Lol, Dramatic politics - Global Warming

(This is for my 8th week post)

Everyone knows that carbon emissions from cars and factories cause global warming, right? Eveeerryone knows thaaat. It’s time for a news flash – what EVERYONE says isn’t always the truth. The apparent expert consensus of the human carbon emissions contributing to global warming theory is slowly starting to dissolve, as more opposing evidence is accumulated. In addition, it is time for us to see how the government and organizations take advantage of our environmental sensitivity, to further their plans for profit and world market control.

How does this relate to our cultural studies course? Once again, I'm going back to my ritual model of communication. As a culture starts to confirm each others beliefs, they shun other opinions and arguments, simply because it is not of a consensus. This results in the birth of a generation of people, who have closed their eyes on the world, and is being fed whatever information they are given, listening to the next voice telling them what to do. Once again, just like my Christianity post, people need to open up their eyes, and see different perspectives. Even if it challenges the very fundamental aspects of our existence, the truth will set us free. Our culture has always been focused on being right, instead of focusing on learning the TRUTH. Being wrong isn't a bad thing, it simply elevates a person to a higher level of understanding. I thought global warming emission theory was absolutely, undeniably true - until last month.

First, let’s discuss the apparent flaw in the theory of human carbon emission contributing to global warming. Global warming is real, but it is not as extreme as you are told it is, as that version of instant global warming is nothing more than a hoax. Earth has never experienced stable temperature, and it changes from time to time, as it is a natural process. Carbon dioxide levels do contribute somewhat to the amount of heat in our atmosphere since it is a green house gas, but the idea that our human emissions from mere fossil fuel consumption can affect atmospheric temperature to that extent is unlikely. In addition, there are different forms of green house gas, including sulfur, methane, nitrous oxide, and even water vapor. Were there any attention paid to those? No. In fact, recent MIT report actually finds an increase of methane level that directly contradicts human carbon emission contributing to global warming.

Here are the devil's advocates.

http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-39973-113.html

http://www.paulmacrae.com/

http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm

http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/the-gaping-hole-in-greenhouse-theory/

This is only one of the videos explaining the phenomenon.
Watch the damn video >: O



I am not a scientist; however, by examining the writings that present evidence of human contribution to global warming, I find that the provided information are mostly speculation, and pseudoscience, which have reached a consensus in the scientific field without proper testing and research. Too much discussion has been based upon the exponential increase of the carbon emissions, instead of the direct impact of the resulting emissions in direct correlation to global warming. The consensus was focused upon Carbon dioxide emissions, instead of the other possibilities that may contribute to global warming (e.g. natural process, sun spots, other green house gases, ozone holes, etc.).

So who fed us these messages? The Mass Media, the government, schools, environmentalists, and ourselves. We need to realize that there is a difference between the truth, and what everyone else believes. Even if human carbon dioxide emission global warming theory is true, we need to critically examine this fact and look for evidence, instead of getting consensus from hot headed political leaders such as Al Gore, and Green Peace, which is one of the silliest non-profit organizations in the world. There’s actually been a deliberate withholding of information, and restriction of information created by this phenomenon, due to the fact that talking about alternate causes of global warming seems to be blasphemous. Scientists could lose their jobs if they talked about opposing ideas for global warming, when they fail to realize that science is ever expanding, and old theories will be replaced, always. Also, remember WWII? Hitler and his scientific consensus made everyone in Germany believe that the Aryan race had a much powerful brain capacity as compared to every other race. No-one asked questions, and those that asked would be shunned from society, and taken “away”.

So why does this matter to us? The government is already trying to take advantage of this false consensus as a way to tax the public. This is called the carbon tax, and carbon police. Carbon tax will allow the government to charge a citizen (not just businesses), for carbon emissions. They will bill you for their search (like a car check up fee), and also bill you for the carbon fine. Making barbecued ribs will eventually result in a fine. This is beginning to be implemented in the United States, and it will limit how people live their lives, and basically tax people for literally – living. You’d think Canada is far from this effect, but I bet none of you remembered when Stephen Dion had said something about implementing a carbon tax in his campaign. Are we really that far away from this?
Oh and B.C. Just implemented a carbon tax. Yay!

It’s just gas consumption now, but the possibilities for scamming is most definitely evident.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=ecea1487-507c-43ef-ab88-5a972898e0b7

I don’t want you to say “OH GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE”. I’m simply asking you to question knowledge we take for granted. What’s real today may not be real tomorrow, because reality is a human interpretation, and our interpretations are subject to corruption and false-hood. Question your surroundings, and keep your mind open, but not so open that your brain falls out.

I encourage anyone to comment and argue for their point of view, if they disagree with I said here. I’d like to hear the arguments of anyone that would want to talk about this topic. Make sure your arguments come from realistic scientific evidence, instead of a mere consensus of logic and statistics provided by government or organizations such as Green Peace, who are not experts on the subject.


Posted by Henry Huang

_________________________