EATING BREAD CAUSES DEATH BY AUTOMOBILE? …C’mon, haven’t you ever suspected there was ”junk science” in “Man-caused” global warming?

Posted on Mon 03/13/2017 by

2


 

Doesn’t it seem prudent to not take in ONLY the little snippets we’re fed about “global warming” or about anything else for that matter? We should try to see the larger picture.

Haven’t you ever thought? “ : “Yeah, the science they’ve fed us is a bunch of baloney.” (You can use “baloney” if you like…or any other term you’d care to come up with.) Regardless, I hope you can conclude, that whatever it was they rolled down the hill at us it was, at very least “junk science”

***

Ninety percent of people who die in automobile accidents have bread in their stomachs….By some research standards, the conclusion would be : Eating bread causes death by automobile!

If you buy one lottery ticket, you’ve improved your chances of winning. If you buy TWO lottery tickets, you are twice as likely to win! If you buy ten lottery tickets—YOU ARE TEN TIMES MORE LIKELY (to get cancer) TO WIN!

Does that language sound familiar? How likely are you to actually win the lottery if you buy ten lottery tickets? And how likely are you to get cancer if you are “ten times more likely” to get cancer —or not, from one thing or the other? The fear mongers usually don’t bother to say and they depend on us not to ask questions. That’s the fear mongers doing a tap dance on our heads. If you haven’t wondered—you should—what the possible motives might be behind that language.

Did the scientist that published his research, that eating a particular food improves your chances—or not, of getting cancer for example, go out and buy stock in that food before he published? Could there possibly be a political agenda behind the “research”? Or possibly the research standard stopped at the conclusion desired by the researcher, and he asked no further questions beyond the desired result?

If you’ve read the previous articles here on “Man-caused” global warming, you know these articles are all about comparing human activity to the planet. This is one of those.

Today, this is about “CFC’s” It demonstrates (I believe) perfectly the junk science behind the whole of “climate science” You only have to realize “scientists” can’t predict the weather three weeks from now, and they are only so-so at predicting the weather three days from now to understand they’re doing a voodoo dance predicting what the climate will be 100 years from now—or even next year. They’re dancing around the fire, throwing flash powder into the flames hoping you’ll buy their dance.

The ozone layer is an important part of the atmosphere located in the lower part of the stratosphere between about 9.3 to 22 miles (There’s a lot of billions of cubic miles in that ozone layer for the tiny amount of CFC’s cited here, to effect all those billions of cubic miles)

There is ozone throughout the atmosphere, but about 90% of it is in the ozone layer. When ozone is in the lower atmosphere where we live, it’s considered pollution (smog) and has bad effects on people and plants. Some man-made chemicals such as CFC’s (allegedly) cause harm to the ozone layer and for that reason they have been banned in most countries. People have done that to protect the ozone which protects us from harmful UV rays.

JUNK SCIENCE”…I love that description! The term “junk science” (fits in there nicely with the new term “fake news”) exemplifies perfectly not only what’s going on in the world today. It forms a picture of those that tell their children that the boogeyman will get them if they are not good little children (so pay a carbon tax, subsidize “green” energy, pay artificially high energy prices, and ride a bike) and is “parental” manipulation at it’s worst. It’s “Stranger danger!” for adults.

It’s hard to tell though if it’s all dark motives or incompetence. With our degenerating education system it just might be……a third grader who’s been told he’s a “scientists” who then proclaims to the other third graders what he concludes from his “research”

It’s also the scary ghost story around the campfire or the apocalyptic scenario you often see on TV that tells what might happen if, for example a giant meteor were to strike the earth, with the narrator using a deep, ominous, foreboding voice describing the consequences…Or maybe what would happen if all the ice at the poles melted. Ooh, scary! A ghost story for you and me…

Looking at some of the….“stuff”…rolled down the hill at us, don’t you have to wonder? Have real research standards gone out the window, for whatever reason?…Hmmm, amoral, immoral or a bunch of dummies? Great choices.

Or it could be some poor schlep who doesn’t want to go against the crowd and be howled out of existence by saying the world is not flat because—most likely in today’s atmosphere, political correctness has run amok?, ……Or it could just be (and I favor this scenario) the dark motives of the political machine dictating what the “results” must be?….But whatever it is— it ain’t science.

Those that advocate man-caused global warming accuse those that don’t buy into their fantasy as “Deniers” Name calling is what they do best. That’s their way of taking a lofty (very smug of them) perch, placing themselves above the fray of those poor peasants know nothing, seeking to cow them by throwing out yet another accusation of “stupid” when the fact is, it’s they who are enraptured by the voodoo dance around the fire.

So, if you haven’t made up your mind yet about the “science” you’ve been hearing, then this might be a good place to begin to wonder about what you’ve been told.

***

CFC’S… Very simply.

Do you remember the angst generated from the “research” results of all those CFC’s (Chlorofluorocarbons) being dispensed from all those aerosol cans destroying the ozone layer high up in the atmosphere? You were afraid—very afraid, so you quit using aerosol cans, were a good little child and went to hand pump dispensers to save the ozone layer and “SAVE THE PLANET!” Has it made you feel like a reluctant cape wearing hero in their fight against humanity?

There are many sources of CFC’s. They’re used as a refrigerant in air conditioners and refrigerators for example. This just addresses the hand-wringing over the use of aerosol cans and how their use is “so destructive to the ozone layer.”

You can decide if the wolf was at the door.

All the aerosol cans used annually worldwide would fit into the neighborhood in which you’re sitting. If you read the other articles here on the relationship of humans and their activities compared to the planet, you’ll have some idea of what is meant when referring to the relationship your neighborhood has compared to the planet.

Thinking about yourself : How many aerosol cans do you use annually? We in this modern, industrialized country probably use more than most other countries. Maybe use a little bug spray now and then, and still have the can left over from a few years ago? Possibly a few cans of shaving cream annually? Maybe a few cans of hair spray? But do you use one can a week? Probably no where near it. How many occasions have you had to have the a/c in your car or home serviced? How many people in third world country’s even have a/c, and how many have ever even used an aerosol can?

It would be a good guess many people on the planet don’t use, have access to, or even know what an aerosol can is, and it would be an excellent guess that next to no one uses one can a week.

I’ve no idea how many aerosol cans are actually used worldwide so this is certainly not scientific, so all that can be done here is to demonstrate that no matter how many aerosol cans are used world wide, it would be virtually impossible to have any effect on the ozone layer, or anything else.

For this discussion though, say there are 6 billion people on the planet and every man, woman and baby on the planet–all 6 billion of us–use one can a week.

That would be : 6 billion people X 52 weeks = 312 billion cans theoretically used annually. Judging that the average can would be six inches high, and stacked to a height of a roof top at 32 feet, they would take up an area of about 6 square miles—a square 2.45 miles per side and that would almost assuredly fit into the neighborhood in which you’re sitting. That’s only a stack 32 feet high!

But wait!

Probably a more realistic figure would be somewhere around 10 billion cans used annually worldwide, but as stated, I’ve no idea what the actual number might be. You can use your own thoughts on what the numbers might be. These estimates are only to make the point.

So if it was just 10 billion cans used annually and stacked to 32 feet, they’d take up an area of just 0.39 of a square mile.Tiny compared to the planet. It would only require two “United Parcel Service” (UPS) warehouse/distribution centers to contain all those cans….Think of it! Two warehouses!…. And we don’t even know if those warehouses might be higher than 32 feet! It’s a good bet they are. Makes me a little embarrassed to think we bought into what they were shoveling….Might it be they were selling pump aerosol dispensers?Please notice most of the contents of the cans would be whatever was sold in the cans and not the propellant CFC.

Here’s a thought…… The people who banned CFC’s and “have done that to protect the ozone which protects us from harmful UV rays”, wring their hands over the CFC’s from aerosol cans, but look right past the ozone in “smog” How is it the ozone in smog can’t make it to the ozone layer to “replenish” ozone, but the tiny amount of CFC’s in aerosol cans seems to make it all the way up to the billions of cubic miles in the ozone layer to destroy it?

Can you really believe the tiny quantity of CFC’s that must fill those cans in those two warehouses could have any effect on anything, let alone the 12.4 billion cubic miles of atmosphere over head? Can you really believe we weren’t led down the garden path?

Can you begin to believe we’ve been fed a bunch of “junk science” for the purpose of political expediency?….Yeah, it also could be incompetence. I just can’t believe there are that many boobs on the planet. I can though, believe there are that many superstitious people who are impressed with flash powder and believe what they hear around the campfire.

Many so-called “scientists” seem to make their living offering dire warnings for this or that. One can only imagine they sit back smugly and watch the chaos they create with each new pronouncement. when they come up with the next new thing that might kill us– until the next generation of “scientists” say : “It wasn’t as bad as we thought.” …C’mon, I know you’ve heard that sort of thing already.

Coincidentally, there was a recent report that “gluten” is actually beneficial. A thirty year study found that people who followed a “gluten free” diet were more likely to develop “type two” diabetes. Who knew? …Or is that just the wolf circling the pen?

People tend to believe a “scientist”, and rush out and do—or not do—whatever the latest edict is. It brings to mind sheep in a pen running from one side to the other, then back again as the wolf circles the pen—or the next “scientists” comes along and says something else.

There seems to be some question about the political and financial motivations by those who push the “man-caused“ global warming myth. Itdoes seem the global warming alarmists are driven by political and / or financial motives or are just simply envious of the money the energy industries make from selling their products.

The rest, who believe in global warming, believe what the first bunch is telling them and run to the other side of the pen.

***

You can skip this last section if you don’t like numbers, it’s just showing a little math to arrive at what aerosol cans may take up in area.

I measured what I believe may be a typical aerosol can (just the circle of the bottom to see what the average surface area might be. This is of course again, not “scientific” but hopefully will convey the point. The can in question measured 2.5 inches in diameter, making it’s radius half that at 1.25 inches. So to get the square inches (area) of that circle the formula is : A = πr2

(A = pi x radius x radius)… So, A = 3.14 x 1.25 x 1.25 which is 4.90635 inches. Call it 5 inches for the area of the bottom of the can. So, we use worldwide–in this example, 312 billion cans annually, times 5 inches will give us the area all those cans take up. That would be 1.56 trillion square inches divided by the 4 + billion square inches in a square mile gives us 390 square miles which would be a square measuring just 20 miles on a side, and 6 inches tall. Stack those to 32 feet and you’d have a square of just 6 square miles and be 2.45 miles per side.

Do the same math for 10 billion cans and you’d have a square of just 0.39 of a square mile 32 feet high. Remember, all those cans don’t merely contain the CFC’S we were talking about. They also contain the various products. Regardless of the actual amount of cans used worldwide—Is the point made?

Advertisements
Posted in: Politics