First, let me unveil my intentions. I’m not against maintaining the environment on planet Earth. I am against false and misleading information. If someone has good ways to be stewards of our environment, then by all means, let’s use those ways. My intention with this fisking is to show the inconsistencies in the logic, the mistitled systems, and the oddness of the topic. If by the end of this fisking you don’t have a different perspective, then you don’t need to read any of my future fisks. You’re excused.
For this one, I dissected a web page from National Geographic in 2017 A.D.—during the hurricane season. When it’s not hurricane season, like right now as this archive hits the infonet datawaves, they focus on info for children, like so: Check out the Farming section! Really, Nat. Geo.? Really?
Seven Things To Know About Climate Change
They’ve already started with an incorrect notion: They say they’re going to give us seven things, then they give us eight. I suppose we should give them the benefit of the doubt. They’re National Geographic, not National Mathematic.
- It’s not a myth, hoax, or a conspiracy among scientists.
Why they felt the need to put this disclaimer in there is interesting. What is the purpose of this statement? Does it remove all doubt from you? Do you stop questioning at this point? Did you go to the site because you had conspiracy theories? Does that simple statement negate any conspiracy theories? What would you say if you were trying to convince someone of your conspiracy? Hmmm. Furthermore, would you use trusted agencies to convince the gullible public? Hmmm. Is Nat. Geo. trusted? Is Nat. Geo. trustworthy? If so, then we can give them credibility that this is not a myth, a hoax, or a conspiracy. Otherwise, the statement amounts to an opinionated smokescreen.
- The world is getting warmer.
See? No need to panic. Don’t panic. Why do people who push “climate change” sound all panicky? Nat. Geo. doesn’t. They start off giving us the word warmer. The world isn’t on fire. It’s getting warmer. It has been since the end of the ice age. Do you remember the ice age? Oh, you weren’t there? Me either. The current trend is one degree warmer each one hundred years. That’s slow. That’s natural. Why do we need to know? Do we need to do something about it? Let’s read on and find out.
- It’s because of us. Volcanic eruptions cause sporadic cooling.
In other words, it’s anthropogenic. That’s a long fancy word which means “man-made”. Nat. Geo doesn’t use that word, but I do. So Nat. Geo. is saying that even though there are volcanic eruptions also putting carbon dioxide in the troposphere, the source is man? Huh? Here’s another inconsistency: If we caused it, and we can correct it, then anthropogenic climate change is the solution to anthropogenic climate change. (For instance: cloud seeding.) No wonder people get so confused with this subject.
- We’re sure. Svante Arrhenius saw global warming as a good thing. Nat. Geo.: “dangerous”.
“Remember,” they say, “we told you it’s not a myth, or a hoax, or a conspiracy among mafia bosses.” I’m kidding. They didn’t say that. But when they give us a statement like this, it sure doesn’t sound scientific. It sounds blatantly pushy. “Don’t you dare doubt us. We’re sure.” They admit that the scientist Svante saw global warming as a good thing. They say it’s dangerous. Thanks for your opinion, Nat. Geo. That’s all it is at this point. And the consensus among scientists? That’s nice. The consensus of the flat earth society is that the world is flat. Consensus has another name: bandwagon logic.
- Ice is melting fast.
That’s what happens when things warm up. If the Earth was warming and ice didn’t melt, I’d probably start panicking. They’re talking about glaciers, arctic ice, and Greenland. This is a good thing if you’re one of those who don’t enjoy drought. Water once stored in glaciers is now available for consumption, and for washing your socks. On the flip side, are we all going to drown? Only if we succumb to Natural Selection ourselves. Human ingenuity never ceases to amaze.
- Weather havoc. Climate change…doesn’t cause a particular drought or storm…
I agree with that thought of climate change not causing any specific weather. Unfortunately, the average climate change believer thinks that’s exactly how it works. Anyway, here we start talking about the weather. Weather is supposed to be immediate, by scientific definition. Climate is supposed to be measured over longer periods of time, by scientific definition. These are the scientific fuzzy definitions. Because if you’re a normal dude, you might climb in your truck and adjust the climate controls causing an immediate change in your surroundings. If you’re a normal dude and you’re confused, it’s understandable. These sorts of definitions are what cause doubt. Scientists jobs aren’t necessarily to persuade, but if they’re going to get my vote of confidence, they better not have any inconsistencies in their definitions. If the weather where you live is tempered, you might have a severe doubt that the world is in dire flux, or that there’s any “havoc” out there. That’s an interesting word choice, by the way. Why say “weather havoc” if the topic is only “warming”? How does warming translate to havoc and panic? Is there a need to panic? Obviously not. “It’s not a hoax. We’re sure.” If certainty was true, then why not just say weather “changes”? That would be more logical, more consistent with the general form, and less manipulative.
- Species are being disrupted.
Here is where I sound like an uncaring cynic. Natural Selection.
- We can do something about it.
Finally, something actionable. We’re humans. We’re very intelligent, at least in comparison to other species on the planet. We can help the other species on the planet, instead of sitting around idly and jawing about the weather. We can help our own variety too. Here are some good and not-so-good ways Nat. Geo. gives us to do something about it:
Items that are discarded don’t necessarily contribute to weather change, and can’t logically be attributed to “havoc”, but renewable energy is how nature propels itself. We could mimic nature in this.
195 countries signed the Paris Agreement.
This is irrelevant. Scientists didn’t sign the Paris Agreement. Politicians did that. Though signing a document isn’t directly harmful, neither is it directly helpful. As an action, political action is inert.
Only solar? Does someone at Nat. Geo. have stocks in solar energy related companies? There are many alternate energy solutions. Wind energy. Oceanic energy. Geothermal energy. Anthropogenic energy. Gravitational energy. The list goes on. If you’re looking for alternatives, don’t limit yourself to solar.
What?! Carbon-free? They’re talking about energy sources here, of course. However, they did seem to miss one of the physical laws: matter cannot be destroyed. We don’t really want a planet void of carbon or its molecular combinations. Also, there are many sources of carbon dioxide. Coffee bean processing. Chocolate production. Bread making. Beer production. Paper recycling. Using cleaning chemicals. Humans breathing. Other mammals breathing. Volcanic action. So if we’re talking about the origins of carbon dioxide and how to stop it, they should have included all of the sources, not only their pet peeves.
Preserve forests, yes, but don’t stop there. Make new ones. Plant trees. If carbon dioxide is your worry of choice, trees are your relief. Trees consume carbon dioxide, like humans consume oxygen. Their conclusion is my conclusion, and I think it would have been a much better article if they had simply stated “Preserve, maintain, and renew forests.”