The Inevitability of Climate Change

A few days ago, social justice atheist PZ Myers had a blog post entitled, “Doom, doom, doom, doom.”  It links to an article describing just how bad the effects of climate change will be and PZ then comments:

Future generations — I mean, the current generation — will look back on this time and regard all those Republican climate change deniers as monsters committing crimes against humanity, and the rest of us as lazy good-for-nothings who couldn’t get off our butts to arrest the liars and frauds and greedy, corrupt short-term thinkers who are busily wrecking the planet for our species.

Ah yes, scapegoating and authoritarianism.  To be expected from social justice extremists and zealots.  But the problem is not that PZ would not get off his lazy butt to arrest the frauds and short-term thinkers.  The problem is that PZ would not get off his lazy butt and stop all his needless carbon pollution.

Let me give an example.

The next day, PZ posted a new blog entry –  If you poke a sewer rat in the eye, it doesn’t respond rationally – that draws attention to a YouTube video he made:  “I made a video criticizing a loony comic book guy who hates SJWs.”

Okay, so for some reason, it was important to him to go after some loony comic book guy who hates SJWs.  To each his own.  But just how much carbon pollution did PZ generate in doing so?

According to this site, 0.2 gm of CO2 are generated for every second of a video that is watched on the internet.  So let’s run the numbers.

PZ’s video is 11:07 long (not counting the ad).  That’s 667 seconds. And that’s 133.4 gms of CO2. As of the time of this writing, the video has 2070 views.  So now we are up to 276,138 gms.  Or, 276 kilograms.  And this number doesn’t factor in the amount of CO2 generated from the 165 YouTube comments, PZ’s blog entry, and the 30 comments it generated.  And of course, PZ’s video might cause the “loony comic book guy “to make a response video and it, along with its comments, will help dump even more CO2 into the air.

Since PZ’s video is only 6 days old, as time goes on, and when all is said and done, it’s not hard to believe that PZ’s one video will have helped spill a kilotonne (1000 kg) of CO2 into the atmosphere.  If you consider that

On a yearly basis, the average American eats 150 burgers leading to 600 kg of emissions.

we can say that his one YouTube video has dumped more carbon into the atmosphere that roughly two people’s yearly consumption of burgers.

In fact, that same article notes,

The 600 kg of burger emissions are equivalent to about a month and a half of automobile emissions.

Wow.  PZ’s one video is likely to be equivalent to about 3 months of automobile emissions.

And for what reason?  All, so he can get into some battle with some loony comic book guy?

Look, from my position, as one who doesn’t pollute with YouTube videos and social media accounts, I could be the one calling for PZ’s arrest.  But then, I’m not the wild-eyed extremist here who wants to arrest those who think differently.

Yet this example does more than illustrate the oh so common hypocrisy of social justice preachers.  I think it also illustrates the inevitability of climate change.   A climate change warrior so eager to scapegoat, yet so unwilling to signicantly reduce his carbon footprint because of some felt need to get into a fight on some obscure corner of the internet.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in climate change, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The Inevitability of Climate Change

  1. John Branyan says:

    “Doom, doom, doom, doom” is the only consistent atheist conclusion. Like most God deniers, Myers doesn’t think deeply. Even after we arrest and execute every climate change denier (including those who are arresting and executing the rest) the planet dies along with the rest of the universe when entropy reaches equalization.

    It shouldn’t surprise PZ when unguided evolution turns humanity toward extinction. That’s what happens with unguided processes. They don’t work for very long.

  2. TFBW says:

    Just think of expending all that planet-wrecking energy on a flaccid, scripted video in which he does little but express incredulity at how some other guy (of no great significance, but still with more than 10x PZ’s subscriber count) is going on about Captain Marvel movie reviews. PZ goes on and on about how someone else goes on and on, and they both mutually roll their eyes at each other’s tribe and how stupid and awful they are. Is it worth it, PZ? Is it worth the destruction of our planet (or so you claim) that you make such inane videos?

    Future generations — I mean, the current generation — will look back on this time and regard all those blathering YouTube posers as monsters committing crimes against humanity — doubly so the insufferable, self-righteous bozos that ranted and raved about how important the issue was, and how everyone else was a pack of evil maniacs hell-bent on destroying the planet.

    PZ should do penance by sequestering some CO2 — go a day without exhaling or something.

    This sarcasm is brought to you through the energy-efficient medium of text, using 100% recycled electrons and photons.

  3. Reginald McWhorter says:

    Serious question about global warming. I’ve read articles stating that we should actually be heading towards another ice age. That activity of the sun is what actually determines matters like this.
    Anyone familiar with this? Is this true regarding a ice age based off of the activity or dormancy of certain sun phases?

  4. Kevin says:

    Reginald,

    I’ve heard many similar things, and they do come from published scientific papers. Of course, you won’t see CNN discussing them.

  5. TFBW says:

    The trouble with “climate science” per se is that it’s not particularly testable. You can’t do a controlled experiment where you alter the sun or modify atmospheric CO2 levels and observe the effects of the change. It’s all model-based, and there’s no way to verify the model other than see how well the predictions bear out. Unfortunately, due to the politicisation of the issue, activists are demanding that we take radical action on the basis of predictive models that haven’t proved their worth in any scientifically meaningful way. They’re politically valuable, though: they produce the kind of dire predictions which make for good political leverage (i.e. “give us absolute control of everything, or we’ll all be dead in twelve years”).

    Given the intrinsic lack of testability and the corrupting influence of politics, I’m strongly inclined towards scepticism of “climate science” in general, but especially where it’s being used to justify any kind of political agenda.

  6. Ilíon says:

    The trouble with “climate science” per se is that it’s not particularly testable …

    Or, to put it another way, “climate science” isn’t actually a scientific discipline. It’s rather like ‘modern evolutionary theory’ in that regard; and also in being useful to advance socio-political ends, having nothing to do with science.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.