The Return of Global Warming - The Sequel

Global Warming - The Sequel

Global Warming: Separating Fact From Fiction

With all the recent revelations that bring to light serious concerns about the legitimacy of the theory of man-made global warming/climate change, here is one truth that can't be denied:

Show Them To Me

I'm not a big Country & Western fan, but there are exceptions. This is definitely one of them. His name is Rodney Carrington, a comedian who uses music as his comedic "vehicle". This is all about the love of the female breast. NSFW and inappropriate for younger kids; but that's your call, not mine.



Hat-tip: Stephanie

And I guess this is as good a time as any to re-introduce my advocacy of Global Warming...

Global Warming

A Fresh Perspective

Being away from the blog for just over a week, processing all the post-election hype and spin - taking it all in, so to speak - I discovered a new outlook on...well...just about anything and everything, I guess. It's a zen sort of thing, right up there with "whatever" and "that's cool."

It's called "I don't give a fuck." Zen with an attitude.

Or "I don't care" if one must be politically correct (although that would be incongruous with the philosophy - If one doesn't give a fuck then one certainly doesn't care about being politically correct to begin with, does one?).

I suppose that this wonderful new mindset seems eerily similar to another condition known as apathy.

Merriam-Webster OnLine defines apathy as such:

Main Entry:
ap·a·thy
Pronunciation:
\ˈa-pə-thē\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Greek apatheia, from apathēs without feeling, from a- + pathos emotion — more at pathos

Date:1594

1 : lack of feeling or emotion : impassiveness
2 : lack of interest or concern : indifference

That pretty much sums it up, and the "I don't give a fuck" attitude is more or less a statement of indifference, even defiance. It is a liberating feeling to able to say, "I don't give a fuck," - and MEAN IT.

How did this come to pass? It was only a few days ago, listening to talk radio where global warming/climate change/CO2 emissions/methane/cow farts/carbon credits/Kyoto was being discussed. The host was neither a true believer nor a denier, and the debate was good. And then it hit me, one of those thought-distilling, somebody flipped on the light switch kind of moments:

I don't give a fuck.

I'll bet you that if you talked to one hundred people who are true believers - you know, the ones who cite the "consensus of the world's leading peer-reviewed climatologists" and argue the "science" of it all - you would be lucky to find 10 who have read the actual IPCC Report AR4. Not the "Summary for Policymakers", the actual Report. I have read most of it, and, even with a scientific and engineering background, it ain't easy readin'. I will not discuss or debate the issue any longer. I can't be bothered.

I just don't give a fuck.

Even if I accept all the dire (many of them not as dire as so many in the media would have us believe) predictions, I still don't give a fuck.

The sea level is going to rise?
I don't give a fuck.

It's going to get hotter?
I don't give a fuck.

Millions of people are going to die?
I don't give a fuck. And on that note, not only do I not give a fuck, I'm actually counting on it. I'd actually like to raise the ante to...I don't know...say, two or three billion. Because that's what the REAL problem is here, folks: Too many fucking people. Half of ya' need to go.

Hmmmm, that doesn't sound very dispassionate or disinterested. As a matter of fact, that sounds downright mean and uncaring.

Guess what?

Global Warming - Topless Beach Edition

Global Warming

Global Warming

Global Warming

Global Warming

Global Warming

Global Warming: Two-fer Tuesday

Global Warming

Pendulous Globes for Jesus


Globes in the Grasp

Global Warming - Nudist Edition

Global Warming: Retro Style

Global Warming

Global Warming

Global Warming - Weekend Edition

Global Warming: Beyond Folly, Into the Realm of Lunacy

Save the planet by eating less meat. I can't make this shit up.

People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, the world's leading authority on global warming has told The Observer.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which last year earned a joint share of the Nobel Peace Prize, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further.
- (snip) -
The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that meat production accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. These are generated during the production of animal feeds, for example, while ruminants, particularly cows, emit methane, which is 23 times more effective as a global warming agent than carbon dioxide. The agency has also warned that meat consumption is set to double by the middle of the century.

'In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity,' said Pachauri. 'Give up meat for one day [a week] initially, and decrease it from there,' said the Indian economist, who is a vegetarian.

However, he also stressed other changes in lifestyle would help to combat climate change. 'That's what I want to emphasise: we really have to bring about reductions in every sector of the economy.'

So, there you go. The curry-muncher is the chair of the IPCC. He's a vegetarian, and he wants everybody else to become one, too. AND he wants to stifle economic growth. And all the true believers say that this is all objective science? That there is no agenda with no ulterior motives? Piss on me, and tell me it's raining, too, while you're at it.

I'm going to make sure our family DOUBLES our meat intake, just to piss them all off. All the true believers can just fuck off.

I swear, this is like a pitch for a bad sitcom.
*************************************************************************************

ADDENDUM: Mae pointed out something that seems so obvious; that's why I overlooked it. Let's assume EVERYBODY stops eating meat, and let's also assume, then, that cattle ranchers stopped raising cattle. Would all the cattle disappear? No. They would still breed, free to roam as they did for millenia. The methane production would still be there - unless we cull all the cattle. I'm not sure, but I think PETA and other animal rights activists would have just a bit of a problem with that.