Global Warming and the death of Television
Mike Williams
May 12, 2008
The Earth is billions of years old or so we think. We don't really know because nobody has been alive that long and can confirm it. I'm pretty sure they didn't blog back then either.
I think volcanos, tsunamis, and earthquakes have done more damage to the earth on a massive scale then anything man could ever do.
This article from Wired states that Hydrogen cars wouldn't be effective for another 40 years. I've read the whole article and wonder to myself, "how would these people know?" Seriously. A projection based on parameters that are always changing and evolving and "who knows" how many brand new variables that will come into play between now and then.
According to this type of thinking, we've done more to damage the earth in the last 100 years then we've ever managed previously. Is technology and the modern era nothing more than a cold blooded earth killer? Are the abilities to make cell calls, tweeting, downloading a book wirelessly, and participating in a mash-up contributing to the earth's demise? Our love of technology could be the death of us all.
Do you think CSIs get it right 100% of the time? They don't. People are released from prisons daily because a CSI didn't follow protocol or simply just forgot something. Hey, we're all human.
If you produce a scientific study that says "x" and you "forget" one little parameter, you're whole conclusion becomes wrong and skewed. What about unknown variables? You don't really know about those, that's why they're called "unknown."
An old friend of mine used to say that global warming wasn't what we should be worried about. He said that population is the biggest problem we face and will be the most ignored. He's right. I see way more global warming stories. The only complaints I hear about population is when the major media outlets remind us about how many people live in China.
I leave you with a parting thought on this whole thing. Have you ever gone to the weather channel's website and looked at the air quality index? This is one of the statistics that scientists use to push the global warming mantra.
What was the air quality index in Massachusetts in 1942? Gee, I wish we knew. The techniques and technology to test the air quality didn't exist back then. Even if you had some data, it would be comparing apples and oranges. In 1942, they may not have generated the data in the same manner as today rendering the results useless. The problem is that we don't know. We don't really know but we're basing an entire campaign and modern day mantra on statistics that we can't prove or possibly backup. I've read some of these papers and they had so many holes in them you could drive your Prius through them.
I think we should all do our part to stop the wasteful living we've been accustomed to and begin to think a little differently when it comes to our own habits at home. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do everything we can to save the environment. In fact, I'm all for it. The choice to do something or not do something is completely up to you.
The purpose of this blog post is to provoke thought and hopefully awaken a little "common sense" thinking. I've had teachers throughout my life say the same thing. Don't take everything you hear or read or see at face value for by doing so you render yourself irresponsible.
I don't believe the sky is blue because you say so. I don't believe the US dollar is doing as bad as the television stations report it just because they say so. I can look at the situation and make my own judgment. I'm just slightly smarter then a monkey and quite possibly as smart as the new coffee pot we just bought.
More and more people are getting their news and information from the internet because it puts "them" in control of their news. They read stories they want to read and not the stories that cable news thinks you should see. Most importantly, for me anyway, is the ability to read these stories when I want to and not when television says I can.
I want to believe!
I think volcanos, tsunamis, and earthquakes have done more damage to the earth on a massive scale then anything man could ever do.
This article from Wired states that Hydrogen cars wouldn't be effective for another 40 years. I've read the whole article and wonder to myself, "how would these people know?" Seriously. A projection based on parameters that are always changing and evolving and "who knows" how many brand new variables that will come into play between now and then.
According to this type of thinking, we've done more to damage the earth in the last 100 years then we've ever managed previously. Is technology and the modern era nothing more than a cold blooded earth killer? Are the abilities to make cell calls, tweeting, downloading a book wirelessly, and participating in a mash-up contributing to the earth's demise? Our love of technology could be the death of us all.
Do you think CSIs get it right 100% of the time? They don't. People are released from prisons daily because a CSI didn't follow protocol or simply just forgot something. Hey, we're all human.
If you produce a scientific study that says "x" and you "forget" one little parameter, you're whole conclusion becomes wrong and skewed. What about unknown variables? You don't really know about those, that's why they're called "unknown."
An old friend of mine used to say that global warming wasn't what we should be worried about. He said that population is the biggest problem we face and will be the most ignored. He's right. I see way more global warming stories. The only complaints I hear about population is when the major media outlets remind us about how many people live in China.
I leave you with a parting thought on this whole thing. Have you ever gone to the weather channel's website and looked at the air quality index? This is one of the statistics that scientists use to push the global warming mantra.
What was the air quality index in Massachusetts in 1942? Gee, I wish we knew. The techniques and technology to test the air quality didn't exist back then. Even if you had some data, it would be comparing apples and oranges. In 1942, they may not have generated the data in the same manner as today rendering the results useless. The problem is that we don't know. We don't really know but we're basing an entire campaign and modern day mantra on statistics that we can't prove or possibly backup. I've read some of these papers and they had so many holes in them you could drive your Prius through them.
I think we should all do our part to stop the wasteful living we've been accustomed to and begin to think a little differently when it comes to our own habits at home. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do everything we can to save the environment. In fact, I'm all for it. The choice to do something or not do something is completely up to you.
The purpose of this blog post is to provoke thought and hopefully awaken a little "common sense" thinking. I've had teachers throughout my life say the same thing. Don't take everything you hear or read or see at face value for by doing so you render yourself irresponsible.
I don't believe the sky is blue because you say so. I don't believe the US dollar is doing as bad as the television stations report it just because they say so. I can look at the situation and make my own judgment. I'm just slightly smarter then a monkey and quite possibly as smart as the new coffee pot we just bought.
More and more people are getting their news and information from the internet because it puts "them" in control of their news. They read stories they want to read and not the stories that cable news thinks you should see. Most importantly, for me anyway, is the ability to read these stories when I want to and not when television says I can.
I want to believe!
Print
Email
