention RIDICULE!
I agree with Shawn. Global warming is real, it is man-made, and this writer trivializes it. He doesn’t seem to have a handle on any facts either, and then decries those who do as pushing ‘pseudo-science.’ How much is Exxon paying this guy??
Some facts are in order, and since they are in short supply in the article, I shall help. There are 1.5 billion (yes, with a b!) cows on the planet. There are less than half a million elephants by comparison. The sheer number of cows alone have contributed to the waste of fossil fuels to grow feed corn, and the destruction of the Amazon Rain Forest. The unique stomach of a cow and the unnatural food most of them eat (corn, grown with massive amounts of petrol-rich chemicals) contributes greatly to the cow’s methane problem. Whales are meat-eaters and thus have almost no methane problems. Methane is one of the worst greenhouse gases, much worse than the most common one, CO2.
The major cause of global warming is the burning of fossil fuels. Contrary to the author’s assertion that “everyone bought a hybrid car,” the latest government stats show that less than one half of one percent of all cars on the road are hybrids. Over 25% of all new vehicles sold are SUVs.
Being conservative means being responsible for ourselves and the earth we leave to our children as well. Lying about facts should be above conservatives, but sadly that’s not always the case.
Yesterday I saw a cow driving an SUV, heading southbound on I-5. I can’t believe that planet-hating, methane-farting, SUV-driving cow even had the shameless gall to show her face in public in Oregon! I say we burn her at the stake… I mean, “steak.”
Global Warming is a Farse
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don’t pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. “It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species,” wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn’t occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, “State of Fear” he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen’s. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don’t understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: “the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.” Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky’s book “Yes, but is it true?” The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky’s findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky’s students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a
Here’s some facts on Tim Ball, a respondant of the above piece of distortion. I was half kidding when I asked how much the original writer of this piece was being paid by Exxon… now I really want to know! You can Google or search for Tim Ball and global warming and a slew of matches similar to the one I found will pop up. EVERY TIME I READ/HEAR SOMEONE DENYING GLOBAL WARMING HE IS ON THE PAYROLL OF BIG OIL!!
Unlike “Dr.” Timmy, I list my sources! Here’s what one (and there are many!) had to say about Ball:
“Undistorted records in hand, Ball is promoted by the National Center for Public Policy Research ($225,000 from Exxon Mobil), and Tech Central Station (which also receives support from General Motors). He’s a hot topic on the Coalblog web site, sponsored by the coal companies. In the past year, he’s given policy briefings to the Fraser Institute and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg.
You could have found him and Baliunas at a conference in Ottawa in November 2002, just days before parliament ratified the Kyoto Protocol. That conference, urging the government not to proceed with ratification, was paid for by Imperial Oil (Exxon Mobil’s Canadian subsidiary) and Talisman Energy and put together by public relations firm APCO Worldwide.”
http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05/02/PaidtoDenyGlobalWarming/
By the way, “Dr.” Tim doesn’t have a degree in climatology. He not only lies about global warming, but about his credentials as well. He is a FRAUD, pure and simple, bought and paid for by the oil and auto companies. Again I list my source, but there are many that expose Ball.
http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die
I keep wondering why the owners of this site don’t remove the post from the person who copied the article by “Dr.” Tim Ball, who lies about both global warming and his background. Are any of us allowed to lie about our credentials which allow us to be an “expert” on a subject?? Do conservatives REALLY believe in personal responsibility?? Why is an admitted cheat allowed to post one of the longest posts I have ever seen?? Please TAKE THAT POST DOWN!!! Thank you.
From our Comments Policy (on our About page):
Though it very rarely happens, we may edit comments that contain profanity, insults directed at a private individual, lies, or solicitations. WE DO NOT MODERATE COMMENTS BASED ON THEIR EXPRESSED VIEWS OR OPINIONS.
While we do agree that T&T’s comment was quite lengthy–in fact, a paraphrase and link to the actual article would have sufficed–it pains us to think that someone’s contribution to this discussion ought to be removed simply upon request by another who disagrees. This is a forum for discussion. Concerns about the authenticity of the article author’s credentials or authority on climate change really ought to be directed to the NRSP.
T&T: would you please take a moment and provide a link to the source of Mr. Ball’s article. Thank you.
To the Administrator:
I didn’t want the copied link by Tim Ball taken down because I don’t like his opinion. In fact, there are no OPINIONS in the piece. Ball states facts (some about his own life and credentials) which are easily disproved as lies. I wanted it taken down because his facts are WRONG! I would never ask that you remove a post from someone with a different opinion.
Of course, the new conservatives don’t believe in facts. Long live Barry Goldwater.
p.s. Nice piece on your cover about Chuck Colson. I didn’t realize he was being taken seriously after his prison time for Watergate.