I'm at my parents' place on the beaches, doing an assignment for uni that's due in tomorrow. I've got a bit of a sore neck, and I ask my dad for a heat pack or similar to drape over my shoulders to soothe my muscles. "No, don't know where that's gone," he says "how about a Valium instead?"
Yep, that's how we roll.
PS I'm 29 tomorrow. Eeeep.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Friday, June 3, 2011
Morons Ahoy
Ain't Facebook a wonderful thing. Really warms the cockles of my wee little heart to know that I am sharing the planet with such complete fucktards. Please read the status update below which was regrettably posted by someone I am related to (not by blood, thank fuck):
Secondly, Wikipedia. Not exactly your go-to source for scientific enlightenment. But that's me just being a bit snobby, I guess.
Most importantly, though, there appears to be a conflation here of 'carbon' and 'carbon dioxide'*. Two rather different things, child. One is solid matter and the other is gas. Now I DO realise of course that the "carbon debate" is a bit of a misnomer, seeing as we aren't actually debating anything about carbon per se, but rather a toxic gas (well, toxic unless you are a photosynthesising plant), the molecules of which contain one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. The confusion of carbon with carbon dioxide is akin to mixing up Prince and Prince William - who are quite different beasts, I'm sure you'll agree. "Carbon" has been used to stand in for "carbon dioxide" in media coverage and political debate as apparently the dimwitted amongst us find two words and five syllables too difficult to deal with. However, I think the time has come where we may need to reeducate some of our citizens on basic scientific facts.
More than being just toxic to most respiring beasts including our good selves, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. And yes, 'greenhouse gas' is yet another buzz-term set to cause confusion amongst the less astute. Our voting public needs to understand what this means in everyday language. For example, "Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas which when present in excess, forms a invisible barrier in our atmosphere trapping in the heat of the sun, and ensuring that we/our descendants will eventually broil in our own juices. Also, your beach house will wash away. Melting icebergs, etc.'. That ought to clear it up.
I particularly love my Facebook buddy's unintentionally ironic coup de grace:
Dear Readers, I certainly am not presuming for a second that you require this illumination. But rather, I wish to point out the follies of the fucking cretins that we share our oxygen with. It is scary. People have graduated high school without even a basic grasp of elementary scientific fact.
You may well ask, did I correct my stupid relative? No, I did not. I would not have even known where to start. And anyway, it would be a waste of breath.
* In the body of this post I have not addressed a of my own key beliefs. In the spirit of full disclosure, they are listed here:
(a) I'm pro carbon-tax, but would also like to see more pro-green energy policy and activity along with the financial disincentives for carbon dioxide output.
(b) My experience working within resource sector lead to the knowledge that these companies are generally wilfully polluting colonialist cunts who can well afford to cough up for their misdeeds instead of purchasing a $24 million jet personally researched and selected by their charming PA i.e., me. Oh, and my own general green/slightly commie leanings might also have something to do with it.
(c) I support the notion that the global warming we are currently experiencing is a direct result of human activities such as: the use of coal for energy, deforestation (less trees = less photosynthesis = more CO2 and less O2), the cattle industry (cow fart, and they fart a lot = methane = another greenhouse gas).
lol, what to do when a government blows all the cash?? ...... Come up with a magic boogie-man tax on EVERYTHING!! Carbon isnt pollution, it's the 6th most common element in the universe! humans are 18% carbon!! (thanks wikipedia). Have they noticed the 2549918274 people in China and India lately?? (or cant they see them through the smog?)Right. First off, "lol". Just don't. Not even ironically.
Secondly, Wikipedia. Not exactly your go-to source for scientific enlightenment. But that's me just being a bit snobby, I guess.
Most importantly, though, there appears to be a conflation here of 'carbon' and 'carbon dioxide'*. Two rather different things, child. One is solid matter and the other is gas. Now I DO realise of course that the "carbon debate" is a bit of a misnomer, seeing as we aren't actually debating anything about carbon per se, but rather a toxic gas (well, toxic unless you are a photosynthesising plant), the molecules of which contain one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. The confusion of carbon with carbon dioxide is akin to mixing up Prince and Prince William - who are quite different beasts, I'm sure you'll agree. "Carbon" has been used to stand in for "carbon dioxide" in media coverage and political debate as apparently the dimwitted amongst us find two words and five syllables too difficult to deal with. However, I think the time has come where we may need to reeducate some of our citizens on basic scientific facts.
More than being just toxic to most respiring beasts including our good selves, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. And yes, 'greenhouse gas' is yet another buzz-term set to cause confusion amongst the less astute. Our voting public needs to understand what this means in everyday language. For example, "Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas which when present in excess, forms a invisible barrier in our atmosphere trapping in the heat of the sun, and ensuring that we/our descendants will eventually broil in our own juices. Also, your beach house will wash away. Melting icebergs, etc.'. That ought to clear it up.
I particularly love my Facebook buddy's unintentionally ironic coup de grace:
Have they noticed the 2549918274 people in China and India lately?? (or cant they see them through the smog?)
Putting the not-so-implicit racism inherent in this statement aside.........................UM, SMOG. That's kind of what we're talking about here. Not exactly, granted: smog is generally comprised of Carbon Monoxide (CO) + Carbon Dioxide (CO2) + teensy particles of nasty assorted crap + other horrid chemical stuff we don't want, including that shit which makes acid rain. Smog is also a more localised phenomena, where as the greenhouse effect is more globalised. Correct me if I am wrong, however: the global reduction of "carbon" pollution will in turn lead to a reduction in smog occurrences. Whereupon my racist relative might actually be able to see those 2549918274 people.
Yes, less developed countries are also contributing negatively to the global warming of our planet through their unchecked carbon dioxide emissions. This does not mean we should be taking a leaf from that particular environmental policy, however. In my mind, people who make these arguments are like whiny spoilt children: "Hawwwwwww how come THEY get to pump out toxic greenhouse gas, I wanna pump out toxic greenhouse gas toooooo! Not! Fair! And they're Asian and they're dirty and they smell!!"
Dear Readers, I certainly am not presuming for a second that you require this illumination. But rather, I wish to point out the follies of the fucking cretins that we share our oxygen with. It is scary. People have graduated high school without even a basic grasp of elementary scientific fact.
You may well ask, did I correct my stupid relative? No, I did not. I would not have even known where to start. And anyway, it would be a waste of breath.
* In the body of this post I have not addressed a of my own key beliefs. In the spirit of full disclosure, they are listed here:
(a) I'm pro carbon-tax, but would also like to see more pro-green energy policy and activity along with the financial disincentives for carbon dioxide output.
(b) My experience working within resource sector lead to the knowledge that these companies are generally wilfully polluting colonialist cunts who can well afford to cough up for their misdeeds instead of purchasing a $24 million jet personally researched and selected by their charming PA i.e., me. Oh, and my own general green/slightly commie leanings might also have something to do with it.
(c) I support the notion that the global warming we are currently experiencing is a direct result of human activities such as: the use of coal for energy, deforestation (less trees = less photosynthesis = more CO2 and less O2), the cattle industry (cow fart, and they fart a lot = methane = another greenhouse gas).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)