Powerful Crazy in the House--Bachmann is Clueless

It was recently Earth Day, so many had to "think green" because of environmental concerns. The biggest concern recently has been with the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is usually some level of equilibrium on sufficiently large scales of the gas in the atmosphere between production and consumption by things on earth, both biological and geological. If such an equilibrium were to be thrown off enough, it could lead to a warming trend in world temperatures which can lead to significant climatological problems for things that depend on its current state, including us humans. Human activity with the burning of fossil fuels, which return much of the stored carbon in the earth back into the atmosphere , has raised CO2 levels to a higher level than has been seen in history and far into prehistory.

It is the strong consensus of climatological scientists that CO2 levels have increased and are causing changes in the climate, that humans are a primary cause in the increase of CO2 levels, and that the effects will bring harm. However, the scenarios of what could happen do not include Armageddon. There may be increases of famine do to drying conditions, loss of property due to rising water levels, etc. Humans will survive the climate change; we just won't be happy, and the costs of such warming could very well outweigh any costs in trying to prevent or weaken this fate.

So, what the hell is up with Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-Minnesota)?



That is some powerful stupid.

CO2 is natural from nature, etc. Yeah, so is radium. So are tornadoes. So are plagues. What an example of the naturalistic fallacy.

No study to show that CO2 is harmful. Um, the problem isn't that CO2 levels will get to high to be poisonous. That would be a problem with something like mercury. (If the levels of CO2 were high enough, there would be problems, but that isn't the case for what industrialization is being blames for.) CO2 levels on the rise lead to problems with the environment, which then affects us. And if you want to see that CO2 can be harmful in itself, why do you think plastic bags say "Keep away from infants"? Because they will suffocate!

CO2 makes up ~3% of the atmosphere. Rep. Bachmann, ever hear of Wikipedia? If you had, you would know that you are off by two orders of magnitude. Not a trivial error. If she was right, we would all be dead.


Humans have increases CO2 by only 3%. Try ~30%.



And what is the most probable source?
CO2 levels are well away from natural levels for the last ~million years. Human activity is the most likely source, and the effects are becoming known.

So, which this many pictures, I have to include one more, taken from Bad Astronomy.

I have hit the big time!

I don't know what it takes to be considered "big" on the Internet especially without displaying actions of extreme stupidity, such as those of certain celebrities, but I think I can say that there is one way of doing it in an academic way. Recently, yours truly has been interviewed for a few newspapers, especially for one in Pennsylvania, in the same county that the Dover trial took place, as well as in my homeland. (Note: I don't think the York county link works anymore so you may need to do some work to get to the article.) A few bloggers and amateur astronomy sites make mention to me, as well as a PBS website (on the side). But my big break must be this: I have been referenced on Wikipedia! It is a very short mention and puts me in company with a few other scholars mentioned in the same foot note, but why should I complain? Do note that I did not write myself in, so someone has taken me seriously.

Another person that I have been communicating with is a Dr. Michael Covington at the University of Georgia. I came across his blog and have had a short amount of back and forth about the issue. Hopefully it will be productive since this person seems to know Greek and Hebrew (and more C.S. Lewis than I think is worth while). This already then is more of a plus in credentials than another professor I have been talking with, Dr. Michael Molnar, formerly of Rutgers and author of his own book (1999) and articles on the subject. At this point, there has been a lull in the amount of back and forth between us, but that is probably because Dr. Molnar is enjoying his vacation, as everyone should be this time of year, but it seems that there is a significant amount of friction between the two of us, especially in that he feels I have misrepresented his work. Of course I disagree, but that is why I want to keep the conversation going, especially if he writes more articles or has more TV/radio interviews, as he has recently for FOX News. (I wonder why FOX didn't get in contact with me? Could it be that I did not line up with what conservative audiences would want to hear?)

Perhaps more attention will come my way if and when I publish an entire book on the subject. (The "if" factor is the condition that a publisher would take the time to print such a work.)