The Arrogance Of Species
OR
Why Environmentalists Are Completely Full Of Shit

WARNING: This article is intended for those who are not adverse to thinking on a regular basis. If you possess an I.Q. in the mid to high 80's, enjoy chewing crayons, have velcro closures on your shoes, or just have difficulty buttoning things, the following post is simply not intended for you. Check back next week for something more your speed.





Environmental activists are whipping up a frenzy with their greenhouse gas warnings, expensive satellites and computer models that tell us that the climate on Earth is changing. With the measured, ominous demeanor of professional gothic meteorologists they point out how we are experiencing progressively milder winters and more extreme storm systems year after year. Moreover, they tell us that mankind is solely responsible.

Burning our fossil fuels and recklessly releasing "greenhouse gasses" into the atmosphere, they say, is bringing this catastrophe down on us, and we are assured that things will only get worse. They warn us of overwhelming evidence concerning climactic shifts in the past being responsible for multiple mass extinctions of countless species, and that we must change our sinful, prodigal ways, lest we desire to be numbered among them. We are driving ourselves to extinction in our pollution belching SUV's, and if you do not take their warnings seriously and do the "green" thing, woe be upon you.

Okay, woe be upon me. I have listened to these arguments for far too long now, and I am compelled to put forward this single, simple question: Is it too much to ask of you environmental eco-fanatics that your train of thought carries freight? Nobody can get a word in edgeways with you people. You make a horrible din about the massive climate shifts that have occurred in past epochs before man walked the earth, yet you turn right around and say that there is no evidence to support the notion that global warming is caused by natural climate cycles. You stonewall against reason. You point to the "holes" in the ozone layer as proof that we are on the road to ruin, all the while talking out of both sides of your head.



Science Goes Afoul

Allow me to interject at this point that this is the area in which you should not fuck with me. You point out, correctly, that Ozone (O3) deteriorates in the presence of a certain group of chemicals known as Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the laboratory, and consequently push all kinds of legislation through the courts to ban their use. What's more, you do so on the grounds that these evil concoctions are eating life-threatening "holes" in the natural Ozone layer of the Earth.

However, your arguments conveniently ignore several damning facts: Firstly you ignore the fact that the ozonosphere begins some six miles straight up, while the CFC's that are alleged to erode it are heavier than air. Secondly, you pull the old bait-and-switch by showing laboratory experiments where CO2 breaks down Ozone, and then mentioning that your "holes" are at the poles where THERE IS NO CIVILIZATION WHATSOEVER. Never mind that skies over densely populated and industrialized places like New York City, Los Angeles, and Tokyo show nothing but normal levels of Ozone concentration in the stratosphere.

If you don't believe my claims about the weight of these CFC's, I ask that you merely inflate two balloons, one with pure CO2 and another with air from a pump to a similar size. Tie them off and drop them in still air. Compared to the air-filled balloon, you will note that the CO2 balloon drops like a rock, or about 50% faster than the control. How is it then that these evil "greenhouse" molecules were transported to the height of six miles above sea level where the ozone layer begins?

The word "Scam" comes to mind.

The exceptionally swift among you may ask, "Well what about water vapor? Water is heavier than air too, and it seems to have no trouble finding it's way into the upper atmosphere does it?" That's absolutely correct... sort of. Liquid water is indeed heavier, (read: more dense), than air. However, water vapor is not. Water vapor is a gas that is lighter than nitrogen or oxygen. (Earth's atmosphere is 75.523% Nitrogen, 23.133% Oxygen, and other trace gasses.) It is not blown aloft from ground level by wind currents, it merely rises because it is buoyant in the atmosphere. Keep that in mind.

The hardcore will tell you at this point that the lower atmosphere is continually mixed via a process known as convection, and that it is this well mixed air that enters the lower stratosphere from upward air motions in the tropical regions. That's a nice bullshit story, Charlie, but it just doesn't hold up. If this air is pushed up at the tropics, then the god damned hole should be found AT THE TROPICS, shouldn't it?

THEM: "Oh no! You just don't understand atmospheric dynamics."

ME: "But wouldn't these gasses, due to the mixing you describe, be found pretty much everywhere in the lower atmosphere?"

THEM: "Well, yeah."

ME: "Then shouldn't these "holes" likewise be found everywhere if your theory is correct?"

THEM: "Uh, no, because CFC's and other greenhouse gasses migrate to the poles, see? But they do it without touching the atmosphere at all on the way there. It's very complicated. You wouldn't understand."

ME: "Really? How can a gas heavier than air be transported to the height of six miles where the ozone layer begins and then through the same for thousands of miles more without interacting chemically with the ozonosphere at all until it gets to the poles?"

THEM: "Uh... I just shit myself".


Shut the fuck up. You're an idiot.

Now back to these holes you speak of. Why do we only have them at the magnetic poles? I think it's a good question to ask, and I think I have an answer. What natural phenomenon corresponds to the locations that we have these ozone holes?

The people will tell you that Antarctic ozone hole forms because of special weather conditions that exist there and nowhere else on the globe. (Never mind the ozone hole at the North pole, this is special.) They say that they very cold temperatures of the Antarctic stratosphere create ice clouds that allow chlorine and bromine reactions to produce the ozone hole in the springtime.

Notice how they conveniently ignore anything that will fuck up their plan? First of all, atmospheric temperature and pressure both decrease steadily the higher you climb. Thus, at heights above 20,000 feet (or about 6 Kilometers), ALL clouds are composed primarily of ice crystals, because the air temperature at that elevation is -12.28° F (-24.6° C) at less than one-half the atmospheric pressure experienced at sea level. You would have to be on pure oxygen to survive at this altitude, and bundled quite warmly, as the lower pressure would make the cold temperature seem even colder.

I've heard it argued that ozone destroying chlorine and bromine only form when the temperature is very low, but the proponents of this line of thought are basing this on results in a laboratory at normal atmospheric pressures at sea level, not the real ones at the altitudes where all this is taking place. In fact, the lower the pressure, the warmer, (and sooner), precipitates form. Again, if you don't believe me, look at some of the cooking directions on your food. A person in Denver can't bake a cake the same way as a person in New York City due to differences in elevation. Height matters.

According to Irving Horowitz, (Contemporary Earth Science, New York: Amsco, 1976), "The ozonosphere is located between about 6 and 35 miles (9.6 and 56 km) above sea level, and contains many ozone (O3) molecules." With "The highest concentration of ozone... between 9 and 8 miles (15 and 30 km) above [the] earth's surface." (Stephen Stoker. "Ozone." World Book. Chicago: World Book, 1993: 902.)

This means that, if you're following the math, the cloud formations required for their theory to work form EVERYWHERE. (I give you hailstones as proof of this.) Clearly, another mechanism must be in place. I also find it highly suspect that the first time they ever looked for evidence of ozone depletion at the poles in 1985, they found one. (As compared to readings taken some 60 years ago in 1957. Remember that number kids.) Besides, the word "hole" is a misnomer. The ozone density is simply thinner at the poles than it is elsewhere, and it has been decreasing in density ever since. But why? What special atmospheric condition occurs only at the poles that could account for this?


Auroras Anyone?

That's right. The auroras, (both Borealis and Australis), are phenomena that light up the entire sky, and they are caused by the fact that our planet's magnetic field shunts passing ionized particles from the sun, (also known as solar wind), to these areas where they are dissipated instead of bathing the habitable areas of earth with a deadly dose of radiation. (As an experiment, take a bar magnet and some iron filings. Put the magnet under a piece of paper and sprinkle the filings onto it. See how the filings bunch up at the poles of the magnet and almost NONE collect anywhere else? Same principle.) Ozone depletion has been observed to be increasing with respect to the increased output of the sun since the time of it's first measurement. Let me say that again in a whole new way so that you grasp fully what I mean: According to the global warming / environmentalist people, solar phenomenon powerful enough to illuminate and fluoresce the entire sky over both poles can have absolutely no effect on the atmosphere's chemical makeup. Any correlation between the increase in solar activity and electromagnetically driven naturally occurring light shows is purely coincidental. Never mind that the sun has been shining more brightly in the last 60 years than it has in the previous 1090.

Boy can some people be full of shit.


Global Warming In The Neighborhood

Moving on, I would like to share some more things with you. Scientists at NASA have recently measured global warming on Jupiter, Saturn, Saturn's moon Enceladus, Neptune's largest moon Triton, Mars, and far flung Pluto. Let me break this all down.


Jupiter
Jupiter, the king of the planets, has grown a new weather system south of the Great Red Spot which astronomers have whimsically dubbed "Red Spot Jr.". According to Space.com, astronomers say that the latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the middle of a global climate change that could modify temperatures by as much as 10° Fahrenheit around the globe. Nobody knows why this is occurring, but it is believed that Jovian oil refineries, clearing of forestland, and SUV's are the cause.

Saturn
Saturn has a rather warm southern pole, and according to the Keck I infrared telescope in Hawaii, the measured temperature in that area suddenly jumped by 3-5° Celsius, but this is most likely to the region having been exposed to 15 years of continuous sunlight, deforestation, and CFC's released into the atmosphere by chemicals such as Freon.

Enceladus
Saturn's moon Enceladus would appear to be a lifeless ball of ice, but the Cassini probe has shown us that this tiny moon, (Enceladus would fit comfortably into an area on Earth the size of Texas), actually generates it's own heat. The unexpectedly high temperatures measured were an anathema to the scientists making the observations, and appear inconsistent with calculations based on solar energy received. Bovine flatulence is believed to be the cause.


Triton
According to observations made by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and several ground-based instruments, temperatures on Triton, Neptune's largest moon, have increased dramatically since the Voyager space probe swung by in 1989. So much so, in fact, that Triton's surface of frozen nitrogen is turning into gas, making its thin atmosphere denser by the day. Greenpeace is organizing demonstrations and petitioning Congress for "Triton Day" in an attempt to get the Tritonians to move toward greener sources of energy before it's too late.

Mars
NASA agents say that frozen carbon dioxide deposits near the planet's south pole have shrunk for three summers in a row, and that this is evidence that climate change on the red planet is in progress. However, Xmgurg, a Martian local, says Earthlings are to blame.

"This didn't happen until those Earth people came and started driving their robot cars all over the place. Damned illegal aliens just don't have any respect for other people's property!"

Many other Martians echoed Xmgurg's sentiments. Plainly Ranting later discovered that the Spirit landing crushed several Martians to death during it's rough and tumble deployment, Xmgurg's wife and three maggots among them. Official property damage reports and death tolls remained undisclosed as we went to press, however unofficial estimates of the destruction range in the millions of dollars. Recent problems with the spacecraft and it's operation have been attributed to the unsightly buildup of guts and antennae acquired during landing. No formal charges have yet been filed, although insurance claims are still pending. The Martian Sovereignty Alliance accuses NASA of gross negligence, drunk piloting and casual disregard for Martian life. NASA claims the speed limit at Gusev Crater was not posted.

Pluto
The most far-flung planet in the solar system, Pluto, is undergoing change as well. With it's atmospheric pressure having tripled in the last 14 years and the average surface temperature having increased about 3.5° Fahrenheit, NASA spokesmen were quoted as saying "damned if we know", when asked why.



The Illusion Of Self-Importance

The only consistent thing about all these items is that nobody seems to know the cause. Of course, this is not true of our own planet. Or is it? Left-wing scientists will tell you, (while rolling their eyes), that it is unethical to suggest global warming is a result of natural processes. They insist rising temperatures are nothing more than the wages of our sin; a Pandora's Box, an Unconquerable Doom, and deserving only to be laid at the feet of man: all in the spirit of the book of Revalation.

Well, Catch 22 comes to mind, too. The Sun contains over 99.8% of the mass of our solar system, and it's energy output is 386 billion, billion megawatts, (That's 3.86 x 10^32 for you physics types), every second. Every single second of every single day our Sun converts 700 million tons of Hydrogen into 695 million tons of Helium, with the differing mass of 5 million tons being transformed into radiation. How pompous must you be to believe that man can eclipse in power the might of a star? How arrogant do you have to be to believe that some plastic bags and aluminum cans are going to harm something the size of a planet? Earth has seen worse than us. A lot worse. Cometary impacts, meteoric impacts, ice-ages, volcanic eruptions the size of entire continents, total freezes, global fires...

And our cars are going to be the thing that makes life unlivable? Oh please. Am I the only one who thinks it funny that Freon, once used in refrigeration, was found to destroy ozone in the laboratory just a few years before 3M's patent on it ran out? And is it not even funnier that 3M just miraculously happened to have a 'safe' replacement for it developed that would work in existing refrigeration technology in time for it's legislated phase-out?

Global warming is happening everywhere in the solar system. That fact is clear. We are not the cause. If you want to have something to blame, try pointing your finger at the big ball of fire in the sky. The sun's output is at a high point of a trend that has been ongoing for a century or more according to Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

There are those that claim this theory is wrong, and that humans are to blame. They say we have "impacted", (that's "affected" to you and me, but impacted sounds more violent so they say that to sound pretentious and important.), the climate with blah blah blah and now we're getting longer summers and milder winters.

All this is fine if you pull things out of your ass and tweak your predictions on the fly to match what you've already seen. Changing your story about what you've always held to earns you extra points that you can cash in with me for a free kick in the nuts. However, that's not the way science works. You make a prediction based on the data, not generate data based on what essentially amounts to making bets on last week's baseball game. I'm sure we would like to believe that we have more influence on Earth, nay, even in our solar system than the Sun does. That's what the environmentalists are claiming. To these special people I would like to share this bit of wisdom: You may tout our magnificent accomplishments of science and our resulting obligation to shepherd our climate, but never believe it. Next to the power of a star, all our efforts are meager, impotent curiosities. Stop trying to scare people.


Just The Facts, Ma'am

So let's see what facts we have. Put everything on the table and sort the wheat from the chaff.

1) Human beings only live on Earth in this solar system.

2) As far as we know, human beings are the only form of intelligent life capable of civilization in this solar system.

3) Global warming is occurring on several different worlds in this solar system.

4) According to item one, human beings cannot possibly be responsible for anything other than Earth.

5) There is money to be made in stirring up paranoia.

6) The sun directly drives the weather patterns on Earth, and is sufficient to heat an object as far away as Saturn at 890 million miles, (possibly farther).

7) The sun is on a solar cycle of energy output of about 11 years.

8) Changes in this solar cycle are known to cause short term climate change on Earth. At solar maximum, Earth's thin upper atmosphere can see a doubling in temperature, and denser air can puff up to the region of space where the International Space Station orbits, causing increased drag on the station and forcing more frequent boosts from shuttles. to keep it aloft. Skylab, the original space station, was downed by this phenomenon.

10) The sun's energy output is at an over 1000 year high.

11) The sun has been shining at this heightened level of intensity for the last 60 years.

12) Scientific method says that a theory is only valid if it matches observations and makes predictions in line with observed data.

13) Scientists can not explain the data they see on other planets according to their present models.

14) Scientific method says these theories must be incorrect.

15) These same theories are the exact ones used to explain global warming here on Earth.

16) All the planets have a higher temperature than solar radiation alone can account for.

17) Ergo, the method of measure is uniformly wrong and a vital piece is missing.

18) Scientists get their grant money for research through private institutions and government disbursal.

19) It is in the scientists best interests to say what he is expected to say, and do the work he is expected to do without rocking the boat, or he'll lose his funding.

20) There is no number 9.



Conclusion

Put it all together and you have the vocal minority trying to fuck the ignorant majority out of money yet again. I know we've got a 'green' initiative to move to Hydrogen fuel and cleaner sources of energy, but I bet it won't happen until Big Oil and a few politicians on their payroll get a cut. (Are you wondering what "Green" means yet?) Global warming is a purely natural phenomenon as evidenced by core samples taken in Antarctica, and a few other places around the world from tens of thousands of years ago before human beings ever tamed fire.

Speaking of primitive human practices, doesn't this whole thing remind you of the "We need to throw a virgin in the volcano to appease the gods" mentality? Or how about "God Damn it Galileo THE EARTH IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU SEE! You're out of the Church!".

How wonderfully self-important, arrogant, short-sighted and wrong. The sky is falling, all right; Chicken Little would be proud.