Final Blog: Take it or leave it

These tiresome rants have finally come to a close. I have relentlessly spewed one-sided tirades for weeks, denouncing the overzealous concern society dedicates to things we cannot change and cannot prove. Although I do vehementy believe in these issues, my scathing disregard for environmental and hazard awareness is perhaps not accurately representative of my true feelings. The main point of this blog was to play devil's advocate, pushing others to question the nature of what they are told - to stop, think, and inform themselves through careful, critical analysis of human and political history. The fears we are taught to harbor are anything but beneficial. They serve a despicable agenda that perpetuates itself through the cycling and exploitation of our fascination with tragedy and imminent doom. Don't be caught in the tide.

If my perspective seems dangerously averse and nonchalant, that's because it IS. I want to enjoy my life, not be scared of it!
Think for yourself. Question authority. Have a good life, and have no fear.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself-nameless, unreasoning, and unjustified terror..."
-FDR

Fear is Elementary: Pun Intended, Read On!

My mother is a gifted resource teacher at Lehigh and Alva Elementary Schools. While teaching a unit on the rotation of the earth to her fourth and fifth graders, her facts and figures were met with a barrage of "critical thinking", in which the students inquired as to what would happen if the earth stopped rotating. They were concerned that if the planet ceased to spin upon its axis, the solar routine that drives our seasons, temperature, and night and day would be disrupted, eventually ending all of human life as we know it. For some of her students, this seemed to be a very tangible fear. "No immediate threat," she assured them. "Even if the earth did stop rotating, it would be a gradual slowdown over the course of millions of years. We have more important things to worry about." Of course she was right, and her students seemed to agree. "More important things, like global warming," said one of her fifth graders. It's so refreshing to know that today's youth has its priorites straight. Rather than concerning themselves with speculative astronomical tragedies, they have the practical sense to worry about speculative domestic ones. I do suppose climate change is more of an imminent threat to our false notions of a stagnant and harmonious natural state that preceded human life, but this seems to be the extent of the danger. Unfortunately, young children view the climate change phenomenon as more of a legitimate survival concern than a philosophical crisis, most likely due to a combination of parental and media-based fearmongering. The former seems more troubling. I find it hard to believe that a ten-year-old concerns himself too much with NBC's portentious climate segments, but their parents probably do. An atmosphere of fear permeates everyone in the household. Rather than tucking in their children and telling them to sleep tight, they apparently tell them to "sleep tight, until the rising oceans wash your home into oblivion."

Tragic Television: Bad News Junkies

It seems that the relentless fearmongering perpetrated by the media plays multiple roles - more than just the "be afraid" posterboy that culls viewership from frightened fools. The purpose is, invariably, to cull viewership, but the social impact is more complex than what I have mentioned before. I attempted a more philosophical entry this week:

Bad news seems to serve a dual purpose: one, to beat us into submission by portraying the world as a dangerous place; and two, to make us feel alive by treating us as survivors in the “harrowing odyssey” of day-to-day life. The end result in both cases is a race of undead television junkies who are addicted to tragedy. They (we) rely on the morbid and the dismal to invigorate the humdrum of normal life, but the effect is illusory and paradoxical, as evidenced by the millions of couchlocked zombies who revel in the endless parade of death and destruction in the news. If the media does not itself create the human affinity with tragedy, then it certainly exploits it, and if the latter is the case, our irresistable attraction may stem from another origin. Call it psychology, genetics, or intelligent design, either way man is plagued by an inherent and primeval fixation with horrific disasters, unexpected death, and impending doom. Perhaps this is a reflection of the human condition: where we came from and where we are going, and our ambivalences concerning an unforseeable(?) future in both the short and long term; on both the individual and cosmic scale.

I included a link at the bottom of the page with lyrics and possible interpretations of the song "Vicarious" by Tool, which touches this issue.

New Cold Virus "No Cause For Alarm"

A mutated version of the common cold virus has killed ten people in the last 18 months. Further variations of the respiratory bug have infected 140 people all over the United States. The “Ad14” adenovirus is highly resistant to antiviral medication and infects its hosts indiscriminately, landing healthy adults in hospital beds just as often as sickly infants. Yet no plans exist to administer vaccinations.
Should we be scared? Does this supposed viral threat deserve the same amount of media attention and panic as the infectious heavy-hitters of yesteryear? We all remember SARS and the infamous “bird flu” scares in the past decade, but all that remains of such deadly dangers are their memory and a hearty scoff at the notion that they were thought to be the harbingers of human destruction. Who cares about bird flu now? It seems that Ad14 is yet another chapter in the grim and endless cycle of needless fears that are juggled in front of us. Being a relatively new phenomenon in epidemiology, the Ad14 virus has just begun to work its magic for the media.
Most news sources are currently downplaying the danger (see link at bottom of page), but it only takes a few more deaths before they decide to inflate this minor problem into a full-blown pandemic. It is only a matter of time before we start seeing simulations of an apocalyptic and disease-ridden future like those produced by the media for SARS and bird flu. Some news networks are already hyperbolizing the threat, offering headlines and phrases like “Virulent form of cold virus worries experts,” and “Killer cold kills woman” (MSNBC).
If you compare the two links I have provided about this issue, you will notice a blatant level of exaggeration and alarmism in the MSNBC article. It claims the virus is “worrying experts,” “can cause severe respiratory disease at any age,” and quotes the spokesman for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases as saying “this is a big alert.” Multiple sidebars on the site provide links to more focused articles with taglines like “lethal cold kills teen.” The other site (Earthlink) says in the second paragraph: “CDC officials don't consider the mutation to be a cause for alarm for most people, and they're not recommending any new precautions for the general public.”
There is an opinion among some retired journalists that “the media” does not slant the news or operate according to a certain agenda. In this case I think the bias is clear, the quotes are one-sided, and the message is fear.

NBC's Green Week Just Plain Goofy

NBC’s “Green Week” dominated the airwaves for all of last week (see link at bottom of page), complete with a green-plumed NBC peacock in place of its typically rainbow-shaded counterpart and sitcom scripts centered around climate change. It also featured a special program called “Ends of the Earth” – yes, “Ends of the Earth”, in which NBC’s most celebrated reporters scattered to the far corners of the globe and relayed the flagrant evidence of climate change to network headquarters. Of course, they couldn’t name the program “far corners of the globe.” I admit, “Ends of the Earth” is more alliterative, concise, and cute. It is also more connotatively threatening, a deliberate move by NBC to scare up some viewership. The network, of course, admits to no such agenda.
One particular correspondence between NBC headquarters and Anne Curry in Antarctica was more than illustrative. She was asked if she had witnessed any evidence of “the melting,” a reference to the ubiquitous images of dripping icicles and crumbling glaciers we have seen in recent years. Curry, worried she would undermine the best intentions of Green Week with an unequivocal “no”, began to flip hurriedly through statistics that “proved” the melting was occurring, despite first-hand evidence to the contrary. She first said the statistics were from 2005, then later corrected herself. They were from 2002.
If you’re going to hedge, at least do it properly. Ducking behind irrelevant statistics might fool the everyman, but falsely citing such references and then correcting yourself later is more than a bit conspicuous. It was as if she was screaming to the masses “no there is not any melting that I can see, but I don’t want to explicate that fact because NBC paid good money to hole me up in Antarctica for a week in order to show the world that it’s melting!” Better luck next year, ladies.


I would also like to apologize publicly for the lengthy list of links at the bottom of my page. Despite numerous attempts to incorporate links into the body of my blog, I have been unsuccessful. I'm using an older Mac and the "add link" icon is nonexistent. Sorry everyone!

More Wildlife Woes: Wildebeests Fight Faulty Logic

In a recent NBC News story, reporters chronicled the plight of the African wildebeest populations, which migrate annually to find more plentiful feeding grounds. The species' success in such relocations depends heavily on climate and water levels, which, according to modern analysts, are all "out of whack". Thus the wildebeests are in danger of...well, surely something bad. Scientists who support global warming say that recent years have strained the animals' stability. "Last year they were plagued by a drought. This year, they had too much water." What?! I thought global warming inexorably leads to drier, hotter climates. But apparently "global warming" is now an obsolete term. Nowadays it is referred to as "climate change", a more general and easily imputed cause of ANY environmental instability. Any atmospheric readings that fall outside of "average" even by one degree are labeled "dangerous, the results of climate change." What most people fail to realize is that averages are calculated from a succession of anomalous environmental conditions. The average temperature in Africa (and all over the world) is determined by numerous specific readings that all fall outside of the one "average" temperature reading. Averages are not predicted conditions. They merely represent an annual or seasonal mean; something that is determined from a slew of individual statistics and readings, many of which violate the average itself by several degrees. Deal with it. This is life. This is nature.
Modern scientists, hypnotized by the current "global warming turned climate change" frenzy, interpret any weather patterns above or below average as being proof of climate change and an imminent doomsday. It is interesting how liberals now fear the word "change" so much. This kind of backwards logic seems to prove the lunacy of their ideology. And media moguls exploit mass ignorance with cavalier gusto, employing unabashed manipulative tactics and enthymematic rhetoric. Betting that the modern citizen has been brainwashed by climate change propaganda, major news networks broadcast stories that assume we will be swayed into needless concern by listing unstable climate conditions. Knowing that "unstable climate conditions" equals "climate change", and "climate change" equals "man-made apocalypse" in the national conscience, the media knowingly plays a role in ignominious psychological fearmongering. Should we listen? Yes. Should we believe? No. If anything, such flagrant attempts to usurp our own self-reliance and critical awareness should be met with outspoken indignation, possibly even revolt. Join the cause. Fight the power. Have no fear.

Inconvenient Falsehoods

Here are some excerpts from recent Times Online articles concerning An Inconvenient Truth (See link at bottom of page for actual article):

‘Al Gore told there are nine inconvienient truths in his film. Not everything Al Gore says in his documentary is a proven fact. A High Court judge today ruled that An Inconvenient Truth can be distributed to every school in the country but only if it comes with a note explaining nine scientific errors in Al Gore’s Oscar-winning film.

The Government had pledged to send thousands of copies of the film to schools across the country, but a Kent father challenged that policy saying it would “brainwash” children.

A judge was asked to adjudicate between Stewart Dimmock and the Department of Children, Schools and Families. Mr Justice Burton ruled that the film could be sent to schools, but only if it was accompanied by new guidlines to balance the former US vice-president’s “one-sided” views

The judge said some of the errors were made in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration” in order to support Mr Gore’s thesis on global warming.’

As a result, the film is now only viewable in public schools along with its attached disclaimer, which lists the controversy surrounding its publication and the erroneous science upon which its arguments are based. The untruths are as follows:

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct. * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years. * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming. * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case. * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr. Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm. * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility. * The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim. * The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia. * The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing. * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration. * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government is unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.


Distributing the film and screening it in English schools is irrational, illogical, irresponsible, unfathomable and a host of other negatively-prefixed adjectives, and these are still understatements. The only positive aspect of this story is the high court’s adjudication and labeling of the film as unilaterally biased, relying on “alarmism and exaggeration” to prove its silly point. Alarmism? Exaggeration? How about adding “gross fabrication” to the list of despicable flaws in this supposed DOCUMENTARY. If the peace prize were usually reserved for ghoulish charlatans, I would have no qualms with its being bestowed upon the likes of Gore. But here is a man who is being celebrated for inducing mass delusion and hysteria. This I cannot tolerate.
In response to Global Warming’s recent popularity, there has been a surge in public service messages that also preach sermons of false doomsday. Even my fourteen-year-old brother saw the lunacy in a recent NBC public service message depicting people camping in a forest fire, washing their car in a flood, and walking a baby stroller through a hurricane. The narration was simply: “ignoring global warming won’t make it go away.” Well, neither will putting up a clothesline or installing those ridiculous curly lightbulbs. And if you choose to walk your infant during a major hurricane, you have bigger problems to deal with than the inconvenient fallacies delineated in Mr. Gore’s film.

Here are some other points to consider: The health of our environment has always been a human concern. The negative effects of pollution, littering, toxic waste dumping, and other irresponsible industrial practices were at the forefront of the American civic conscience during the 1970’s. The long-term environmental prognosis of the time, however, was that the earth was spiraling rapidly into a second ice age.

The post 9/11 terrorism scare was punctuated by several acts of violent terrorism in places like Spain and England. But terrorism is not our primary fear at this time. Even though these things actually happened, the American public is no longer compelled into fright by the ever-orange threat level. These events are merely distant figments of a lost history, obliterated by whatever threat the media deems most popular (and lucrative) in the here and now. It seems we as Americans are plagued by periodic bouts of collective amnesia, forgetting past fears and replacing them with countless others in an endless parade of terrorizing ideas, each having its turn in the spotlight of our fearmongering vogue.

The August 2006 issue of National Geographic’s cover shows a satellite photo of Katrina, and reads “No End in Sight – Killer Hurricanes." One year later, we have seen a remarkably inactive hurricane season with remarkably feeble storms dissipating in the Atlantic.

A recent TIME Magazine cover depicted a cute polar bear standing on a shrinking iceberg about to drown in a warming ocean, and read “Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.” The subtext: “You’re Next!”

Since this post was so long, it should count as two blogs!

Nobel Nonsense: Al Gore Wins Peace Prize

My world was turned upside down when I heard of Al Gore's acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded to both him and his partners-in-propaganda, the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This prestigious award has, in previous years, been awarded to select individuals or organizations who have devoted their lives to promoting peace and affecting positive change for the globe. Such recipients include: Martin Luther King Jr., Theodore Roosevelt, the Dalai Lama, and Mother Teresa; heroic people who have made monumental contributions to humanity. Now the worthy Al Gore is among them, for his mass-media propagandizing and globally celebrated fearmongering. Of course, the IPCC venerates him as "probably the single individual who has done the most to promote global understanding of climate change." Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, a geo-science professor and co-conspiring member of IPCC, offered his praises of Gore’s achievement on the PBS news hour Friday. “Climate change is about to hit us in the face, and Gore is helping to spread the word. Major environmental events like Hurricane Katrina, ALTHOUGH NOT DIRECTLY CAUSED BY CLIMATE CHANGE, help to show people what the future could hold,” he said. Oppenheimer, like Gore, believe that we are in the midst of a “planetary emergency requiring immediate action.” Oppenheimer continued in his interview, saying “Let’s face it. Climate change is here. We have to learn to deal with it. We have to learn how to respond when major climate-change events like Hurricane Katrina threaten us again.” Thank you Dr. Oppenheimer. Thank you Al Gore. Thank you IPCC for helping to show me, a concerned citizen of Earth, that climate events NOT related to global warming may or may not happen again in the future. This is clearly a newfound understanding of climate change you have furnished – one continually wrought of twisted, self-contradictory logic. Thank you for scaring me into believing that one active hurricane season is grounds to declare the world in a state of “planetary emergency.” Now tell me why you won the Nobel Peace Prize? According to Oppenheimer, “a stable climate helps keep the peace. A shortage of resources is a contributing factor in places like Darfur.” Now one begins to understand that climate change causes war and genocide. Thus, Al Gore’s intrepid efforts to “stabilize the climate” will halt human suffering. I am personally holding Al Gore accountable for this outcome. If within the next twenty to thirty years the climate is still changing and people are still dying despite all of the regulations and “elevated global understanding” that Al Gore has promoted, his prize should be revoked. More realistically, he should be imprisoned for treason. Until then, we should acknowledge the REAL way Al Gore promotes peace –indoctrination, predictability, subjugation, and FEAR in the hearts of Earthlings. Across the world, Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” is screened in college classrooms as propaganda material. I think Sterling Burnett put it best on FOX News recently: “BURNETT: If I thought Al Gore's movie was, as you like to say, "fair and balanced," I'd say everyone should go and see it. But why go see propaganda? You don't go see Joseph Goebbels' films to see the truth about Nazi Germany. You don't want to go see Al Gore's film to see the truth about global warming.”
Read Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear”, send a copy to Gore, then decide the truth of the matters at hand for yourself. As you can probably tell, I have become increasingly cynical with every week that goes by, as America descends needlessly into madness at the hands of idiot politicians. The sad thing is, he probably BELIEVES he is really saving the world. Poor thing…

Wildlife Woes: Evolution in Progress

At least once a week, the major nightly news broadcasts a story on global warming. Last week it was a wildlife spotlight that showcased the plight of "thin whales"; gray whales that are slowly losing blubber mass as a "direct result" of global warming. The argument is that gray whales and a select few additional species are unable to adapt to the rapid cimate change caused by humans in the last few years. Although humans have been blasting out noxious emissions for over a century, scientists are just now trying to connect industry to evolution. There are, of course, a number of flaws in their logic. Thousands of species (if not more) have died out through the history of life because of simple maladaptive Darwinian principles. The world is changing, and it is time to admit it. Evangelicals and biblicists are mocked for their desperately ignorant insistance that today's world is exactly as created by God from the beginning of time. Come on, people. The world has been changing for eons-the "dawn of creation" marked the dawn of change, and our earth has undergone massive and continual alterations ever since. Yes, this occured even before the industrial revolution. Yes, this occured even before man roamed the earth. Our modern age is, like the paleolithic and neolithic times, merely a transitory phase in the evolution of life. It is not only expected but biologically NECESSARY that some species struggle, become endangered, and then disappear altogether. This is a primordial fact of life. If global warming were putting such a strain on nature, we would be seeing EVERY species rapidly decline in health and number. Thinning whales are hardly a cause for alarm.
The Discovery Channel article (see link at bottom of page) says that the whales are now "facing a new crisis" after recovering in the mid 1990's and graduating from the endangered species list. Are you kidding me? And now, less than ten years after the species' proliferation and burgeoning health, global warming swoops in to kill them outright? How is this possible? Perhaps global warming was in remission in the mid 1990's, and allowed the godly gray whales to thrive out of some divine environmental clemency. Or perhaps, more logically, global warming is just the current (and terrifying) scapegoat for all of the world's problems. Wildlife issues have always existed, but never have so many been blamed on one cataclysmic myth. It seems global warming has become an ecological shortcut to thinking.

Kyoto Calamity: UN Demands Totalitarian Emissions Control

"Whether you burn coal in Delhi or burn coal in Denver, we all get warm together", said Timothy Wirth on Thursday's PBS broadcast of "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer". Wirth, the UN Foundation President, was arguing the necessity of uniform global emissions control. The current controversy surrounds the United States' continued refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol, which demands a decrease in greenhouse gas emmissions of 5.2 percent since 1990 for the top 35 industrialized nations by 2012. Admirably, the U.S., seemingly on principal and practicality, has decided not to participate. Speaking idealistically, the current conservative government is trying to preserve economic liberties; a world of self-reliance and individualized decision-making without the complications of third-party totalitarian intervention. Speaking skeptically, the U.S. just wants to make more money in order to further its gluttonous capitalist agenda at the expense of environmental sustainability. Either way, however, we seem to be holding our ground in a just cause, despite the accusations of the UN. Dr. Harlan Watson, the Senior Climate Negotiator for the U.S. State Department, pointed out that the United States spends more than $5 billion a year on efforts to slow the deterioration of the earth's atmosphere by supporting climate change research and technology, and that Bush had committed to cutting greenhouses gases some 18 percent by 2012 (see link at bottom of page). This is effective, individualized control. Watson also said that the goals of the Kyoto Protocol are unobtainable. "I think that making up goals without the basis to achieve them is pointless, and in my opinion, rather cynical politics," he said.
No basis to achieve them and no basis to measure their success, so it seems. How do we measure emissions depletion when the first year of comparison was seven years before the protocol was even drafted? How does each nation accurately measure their domestic greenhouse output and compare it to readings taken twenty-two years prior, even if their were such readings taken? How do we "put a price on carbon" as Timothy Wirth so obstinately insists is necessary? Do we punish those who transgress the Kyoto strictures? Do we punish the nation as a whole, the company that refused compliance, or the factory worker who unknowingly destroyed the world while just doing his job? Is there any way to determine fault? Do we "cap" production by levying fines or do we shut the factory down entirely? Perhaps we can automate worldwide production and manufacturing with a centralized "emissions monitoring system" that pumps out the same thin stream of carbon from every factory everywhere at the same time so that everyone everywhere can enjoy the communal (and automated) notion of a healthier planet. Do we want the imagined greater good or do we want freedom?
It seems we have let these absurdities escalate to the point that we may only allude to global warming's uncertainty. Watson defends his country’s stance on global warming because he says, “the science is still just getting solid.” Massive beurocratic layers, political partisanship, and widespread anxiety have all been constructed on top of a twisted illusion, flawed reasoning and some bizarre sense of futile responsibility. Now, to the mainstream population, it seems foolishly naive to just carve through the lunacy and say "look, you're wrong, but why have such a heffer even if you're right?" The world has impetuously moved past the point of controversy with reckless acceptance. The question now isn't "why are we doing this?" but "how should we do this?”. Fifty years from now, in hindsight of the global warming scare and all other post 9/11 insanities, we will ask another question: "What have we done?"

Take Down Those Shutters, The Weathermen Were Wrong Again

I may be premature in celebrating yet another case of media inaccuracy resulting in pandemonium, but it is hard not to grin at every satellite image that shows NO disturbance in the tropics. Hurricane season draws nearer to its end with every passing day, and every weather report assures us of its benign passage. In previous years, the months of June through September have seen at least some threatening activity that closes schools needlessly, or in extreme cases actually blows a few trees over. Granted, the 2005 season was undeniably destructive. In response to the unexpected mayhem that ensued, experts at the National Hurricane Center and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began issuing ominous warnings concerning future hurricane seasons. This year was supposed to be especially tumultuous, with the "El Nino and El Nina" cycles causing an "above normal" hurricane season (see NOAA link at bottom of page). If the years of Charley, Wilma and Katrina were "normal", then imagine an "above normal" season! Interestingly enough, NOAA also sites "warmer-than-normal sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean" as a cause for 2007's intense hurricane activity. As any concerned Earthling can see, if Global Warming doesn't flood the world, it will rend it to pieces with sheering gale-force winds. Yet here we are, almost to October, with only a few named storms and nothing even remotely threatening stewing in the Atlantic. Despite the fact that NOAA'a and the NHC's predictions are based on top of the line meteorological projections and intruments, they still fail to accurately assess the threat that lies just a few months ahead. However, with my luck we will all be evacuated from our homes to escape a barrage of five or six major hurricanes in the next few weeks. Then you all can say "I told you so". Until then, have no fear.

Fearmongering Media Spotlight: Newsweek and PBS

As a followup to last week's dicussion of Newsweek's flimsy display of unabashed scare tactics, this week's blog will critique the recently aired PBS documentary "What's Up With the Weather?", which caught my attention last week. The NOVA program, which claims on its website to "investigate...the truth about global warming" (see PBS link at bottom of page) seems to engage in more "telling" than "showing", spending a majority of its airtime inventing possible cataclysmic scenarios that may or may not play out in the future. This would deviate horribly (and unethically) from NOVA's supposed commitment to forensics. It is indeed terrifying (albeit somewhat humorous) to watch as a highly realistic model of New York city is engulfed by rising waters in a matter of seconds, or as acres of lush countryside explode into flames spontaneously. Is there any doubt that these simulations are intended to scare people? Is there any doubt that they are based on speculations, theories, and exaggerated projections? However, as with Newsweek's folly, NOVA errs not only in its predictions but in the logic and statistics it uses as support. Another computer-generated simulation of apocalyptic conditions depicted huge plumes of flaming methane exploding from under the oceans, which, according to the narrator, occured millions of years ago when global heat was peaking. The implication was that the ever-intensifying impact of "human carelessness" and "destructive industry" is leading us back into the hellish and volatile conditions of the prehistoric world. I am still waiting to hear news from the archaeological community regarding the smelting factories and manufacturing plants employed so carelessly by the dinosaurs that led to their demise. Such ruins have yet to be uncovered.
I believe that the problem here is acceptance. As a society we are uncomfortable with anything less than omniscience and omnipotence. As far as global warming is concerned, we can make only vague predictions, and that which we actually can assert with relative certainty is beyond our power to prevent or control. Psychologically, it is easier for many of us to believe that we are not at the chaotic will of nature. We wish to be in control, so it is more "convenient" (not "inconvenient", as Al Gore would have us believe) to assume the blame for the problem and to propose solutions. We feel more responsible as citizens of Earth if we take upon ourselves the burden of our salvation, even if, realistically, this lies far beyond our control.

Fearmongering Media Spotlight: Newsweek and PBS

Since the conception of my first blog one week ago, I have noticed a drastic increase in media coverage related to global warming. Often I wonder if this trend is coincidence, serendipity, or a mere solipsistic illusion my skeptical psyche is producing. Never once have I worried that the recent media frenzy might actually indicate an increase in danger; an increase in stupidity seems to be a more accurate assessment. This blog will be released in two installments - the first discussing written global warming propaganda (Newsweek) and the second discussing televised versions (PBS documentaries).
While casually thumbing through magazines at a local physician's office, I stumbled across a Newsweek cover that read: "Global Warming is a Hoax*" (see link at bottom of page). Imagine my surprise and satisfaction at finding a major news magazine in alignment with my own radical vision! To my dismay, however, I found the tiny asterisc behind the word 'hoax' led to a rather disheartening adendum: "Or so claim well-funded naysayers who still reject the overwhelming evidence of climate change. Inside the Denial Machine." I proceeded to flip through the article angrily, resenting being labelled a naysayer and indignant for the small population of level-headed citizens who rightfully decide not to be swept away in a tide of pointless fear. I frantically scoured the article's statistics for any flaw or hole, and found one within seconds. Written beneath a small picture was the caption: "Naysayers claim that humans aren't responsible for global temperature increase because 1996 was the hottest year on record. Atmospheric carbon however has steadily increased." From this statistic alone, it is obvious no positive correlation exists between carbon emissions and global temperature. Perhaps the fearmongers at Newsweek should comprehend basic experimentation and statistical methods before making wild claims about global temperature causation. Newsweek should also reassess their assumption that "naysayers" deny climate change outright. Few people would actually deny the climate on our earth is changing. Yes, the globe is in the midst of a warming trend. No, its exact cause(s) cannot be determined. Even the most advanced meteorological devices can hardly provide an accurate two-day forecast. Allowing ourselves to be scared of our own planet and our own industry based on speculative generalities or shoddy statistics is just foolish.
The climate has always been in a phase of change. It is merely the executives in media and government that call our attention to it and paint the phenomenon as an imminent apocalypse. As I described in my last entry, the powers that be wish to maintain fear in the masses. In the late 1990's and into the turn of the century, global warming was a commonly discussed issue. After 9/11, however, it was thrown by the wayside and replaced with the fear of future acts of terror. For several years, the American public was obsessed with international terrorism and color-coded threat levels. So much time has passed since the last major attack, however, that U.S. citizens have started to become complacent and confident, or at least bored with the terrorism scare. Now we are back to the old stand-by, climate change, which will never go away until the end of the earth.

Disease, Destruction, Defrosting: Fearmongering of All Sorts

The government exists solely to perpetuate and increase its own power, control and influence. It accomplishes this through the continual delusion of the populace; convincing every individual that the world is riddled with countless threats, that each day careens to the brink of apocalypse, and that it is only with the protective hand of government that our lives are spared from certain doom. The powers that be impose upon the masses a STATE OF FEAR in order to ensure our allegiance, control our concerns, and maintain a predictable, orderly society. Such is the hidden intent of our current enemy: Global Warming.
The smallest bit of private research will yield thousands of absolute FACTS that directly contradict the outlandish claims of politicians, the media, and fearmongerers of all sorts; this information is readily available and need not be detailed here. What needs to be discussed is why there is no reason to fear, and why the rest of the world should see this “problem” as a flagrant piece of subjugating propaganda, a fabrication, and a string of outright lies that Big Brother would envy for its sinister genius.
To put it briefly, even if the “problem” is truly manmade, and it is indeed human carelessness that hastens us to a fiery demise, then why have we not curbed the predicament already? The technology currently exists and has existed for decades that can liberate our over-industrialized world from dependence on noxious fuels, and yet we continue to allow greedy oil executives (and greedier politicians) to “pollute” our atmosphere with countless cubic tons of carbon emissions. In the meantime, we normal citizens are told that putting up a clothesline instead of using an automatic dryer will save the planet. To quote the pithy John Stossel: “Give me a break!”. Further, most constituents of the baby-boomer generation with even a fading hindsight will remember being warned of “global cooling”, another unseen and unfounded phenomena that threatened to plunge the globe into a second ice age (see link at bottom of page). But why doesn’t anyone seem to notice? It seems the immediacy of fear always blinds the eyes of equanimity and logic, as evidenced by the episodic pandemonium that has defined the United States’ history: Communism, atomic holocaust, drugs, bird flu, terrorism, and global warming. The government and media (in concert) define our fears until they themselves fear the populace will “move on” and realize that the impending catastrophe is likely to never occur. The result is the pandemonium of authority, in which the officials and executives detect the populace’s growing sense of optimism and self-reliance - the people stop clinging fearfully to their remotes, viewership declines, and fascism fizzles in a proud hurrah of enlightened confidence. As a result, the government continues its juggling act, replacing the previous threat with another, this one far more horrific than anyone could possibly imagine. The process is so formulaic it borders on self-incrimination, but our leadership is evolving to counter any threat of skepticism. Gone are the days when America chooses adversaries that can be extinguished with legislation, diplomacy, or even war. Nowadays we fight immortal and intangible foes, like anti-Americanism, terror, and, yes, even our own planet Earth. And what are our weapons? Why, government-run organizations of course! Agencies, departments, commisions, and coalitions all fighting valiantly against imaginary problems, and failing miserably. The government pours hundreds of billions of dollars into organizations that are incompetent, unhelpful, counterproductive, and thus self-sustaining. Their blunders ensure that the “problems” are never actually solved, and in turn secure hundreds of billions more wasted dollars. This is the role of our leadership. This is the state of fear.