This blog is dedicated to logical Reasoning, political consciousness, religious dialogue, intelligent thoughts, uncommon wisdom, current events, and humor.
This is why we can’t trust any so-called experts. Every bit of opinion and review is completely subjective. No wonder we are such confused consumers.
Case in point: The 2010 Honda Insight Hybrid was test driven recently by Car & Driver as well as by Jeremy Clarkson of BBC Top Gear writing for Times On Line. I present you with an excerpt of both reviews:
” …with tight suspension motions, a firm ride, well-connected steering, and a no-fat musculature. Interior sound levels are mild and well controlled, especially at freeway speeds. Cockpit space is generous for two in front, a bit tight on the knees in back if front occupants are unwilling to compromise on legroom. The rear bench is high, firm, and exceptionally well shaped for lumbar support.”
“It’s terrible. Biblically terrible. Possibly the worst new car money can buy. It’s the first car I’ve ever considered crashing into a tree, on purpose, so I didn’t have to drive it any more.”
“So you’re sitting there with the engine screaming its head off, and your ears bleeding, and you’re doing only 23mph because that’s about the top speed, and you’re thinking things can’t get any worse …”
” … feels as if it’s been made from steel so thin, you could read through it. And the seats, finished in pleblon, are designed specifically, it seems, to ruin your skeleton. This is hairy-shirted eco-ism at its very worst.”
What else could go wrong? Even the Sun is not immune to the effects of global recession. It is reported that the sun is the least active it’s been in decades and the dimmest in a hundred years. This odd behavior is causing some scientists to recall the Little Ice Age. → source
You remember The Little Ice Age, don’t you? Of course you . . . don’t. It was the period of time between approximately the 16th century (1650 ish) to the mid 19th century (1850 ish). Glaciers advanced, Winters were horrible, and even Summers were cold. It is reported that Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein during a summer vacation when it was snowing in July.
It would be interesting if global warming turns into global cooling in 100 years. Does that mean we should start spewing more CO2 into the atmosphere just so that we can reverse the impact of global cooling? Will Al Gore make a new movie called “A Inconvenient Coincidence”?
Those who know me are well aware that I don’t have a strong stand, either way, about climate change as a result of human activities. I never miss an opportunity to speak with people on both sides of the issue, which has yielded an interesting pattern for me.
Without too much generalization, we can all agree that most conservatives do not believe in global warming as a result of human activities, while most liberals do. We can further agree that religion is a strong pillar of conservatism. That doesn’t imply, and I didn’t say, that liberals are not as strong in their religious faith. Do not leave me irrelevant comments.
That said, the entire equation of global warming is a simple one for most religious individuals. God created everything, and gave full dominion of it to his most awesome creation (humans):
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
On the right side of the spectrum are most religious people who believe that because God created everything and because humans are the designated beneficiaries of everything on earth, using earth’s natural resources could not possibly harm it, much less cause its destruction.
In the middle are religious folks who believe that dominion does not imply domination. Hence, it is not only possible to harm the earth, it is the responsibility of humans to protect and preserve God’s creations. On the left side of the spectrum are non-religious people who, of course, believe earth can easily be harmed by humans because there’s no Divine power to stop it.
If you don’t believe in a higher power, then you are well versed in the concept of randomness and evolution. As such, have you ever considered that perhaps it is our natural evolutionary programming and destiny to destroy ourselves and our home? Therefore, there may be nothing we can do to prevent this inevitable conclusion. That doesn’t mean you should remain silent about your core beliefs. It merely implies that all efforts to conserve and preserve the environment may be fruitless at the end in light of humans’ built-in mechanism of destruction. The end may be a foregone conclusion.
If you do believe in a higher power, then you are likely to not worry about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or drilling for oil. Earth is only a temporary home for humans, and we simply do not have the power or the influence to destroy God’s earthly creations. Species go extinct by God’s will, not by humans’ carelessness. Ice caps melt as God desires, not because humans spew CO2 into the atmosphere. Therefore, there’s nothing to worry about.
Here’s the interesting dichotomy. Religion and conservatism are all about doing the right thing and personal responsibility. The one glaring exception seems to be in the area of environmental movement. In this case, religion appears to give us a free pass.
I found this interesting. On April 22, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) talked about carbon dioxide in the context of global warming, climate change, or whatever it is called these days.
“Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth.”
“Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful, but there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that Carbon Dioxide is a harmful gas. It is a harmless gas. ”
I personally have not decided whether human activity is harmful to the environment. Tag me as indecisive. I don’t care. We simply do not have sufficient evidence, or time line, to irrefutably prove it one way or another, and we never will.
But I’m sufficiently intelligent to know one thing: natural does not necessarily equate to harmless. To think otherwise is just un-naturally stupid.
Do you know what else is natural Congresswoman? Poo. Is poo harmless in your world?
It’s official. It was only a matter of time. Wiping your butt is bad for the environment. You should not use toilet paper – or at least the quilted, ultra-soft, multi-ply, soft kind.
You know how that toilet paper in your office bathroom feels like sandpaper? Well, that’s good. The soft, fluffy kind is evil [insert a big Dr. Evil-like laughter here]. In fact, it is so evil that it’s better for the environment if you drove a Hummer instead. → source
You can read the linked article, but here it is in a nutshell. Toilet paper can be – and in fact is – made out of recycled paper. But the fluffy, quilted feel requires fibers from live, standing trees. And a lot of those trees are harvested from rare Canadian forests. Americans have an insatiable appetite for softness on their butts. Other nations are much less likely to care as much.
Let carbon credit trading begin: cap & trade baby!
Here’s positive proof that any well-meaning endeavor and good intention can quickly turn into insincere and downright insulting venture.
Case in point: Global warming as a result of human activity has been debated for decades. We all know and have heard the arguments on both sides. Almost everyone has formed an opinion.
Sir Nicholas Stern advises UK government about the economic threat posed by global warming. According to a recent article in the Guardian, Stern labels climate change deniers as “ridiculous” and akin to “flat-earthers”. → source
In 2007, Ellen Goodman of The Boston Globe wrote an op-ed, stating: “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” → source
Seriously? I personally don’t claim to thoroughly understand climate change, and I’m among a minority of people who do not have strong opinions on this issue one way or another. But I’m fairly certain that those who genuinely do not believe in global warming (as a result of human activities) cannot be compared with flat-earthers and Holocaust deniers.
Also, notice the clever heading of the articles. It’s all about ‘climate change’ not ‘global warming’. Everyone knows that earth’s climate has changed by itself due to natural forces for millennia and long before the presence of humans. Oh, sorry, I didn’t mean to say millennia. It can’t be any longer than 6,000 years, of course! That was back when humans saddled dinosaurs and rode them like cowboys. If you believe that, please purchase your Creation Museum tickets here.
The point is that the old ‘global warming’ term always carried the implication that the current situation was a direct result of human activity. The new term ‘climate change’ insinuates natural causes; therefore, skepticism suggests mental disability.
I’m all for better awareness of environmental impact of our lives. But sometimes we just go off the deep end. New research indicates that “each query submitted to Google has a quantifiable impact. Specifically, two queries performed through a desktop computer generate about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a cup of tea.” → source
In other words, the more than 200 million Internet searches every day create enough CO2 to boil . . . a hell of a lot of water! Here’s another stat. It is estimated that up to 2% of global CO2 emissions are due to Internet searches.
OK, fine. That’s good to know. But so what? What exactly is the expectation? To do fewer searches? Come on! Should I instead get in my car and actually drive to the library? Perhaps I should take the bus instead of driving. Oh, I just remembered. There are no buses between where I live and the library.
To put everyone’s mind at ease, Google has detailed information outlining how green they (and their data centers) are compared with everyone else’s data centers. I could give you the URL in this post, but I’m going to let you boil some water instead.
Ironic, isn’t it? Al Gore invented the Internet, and now his very invention is destroying the environment which has made him so famous and wealthy.
Well, I’ve got to go now. I’m about to boil a whole bathtub full of water.
This is why we can’t trust any so-called experts. Every bit of opinion and review is completely subjective. No wonder we are such confused consumers.
Posted by jmjorat 
It’s official. It was only a matter of time. Wiping your butt is bad for the environment. You should not use toilet paper – or at least the quilted, ultra-soft, multi-ply, soft kind.
Sir Nicholas Stern advises UK government about the economic threat posed by global warming. According to a recent article in the Guardian, Stern labels climate change deniers as “ridiculous” and akin to “flat-earthers”. → 
Also, notice the clever heading of the articles. It’s all about ‘climate change’ not ‘global warming’. Everyone knows that earth’s climate has changed by itself due to natural forces for millennia and long before the presence of humans. Oh, sorry, I didn’t mean to say millennia. It can’t be any longer than 6,000 years, of course! That was back when humans saddled dinosaurs and rode them like cowboys. If you believe that, please purchase your Creation Museum tickets 
RSS Feed This Blog
Logical Complex Infinitive 