I was shocked and dismayed to discover that I am destroying the planet every time I make a run to Dunkin Donuts for a chocolate kreme filled delight. I am now being forced to consider my every action in order to determine how much terrible damage I am doing to the planet every time I take a breath. I had no idea the planet was so sensitive to my presence and I certainly had no idea how much damage I am doing to the most holy and perfect planet earth we live upon simply by living upon it. Surely I deserve to die for my environmental sins. Maybe the government can send an execution squad to my home, if only they can get here without driving a car.
I was reading my Denver Post last week when I came across a feature article, complete with a photograph of shrinking glaciers in Argentina, informing me that I am personally responsible for the dissolution of the Arctic ice cap. Man was I surprised to find out that fact. Here is what, in part, the article told me:
"Here is how much of the Arctic you are personally responsible for melting. Dirk Notz calculates that for every person who drives a car 1,000 miles or takes a round trip flight from New York to London, about 32 square feet of sea ice vanishes from the Arctic. That is about 1 square foot for every 90 miles of driving a gas powered car. Researchers have long documented that human fueled carbon dioxide emissions contribute to the overall warming of the planet -- and, by extension, accelerate the diminishing of sea ice in the Arctic each year. But in a paper published Thursday in the journal Science, Notz and a colleague detail the complex set of calculations that allowed them to estimate how much Arctic sea ice melts for every metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. Their answer? About 3 square meters."
Are you impressed by the "research" that appeared in a highly respected scientific journal about how much you are contributing to the melting of the Arctic ice and thus, destroying the world we live in? Are you rendered speechless by the complex mathematical functions used to determine how much ice is melting? Or did you catch the amazingly obvious and exceedingly stupid flaw in the argument? According to Notz, every 90 miles I drive causes 1 square foot of Arctic ice to melt. I do not know what sort of world Notz lives in but the world I live in is three dimensional. When selling my home I measure the size of my home in square feet but it is not possible to measure a volume of something in square feet. A volume measurement must be in cubic feet. The world is three dimensional (four dimensional when time is included). Telling me that I am responsible for the melting of one square foot of ice tells me nothing. Am I responsible for melting a square foot of surface ice that is one molecule thick? Or am I responsible for melting a square foot of surface ice that is twenty feet thick? Notz does not say and nobody, including the editors of the article, seems to have caught this huge error in his thinking. Notz's allegation about the amount of damage I am doing to the Arctic ice is completely and utterly meaningless. But it does serve as an excellent piece of propaganda, does it not?
In search of a more scientifically and logically rigorous argument in favor of the religious doctrine of man-made global warming I went to the taxpayer funded and government operated organization known as NASA. Did I find more logical and scientific rigor among this group of scientists? You be the judge. In regards to the Antarctic ice pack, which has been steadily growing in size despite the claims of "global" warming, I found this statement, "Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this
year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists
began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late
1970s." Commenting on this fact, a NASA scientist asserted, "The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming.
Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global
warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in
Did you get all that? Although the high priests of the religion of global warming continue to use the word 'global' in their statements, when cornered by actual data they resort to claiming that global warming continues to exist around the world, although not all of the globe is actually warming. Then they have the audacity to claim that they expected parts of the globe to get colder as a result of global warming. Make sense to you? Then you could work for NASA.
Here is another brilliant insight from the taxpayer sponsored government employees at NASA, "A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation
that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the
continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers." This insight, as it is acknowledged in the paper, goes contrary to what the IPCC believes to be the case. That does not interest me here. What does interest me is the apparent disconnect in the minds of NASA scientists between glacier formation and snowfall. Does anyone know where glaciers come from? Right! Glaciers are compressed snow. Glaciers are formed when snow falls and does not melt completely. NASA acknowledges that snowfall in the Antarctic has been increasing for the past 10,000 years (how that they know that is a mystery to me) but, at the same time, repeats the global warming mantra that the glaciers found there are thinning. Then, to make things even more confusing, they say that the increased snowfall will "outweigh" the thinning glaciers. In other words, the glaciers are not thinning. In fact, they are getting thicker. Why not simply say that? Because it goes contrary to global warming dogma.
Proponents of global warming are blinded by taxpayer dollars. When the job of a climate scientist is contingent upon finding global warming in the universe guess what that scientist will find? Global warming of course. There is global warming when the ice is getting thicker and there is global warming when snowfall is increasing. In fact global warming is a direct result of my driving around in my car. All this science has set my head to spinning. It is time for me to go out for a donut. I fully expect that I will be responsible for the melting of one molecule of ice in the Arctic as I drive to the donut store. Forgive me planet earth for my sin.