home > archive > 2010 > this article

Search this site Search WWW

In remembrance of the great global-warming snow job

By Karen Norling
web posted February 8, 2010

Am I suggesting, via the title above, that global-warming wackos are going away any time soon, in light of the recently-exposed CRU emails?  On the contrary, I'm certain the wackos are not going away any time soon.  Why am I certain?  Because each of them is one or more of the following:  1) mentally ill, 2) stupid, 3) desperate to keep his/her job.

It must be said here that whether any given wacko happens to be 1 or 2 or 3 -- or some combination thereof -- all wackos share one ultimate goal: to exact from us every God-given liberty we have ever known, to wrest from us our wondrous, Capitalist way of life.

Hence, I'm writing this paper -- for two reasons, actually: 1) if, at some point in the distant future, this  most monumental of scams dwindles down to a flickering ember, I want to remember the lies the wackos relentlessly insisted we believe, as well as the idiotic things they proposed we do (to cool our feverish expanse), and 2) I want to state,  for the record, that I knew the scam was nothing but a wholly alarmist, exceedingly ridiculous scam from the very beginning.

Now, to the lies and the truths that betray them:

Lie: CO2 is a pollutant

Truth: CO2not only is not a pollutant, it is downright essential for plant growth. In fact, at much higher concentrations -- such as those found in greenhouses -- it makes plants thrive (can you say "greenhouse effect"?).  And fancy this -- if you can. Thriving plants release oxygen into the atmosphere -- oxygen that human beings need (to inhale) to survive.  Pretty nifty, huh?  The symbiotic relationship?  Who'd have thought that what we learned in science class -- back in grade school -- remains as true today as it ever was?  We need to think of it this way: CO2 is Mother Nature's perfectly-balanced, air-borne fertilizer for every plant that grows, every plant we harvest and consume.  Indeed, according to Dr. Fred Goldberg, climate analyst and authority on polar history and exploration, the whole world would be better off if the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere were significantly higher.

A personal note here.  Though I hate to spend my husband's hard-earned money on any form of energy, I get flat-out ecstatic at the thought of just how much CO2 I can "gift" the earth simply by living my life to its fullest day after day.  Indeed, each time I turn on my big-screen TV, or dry my hair, or listen to the radio, or use the dishwasher, microwave, toaster oven, clothes dryer, air conditioner, computer, printer,  fire-place, space heater, I can feel good about myself because I'm "spreading the wealth" of the CO2 I helped to create.  And I can feel even better (about myself) each time I drive my non-hybrid CRV to sundry destinations of my choice.Sometimes I take short trips (like trips to Wal-Mart for, say, high-end toilet paper and big plastic bottles of soda pop). Yet sometimes I take longer trips with my husband (like trips across town to Long-Horn Steakhouse or the Great Lakes Mall).  Either way, short trip or long, I'm doing my part to bolster the health of our planet, am I not?  

On a more serious and sobering note -- even taken together, all my appliances and my CRV, emit very little CO2 compared to the most prevalent greenhouse gas already present in our atmosphere: water vapor.  Yes, water vapor makes up approximately 96.5% of all greenhouse gases and is thereby about 100 times more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2.

And I thought I was doing so much to "green" our hallowed habitat.  Fiddlesticks!  (I have to give credit where credit is due: nature "greens" itself far more than I -- one tiddlywink human being -- ever could.)  

Lie: Global temperatures are rising at an unprecedented rate.

Truth: Global temperatures are not only not rising, they are declining. Proof?  The National Climatic Data Center's own most-recently-updated graph reveals none other than a cooling trend.  For your viewing pleasure, you may find additional graphs here and here.

Speaking of the current cooling trend, take a peek at some of the headlines from around the globe within the last few years: "Worst winter storms in 50 years hit China."  "Record Low Temperatures Around the World"  "Winter storm brings earliest snow ever."  "No let[-]up in Europe's harshest winter in years.""Houston gets earliest snow fall on record" and "Record[-]breaking snowfall from Houston, Texas, to Grand Rapids, Michigan."

So much for the wackos' claim that the world's going to roast like a Thanksgiving turkey and dispatch every one of us (earth-despising hedonists) in the process.  Oh, that's right.  We're just experiencing a transient cooling-period before temperatures spike to out-and-out catastrophic levels.  Note: when the wackos realized that Mother Nature wasn't falling in lockstep with their blistering predictions, they were forced to revise their most beloved "global warming" catchphrase.  Now, instead of "global warming," it's "climate change."  I don't know about you, but that little revision sold me immediately!  (See what numbskulls they think we are?)

Lie: Glaciers around the world are melting, thereby causing: 1) polar bears to drown, and 2) sea levels to rise.

Truth: First, the harebrained "glaciers-are-melting" theory.  According to an article in USA Today: ." . . the ice in West Antarctica is thickening, reversing some earlier estimates that the sheet was melting . . . This finding comes less than a week after a separate paper in Nature reported that Antarctica's harsh desert valleys -- long considered a bellwether for global climate  change -- have grown noticeably cooler since the mid-1980s."  Moreover, an article states that, according to the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, "glaciers in Norway are again growing," after years of decline.For a partial list of expanding glaciers -- in  places such as Canada, Italy, Switzerland, Greenland, Ecuador, California, Colorado and Alaska, to name a few -- go here.

Next, the polar bears.  In a heritage.com article titled: "Global Warming: Using the Polar Bear to Impose Costly Measures," Ben Lieberman states that global (worldwide) polar-bear numbers "have actually [more than] doubled, from an estimated 8,000-10,000 in 1965-1970 to 20,000-25,000 today [March 2, 2009]."  But what about those photos we've seen of bears standing on seemingly tenuous fragments of ice? Well, it turns out that polar bears can swim -- up to 62 miles and for several hours -- in one shot.  The point is, were a bear to find itself on a melting chunk of ice, ostensibly stranded in the middle of the ocean, it would simply swim back to the shore!  Funny, the wackos never mention this particular polar-bear proclivity in any of their rants.  But that should come as no surprise.  Using common sense has never been one of their strong suits.

Finally, the sea levels rising.  To totally discredit this lie, I'm going straight to the world expert on sea-level fluctuation: Swedish geologist and physicist, Nils-Axel Morner.  Dr. Morner maintains that regardless of fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising."  "It hasn't risen in 50 years," he adds.  Ultimately, he says, in so many words, that: 1) if the sea level rises at all during this century, it will not rise beyond 10 cm. (allowing for a-plus-or-minus-10-cm. margin of error), and 2) the fundamental laws of physics assure us that the apocalyptic predictions of wackos such as Al Gore and his ilk, could not possibly materialize.

Lie:  Hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes are increasing.

Truth:  With regard to the wacko-centric delusion that we're already experiencing a greater number of hurricanes than normal, and that the number of those hurricanes will continue to rise, I quote Ryan N. Maue, founder of the Florida State Global Hurricane Update page: ." . . both Northern Hemisphere and overall Global hurricane activity has continued to sink to levels not seen since the 1970s.  Even more astounding, when the Southern Hemisphere hurricane data is analyzed to create a global value, we see that Global Hurricane Energy has sunk to 30-year lows, at least."

Moving on to the alleged increase in tornadoes.  A November 4, 2009 article affirms the following: "Tornado activity in the United States for 2009 is reaching unusually low levels according to statistics from NOAA'S [the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's] Storm Prediction Center . . ." 

And now, the earthquakes.  We have only to look at the government's own "Earthquake Hazards Program" FAQ titled, "Common Myths about Earthquakes," to find the answer to the question so many wackos have browbeaten the unsuspecting among us to ask: "Why are we having so many earthquakes?"  Here's that answer:  "Although it may seem that we are having more  earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant throughout this century and, according to our records, have actually seemed to decrease in recent years."  Note: this FAQ was last updated on October 27, 2009.

Of course, now that the wackos have had to admit to that we are not -- and have not been, for 11 years -- experiencing a warming phase, they tell us that all the above-proposed calamities will begin to materialize within the next few years.  Alright, wackos near and far.  Answer me this: if the experts can't predict, with any certainty, what the weather's going to be from one day to the next, how can they possibly predict what it's going to be decades into the future?

Lie:  Forests are being destroyed, via clear-cutting, at an alarming rate.

Truth: America's forests are not disappearing. According to C. J.Carnacchio, in his expose titled: "The Sky Falls on Environmental Myths", "There are 730 million acres of forestland in the United States today.  The growth on those acres is extremely dense, with a total of 230 billion trees (that's 900 trees for each American)."  To put into perspective the growth of forests over the last nearly-400 years, I further quote Carnacchio: "When the pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, 45% of what is now the 48 contiguous United States was covered by mature forestland.  Today, 32% is still covered by forest."  That means that two-thirds of the total forestland that existed before the pilgrims arrived, still exists.

Carnacchio goes on say that, "Contrary to environmentalist propaganda, clear-cutting does not leave behind a scarred and barren wasteland . . . [clear-cutting] is usually done in a checkerboard manner leaving behind large areas of forest.  The areas where cutting occurs are then replanted." 

Holy Shmoly!  People are replanting clear-cut areas of forest?  Why, I was under the impression that the only trees we'll ever have are the ones already standing -- i.e., that once all living trees are (ruthlessly) severed from their (life-giving) roots (by those greedy, jack-booted-thug loggers): no more trees.  You mean we can plant new ones?  Inconceivable!

Finally, Carnacchio quotes the U.S. Forest Service regarding clear-cutting: "Drastic as it may seem, clear[-]cutting plays a legitimate and prominent role in scientific forestry.  Properly done, it paves the way for a new, unencumbered and hence vigorously[-]growing forest" (emphasis mine).  Common sense rules the day, once again.

Lie: Wind and solar energy, as well as hydrogen fuel-cell technology, can best combat global warming.

Truth: Again, since we're in the midst of a cooling period, it seems a bit pointless to even discuss what types of energy can best reduce "global warming." So let us take this opportunity to instead discuss how utterly useless -- as well as outrageously overpriced -- such "renewable" sources of energy are.

First, wind energy.  Common sense has always told me that windmills are not reliable sources of energy because the wind doesn't blow all the time in any given place.  But here's something common sense didn't tell me: "When the wind . . . blows too hard . . . [wind] turbines can't generate electricity" (emphasis mine). Yes, you read that correctly: the wind can blow too hard for windmills to generate electricity.  In fact, if winds don't blow precisely "between 16 miles per hour and 60 miles per hour," guess what?  Zip, zero, nada energy.

And solar?  Again, common sense tells me that solar energy is not a reliable source of energy because the sun doesn't shine all the time anywhere on earth. Which brings me to a number of serious shortcomings wind and solar energy share: 1) Both wind and solar need to store energy that can be used during times when no electricity is being generated. However, the batteries used to store this energy are capable of storing only limited amounts. 2) Both wind and solar are extremely expensive not only to construct/install, but also to maintain.  3) Both must be subsidized by the government -- -- merely to survive, let alone, to thrive.

While proponents of wind and solar energy contend that the costs associated with both have been reduced, over the years, the fact is, "the costs of alternative sources such as gas-fired generation have declined even more" over that same number of years.

And, finally, hydrogen fuel-cell technology.  The wackos are always telling us that hydrogen fuel-cell cars burn only hydrogen and therefore excrete only safe, pristine water vapor (again, the leading greenhouse gas).  True enough. But the question is: how is the hydrogen made?  It's made via burning those iniquitous fossil fuels.  So much for curtailing CO2 emissions.  (Of course, we could "go nuclear" and start harvesting hydrogen from water through "electrolysis" -- but we all know what that would mean: the scaredy-cat, crackpot wackos would "meltdown" to an even greater degree than they already have.)

Before we move on, a word about efficiency.Tim Considine, Ph.D., said it best in an interview he gave to former Research/Penn State associate editor, Dana Bauer, ." . . producing hydrogen [the way we do today] is expensive and energy intensive. It takes about six gallons of gasoline to make and compress a little over two pounds of hydrogen."  Those two pounds of hydrogen carry "about the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline."

I just asked my nuclear-physicist husband, Jim, if technological advances will likely overcome this (glaring) inefficiency at some point in the future.  He answered a definitive "no," then explained why he answered "no."  Don't worry.  I'll spare you the laborious details.

Lie: Generating nuclear power and recycling nuclear waste are dangerous enterprises.

Truth: What better way to discredit the wackos than to compare the ghastly disaster that transpired in Chernobyl -- RUSSIA -- to the success story that was Three-Mile Island, in Pennsylvania?  (The wackos are quite fond of comparing Chernobyl to Three-Mile Island to prove that nuclear power plants -- wherever they are in the world -- are deadly.  Yet, were the wackos to be honest with themselves, they'd concede that such a comparison proves exactly the opposite.)

Plainly put, what happened at Chernobyl could never happen in the U.S. because: 1) we don't use (and never have used) 'breeder reactors" to produce commercial energy.  (Breeder reactors are the  inherently-hazardous reactors the Russians were using when the Chernobyl meltdown occurred), 2) we don't attempt to execute the risky, altogether senseless procedures the Russians at Chernobyl attempted to execute (we have stringent rules and regulations that prohibit such lunacy), and 3) we build federally-regulated containment structures (made of steel or reinforced concrete) around our reactors.  These airtight containment-structures prevent the escape of radiation into the atmosphere, should a meltdown occur.

While approximately 50 people died at Chernobyl, not one person died at Three-Mile Island "because the automatic shutdown features and backup systems" worked precisely as they were designed to work.

Nevertheless, as innocuous as the accident at Three-Mile Island was, various "technological and procedural changes have been implemented by industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to considerably reduce the risk of a . . . [similar incident]" from ever taking place again.  In other words, what was already safe in 1979, is now even safer in 2010.

Onward, to recycling nuclear waste.  The wackos love to blather on about conservation of resources.  But when it comes to nuclear energy, the idea of such conservation flits straight out the proverbial window. The fact is, "spent" (used) nuclear fuel retains 96% of the uranium it originally contained.  Yes.  96%.  And that 96% can be recycled -- three to four times -- greatly reducing the amount of toxic waste that ultimately needs to be stored underground in repositories such as Nevada's Yucca Mountain Repository -- that for which the Obama administration has contemptuously cut all funds.

Come on, wackos.  You're always telling us we need to do things the way those in European countries do. Well, France has been recycling its nuclear waste (as well as the waste from numerous other European nuclear power plants) for thirty years -- without any adverse consequences.  In other words, there have been no terrorist attacks, no "bad guys" making off with uranium, no attempts toward nuclear-weapons proliferation, and no explosions -- accidental or otherwise.  I say, we follow France's example -- effective today.  After all, U.S. scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, developed the technology for recycling nuclear waste sixty years ago.  It's pure foolishness not to utilize that technology now.

Before I move on to the next lie, I must mention that I do have one regret in so staunchly supporting the unfettered production of nuclear energy (likewise, the no-holds-barred recycling of spent nuclear fuel).  You see, neither producing nuclear energy nor recycling its wastes releases any CO2 into the atmosphere. Indeed, both processes fail to contribute one iota to the rejuvenation of our sacred orb.  What more can I do than wholeheartedly apologize to plant life everywhere?  If only there were a way to compensate for nuclear's lamentable lack of CO2 production.  But alas, there isn't. At least not that I'm aware of.

Lie: Diesel is Dirty.

Truth: This one's pretty simple.  Refiners have reduced the sulfur content (the main pollutant) in diesel fuel by 97%. If you wackos can't figure out that this reduction makes for significantly cleaner air, you're even shyer a full pack of Magic Markers than I imagined.  One more advantage to using today's clean diesel:  cars can travel considerably farther on a tank of clean diesel than they can travel on a tank of gasoline.  Know what that means?  As we increase our use of diesel, we'll decrease our use of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves.  

Of course, if the wackos would "allow" us to drill that petite "postage stamp" in ANWR -- or the bottoms of the oceans off the coasts of California and Florida -- we wouldn't have to depend on terrorists to supply the oil we consume.  But, as we all know, the wackos don't want us to use any oil at all -- whether it comes  from Saudi Arabia or exists  right here in the United States.  Again, why use oil when we can avail ourselves of Mother Nature's impeccably-reliable, superlatively-efficient sources of energy: solar, wind and fuel cells? 

Are you ready to say: "Arrivederci," electricity?  Hello, horse-and-buggy?  Fetid, disease-laden outhouses -- here we come?

Lie: "Eco-friendly" products work as well as those eco-­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­inimical products we've been using (victoriously) for decades.

Truth: Ever heard of having to "strip" a "stripper"?  Neither had I until I bought a "tree-hugger"-type product named "Soy-It PolyStripper" to strip the varnish off Jim's 45-year-old rocking chair.  Admittedly, the Soy-It made quick work of the varnish.But when I painted the chair the next day, I realized -- to my horror -- the Soy-It had left a residue (on the chair) that wouldn't allow the paint to dry.  Not knowing what else to do, I bought a box of Brillo pads and a bottle of degreaser and tried to scrub the paint and the residue away.  While I succeeded in removing the paint, I did anything but succeed in removing the residue.  How did I know I hadn't succeeded in removing the residue?  Well, when I painted the chair a second time, the paint still would not dry.  That's when I told Jim he'd have to find a way to remove the residue himself, or else I was going to drag the chair out to the sidewalk and let the trash man (more appropriately, "sanitation engineer") haul it away.  Ultimately, Jim did come across something that would remove the residue: mineral spirits.  Yes -- those diabolical, highly-flammable, inordinately-toxic mineral spirits. Consequently, he "stripped" the "stripper," and I painted the chair.  And wouldn't you know?  The paint actually dried.  Oorah! for a product that does smack-dab what its manufacturer claims it will do.  (FYI: when I contacted the president of the company that manufactures Soy-It, he refused to take responsibility for his profoundly-defective product.)

Now let's talk about Jim's brand new ASUS PC, Model CG5290.  From the very beginning, this highly-advanced PC ended up crashing every time Jim tried to use it.  Finally, after about two weeks of tinkering with it, he figured out what the problem was: the built-in, CO2-reducing Q-Fan "cooling system" -- more accurately referred to as the "ecologically-sensitive" doohickey that wouldn't allow the fan to run as hard as it needed to run to make the computer work properly.  Now that he's bypassed the (feckless) cooling system, I can hear the fan roaring like my neighbor's outdated generator whenever I come within 20 feet of his den. Sure, the fan is loud.  But it lets Jim's powerhouse computer be Jim's powerhouse computer. 

On to compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs).  Jim and I swapped out nearly all our incandescent bulbs for CFLs, over the past few years, in the naïve hope that doing so would save us money.  After all, CFLs are supposed to last an average of five to eight years.  Unfortunately, in our household, they rarely make it past six or seven MONTHS.  Call me clueless, but I just don't get what advantages there are to using them. Their strikingly-white effulgence makes us feel as if we're in a cold, sterile hospital or doctor's office; they start to dim long before they burn completely out; they're rarely able to withstand power surges; they contain mercury; and worst of all, because they succumb so prematurely, they would actually cost us more money -- were we not to keep all our receipts and return the bulbs for full refunds as soon as each of them fizzles.

Lastly, I turn to a product called "Easy Water." "Easy Water" is a so-called "water-conditioning" system that doesn't -- unlike traditional water softeners -- use salt to "condition"/soften water.  There's only one, trifling disadvantage to purchasing an Easy Water system: it doesn't work.  I know firsthand because Jim's parents invested in such a system when they built their brand new, 4,000-sq.-ft. "compound" in 2001.  Not long after they moved into the compound, they realized the system wasn't preventing the lime-scale build-up it was supposed prevent.  That's when they bought a traditional -- salt-consumin' -- water softener (like the one they'd used in their former home) and kicked the "great pretender" to the curb.

Memo to wackos: no salt = no "conditioning"/softening = no reason to waste what little is left of one's salary after Uncle Sam has pilfered his vast array of taxes from it.

Now it's time for us to take a detour from the lies the wackos insist we believe, to the imbecilicthingsthey implore us to do (to revive our swiftly-incinerating biosphere).  Note: I intend to thoroughly enjoy myself as I "tick" each of them "off" ("them" being the things as well as the wackos, if you know what I mean).

Keep in mind that Jim and I have undertaken a few of the following wacko entreaties (at least the rational ones) for the last 20 years -- NOT because we aim to save the planet -- but because we're hell-bent to squeeze as much as we can out of the scant amount of our paychecks the government doesn't lay its hoggish hands on.

Let's get started.  According to a feature article on the "Green America" website, we need to "fire" our dryers because dryers are "luxury" items -- "unnecessary extravagance[s]" -- we can't afford to indulge in in the midst of this dire "climate crisis."  Better we hang our clothes outside, on a line, in the chaste, wholesome troposphere, than sully that troposphere with CO2-contaminated dryer exhaust.  First of all, I hate drying clothes on the line: I hate hanging them up.  I hate taking them down.  I hate how stiff they are when I take them down. And I hate the way they smell (I happen to think drying clothes in "fresh, clean air" makes them stink.)  With all due respect, Green America, as long as I can pay my utility bill each month, I will be drying scads of clothes in my "Super Capacity" 6-cycle, 3-temperature Amana top-loader -- be it January or June. 

In an article I found on the Organic Consumers Association website, titled, "Ten Easy Things You Can Do to Save the Earth this Earth Day . . .", I am told to: "Spend time in nature."  Moreover, I'm told that "taking a walk, having a picnic, or simply sitting outdoors and watching the sky, deepens our connection to the natural world, thereby motivating us to be better stewards of the Earth."  O.K., you lunk-headed hippies at the OCA, looks like I'm going to have to enlighten you.  I sit outside and take walks and have picnics to revel in the exquisite beauty that surrounds me.  Not to deepen my connection to all things natural or to motivate myself to become a better steward of the earth.  I'm already an excellent steward of the earth -- without even trying.  (It comes "naturally" to me.)

In this same article, I am told to: "Join or make a donation to any organization that supports the environment . . . if the aforementioned tasks seem to require too much effort or time, simply write a check to those who have integrity regarding the Earth . . . "  Once again, you snooty, condescending nitwits, I write my checks to organizations that truly need my financial help -- organizations that work to save the lives of human beings stricken with potentially-fatal diseases such as: leukemia, lymphoma and diabetes.  Likewise, I send my checks to organizations that are determined to find a cure for the rare "Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia" that mercilessly took my precious seven-year-old schnauzer's life two years ago.  Rest assured, when the earth is truly in peril, I'll see what I can do.

Here are a few other darling "jewels" I extracted from an article, titled, "101 Ways to Heal the Earth," on the "IN CONTEXT" website:

"Buy products that last." Duh! I'd rather buy cheap, chintzy items that conk out long before they're supposed to -- like those stellar CFL bulbs I'm constantly returning. 

"Wear warm clothing and turn down winter heat . . . Caulk and weather-strip doors and windows . . . Buy energy-efficient appliances."  Again, duh!  Jim and I would never have thought of these things on our own.  We like to turn the thermostat up to 85 -- from November to March -- and run around the house in our skivvies.  And we've actually removed all the caulk and weather-stripping around our doors and windows so the wind can bluster through the gaps and cause our utility bills to skyrocket.  Likewise, we avoid buying any and all energy-efficient appliances because, again, CO2 is beneficial to the planet, and we are passionate about doing whatever we can to benefit the planet.

Here are a few asinine tips (from the same article) I will never employ because they are -- well, asinine:

"Limit or eliminate your use of disposable items."  I realize I'm getting personal here, but are you wackos telling me I should use machine-washable rags instead of pads and tampons each month?  Are you suggesting I clean my ears with the same Q-tips every day?  Or stop cleaning my ears altogether?  Should I stop buying Band-Aids and simply let my (or Jim's) cuts, scrapes and puncture-wounds heal unprotected?  Do I have to stop using toothpicks and facial tissue?  Should Jim try reusing his diabetic testing-strips?  Or cease testing his blood entirely -- so he doesn't have to use any strips at all?  It's amazing how well you clowns can joke with such straight faces.

"Instead of ironing, hang clothes in the bathroom while showering."  Yeah, right.  Have you seen clothes dried this way?  They're as wrinkly when they're dry as they were when they were wet.  The steam from the shower doesn't smooth them one jot.  And can we get real for just one moment?  Are you trying to imply that the smidgen of energy my iron uses to press my and Jim's shirts and pants is going to hasten the "thermogenic" expiration of the earth?  Next thing I know, you'll be telling me to "go vegetarian" or establish some sort of global climate-change discussion group.  Wait a minute.  You already told me to do these things -- in #59 and #70.

And here's my favorite: "Install a . . . composting toilet."  You know, it's always been my dream to have a toilet that would transform my bodily wastes from repulsive masses of malodor to rich, sweet-smelling, soil conditioner.  And now my dream can come true.  Home Depot, for example, offers me the "BioLet 60XL, Electric Composting Toilet, Automatic Mixer," for $1,999.00, as well as the "BioLet 10 Standard Electric Composting Toilet, Manual Mixer," for $1,799.00, and the BioLet 30 NE, Non-electric Composting Toilet" for $1,399.  

Now, were I have a little extra scratch to throw around (I know -- virtually impossible when wackos, themselves, are at the helm), I could always turn to an outfit by the name of Phoenix Composting Toilet Sytems to fulfill the lot of my compost-related yearnings.  Indeed, I could spend anywhere from $4,700 to $6,100 on a PCTS model as compared to Home Depot's less-than-$2,000 models. 

Hey, I just thought of something.  I could use my credit-card points to purchase my first, oh-so-ingenious, crap-to-compost commode!  Admittedly, I'd have to spend at least two years racking up enough points to buy Home Depot's lowest-end option.  But, what the heck? It's an honorable goal to work toward.  Honorable, indeed.

I wish more than anything that I could provide a few more examples of the wackos' unparalleled idiocy -- such as the "Cow Fart Tax" Congress recently considered implementing.  But for the sake of keeping this a paper and not a 400-page work of nonfiction, I must limit myself to the one most odious example to date -- the example that stems from the wacko-concocted fantasy that DDT is deadly to humans, as well as wildlife.

Here are a couple of facts I culled from a 2009 article written by Roger Bate:

"From the late 1940s to the early 1970s [before the 1972 ban on DDT took place], spraying DDT was the mainstay of anti-mosquito campaigns responsible for successfully eradicating malaria from North America and much of Europe . . . Thanks to DDT, an estimated one billion people no longer lived in malaria-endemic areas; in Southeast Asia, cases fell from a high of 110 million in 1959 to nearly zero by 1969."

And here are a few more tidbits I discovered in the article, "The DDT ban turns 30 -- Millions Dead of Malaria Because of Ban," written by Todd Seavey, in 2002:  "There are some 300 to 500 million reported cases of malaria each year, 90% occurring in Africa.  According to the World Health Organization (WHO), about two-and-a-half million people die of the disease each year, again, mostly in Africa, the majority of them poor children . . . [approximately] one child [is] lost to malaria every thirty seconds" (emphasis mine). 

Lastly, from an article titled, "Africa's Other Deadly Plague . . .", I learn that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) not only "declared that DDT had saved untold millions of lives that otherwise would have been lost," but that it also concluded there are "few chemicals . . . man owe[s] as great a debt to as . . . DDT."

What's the current status of DDT use around the world?  While in 2006 the WHO "reversed course and endorsed widespread use of . . . DDT to combat malaria," in 2009, it "quietly reverted to promoting less effective methods for attacking the disease."

In other words, as usual, the wackos are pushing "solutions" that aren't solutions at all -- namely: insecticide-treated bed nets and anti-malarial drugs.  Here are the major drawbacks of using bed nets: not all Africans have beds to attach the bed nets to; many Africans who do have beds can't afford to buy the nets; bed nets are uncomfortable on hot nights -- to the point that some people simply kick them off; people have to stay in the nets all night; mosquitoes don't bite people only when they are in bed; and the insecticide has to be reapplied every few months.

Here are the major drawbacks of using anti-malarial drugs:  people often develop resistance to the drugs; the drugs are much more expensive to use than DDT would be; the drugs are in short supply;  and one of the most commonly-used drugs -- chloroquine -- has been known to create "lethal ventricular arrhythmias" in those who have to ingest it repeatedly.

I'm just thinking.  If you wackos don't yet have an all-encompassing motto that reflects your primary objective, consider this one: "We don't eradicate; we simply ameliorate."  Said another way, "We (wackos) don't do anything that can eliminate problems (and, thereby allow people to work their way out of poverty and into prosperous and fulfilling lives).  On the contrary, we do whatever makes us look (and feel) like we really care." Here's a perfect example of the wackos' penchant for placing semblance over substance: the "Everyone Deserves a Roof" tents that are being created for and given to homeless people in Los Angeles (tents attached to the tops of collapsible shopping-carts, as far as I can tell from looking at the photos).  Nothing says "I care about you" more than a warm-hearted: "Take this collapsible-shopping-cart-tent contraption.  Wouldn't want you to die of exposure tonight." 

I know this sounds harsh, wackos, but I'm saying it, anyway:  it's truly unconscionable that you refuse to listen to the people who are struggling to stay alive in malaria-infested countries.  I know of at least two Ugandans you'd do well to lend an ear to.  First, Fiona Kobusingye, coordinator of the Congress of Racial Equality Uganda and Kill Malarial Mosquitoes Now writes : "I lost my son, two sisters, and two nephews to malaria . . . don't tell me that a little DDT in our bodies is worse than the risk of losing more children to this disease.  African mothers would be overjoyed if that were their biggest worry."  Second, Uganda Health Minister, Jim Muhwezi says: "We have to kill malaria using DDT, and the matter has been settled that DDT is not harmful to humans . . . [DDT is] the most effective and cheapest way to fight malaria."

In closing this necessarily-lengthy paper, I confess: I am a Christian.  As such, I'm not afraid to proclaim that what I've learned from reading my Bible -- for the last 30 years -- does not jibe at all with the global-warming hogwash that assails me every day.  You see, each time I read the book of Genesis, I espy the following verse: ." . . then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature"  (emphasis mine).  Think about it.  God breathed the breath of life into man.  Not the breath of death.  So, to all you wackos out there who tell me CO2 is an abomination to the Almighty -- i.e., to those of you who tell me that each time I exhale, I'm contributing to the demise of this magnificent, God-begotten immensity we call earth, I have this to say:  please do your part to save the rest of us.  Shut your mouths and plug your noses until the Holy Father's very "breath of life" has escaped you.  Those of us who have chosen to use the brains He gave us will thank you for your selflessness for the remainder of our long, happy, healthy lives. ESR

This is Karen Norling's first contribution to Enter Stage Right. © 2010 Karen Norling.


Send a link to this page!
Send a link to this story





Site Map

E-mail ESR


Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!


1996-2022, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.