Skip to comments.Volcanoes Pollute More Than Man, Amy (Professor Limbaugh educates the class)
Posted on 02/25/2006 8:42:00 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger
RUSH: We'll go to Scott in Monterey, California, one of the absolute most beautiful spots in the world, and maybe the most beautiful to play golf. Yes, Scott, welcome to the program.
CALLER: Great honor to speak with you, Rush.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: I need help convincing my new bride -- very beautiful and very intelligent -- need help convincing her, persuading her that volcanoes are spewing more contaminants into the air than cars or anything else man made. She's listening at home, by the way. Can I say hi?
RUSH: Yeah, you better, after this.
CALLER: I love you Amy. Now, pay attention.
RUSH: (Laughing) How long you been married out there, Scott?
CALLER: I'm a newlywed. I got married New Year's Eve.
RUSH: New Year's Eve, ah, well, good, good, good. Tell me, how long were you engaged before you got married?
CALLER: Oh, roughly about six months.
RUSH: Six months. So when you were down to the last 75 or 60 days, planning the wedding, did you say to yourself, "Ah, can we just get this wedding over with? I hate sending out the cards. I hate sending out these invitations." Did you go through any of that, frustration, just get it over with?
CALLER: Actually she was on the same page as me, as not wanting any of that stuff. We went up to Yosemite. It was just me, her, and a judge.
RUSH: Well, good. So nothing's really changed then since you got married from the recent days prior to your wedding?
CALLER: No, not much, just love her more every day.
RUSH: Great. Playing your cards right here.
RUSH: Now, let me ask you this. How long have you known that she disagrees with you on a fundamental issue here like on the environment?
CALLER: From day one, shortly after dating we realized that we were on opposite ends of the political spectrum. I'm far to the right. She's far to the left.
RUSH: Well, obviously then those core values do not cause confrontations to occur, otherwise you wouldn't have lasted long enough an engagement to get married?
RUSH: Okay. I just like to take these survey question opportunities.
CALLER: She's great. We agree to disagree all the time, and it doesn't affect anything else.
RUSH: I hope it lasts. Now, the question about the volcanoes and so forth, where can you go to establish this? I am an authority on this. I have reported this. Amy, if I say it, it's true. You have to learn to accept this. I'll give you one volcano, for example, Mt. Pinatubo. Mt. Pinatubo -- this was in the early nineties -- erupted and spewed pollutants and ash and all the stuff that comes from a volcano, and it spread around the world, and the amount that came out was far in excess of all the so-called automobile pollution since the invention of the machine, but the larger issue here, Scott, is not specifics like that because some people are going to remain closed to the truth on things like this.
I was talking to a liberal the other day which I do frequently and this liberal said, "Well, you know, you always sound happy and optimistic. How can that be?"
I said, "It's because the way I am, and you can't be that way because as a liberal you just can't do it. You can't go through the day without feeling miserable. It's required. You see nothing but environmental destruction. You see suffering. You see hunger. You see thirst. You see inequality. You see social injustice. You see all these things, and you think that there's a lack of equality spread across the world, culturally, societally, economically, and so forth, and so you're not able to be happy about things. So you have a world view, and the world view is that life is unfair and that there are some people in charge of making it unfair and those are the people who are happy and those are the people who are wealthy and those are the people that have succeeded in life."
So the world view can't be tampered with because then the whole equation that equals liberalism would fall apart. So this volcano business is really nothing other than -- I don't want to speak specific because I have not talked to Amy, but liberals who don't believe facts like the power of the environment. We can't control it. We didn't cause global warming, so we can't stop it. You know, the earth warms itself. We know this. There were ice ages before there were automobiles, and yet we're alive today and not living in a glacier. Common sense here does not enter into the equation because the world view will be tampered with, and then crisis will set in, and once the world view -- once this little cocoon that people have built to surround themselves by has chinks in it -- then they rather not deal with that.
The illusion that they have created to describe the world and all that they see it as gives them a sense of security, makes them think that they're better than other people because they notice these things and they have more compassion. But the answer to this is not just the specifics of a volcano, but is to ask her to seriously sit down and think about it. You went to Yosemite. How in the world anybody can go into Yosemite or any other part of nature and think that we have anything to do with it, other than properly maintaining it and stewardship and so forth, but in terms of the complexity of it all, is beyond our ability to comprehend. The power in a thunderstorm we cannot create. Maybe with a nuclear detonation we could, but the power, just the amount of electricity in a single bolt of lightning is so complex that we can't recreate it, and we cannot comprehend it.
We think that we can change the direction of hurricanes. We have people that tell us that George Bush purposely steered the hurricane -- and they believe this! There are people that actually believe this kind of thing. We can't predict the weather five days from now but we're convinced 50 years from now the sea level is going to rise because the glaciers are going to melt. That may happen, but it's not because we're doing anything to cause it. It happened long before we were here, certainly as an industrialized species. The evidence here that the power of creation and the power of nature so exceeds our meager abilities to tame it, we can't tame it, we try, and we make fools of ourselves. The best we can do is understand it and protect ourselves, if we're going to take risks in living certain places where certain environmental things happen.
You know, hurricanes are quite natural, and they've happened as long as there's been a planet, and they always will, and there have been bad ones and there have been really bad ones, and there's some that aren't so bad. But they're as natural as anything else. What's unnatural is people building homes right in the path, which we do -- and then when a big hurricane comes in and destroys everything, we think the earth is changing. It's not the earth changing. It's our inability to understand that we don't have any control over it. It's an academic argument. You could go find it if you just Google Mt. Pinatubo. Google volcanoes. You'll find it. You'll be able to find a story. It may even be in my Essential Stack of Stuff on my website.
It's not arguable. The problem is that a person will have trouble believing it because, "Well, it can't be 'pollution' because it's a volcano. It's nature! Pollution is manmade: automobile exhaust and that sort of thing." No. What comes out of a volcano is ash, lava, dirt, all kinds of boiling mass and gunk, and when there is an eruption, there's this giant cloud over the volcano where it happens, and the wind comes along and takes it over other parts of the country, and people say, "Oh, my! What did we do to cause the volcano?" When you go to the Grand Canyon, or when you go to the mountains of Arizona, and you have somebody explain to you how they happened, how they were formed, and somebody tells you, "Way back when, this was all under water, and the different layers in the side of the rock is how we know. You're looking at peaks of 8,000 feet that were once under water."
Now, what did humanity do back then to cause those floods and then what did humanity do to cause those mountains to suddenly rise up out of the water, or the water to evaporate, what happened? Nothing. The earth is a complex organism, it is brilliantly conceived, it flawlessly executes its assigned duties by God each and every day. We live with the vanity. We human beings are amazing. On one hand we think that we are inconsequential, we're no different than rats and dogs, cats, and so forth, and on the other hand, we have the ability to destroy this. Even if we nuked the planet, the planet would survive, and the cockroaches would survive. Life would go on. Maybe not human life, but life would go on.
We can destroy our world. We can destroy ourselves. We can destroy our civilization. But the idea that human beings, using the gifts on this planet created by God, can destroy it? By enhancing ours lives, increasing our life expectancy, increasing our prosperity and our economic opportunity, making ourselves smarter, making ourselves healthier, living longer, those are the things that the environmentalist wackos say are destroying the planet. It is absurd. The most technologically and free societies are the ones that do the best job of cleaning up the mess that they make and helping to prevent as much pollution and trash and garbage. The whole argument of environmental destruction is so much more important than whether somebody believes that Mt. Pinatubo put out more pollution than all the other automobiles in history, because that's not even arguable.
RUSH: Scott in Monterey and the lovely and gracious Amy, I know you're still listening out there because you're not arguing because you're not together, the argument will come later, but I Googled Mt. Pinatubo -- exactly what I told you to do. I Googled it -- and I just want to read you some facts about the 1990 -- and there is a picture, and, Amy, if you just Google Mt. Pinatubo, and go to the link, "Pinatubo Volcano: The Sleeping Giant Awakens," you will see the cloud that I'm talking about. The picture might help put things in perspective, but here are some facts.
"In June 1991, after more than four centuries of slumber, Pinatubo Volcano on Luzon in the Philippines erupted so violently that more than 5 billion cubic meters of ash and pyroclastic debris were ejected from its fiery bowels producing eruption columns 18 kilometers wide at the base reaching heights up to 30 kilometers above the volcano's vent. In its wake 847 people lay dead, 184 injured, 23 missing, and more than 1 million people displaced. Hundreds of millions of dollars in private properties and infrastructure lay in ruins that would require tens of billions of pesos and several years to rebuild. For months, the ejected volcanic materials remained suspended in the atmosphere where the winds dispersed them to envelope the earth, reaching as far as Russia and North America.
"This phenomenon caused the world's temperature to fall by an average of 1 degree Celsius." Clearly Pinatubo's eruption signals the world's most violent and destructive volcanic event of the twentieth century. One volcano, Amy, reduced the temperature of the world one degree Celsius for that year. The global warming people say it'll take 50 years for us living our lives the way we do to maybe raise the temperature a half a degree. Here's earth with a bunch of absolute junk being piled into the air, restricting sunlight, cooling the temperature one degree Celsius, a volcanic eruption. No matter what we do, Amy, we don't know how to cause this short of a nuclear bomb. But going about our lives as we normally live our lives, we don't do this. We can't do this.
RUSH: All right, I just went to my own Essential Stack of Stuff at RushLimbaugh.com, and, lo and behold, we have the information I just shared with you on Mt. Pinatubo there, but I also discovered something else from December 2004. Scott and Amy in Monterey, I know you're still there. Listen to this. Amy, this is for you. "The state of Washington has made it official. '[T]he biggest single source of air pollution in Washington isn't a power plant, pulp mill or anything else created by man. It's a volcano. Since Mount St. Helens started erupting in early October, it has been pumping out between 50 and 250 tons a day of sulfur dioxide, the lung-stinging gas that causes acid rain and contributes to haze. 'Those emissions are so high that if the volcano was a new factory, it probably couldn't get a permit to operate,' said Clint Bowman, an atmospheric physicist for the Washington Department of Ecology. All of the state's industries combined produce about 120 tons a day of the noxious gas. Mount St. Helens? More than twice that." I mean, these are just little feeler eruptions. This is nothing. This is not even the big one. This thing is just burping.
Volcanoes and Global Cooling
Oh, yeah!!? Well, that just means we have to cut back on HUMAN-produced gasses at TEN TIMES the Keyoto Protocol in order to assure that our great, great, great, great, great grandchildren won't be swimming all day!
...with half his brain bump
Heard Rush on that yesterday - always good for a chuckle. My favorite though was a while back when the press came out with 'polluting trees' from rotting trees and vegetation that consumes oxygen and tosses out copious amounts of CO2 causing greenhouse gases and global warming.
Wife thought I was crying - explained that extreme laughing while driving over a very windy Mackinaw Bridge just 'looks' like sobbing.
Naah, just take away their "permits".
That'll fix things...
I heard that exchange on Rush's show, as well. Then for him to bring out the info on Mt. St. Helen's being the no. 1 polluter - even though the volcano was just "burping" was really informative.
Bump for later -- thanks, DaveLoneRanger, for a very informative posting of Rush's comments.
Thanks for posting the article. Somehow I feel the husband will still not be listened by Amy. These are just facts here.
And the methane gas emitting from the rumps of large animals!
No, no, no...
We must charge the Volcano gods heavy fines for the excess pollution.
(Although, I guess they'd pass it on to the local populace... Demanding more sacrifical virgins more often.)
Got married on New Years Eve? They should have waited until just past midnight to take advantage of the tax savings as individuals. Those few hours cost them a lot of money most likely.
I found a video documentary years ago about Mt. Pinatubo at, of all places- Marshalls, that is absolutely incredible. After watching that and video clips taken by soliders at the base there, it is VERY apparent that man cannot touch what nature can do as far as *pollution*.
I sure hope they can stay married.
Rush Limbaugh is an embarrassment to conservatism when he starts spouting off on topics about which he knows little. By his reasoning, nobody should complain about the taxes thrown onto products because it's still not "most" of what you pay when you buy something.
Exactly what did Rush say about Mt. Pinatubo that you don't agree with?
That is exactly the arrogance that keeps me from listening to Limbaugh.
They went to Yosemite.
Really its just faulty logic. While our contribution to the problem may be minimal, it does not negate our impact (straw that broke the camels back). While I'm not a gloom and doom GW person, we should still strive to minimize our contribution to pollution. Its a very conservative principal based on maximizing efficiency. Pollution is purely wasted byproducts.
Interesting, and useful. I had one of my 9th grade students the other day suggest that we needed to make sure the volcanoes stayed dormant to avoid acid rain...
"Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain."
Well, they'll just have to ban volcanos. Should work at least as well as banning crime. Shouldn't it?
Rush Limbaugh is an embarrassment to conservatism when he starts spouting off on topics about which he knows little. By his reasoning, nobody should complain about the taxes thrown onto products because it's still not "most" of what you pay when you buy something.Rush himself admits he is not a conventional thinker, and doesn't conform to conventional thinking. Most truly great individuals don't, and that's why they're truly great. His insinuation that he is an expert is merely tongue-in-cheek sarcastic pride. He does not seriously consider himself an expert. The question is, are his facts true? Are the facts that you read from sources like the global warming ping series, or Junkscience.com or co2science.org etc. true?
Really its just faulty logic. While our contribution to the problem may be minimal, it does not negate our impact (straw that broke the camels back). While I'm not a gloom and doom GW person, we should still strive to minimize our contribution to pollution. Its a very conservative principal based on maximizing efficiency. Pollution is purely wasted byproducts.I agree that our contributions to solid pollution need to be worked on. But as far as airborne pollutants, they are just like aerosols, or like the pollution from volcanoes; they actually cause localized cooling, not warming. There are some articles on my links page that speak to that.
Some folks need opinions spoon-fed to them by the "smart feller".
There is no shame in this, I'm sure.
Do you have 8-track as well as AM radio I wonder?
And the US does more to avoid pollution than any other country.
Thanks for the article Dave. I'm sure many freepers have read it, but I'm about a third of the way through Michael Crichtons book "State of Fear". What a great expose of the environmental movement!
It's not a matter of "don't agree with"...it's a matter of Rush using misleading debate tactics rather than argue facts. For example, he uses fuzzy definitions and compares apples to oranges with sleight of hand. What is the definition of "contaminant"? Particulates aren't the same as aerosols, etc.
And it's as if Mr. Limbaugh were saying "there are more natural causes of death than artificial, so therefore, it's okay to live as dangerously as you want"... such fallacious logic is embarrassing from a conservative.
Rush, where is our long awaited next book?
For one year. And he's comparing that to a long-term climate change? hmmm...
However, the earth bounced back and there are little or no traces of Pinatubo floating in our atmosphere today.
Exactly. The emissions from a volcano are short-term, not nearly as influential as a chronic pollution problem. It would be nice if all anthropogenic pollutants disappeared like particulates falling out, but they don't.
Yes, emissions from a single eruption are, indeed, short term. However, after living on the slopes of Mt. Etna for a couple of years, I can say that eruptions happen continuously around the world. Etna spews constantly. Nearby Stromboli does too. So do the volcanos in Hawaii. Check out all the volcanos around the world and see which ones are active. Hint, there are a heck of a lot of em. And each one of them outdoes us in pollution. Then, check out all the sulfur springs...just in Yellowstone park, for example. Or Rotorua New Zealand. The list of natural polluters is endless. We're a speck on nature's rear end.
Crichton, Heston: You Can't Destroy Earth
December 7, 2004
Listen to Rush Conduct the Broadcast Excellence Transcribed Below...
RUSH: Speaking of all this, on the Today Show today, Matt Lauer interviewed Michael Crichton. Michael Crichton wrote Jurassic Park. Michael Crichton, in fact, has in the intro to a book he wrote about life and how it cannot be destroyed -- Charlton Heston called this program and read that. It's in our archives somewhere. We probably could be able to dig that out, but we'll do that later. Michael Crichton was on with Matt Lauer and he's got a new book out called State of Fear, and it's a novel, but it's based around global warming, and Crichton, he's just like all of us. He hears all this stuff and he gets affected by all this talk about how humans are creating this destruction in the environment and the atmosphere, and he wanted to investigate, and he did and he wrote a book about it. And Lauer's question to Michael Crichton was, "Your latest novel, State of Fear, about global warming and terrorists using the environment as a weapon. How did you come up with the idea for this?"
CRICHTON: In this case, it's a story where my interests in a topic worked backwards and lead me to try and write a book about it. I, at a certain point, became curious about what exactly the situation was with global warming, and so I went and started looking at the actual data, you know, being sort of a simple-minded outside person, "If it's getting warmer, what is the temperature record?" And it didn't take me very long to get not only skeptical about it, but more and more the feeling I didn't understand.
LAUER: As skeptical -- and let me just do this briefly you -- were in the mainstream for awhile thinking basically this was a manmade problem; we're burning fossil fuel; the environment is heating up -- and now in the book what you ask readers to consider is perhaps that that's bunk.
CRICHTON: Could be, yeah.
RUSH: (Laughing.) Could be. Could be. Yeah, it is bunk. It is total bunk. You know, all you have to do, folks -- I got an e-mail today (I should have printed this out) from one of my subscribers at RushLimbaugh.com. He's a geologist, and he was telling me about an ice age that occurred 300 million years ago, in the Paleozoic Era, and a simple question: "If we had an ice age back then and the polar ice caps descended and covered much of what's the United States now and other parts of the northern hemisphere, what did humans have to do with it? What did humans have to do with it?" And I was in Sedona, Arizona not long ago, and it was fascinating historical geological experience for me, because I look at all these mountains and I've never asked anybody. I don't remember much from school about this, because, frankly, when I was in school on this subject I didn't have any interest in it so I didn't pay much attention. I was doodling and thinking about what I was going to do when I got out of school.
So I asked the guide, "Where do these mountains come from? What are these mountains?" and he said, "Well, all this was a long time ago underwater and you can see the sediment piled on top. We know this was all underwater and the oceans receded, and this is what was left. Now, the Rocky Mountains were created by continental plates colliding, and, bam! Something had to give, and the Rockies were created," and I said, "Well, what did people do when this was happening?" "They probably didn't notice it. It happened over millions of years. It's not like the Rocky Mountains were created overnight and if your house was sitting there it's destroyed. It took millions of years for these mountains to pop up because of continental shift," and I said, "Well..." and I knew what the answer to this was, and don't laugh at me on this, but I wanted to ask it anyway. I said, "Well, what stopped all this from happening?"
"Well, it hasn't," he said. "You ever heard of the San Andreas Fault? We're waiting there. The continents are constantly shifting. In our lifetimes we'll never see it," and I said, "Oh, do you mean to tell me that we're not causing all of this?" and this guy kind of looked at me. He didn't know who I was, and he looked at me, "Why would you ask that?" I said, "Well, you know, we've got a bunch of wackos out there that claim that humans are destroying all this, and I'm looking at this and I don't know what we would do to create it. If somebody said, 'Rush, go make a mountain tomorrow,' I wouldn't know what the hell to do. By the same token if they said, 'Rush go destroy a mountain tomorrow.' Short of a nuclear bomb I wouldn't know what to do." He said, "Well, you couldn't and you can't stop what's happening." Bam! Thank you, sir! Exclamation point. It's all such a bunch of hocus-pocus. I'm not saying, folks, that you go ahead and throw the wrapper from your Monster Burger from Hardee's out on the street and pollute things, but it's not going to cause global warming. We'll be back after this -- and screw the red milkweed at the same time.
RUSH: Okay, we found this Charlton Heston piece. You people will remember this, some of you. Some of you will not. I forget what year. I think this is 1995 when we first aired this. On February 3rd of 1995 Charlton Heston called the program and wanted to read from Michael Crichton's prologue of Jurassic Park, and this is what it sounds like.
HESTON: You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time.
It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. Might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. You think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine.
When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. Hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.
RUSH: Charlton Heston on this program from 1995 in February, and that's from Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park. He called here and wanted to read that. It was in the midst of some, you know, massively insane, absurd, radical environmental argument at the time.
No, I but have a chalet in northern lower MI and get up there often.
As a licensed Professional Geologist, I am quite aware of this fact.
The list of natural polluters is endless. We're a speck on nature's rear end.
And the human body is loaded with potassium, carbon, and nitrogen, but try ingesting a few grams of KCN and see what happens. Or try raising water from 270 Kelvins to 280 Kelvins... the phase change means the impact isn't linear. Or increase the nitrogen/CO2 concentration in your air supply by only 10%. Or add one child to a see-saw that has 5 children on each side. Minor changes as a percentage can lead to a dramatic effect (and I know these aren't even the best examples, but I'm a bit groggy).
As for Rush's newly found understanding of geologic history, it's great that he's learned that orogenic events can occur over many millions of years, but the flip-side of that is to note how much more quickly recent changes in climate have occured. Also, his reasoning about "we had ice ages in the past--without humans--so we shouldn't think we can affect climate now" is as logical as saying "we had lung cancer before cigarettes, so smoking can't hurt"...
The lefties distort science. Let's not play that same game ourselves.
That's where my daughter and son-in-law were married. Beautiful place for it.
Even if airbourne pollution causes cooling rather than warming that doesn't mean we should disregard what we are dumping in the atmosphere. We should strive to minimize it whenever possible. Rush is stance is purely reactionary- he opposes it simply becuase its percieved as a liberal position. There is no one that can logically defend pollution. The issue surrounds at what costs are we prepared to reduce it. I'm not advocating a complete lifestyle change- only a stance that recognizes we have an impact and an honest attempt to reduce it. There are more benefits (human health) than just 'preventing' global warming.
No sane person would argue this but its backwards logic to use this fact as an excuse to throw concern out the window.
f we can use the byproducts of our creativity, fine, but we shouldn't quiver in fear that we're going to ruin the environment if we release a minuscule amount of CO2.
No one here is quivering in fear. What we as conservatives need to do is recognize that there is potential for a problem and let our ingenuity work to resolve the problem. Denying the potential exists serves no purpose.
Exactly, but at the same we still contribute more than any other country. Ignoring or denying the issue doesn't make things any better though. We really just need more honest discourse because regardless of who is causing what, GW is something that could impact everyone. Remove the politics (on both sides) and lets get to the bottom of it.
I think China has us beaten hands down in that department. And besides, even if it's true, it's because we produce more products for the rest of the world. There is a lot less pollution than a hundred years ago when you still had to worry about horse feces being all over the place.
There is potential for every circumstance. Whether there are real problems is the debate.
Going around worrying about potential this and potential that will make you mentally ill.
I favor nuclear energy not because of the potential for global warming, but because it gives us the opportunity to rid ourselves of dependence on foreign energy sources.
Well your disclaimer at the end here illustrates my point- I don't think Rush's ramblings serve any purpose. I.E. Our impacts are so negligible that we should have no concern. Its purely a reaction to the left's baseless stance and does not recognize the keeping our air breathable nor being good stewards. Recognizing our impact and striving to reduce it is not caving in to the envirowackos.
Have you read, "The Skeptical Environmentalist?"