Global Warming is hot. There is not much apart from sex that is a hotter topic and sells more news these days. Unfortunately, global warming is probably not a joke and something that we are just beginning to see the effects of.
Disclaimer - this post is a offtopic rant. My blog - my right. Comprende?
always, there are the yay! and the nay! sayers on this issue of climate
change, but.. and this is a big booty blubber rubbing butt sounding
but.. the nay! sayers seem to have in common a heartfelt conviction that
the notion of human intervention is a conspiracy for some reason or
In my view, many of the nay! sayers are like ostrich with
their heads in the sand, clinging to false information because it feels
good, and desperately hoping the storm blows by unnoticed...
to his own, but while ignorance may be bliss, self-indoctrination is
pure stupidity. I am not suprised that the loudest cries come from the
main perpetrators... If you have a hard time swallowing that you
probably belong to that group.
My advice is , try to get out
more, smell the air, travel the planet a bit and check out other regions
than your local community...
If you all are wondering, this rant is the product of "the polar bear climate change photo"
thread at dpreview that started as a discussion about photography
rights and quickly bloomed into a more ecology focused heated exchange
As you might have guessed by now - I for one think we are
affecting the climate and i also think many a nagging feeling this might
be the case, which is probably a bit scary, and like stubborn kids in
the face of truth they try to shrug it off with a petualant "no!".
As I said, my blog - my right. Venting time galore.
those that comment on forums and claim scientific evidence denying the
effects of 9 billion humans on the planetary ecology and biosphere...
Grow up. Try to be objective, educate yourself.. then comment. Citing a
couple of papers funded by the lobby groups is not very convincing. It
sort of has the opposite effect, get it?
Let´s use the brain for a
second. Which group has most to loose by change.. the
industry/financial lobby community, or the scientific/climate lobby
community? Which group is more apt to receive government support in view
of political stability? Perhaps the group that advocates status quo?
Which audience is most easily manipulated? Very probably those who live
in ignorance with their head in the sand.. and later when the shit hits
the fan go "uh.. what the..? how? why? who?" .. who? how? why? c´mon,
Lets make a small test out of this. 6 questions. If you
get 3 or more answers right (approximate is acceptable) I will consider
you educated and someone to take seriously on this topic. If you only
know the answer to 2 or less you will deemed ignorant, uneducated,
indoctrinated and in need of a tuneup -- on this issue. A flunk and a
A) How much airplane fuel does it take to fill a jumbo jet?
B) Why does northern Europe risk ice-age climate if global warming constinues?
c) Does more or less sunlight reach plankton today compared to 20 years ago?
E) Why are plankton important to humans?
F) How many people in USA would be affected if global sealevels rise 2 inches?
G) By how many fossil fuel cars there be India and China by the year 2010?
Here is a bonus.. get this one right and you are superbly enlightened...
What is the main cause of global dimming?
The original dpreview thread has some enjoyable sources of quotable material like:
fact, 800 years ago the earth was considerably warmer than it is today.
And there were no SUVs to blame for it back then...." dude, please
update your knowledgebase asap.
"Man's CO2 output probably has
some impact on climate, but that impact is below the threshold of
natural variability. We can't detect our own signature, it's background
"What a pathetic joke this all is. And to think of all
the time and money wasted on "global warming" while their are children
in the world starving to death." Um.. well, i hope you will be taking on
some of the refugees that may be coming your way during the next
"You have to be a complete fool to see a picture of some
polar bears playing on some ice and think they're there because the
north pole melted and they're dying. Are the people who attend Al Gore's
lectures really so ignorant?" This is a good one.. you are the only one
seeing ghosts in the closet. Probably nobody on the whole planet
thought the specific bears in the images were in danger, or that the
bears as a species will die tomorrow. - it is called symbolism. doh
of the warming occurred prior to the post-WWII ramp up in CO2 output.
Post WWI saw a sustained cooling period despite dramatic increases in
CO2 output." No comment, apart from suggesting further studies on
influence and effects by the original poster.
"In fact all of
them completely denied that global warming was occuring until they saw
the movie "An Inconvenient Truth." Please get out of your provincial
box a little bit more and try not to push historic "facts" on others
based on your own limited experiences.. The globe is a bit bigger than
your own neighborhood.
"The real danger is Al Gore, have you seen
how freaking big that guy is getting? At the rate he's growing I fear
he will eventually block out the sun!" haha, finally someone with a
sense of humor :)
"The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory CO2
reductions (of 30%), which, in Dr. Fred Singer’s opinion, would have an
undetectable effect on global warming, but have a devastating effect on
the U.S. economy." The fact that the original poster is posting this in a
context of we must protect our status quo says it all.
This one is my favorite:
"Human activity can contribute to no more than 0.117% of the greenhouse effect.
Do you understand that?"
As proof Gary points to the following source of information
enough of the rant. If you are wondering what to shoot on stock basis..
for the mid to long term perspective, environmental images, both
negative and positive will surely be in demand.