Archive for the ‘environment’ Category

That Dirty Librul Media ran a story about how people are refusing to accept global climate change in increasing numbers (or human responsibility for it) despite more and more data proving that it is happening and we are directly to blame.

One of the quotes that was the most disturbing came from the CEO of a West Virginia coal company:

clearly anyone that says that they know what the temperature of the Earth is going to be in 2020 or 2030 needs to be put in an asylum because they don’t.

How anyone becomes the CEO of a company while espousing such nonsense eludes me.

Using that “logic,” we should abandon anything that relies on any sort of long-term prediction. You know, like getting in the car and driving. You just don’t KNOW that the grocery store will still be there when you arrive, so what’s the point of even going? For that matter, do we even know that the store even exists in the first place? Maybe our recollections from past visits were just devil-plagued hallucinations.

Of course, there are two things to consider about this quote: 1) that this man is from West Virginia, a place that is known for accepting things unseen only if the source is ~2,000 years old, and 2) that this man makes gobs of money off of an industry that all those papers agree is causing the problem. I’m actually willing to bet this is less SCIENCE < JESUS and more DENYING THE PROBLEM = MO' MONEY, AND BESIDES I'LL BE DEAD WHEN THE EARTH BLOWS UP ANYWAY.

And of course, there are the immediate shrieks that since the Northeast is currently getting the leading edge of the fourth blizzard in what is already an unprecedented winter season, Global Warming is a myth. Because relative temperature is a clear indicator of average, right? Australia called, you’re wrong. It’s going to hit 88° in Darwin today.

The problem with the term “Global Warming” is twofold – initially because of the aforementioned knee-jerk reaction, but more importantly that it’s a bit of a misnomer. Global Warming is only part of the problem. Global Climate Change, that’s the whole picture. Desertification of once-lush grassland, rising sea levels, increased weather activity, Philadelphia being buried under more snow than anyone has seen in one year since they bothered to start writing this stuff down, Portugal being swept away in a flood… these are all symptoms of what people dismiss because it’s cold outside today on the small speck of the planet that they happen to be occupying.

There’s also the bias that comes from seemingly insignificant numbers. Global catastrophe, the end of civilization as we know it – literally the end of our world – is 5-10 degrees off. 5-10 degrees? The temperature on any given day in my neck of the woods can swing 20-30 degrees, so I can imagine people not quite grasping what an average global rise of 5-10 degrees would even mean. That is an (and I use this phrase to underline the enormity) imperial mega-fuck-ton of heat. That is the difference between the polar ice caps being, you know, on the poles and the polar ice caps washing up on your Bucks County beach-front property. Not that you’d be able to enjoy it, because guess what would happen when 150 million people worldwide find their homes underwater? That’s right, global economic collapse. That beach-front property wouldn’t be so much a place down the shore as it would be a military bunker to keep the hordes away from your food, and (less importantly at that point), your wife and children.

So yeah, I can see why people want to deny that. Because it’s a grim, ugly, fucked-up scenario that is coming soon to a planet near you. Of course, chances are, you’ll be dead by the time it actually happens, but I suggest feeding your children a steady diet of The Road Warrior.

Joe Sestak officially announced that he’s challenging Arlen Specter. So, we have an admiral vs. a ship jumper.

I know that the primary is almost a year away, but this one’s important.  Arlen Specter’s not the worst Senator out there, but he’s on the wrong side of a number of issues and can’t even be bothered to sugar-coat the fact that he is concerned, first and foremost, with his own political career.

Joe Sestak is solid on all of my hot button issues:

He supports gender equality and women’s rights.
He supports LGBT equality and a repeal of DOMA.
He’s good on education, labor, healthcare and the environment.

In short, he’ll make a better advocate for Pennsylvania in the Senate, and while I’m always nervous in an election regardless of the odds, I’d say that anyone with a pulse has a good chance of beating the everloving snot out of Pat Toomey, who is just barely capable of purchasing Geico insurance.

I wrote this on a message board a while back in response to this charge:

Remember Sodom and Gomorrha? It was completely destroyed because God cannot stand this sin. Please read a KJV of the bible.

I have read the KJV Bible. Here’s what it (very explicitly) has to say about your god’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah:

Ezekiel 16:49 “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.”

Sodom was torched for being rude and inattentive to the poor (hmm, sounds familiar). No mention of homosexuality there. There’s actually no implication of homosexuality in the verses you mentioned, either. Yes, I understand that your holy book sometimes uses “to know” in place of “to penetrate in a sexual manner,” but in this case, it makes much more sense if you refrain from turning everything into a sexual reference.

Here’s how it reads if you don’t make a penis joke out of it:

Two strange guys show up in a village city and sequester themselves in the house of a particular person. This being the Bronze Age, people are understandably wary about this. Might be spies from a neighboring tribe, here to case the joint in anticipation of a raid! “Bring them out unto us, that we may know them,” they say, meaning “who are these strangers that you’ve brought in here to spy on us? Inquiring minds want to know!”

Lot’s response? He offers up his virgin daughters to the crowd and suggests that they gang-rape the poor girls (not exactly Father of the Year material, but he’s not done yet). The crowd, security-minded (albeit a bit rude) citizens that they are, are not mollified. Of course, Lot deflowers his daughters himself later in the narrative (now he’s Father of the Year), something your god doesn’t seem to have a problem with.

Now, let’s look at this from your perspective:

Sodom was torched because your god apparently couldn’t find 10 non-homosexuals residing therein. Interesting, considering that homosexuals make up at best 10% of the population. People in those days rarely traveled more than 10 miles from their homes in their entire lives, yet your version of events would have required practically every homosexual for hundreds of miles to make the trip to the ol’ Gayborhood, Sodom and Gomorrah – because since they were all gay, it’s not very likely that they had a self-sustaining population, right? The only way they could maintain it would have been to promote immigration. “Hay HAY hay! Come on down to SODOM and be a SODOMITE! Every day is a gay holiday! Everyone just FLAAAAMES! Well, except for this one guy who might suggest that you gang-rape his daughters, but we don’t talk to him.”

Yeah, your scenario doesn’t seem very likely. Or even plausible.

You need to get over this sex obsession of yours. I understand that your holy book is chock full of people having sex with all manner of inappropriate partners, human or otherwise (with and without your god’s consent), but seriously, you need to let it go.

And to top it all off, I offer you this completely hilarious but not worksafe episode of The Professor Brothers:

As if there was any more evidence needed that Republicans and reality don’t travel in the same social circles, here’s this:

The two best parts:

STEPHANOPOULOS: What is the Republican plan to deal with carbon emissions, which every major scientific organization has said is contributing to climate change?

BOEHNER: George, the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide.

And:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you don’t believe that greenhouse gases are a problem in creating climate change?

BOEHNER: … we’ve had climate change over the last 100 years — listen, it’s clear we’ve had change in our climate. The question is how much does man have to do with it, and what is the proper way to deal with this?

Boehner then finishes up with the standard OMG DON’T RAISE TAXES OR OUTSOURCE claptrap, which is all that the Republicans have anymore.

The economy is going to collapse unless we get it moving again: cut spending (on entitlement programs) and cut taxes (on the rich).

Unemployment is rising: cut spending (on entitlement programs) and cut taxes (on the rich).

Climate change is presenting a clear and present danger that we must deal with: cut spending (on entitlement programs) and cut taxes (on the rich).

Seriously, do they actually have a position on anything that doesn’t involve faux-populist outrage which requires the listener to have no concept of economics or reality?