More liberal nonsense dispelled:
The Environment:
Stupid Environment Quotes
1. The Ozone hole depletion is destroying the planet.
The ozone hole is a natural phenomenon. It has probably existed for thousands of years - we have only recently discovered the hole (and even the ozone layer for that matter) exists. We cannot assume the hole to be man made when we have no proof that there was ever a time when a hole did not exist.
First of all, ozone is created in many ways. (1) When sunlight strikes oxygen in the atmosphere (this happens constantly and instantaneously) (2) when lightening strikes in the atmosphere (3) around certain electrical devices (ozone is the strange odor you can often smell when turning on some electric devices such as air filter ionizers) (4) as a byproduct of factory production (yes, many forms of smog are essentially ozone). So in essence, ozone replenishes itself constantly as a mysterious energy called sunlight enters the atmosphere. This is what currently, and always has, happened. This is also why the ozone layer has survived a myriad volcanic eruptions when extraordinary volumes of chlorine based gases were released.
Antarctica, the location of the "hole," receives almost constant sunlight in the summer and almost constant darkness in the winter (during Antarctica's winter, it is a common occurrence to receive all of 2 hours of sunlight per day!). Due to the earths tilt, hours of daylight at the poles vary greatly. The ozone hole just so happens to fluctuate with the change of seasons and the change of this tilt. Half of the year it recovers while the other half it appears again. The reason: lack of sunlight slows natural "production" of ozone during the dark months so ozone depletes. Sunlight comes back and so does ozone.
Reason 2: Antarctica has very active volcanic activity. Volcanoes spew thousands of gallons of natural chlorine based gases (the very same gases believed to destroy ozone when man made) into the air. In fact, one recent volcanic eruption put more of these "dangerous" chlorine based gases in the air than man had ever emitted in the history of his existence - by over a thousand times! These gases come from deep within the mantel of the earth. They are heated to extreme temperatures by the mantel and volcanic activity. Warm air naturally rises (some scientists note that many of the man made CFCs are too heavy to rise to such altitudes as the ozone layer - except when heated extremely). Volcanoes spew out thousands more gallons of these gases - preheated - than human beings ever have. Yet one thing remains, even with all these gases (both natural and man made), the ozone layer has yet to disappear! Nature itself has released many more gallons of these gases than man could ever release. Miraculously the ozone layer has replenished itself every time and has survived fully intact.
I you still don't believe me, answer these questions: (1) Why is the hole over Antarctica? Air currents across the world spread these "dangerous" gases to all corners of the globe. They do not naturally collect in polar regions. If these gases cover thousands of miles to reach Antarctica, an unsettled continent, why don't they leave traces, other holes, or signs behind. Do they magically click into destruct mode when reaching the poles? I think not. Also, if nature naturally creates ozone (when sunlight strikes oxygen in the upper atmosphere) wouldn't the ozone layer replenish itself if damaged? This obviously compensates for all the volcanoes in the world. The Antarctic is simply effected by natural ozone deterioration and replenishment due to sunlight fluctuations.
2. What about this global warming that is going to flood the world and kill us all?
Again we look to the earths volcanic activity. Chlorine is not the only thing released from volcanoes. Soot and ash are released in much volume. Carbon dioxide is also released in great volumes. But isn't carbon dioxide the major greenhouse gas that is going to cause the greenhouse effect? Well, nature has been emitting large quantities of carbon dioxide for millions of years and they have yet to cause any greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide makes up a very small portion of our atmosphere (which is almost entirely nitrogen and oxygen). Carbon dioxide is also naturally filtered out by plants (oxygen is then released). With all that history and science has shown us about how carbon dioxide is released naturally then used by plants, there are still those (and there always have been those) who speak of doomsday predictions and environmental disasters. Nature has always coped with carbon dioxide. It has been the major producer of carbon dioxide throughout history. There is no evidence that nature will stop producing carbon dioxide now nor is there any that it will lead to global warming.
Many often claim that temperatures are rising. They fail to note that temperature recordings over the last century show a constant pattern. Temperatures in the last two decades (the period the entire global warming scare has developed) have actually shown a decline of a fraction of a degree. Global Cooling! Another misconception is the "this years summer is the hottest ever" fallacy. The summer this year will always seem hotter than last years if you are currently experiencing it. A simple glance at temperature records shows that the trends remain constant. Almost every summer will have a day in which some sort of record high will be experienced as will some record low. This is simply due to weather conditions on that particular day. We can't rely on one days record, much less one years, to judge a weather cycle that has occurred for millions of years.
A few decades ago global cooling was the fear. Now it is global warming. My point is that there have always been environmental disaster claims. They never seem to come true for some reason.
3. Aren't we almost out of oil?
Environmentalists have been making claims for years that we will run out of oil very soon. Anyone can look at the commodities market and realize this is not so. We can safely assume that prices on the commodities market directly reflect availability of resources. Logic shows us that if oil were about to run out (meaning only a few barrels remained) that the price of these barrels would be extremely high. On the other hand, if oil were in abundance the price would be relatively low. In other words, the price mechanism effectively allocates resources such as oil (for example, fewer will be willing to pay $100 a barrel than would $12 a barrel). If we let the price mechanism allocate oil, situations such as shortages will be dealt with naturally. If prices start to dramatically rise, people will naturally look for and convert to alternative energy means. As for now, recent oil prices and gas as low as $0.90 a gallon are clear indicators that oil is plentiful.
(Note to environmentalists: If you are still worried about running out of oil, build an electric car. Leave the rest of us alone to make our own choices. If we suddenly run out of oil next week (which we will not), you will be fine. As for me, that is a risk I will take)
When scientists estimate oil remaining, they estimate known accessible oil. The problem with this is it lacks one major element. New oil fields are being found daily and that new methods of getting oil that was previously inaccessible are being invented constantly. Thus the known accessible oil is constantly changing. Estimates from twenty years ago ar much less than estimates of today due to this. Future estimates will probably be higher than those of today. Notice that I am not saying our oil reserve is infinite, just that there are other oil reserves not known and not accessible today. For these reasons, scientific estimations and predictions have yet to come true. (By the way, the 70's oil shortages were caused mostly by interference with the free market price mechanism. The market must be allowed to allocate in order to prevent such a shortage. If we were truly running out of oil then as many claimed, we would certainly be out today.)
4. Why don't you support protection of our environment?
I do support some aspects of protecting the environment. I simply choose to reject the dogma that has replaced scientific and economic fact in modern environmentalism. If somebody was dumping nuclear waste in my backyard, I would certainly object. I support, as anybody would, enough "environmentalism" to ensure sanitary living conditions. This is not the environmentalism I disagree with. I simply call to question the doomsday scenarios such as ozone depletion, global warming, global cooling, energy depletion, overpopulation, and self destruction. Often is the case in which one scientists or one group such as Greenpeace can theorize an environmental doomsday scenario and it will automatically be accepted as fact (often no questions asked). Anyone who dares question it is an "enemy of the environment." Cartoons such as "Captain Planet" brainwash our children to think that corporations and businesses are bent solely on destroying the environment at all costs for no other reason than to do so (For you environmentalist, such myth about business is not and never has been the case). All I am pointing out is that those who oppose certain environmental policy are not greed driven enemies of the environment bent on world destruction. Those who oppose certain environmental policy are merely asking questions and pointing out other possible explanations.
Environmentalism has always been around. It is not a new thing of recent decades. The car is an environmental solution in some ways. It does keep horse droppings off our city streets and therefore prevent spread of disease. That is exactly how the car was viewed when introduced almost a century ago.
All I am essentially saying is that it is my right to disagree with the modern environmental movement. Doing so, however, does not make me a polluter or greed driven air poisoner to term Algore. Because I oppose certain environmental legislation does not make me one who wants to kill our planet and strip mine the rain forest. There are two sides to the environmental issue just as there are to most issues. By considering the other side to the treehuggers and greenpeacers we may discover that some of their doomsday scenarios just may be questionable.
members.tripod.com |
