Friday, December 9, 2011

Blog Stage 8

The true issue here is not how much damage we are going to our planet.  The question is, what are the effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  Well, plants use CO2 to breathe, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the bigger plants can grow because the added CO2 makes photosynthesis more efficient.  With larger plants you have an inherent increase in both the insect populations and the herbivore populations.  With more of these available to eat, more predatory animals are allowed to flourish due to the increase in food availability.  With more predators you have more dead things lying about, the bacteria that breaks down the organic matter is vital to the lifecycle of the bacteria that allows plants to retrieve nitrogen, a vital nutrient.  With more of these bacteria plants get even bigger. 
Even the scientific method itself proves global warming to be a fallacy. The global warming hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise catastrophically if carbon dioxide levels rise.  Although most of the increase in carbon dioxide has occurred in the past 50 years, and the output of carbon dioxide has risen during the past 20 years, there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years.  And to top it all off, the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.
The Astrophysical Journal posted data that compared the solar activity to the atmospheric temperature.  The results are astounding, it shows that the earth temperature is only related to solar activity.  More so, if the world is being warmed up by the sun and not the carbon dioxide, don’t you think you would want to have the shade provided by the increased plant growth?
I wouldn’t be so quick to say that global warming is a myth, if it weren’t for the 31,000 scientists that say there is “no convincing evidence.”  If there is no evidence, and there is no global warming, why would it be pushed so hard down our throats?
Well, it’s all about the money.  If you are forced to buy a new vehicle that is “environmentally friendly” then that means that the government gets to tax the payroll at the plant where the parts are made, gets to tax the transport, the sale, and the service of these cars. 
What we should really be worrying about is the children, I agree with you 100%.  However, what priorities are we going to teach them? Are we going to continue to teach them that human beings are dirty and have no rights and should be despised, or are we going to do what it takes to continue to survive as a society. 
With the air quality in Beijing being rated as… and I quote “:(“ the Jetstream carries their pollution here.  So even if we make all of our industry in this country “zero emission” we would be breathing their junk anyway.  Not just that, but China is a fascist state, all industry is ran by the government while expecting its citizens to be happy with “what we gave you.”  What is going to make China clean up their plants?  They don’t even use safety equipment for God’s sake.  A hard hat on a Chinese construction site consists of a phone book and a shoe string.
It is proven through simple math that carbon trading does nothing to actually cut down on the pollution.  If a plant is polluting too much, its ok, no worries they can just buy some credits from a plant that isn’t polluting as much… so um then aren’t we right back to where we were.
We should be more concerned with demanding the truth than how much carbon you are using.  If everything on the planet that is organic is made from carbon, how the heck could we run out?

Friday, December 2, 2011

'Indefinite Detention' Bill Passes Senate 93-7 (NOT AN ASSIGNMENT!!)

After reading this article, I have come to the realization that I no longer have any connection to this world. And I have nothing else to say about it for yourself.
'Indefinite Detention'