Global warming is not much discussed nowadays by the Scientific Left, as you have probably noticed—it is a term used mainly (and derisively) by reactionary troglodytes like your lovable gang of cyber-activists here in the WOOF cave, and by slower-witted liberals who have not kept abreast of trends. The scientific elite, and all the pop-cultural and pop-political entities that feed upon and echo its pronouncements, no longer refer to global warming. They refer instead to “climate change,” which concept incorporates the duo advantages of meaninglessness (because the climate is always changing, obviously) and indefeasibility (because you can’t disprove climate change—it’s everywhere we look)! But lest we be misunderstood, we should not be construed to be arguing that global warming has faded from the liberal consciousness. Make no mistake about it, “climate change” is roughly synonymous with global warming, except that it cannot be disproved.
Does that seem weird? Well, it probably should. But the Left didn’t simply rebrand global warming as climate change because it seems more marketable. It did so mainly to avoid the burden of proving anything. Proving that the planet “has a fever,” for example, as the execrable Albert Gore likes to rave, became increasingly difficult over the past 15 years of planetary cooling. There are really only two ways to proceed in the absence of evidence; namely, to claim that there actually is evidence, or to rationalize the fact that there isn’t. We all know that the global-warming scientists tried the first idea first.
Actually, to be fair, their first efforts seemed based on a profound conviction that the planet was hurdling toward a fiery fate. Unless one is planning on folding one’s tent and getting out of town, one does not typically make vehement predictions that will ultimately be observed to be incorrect; yet top scientists everywhere confidently forecast extremes of rainfall and drought worldwide, as well as hurricane seasons of unprecedented violence and duration. Except for events attributable to El Nino and La Nina, however, no such trends materialized, with this summer’s hurricane season the tamest since the early nineteenth century. Winters, of course, were predicted to become less wintry—with snow just a romantic memory. Back in the year 2000, Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, announced that snowfall was soon to become “a very rare and exciting event,” adding, “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is!” Strangely, however, the last 15 years have shown a lowering of winter temperatures all over the world, with many winter seasons setting all-time records or proving the coldest and lengthiest in decades.
And of course, while photographers hastened to shoot snaps of any surviving snow clumps in hopes of preserving a pictorial history of this rapidly waning phenomenon, the global ice caps were supposed to melt. As recently as 2007 a consortium of experts on global warming announced that their computer models showed the arctic would be ice free by 2013. But Professor Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California disagreed, sniffing, “You can argue that maybe our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.” In other words, the poles were melting a lot faster than even Maslowski’s colleagues had asserted. And Maslowski wasn’t finished. “This is not a cycle,” he thundered, “Not a fluctuation! In the end it will all just melt away!”
Oddly, however, a quick check of the Arctic Sea (now that it is in fact 2013 and has been all year) shows a 60% increase in the Arctic ice pack just since 2012. In fact, ice now covers one million square miles of the Arctic Ocean. Likewise, Antarctic ice has steadily trended upward since 1980. That said, WOOF as always strives to be fair, and Albert Gore told the 2009 Copenhagen climate change summit (once it got underway despite almost prohibitive blizzard conditions) that his latest research showed the Arctic would be completely ice-free in five years—and that means all the ice may vanish next year, so there’s that.
How hot is Sarah?
Alaska was said to be warming and losing its glaciers, and it is fair to say that Alaska’s warming was reported with especial alacrity by many climatologists who saw this somehow as a slap at Sarah Palin and all that she represented. (Let’s see Todd go snowmobiling when there’s nothing left but mud!) But as early as 2002 the University of Colorado’s renowned glacier expert, Professor Mark Meir, predicted the disappearance of glaciers in the Alps, southern Alaska and the Patagonian mountain range in South America. “In 20 years, you’ll be able to visit ‘Non-Glacier National Park’” quipped Meir, “and If you want to see the snows on Kilimanjaro, you’d better go soon.” But it’s been 12 years since Meir’s warning and Alaska has logged in with two of its bitterest winters on record, namely the winters of 2007-8 and 2011-12, while glaciers advanced more than at any time since the Ice Age…and the snows of Kilimanjaro remain obdurately intact, too.
Surf’s (not) up?
Oceans were supposed to get warmer, of course, and the sea level was slated to rise, soon to engulf New York City and large portions of California, per Al Gore, but these phenomena have also stalled. According to disappointed spokespeople at NOAA, no statistically significant warming has been measured in the uppermost 300 meters in the tropical Pacific, for instance, since the 1950s. And are the seas rising? We are all aware, (yes, even those of us who live in a cave), that trillions of dollars must be poured into combating global warming by supporting “green” initiatives–because such initiatives may be the world’s only hope of halting the disastrous rise in sea levels that will otherwise topple the statue of liberty, sweep traffic from the Golden Gate Bridge and leave ocean liners stranded in the wheat fields of Topeka. So how goes the struggle? Actually, really well!
Despite the fact that Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth predicted a 20 foot rise in the sea level, (there was a nice shot of San Francisco underwater that accompanied this prediction) it seems that the sea level has remained fairly static. Perhaps sobered by Mr. Gore’s failure to summon the consuming tides, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared, rather more conservatively, that our seas would rise by a comparatively modest 17 inches, but the oceans of the world remain unresponsive. As many of you know, WOOF’s cave is on the Atlantic coastline, enabling us to take daily calibrations–and so far there’s nothing exciting to report; it’s just about the same everyday with allowances made for tides and weather conditions. The same boresomely anticlimactic stasis is reported by our Left Coast affiliates who dutifully check ocean levels at Long Beach a few times each month—same deal! Florida—same deal! Shanghai was also slated by Gore for inundation , but so far Shanghai too remains above water with no perceptible increase in the thalassic surround. How did we get so lucky?
Three oft-told tales:
It will not astonish you, gentle readers, to learn that opinions differ—but three possible explanations present themselves most forcefully. First, the advocates of man-made global warming insist that the sea levels will rise at any moment, and that it will be even worse than predicted… so says the notoriously leftist British newspaper The Guardian. And they figured it out scientifically. They decided to ask 360 scientists who support global-warming theory. These scientists responded to a questionnaire—and they all said the seas would rise and that by 2100 (or some said 2300) it would be really, really, really bad. And that’s survey sampling, gentle readers, and it comes with pie charts, so it’s science, got that?
The more rational explanation, of course, is that President Obama by his very presence halted all pelagic encroachments worldwide. In fact, he wasn’t even president yet–it was upon securing the Democrat nomination that senator Obama informed an adulatory group of supporters in St. Paul, Minnesota that, “This is the moment when the rise of oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal!” The nominee never made it clear, really, why nominating him for the presidency had exerted so immediate and salubrious an effect world wide, but whether it is a mere post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc coincidence, as some extreme skeptics have suggested, or whether it was the raw force of some supernal power vested in the First Marxist, the fact remains: The man said the seas would stay put, and they did! (He seems, for that matter, to have put the kibosh on hurricane seasons, too, with fewer such storms recorded during his administration than during any other president’s!)
But we said three explanations, and here’s the third: The most widely acknowledged and respected expert on ocean levels and the science that affects them is arguably the Swedish geologist and physicist Doctor Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the prestigious International Commission on Sea Level Change. If he were a tenured American professor he would have been unceremoniously stripped of his academic position by now, denounced by his peers, and cast penniless into the nearest available trailer park as retribution for his betrayal of liberal scientific orthodoxy. Fortunately for Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, he is Swedish, and being Swedish ranks among the coolest thing you can possibly be when you address the American Left, so his pronouncements on this subject have been respectfully ignored, rather than universally condemned.
Dr. Mörner, who spent the last 40 years of his life using nearly every known means of scientific inquiry to assess, investigate, and predict sea levels, offers a rather concise explanation for oceanic intransigence: “The sea is not rising,” he says. (Say, could that be it?) “It hasn’t risen in 50 years.” Even more discouragingly, Morner adds that fundamental laws of physics pertaining to the amount of latent heat required to melt ice guarantee that nothing resembling the apocalyptic visions of Al Gore can manifest during this century. The best evidence of Dr. Morner’s accuracy is that nobody in media or in academe is ever heard or seen referring to his conclusions.
The double crosser
Before the growing number of reputable scientists who are calling shenanigans on man-made global warming dared to speak out, there was a shocking defection from the arts—that cultural enclave so reliably liberal that any heterodox utterance is automatically regarded as deplorable—almost inconceivable. You take a guy like Michael Crichton, the hugely successful novelist whose books always get made into movies—you know, like The Andromeda Strain, and Jurassic Park, and Congo and The Terminal Man—all of them except State of Fear. In 2004 Crichton wandered onto the TODAY show and sat down for a cozy chat with an unsuspecting Katie Couric who purred that his latest book was about global warming and asked him, with obvious anticipation, to elaborate. “It’s a hoax,” Crichton told her, at which point Couric’s face froze in dumbstruck horror. After all, Hollywood liked Crichton—they optioned all his novels–how could he have changed into a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal just in time for her interview? It was a classic moment in TV entertainment—and needless to say Crichton was dutifully savaged by every right-minded (which is to say left-of-center) reviewer, concerned scientist, and editorial writer available to join the onslaught. Even upon his death the man was roundly decried as a dangerous apostate by scientists who pretended to be writing his obituary.
The consensus mob
Crichton had slammed point blank into the monolith of science as practiced by the new rules of political correctitude. He had caused a disturbance in the force–affronted the man-made global-warming uni-mind. Nobody paused to congratulate him on taking a controversial and unpopular view in the interest of broadening the scientific discourse—no, they just wanted him gone. They let him know in no uncertain terms that he had no business flying in the face of scientific “consensus,” to use one of Albert Gore’s favorite words—and that he must, consequently, be shunned and excoriated. But before he turned his attentions elsewhere, Crichton mocked the entire “warmist” ethos by giving a lecture at Caltech satirically entitled “Aliens cause global warming.” What he had to say in that lecture bears another hearing:
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”
The sore losers
Meanwhile, the consensus was developing some problems of its own—the kind that screaming at Michael Crichton could not resolve. A series of leaked and hacked emails revealed that skulduggery was afoot at the Hadley Climate Research Unit, followed by similar revelations involving New Zealand’s NWIA, Australia’s climate center, and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Professor Phil Jones at the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, became the symbol of psuedo-scientifc dastardliness inasmuch as his every leaked memo seemed redolent of conspiracy and deception. In a thoroughly ironic sense, Jones was the embodiment of candor, since he was always quite straightforward about the need to hide the evidence of global cooling, ignore colleagues who were not “helping the cause,” and most of all to continue receiving grant monies even when it meant hiding any data that that might jeopardize the funding. “Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones wrote of some contradictory findings he wanted flushed. WOOF considers it hugely telling that he added, ““I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” In other words, the U.S. Department of Energy was in on the cover up. (Shocking!)
When the “Climate Audit” website detected problems with some of the warming evidence, Phil Jones did not hesitate to communicate his concern to fellow climate alarmist Michael Mann at Penn State, casually asking him, “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]? Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the…problem in the Nature paper!!”
In other words, the main idea among all these men of science was to keep the grant money flowing by shaping (or deleting) their findings to whatever degree necessary in order to uphold the global-warming sham. As Jonathon Overpeck (man of science in charge of reporting the IPCC’s climate assessments) made plain: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.” This is the antithesis of science. Rather than gathering evidence and basing a conclusion on it, the gang at IPCC was already agreed upon the necessary conclusion, and throwing out all the evidence that challeneged it.
Needless to say the scientific community has churned out volumes of carefully rationalized twaddle in an attempt to dissuade the laity from supposing anything untoward might be afoot in the pure realm of climate science—and interested parties can Google these entertaining efforts at their leisure. In the wake of “Climategate,” however, the image of the dedicated environmentalist in a white lab coat, fighting to save Mother Gaia from the smelting furnace of eternity, has been forever tarnished.
Hope and change– and the current ambivalence
But a larger problem beset the noble climate warriors—larger even than the seemingly endless examples of duplicitous emails and underhanded memos that gushed from their files. An even bigger problem, given the pitiless march of time, was the simple lack of “face validity” inherent in their hypotheses. In other words, freezing winters, breezy summers, lackluster hurricane seasons and oceans that just sat there being oceans, began to fetch skepticism from the public. Meanwhile, wintry extremes continued to obtrude themselves upon the public psyche. An example of this, in concentrated form, is “the Gore Effect.” This is the hypothesized tendency of unseasonably cold temperatures, punishing hail, and/or record-breaking accumulations of snow to manifest whenever Al Gore visits an area to lecture on global warming! As an hypothesis, it must be remarked, it is better substantiated by objective data than man-made global warming has ever been or is ever likely to be! But that is no longer quite the concern it was, because as we said at the outset, global warming is no longer much discussed or written of—it having undergone a mysterious metamorphosis and transformed itself into “climate change.”
If you doubt that climate science is a product of the landscape painters who by manipulation of our media set the scene for our societal concerns and anxieties, consider how the one problem became the other with barely a whisper of protest from any quarter, Indeed, the paltry evidence for warming was simply discarded, finally, as too inconsequential to support the continuing snow job, (besides, those leaked emails looked really bad) and in its place we are offered “climate change,” for which we have ample evidence at hand at any given moment. The climate, after all, changes continuously. And because the mere idea of climate changing from day to day is admittedly too bland and to scare or inspire people, a number of suitably dramatic adjectives are vying for routinization in tandem with the new phrase, given us with barely a glimmer of explanation. Why explain it, after all, when within 6 months you can have every citizen alert to the phrase by virtue of its constant reiteration within the medias’ echo chamber while every “responsible” scientist in need of tenure, some TV time, a grant, or simple fraternal acceptance, will announce that he is devoted to fixing it—whatever it is.
Remember the Ice Age?
But there is something innately unscientific about adjectives—they are so often subjective. Shall we settle on “extreme climate change” or “global climate change” or maybe just “man-made climate change?” And what is the Left sacrificing in the way of tactical leverage as it repairs to this second redoubt within the walls? What we mean is, they are now retreating to approximately where they were to begin with in the nineteen seventies when all the leading climate scientists were telling us that a new ice age was fast approaching.
It is difficult to recall now that only thirty years ago the top international climate scientists (including many who are now determined to advocate for global warming) were solemnly enjoining us to prepare to be frozen to death as the planet plunged into the cosmic deep freeze. The theory gained tremendous interest and generated considerable concern, but fell victim ultimately to the same face-validity problem that currently besets the warming argument—it just didn’t seem to be happening. But the whole idea of global freezing came with one additional drawback—it didn’t seem particularly ascribable. The era of the scientist/moralist was not yet in full swing, although it was getting under way where pollution was concerned—because pollution was going to kill us all for a while back then—and over-population, which was also scheduled to kill us all for about a decade).
The Left, freshly deprived of Vietnam and Richard Nixon, was not particularly interested in the return of the ice age, because it gave Leftists nothing to despise, rant against, and feel morally superior about. It was, in other words, no fun at all. So as we entered the Reagan ‘80s, the warming theory took over. We were supposed to have exhausted earth’s oil supplies by the 1980s. Scientists used computer models to show us that the age of fossil fuels was at an end. But Ronald Reagan (that idiot!) told us we were “literally floating on a sea of oil” and we careened into Reagan’s supply-side driven economic revival with our cars and trucks roaring. The Left coalesced around the certitude that even if we still had oil, it must be killing us, and it was, we were told, killing us by destroying the ozone layer (early global-warming ‘languaging’) and if we didn’t stop driving cars and trucks, we’d all die. It was not long before the Left realized that not only cars and trucks might kill us, but also factories! Suddenly the invidious association between death by ozone depletion and Reagan’s hateful brand of runaway capitalism became clear! Even if Reagan didn’t start a nuclear war and destroy as all that way, he’d kill us off by letting the economy rip while placing no constraints on the mechanisms of wealth and industry…the horror; the horror.
And so we emerged as a popular culture from the impending ice age, (somewhat prematurely, as we’ll argue shortly) and marched numbly into the crucible of man-made global warming…a concept beloved of the Left because it villainized success, big business, industry, manufacturing, and jet travel. (Thus the never-ending procession of cartoons and films featuring cute animated animals battling these evil entities to save the planet.) The problem was, in abandoning the ice-age concept for the more politically useful notion of man-made warming, the Leftist Establishment moved our culture away from scientific plausibility and nearer to absurdity. But nobody noticed for quite some time.
Climate change: immune to rebuttal!
The climate-salvation lobby is experiencing some difficulties as we head into 2014 (with all that darned ice and snow all over the place) deciding whether to fight for the preservation of the global warming mythos, or elide into the more facile realm of “climate change,” which seems so conveniently defensible by comparison. As this screed is committed to cyberspace, the factions in favor of “climate change” are on the indisputable ascent. The quickest way to satisfy yourself in this regard is to pick up a newspaper or turn on a TV newscast, or punch up your favorite online news page. Unless you are cheating by restricting your sources to the far right, you will note that climate change is almost exclusively in use, while the choice of adjectival intensifiers is not yet entirely settled.
Of course the fact that it cannot be effectively rebutted is the chief allure of the term—it being patently impossible to prove that climate change doesn’t happen. If it rained yesterday but snowed today, that’s climate change, right? And any time these changes seem even mootably anomalous, why, you have extreme climate change! There is no doubt that the scientific climate salvagers can labor beneath such a rubric without fear of repudiation. But another problem attaches itself to this otherwise convenient term—and that problem is scientific. (“Isn’t that ironic—don’t you think?”)
Who is Karl Popper?
Sir Karl Raimund Popper was an Austrian, transplanted to England, who is widely esteemed the greatest scientific philosopher of the 20th century. One of Popper’s greatest achievements ramified from his stand against classical induction in scientific inquiry. Without getting detailed (and because we assume most of our beloved readers know this already), let it simply be stated that induction is an inherently inefficient means of reaching conclusions. The Scottish philosopher David Hume dismissed it as impossible to justify except inductively, which reasoning he denounced as (rather obviously) circular. But this is precisely the kind of “logic” that must be applied in any defense of “climate change,” and any such defense is therefore unscientific. Here’s why.
Popper offered the scientific method of empirical falsification as a preferable substitute for inductive reasoning. An hypothesis is deemed falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of observable events that would prove the hypothesis to be false. Example: If you hypothesize that all cows have spots, it qualifies as a scientific hypothesis (more or less) precisely because it can be falsified. All anybody has to do, obviously, is locate a cow that has no spots, and your hypothesis is disproved…it is falsified. Plainly, not every falsifiable hypotheses can be proved false, thus the hypotheses that resist falsification may be considered solid science. (If nobody, ever, anywhere, were able to find a non-spotted cow, your theory that all cows are spotted would begin to look viable.) It is almost universally held in the wake of Popper’s contribution that true science must be falsifiable.
Okay, so you know where this ends up, don’t you! There is absolutely no way to “falsify” a theory that claims any climactic shift or variation from the norm to be “Global Warming,” and this becomes doubly obvious when one substitutes the absurd term, “climate change,” which could only be falsified if there weren’t any. And the warm lobby has routinely committed the cardinal scientific sin of rationalizing its way around evident falsification by inventing ad hoc methods of evading the verdict. That’s why we now have extreme climate change (the concept, that is, not the actual weather). It’s the only reason for the shift.
Do you realize that the lowest temperature ever recorded on earth was just registered? Yup—it was 135.8 degrees (Fahrenheit) below zero, and this is the least warm our planet has ever been anywhere in meteorological history. The record was established in Antarctica, even as the Left continues to warn us of polar melting. In reality, it seems fairly obvious that the planet is getting colder—at least that’s what the amalgam of empirical evidence suggests. And some scientists are actually beginning to risk professional life and limb by taking note of this evidence.
German scientists are predicting global cooling lasting throughout this century. Horst-Joachim Luedecke and Carl-Otto Weiss of the European Institute for Climate and Energy insist that, “Due to the de Vries cycle, the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the ‘little ice age’ of 1870.” (The de Vries cycle, just in case you’re not up on this, is a 200 year solar cycle.) The scientists also studied the 65-year Atlantic and Pacific Ocean oscillation cycle and concluded that global warming since 1870 has been mainly the result of the interaction of these factors, just as global cooling is, currently.
Or as Donald J. Easterbrook, the courageous (or simply reckless?) Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western University Bellingham prefers to put it, “Global warming is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.”
Professor Mike Lockwood, a leading British scientist at Reading University warns that the current rate of decline in solar activity may usher in a second “little ice age.” Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more precipitately than at any time in the last 10,000 years after a period of unusually intense activity. He believes, in other words, that global heating or cooling has a lot to do with how hot the sun is—now there’s a weird theory!
And of course it goes without saying that the UN (in the form of the IPCC) and the self-appointed (although government funded) climate saviors in many major universities around the world are busily disseminating their learned insights as to how unprecedented global cooling, in actuality, represents further proof of unprecedented global warming. These arguments, you may safely suppose, will become the flapdoodle of preference among liberals of refinement, so studying them in advance may prepare you for what the college professors, attorneys, therapists, or cellar-dwelling pothead college drop-outs in your family will be expounding over Christmas dinner. On the other hand, the lower-brow among your liberal associates are likely to prefer the climate-change option. It is a matter of some passing interest (to us here in the WOOF cave anyway) that this bifurcation highlights a peculiarity of the liberal class system. Why is it that the more intellectually inclined liberals will, almost without exception, prefer the dumber of two dopey options? But we digress. Those of us who recognize the actual environmental threat to this planet, namely the icy, bone-chilling onset of an unyielding, devastating, global winter, must do all we can to stave off this potentially catastrophic event.
How you can help save the planet:
WOOF believes that it is increasingly apparent, given the high quality of evidence presented by a growing number of internationally respected scientists, that the earth is entering another ice age. If you have reviewed the evidence presented above, or if you have personally checked into the available evidence and come to the obvious conclusions, you are probably asking yourself about now, “Gosh, what can I do to help prevent another ice age?” Fortunately, liberals have spent decades amassing detailed compendia of the most efficient means of stopping the next ice age in its tracks! Indeed, the solutions to global cooling are available online from numerous left-wing sources. Do you doubt us?
We suggest you double check our list by going to the website for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) because it offers a crisp, clear-cut list of all the possible solutions to our climate problem. So, in fairness, do most other leftist websites on this topic. Of course, the items listed are offered as monumental no-no’s—a rogues’ gallery of human-controlled phenomena that ostensibly cause global warming—but if there is any truth to these assertions, then the more enlightened view is clearly the contrary one: These formerly vilified activities are in fact the very keys to our salvation! So, taking them one by one, here is what you can do to combat the coming Big Freeze:
- Carbon dioxide emissions from burning gasoline—an easy way to battle global cooling! If you own an SUV, budget a bit more for gasoline and leave it running in your driveway. If you are not fortunate enough to own an SUV, any automotive vehicle—even a motor scooter—will emit carbon dioxide. If every American ran a gas-powered motor for only two extra hours every day, global cooling could be delayed by at least a decade!
- Emissions from fossil fuel burning factories and power plants—a tremendous source of planetary protection! Of course, few of us are so fortunate as to own our own factory, but you can let your congressperson and senators know that it’s time to remove all those counterproductive emissions controls with which our industries are saddled. And a great way to involve your kids could be having them stand outside coal burning power plants waving signs that say cute, amusing things, like “Thanks for smoking!”
- Methane emissions from animals: Let’s face it, everybody loves animals! And while we can’t humanely undertake methods of getting them to defecate more prolifically, we can certainly help them to multiply and remain well fed! If zoning permits, consider buying your own cow.
- Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs): These emissions are often called by their copyrighted DuPont name: Freon. And the wonderful thing about them is, they are readily available, often quite inexpensively, to the eviro-warrior on a budget. It doesn’t cost much to spray paint your fence, or turn your refrigerator and freezer to lower temperature settings! Why not stick an air conditioning unit in that unused room and crank it up, even though it’s winter! Remember, it’s going to get a whole lot colder if we don’t act now! Sadly, many of these CFCs, so vital to our planet’s survival, are being phased out of product lines that previously incorporated them. Luckily, according to the IPCC/TEAP Special Report on Ozone and Climate, there remain an estimated 5,791 kilotons of CFCs in existing products such as refrigerators, air conditioners, aerosol cans, and so on…so check labels carefully and make sure you are arranging to emit genuine chlorofluorocarbons!
And this concludes our discussion, Woofketeers—we here in the cave hope that we have provided a service, and if any should think otherwise, we will be happy to hear about it, as always. And in closing, please allow us to remind you that time, in our considered opinion, is running out for civilization unless we take prompt and powerful action to put the brakes on our planetary plunge into sub-zero temperatures! So help us strike back at global cooling, won’t you? And to stress the importance of taking action, let us leave you with these words from President Obama’s “Organizing for Action” website:
“Climate change is real—the stakes are too high for climate denial!”