Save Mars!!

Mars has a fever, too!  Something must be done about these horrible electricity-users, SUV-drivers, and farting cows.  Mars is DYING!!!!! 

Or not.

I don’t know, people.  But here’s a crazy, crazy thought: when temperatures rise ever so slightly on planets in the solar system, maybe it has something to do with the sun.  Chop off my head like Galileo if you must, o Eco-Priests.  But just based on my elementary-school science education, I think the climate on Earth (and other living planets, too) shifts from time to time, regardless of the presence of homo sapiens and domesticated bovine animals.

~ by lewdandlascivious on April 29, 2007.

12 Responses to “Save Mars!!”

  1. Silly Lewd, don’t you know that it is a fundamental law of science that nothing ever, ever changes naturally without the destructive influence of humans.

    Does this mean we can buy carbon footprint credits from Mars now too?

  2. There’s only one cure for a fever:

  3. Between global warming and the War, you conservatives are going to kill us all. How can you really ignore all the “coincidences” between human industrialization and the planet warming up? I would agree that the planet CAN and DOES go through warming and cooling cycles, but the fact is that this current “warming cycle” is COMPLETELY off the charts from the previous 10 million years or so. Before the conservatives simply dismiss it as a warming cycle, why don’t they simply look at the data?

    One human certainly can’t change a planet (unless he’s Superman), but a few billion certainly can.

  4. Of course, I can’t leave that without data myself:

  5. Dying,

    Huh? In 1000 AD, Greenland was habitable and England was wine country. Then the earth got really cold, which is why Washington’s men had to push ice out of the way of the boats when crossing the Delaware.

    New evidence suggests that the tropics, at one point, extended almost as far north as the Arctic Circle.

    There’s a fundamental difference between correlation and causation. Don’t forget, in the 1970s, they thought that the earth was headed for global cooling. Of course, Victorian England was significantly more polluted than it is now, as our technology results in cleaner-burning fuels (even with the larger population)….

  6. dying in infamy,
    If we weren’t all law students in the middle of finals we would lay the smack down on you. But since that graph is all you through out there, there’s no need. The graph shows no trend, and the crrazy vertical line the CO2 emission numbers take in the last two years just screams inaccurate data. Besides, that’s a global warming interest group’s web site and there are no legitimate credentials for the data. That alone makes it suspect. In the end, I hate cold weather. If you’re right, we need to burn a bit more coal and drive bigger cars to make it a little bit warmer for my taste.

  7. Dying, were you serious with that graph?

    Just exactly where did we get our data on the temperature from 400 thousand years before present? Time Machines? Heck, I don’t trust the accuracy or precision of temperature data collected 50 years ago, let alone 50 thousand years ago. Remember, for the longest time, our most reliable temperature measurement device was the mercury thermometer, which requires a lot of subjective estimation when it comes reading (“It looks about at 73 degrees, yeah, that feels right”), which doesn’t provide reliable enough data to be able to make statistically significant inferences.

  8. Oh, and just to be clear, just because I don’t trust “Dr.” Al “Chicken Little” Gore, doesn’t mean I’m opposed to more efficient fuel sources, etc. I just don’t the government imposing restrictions on my economy based on questionable science and with a complete disregard of the market.

  9. Ok, I admit — the data is shaky. I’ll be the first to admit that. As far as the graph, I also admit the possible bias and/or skewing of data. But my point is simply this: we’re better off taking corrective measures now, regardless. I hate the argument that humans can’t change the world. In an extreme example, we could make life literally disappear 7 times over with our nuclear weapons. We are changing our environment. 7 billion people have an impact.

    Step back. Even if we can’t change our planet, what harm has come about by taking corrective measures to reduce pollution, not to mention our reliance on oil? We lose a few dollars. Whooptie-fucking-do. The alternative is that we ARE changing our planet to its detriment and we all die. To be honest, I’d rather I have a few less dollars for war. The approach to “shaky” data is not to simply ignore it — it’s to give it reasoned discussion, and to take some measures “just in case.”

  10. Part of the problem is that the Kyoto crowd, the real diehard eco-fanatics, are not asking people to spend a “few dollars.” They’re asking for brutally radical changes, NOW–not merely for the development of new technologies that we could gradually switch over to. The types of changes they want, right this very second, pronto, would not affect the rich and powerful at all–Al Gore would still have his mansions and jets and profligate use of energy. It’s the little people who would be asked to do without the basic conveniences of life that allow them to pursue success and a livelihood. So let’s not be silly and say this is about us all forking over a few dollars. We’re talking about either abandoning or completely overhauling the basis of our entire infrastructure of global commerce and industry.

    Another point is that the data used to support claims that we are “destroying the Earth” or facing doom are by no means unanimous, despite the fervent efforts of the media and bullying partisan scientists. I just attempted to post a long string of links regarding the signficant dissent in the scientific community. But it looks like the comment did not go through, or something.

    I also think it’s a bit unfortunate that you don’t realize we really are at war, right now and in the foreseeable future, with a bunch of crazy Muslims who would eagerly kill you and I, and everyone else in their way, at the earliest opportunity. We can disagree on the means by which we fight them, or how much money is spent (as if that is really important in ACTUAL life or death situations), but I hate to see you casually dismiss a present threat that is right up in our face NOW, as a matter of a few dollars you’d rather see go to a hypothetical threat that exists largely in the minds of its proponents.

    All this having been said, I’m like Pink–I’m all for replacing petroleum (if only so we can tell the Arabs to go to hell once and for all) and finding ways to pollute less. As long as it is done in a reasonable and measured manner. No problems there–clean air and water is in everyone’s best interests.

  11. I still love you, Lewd. Do you still love me?

  12. Honey, I adore you. You know you’re my baby. I was just arguing with your argument–you know I have nothin’ but smooches and hugs and love for you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: