by wryheat on Jul.13, 2009, under Miscellaneous Stories, climate change
The Lighter Side of Global Warming
Judging by stories in the media, global warming causes everything bad and strange. For instance, global warming will cause one-third of the U.S. to be colonized by giant Burmese pythons (USA Today 2-21-08); climate change could lead to “killer cornflakes” (Sydney Morning Herald 5-13-08); global warming will shrink Scottish sheep (Arizona Daily Star, 7-03-9), and cause a 30% drop in worker productivity (NYT 7-11-09). You can see a long list, with story links, of similar media stories here: http://tinyurl.com/f4xnr
On the other hand, it seems that almost everything causes global warming. Rent-seeking researchers claim “Mammoth dung, prehistoric goo may speed warming,” Reuters (9-16-07). The Dallas News (12-03-07), reports that divorces cause global warming because then two households are needed. Does that mean the EPA will be regulating divorces?
More recently, we learned from major media that fat people cause global warming because they consume more food and it takes more fuel to transport them.
In spite of all these stories, there are still some potential causes of global warming that have, so far, escaped media attention.
I’ve noticed that football and basketball games consist of a bunch of big guys running around. That generates heat. Also, these guys are breathing hard, expelling lots of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We need legislation to modify this behavior: no running allowed. In the spirit of global cooperation, we should also include soccer. Although soccer players tend to be smaller than football or basketball players, the riotous fans make up the difference in emissions. We can probably give baseball a pass for now, since emissions per unit time are within accepted EPA air quality guidelines.
Beer and other carbonated beverages release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when the bottles or cans are opened, and my cause methane emissions later on. In order to protect the industry, we should not ban production; we should just ban opening the bottles and cans. We could also promote greater use of wine and whiskey as more eco-friendly substitutes.
One of the greatest sources of hot air in the nation is politicians. Many, especially those in Washington, D.C., are guilty of reasonless rhetoric and unrestrained blathering. We need to ration rhetoric and ban blathering. Take a lesson from Twitter and impose a maximum verbiage limit per communication and a monthly maximum as well. Perhaps we should limit Representatives to 2,000 words per month, and Senators to 3,000 words per month. Of course the details will have to be worked out to give equal and fair representation to small words versus big words.
The rest of the animal kingdom is not blameless either. Take termites, please. According to the journal Science (11-05-82), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world. I see here an opportunity for some of those green jobs: develop and install carbon capture devices on termites.
And then there are hummingbirds which, gram for gram, are the most profligate energy consumers after humans. We better keep an eye on them.
These are just a few things to consider if you are really serious about global warming. I have a wary eye on some others, such as the boisterous crowds at synchronized swimming events.
Notwithstanding all of the above, the real cause of global warming has finally been revealed. It was recently found that the rise in surface temperatures since 1880 correlates almost exactly with the increase of first class U.S. postal rates for the same time period, see graph: http://tinyurl.com/ctk24k
(Seriously, keep this in mind when you read of a study that “links” something to something else.)
Countering global warming is the well-known “Gore Effect.” It seems that whenever Al Gore goes someplace to speak about global warming, that area experiences unusually cold weather. See http://tinyurl.com/n375bg
There you have it folks. We don’t need expensive cap & trade schemes or carbon taxes, just a few modifications of behavior. And somebody better speak to the Post Office.
8 Comments for this entry
Leave a Reply
Looking for something?
Use the form below to search this blog:
Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!
Archives
All entries, chronologically...
July 13th, 2009 on 11:40 am
While we’re on the subject of ridiculing those who hold different opinions, I have to say that, of all the predicted dire consequences of global warming, the one about a drop in “worker productivity” must be the one that scares you the most.
You’re taking advantage again. This time you’re taking advantage of people who don’t have any real knowledge of discerning correlation and causation. The real message you’re trying to impart is that, if the “global warmers” are so silly as to believe that a rise in postage rates causes global warming, their ideas can be similarly easily discredited.
Well, what would you say about a group arguing that HIV/AIDS is a “lifestyle disease”? Or that vaccines are an imminent danger to human health? Do you know any such group? Sounds like some pretty silly ideas to me.
July 13th, 2009 on 1:23 pm
Art, you are taking it much too seriously. I think most everyone would realize that the postal correlation is just a joke. But it does show that some correlations are pure coincidence.
July 13th, 2009 on 3:55 pm
OK, I didn’t know the opposition had a sense of humor. I’ll have to take back at least some of the things I’ve said about them. Still, I have some doubts about everyone getting the jokes. With some exceptions, most of the “Drill, Baby, Drill” people I’ve met have few teeth and fewer years of education.
BTW – My name is not Art.
July 13th, 2009 on 7:03 pm
Where are all the nuclear power plant contracts the pres promised? Want to reduce the need for fossil fuels? Wind and solar are not there yet. Everybody yaps about problems, call it ‘meaningful discussion’, yet nothing ever gets done. BTW-if only 50% of tarp and the pork…stimulus bills were actually spent on infrastructure,I think we would be in alot better shape than we are now. PS-think Castro would take the nuclear waste of our hands for closing Guantanamo?….always been a thorn in his side. We’ll throw in some of that cheese the government hands out from time to time….
July 13th, 2009 on 11:45 am
Funny, funny stuff!
July 14th, 2009 on 9:13 am
Thanks a lot Jonathan. After reading this I went out and took down the hummingbird feeders and tore up my season football and basketball tickets. Now the wife wants a divorce which means two houses. Sometimes you just can’t win.
July 15th, 2009 on 6:11 am
Here’s an article some might find interesting: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/07/past-warming-suggests-climate-sensitivity-mismatch.ars
July 17th, 2009 on 1:02 pm
On the subject of keeping beer and other carbonated beverages unopened, PBS’ Paul Solman addressed that idea last summer in response to a question about how the ‘big CO2′ industries might suffer under CO2 regulation, see: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2008/06/would-you-consider-doing-a-rep.html#more
Quoting Mr Solman: “You buy soda (or prosecco) and simply never open it, thus sequestering the CO2 in your own home (or garage). I dare not vouch for the accuracy of the following numbers but it’s the thought that counts. “Can a person go completely carbon neutral by purchasing soda and not opening it? Average person produces 9 tons of CO2 per year. Average liter of Coke contains 6 g of CO2. Bulk 2 liter bottle of Coke 79 cents. That’s all our data. 6 grams of CO2 per liter x 2 liters per bottle / 1000 g per kg / 978 kg per ton = 0.000012 tons of CO2 per bottle. 9 tons per person / 0.000012 tons per bottle x 0.79 dollars per bottle= $590,000 dollars per person per year to go carbon neutral by buying Coca Cola.”