Question: What is Ha-Ha-Ha-Eeeew?

I'd read this earlier today and immediately forgot about it.  And so it took me a minute to understand what this was all about when I read it this afternoon.

Answer:  My reaction 

Comments

[Mark]

Dinner? After using one square of toilet paper?

Is soap allowed, or does that add nasty things to the environment?

Sheryl Crow is SO self-absorbed.

Geddit? I kill me...

[Gail]

lol. She probably thinks she's charmin.

[DRaftervoi]

We are entering a PERIOD OF POPULAR MADNESS. Most of it will be MORAL PREENING; the desire to show that you are "better" than everyone else by virtue of being "green." And since almost any human activity involves the generation of carbon dioxide, you can claim that almost ANYTHING "causes global warming." Seriously, Major League Baseball causes global warming. Organic farming causes global warming. Heck, reading this post causes global warming, because you rat-bastards have the TEMERITY to EXHALE carbon dioxide while reading it.

Conversely, you can claim you're "reducing" global warming by almost any activity. Crow, for example, makes a living selling six-inch plastic discs that have to be distributed all over the world by trucks, AND she tours by driving or flying all over the world. But Crow has a bio-diesel tour bus, and more power to her for having it...but the carbon dioxide that it produces is exactly the same as the carbon dioxide produced a a gasoline engine. My wife and I drive less than 7000 miles per year. How guilty should I feel compared to Sheryl Crow when we compare carbon "footprints?" (And I'm sure the sharp-eyed reader will spot that I just did EXACTLY what I'm accusing Crow of: I MORALLY PREENED right in front of you. I am better than Sheryl Crow because I produce far less carbon dioxide). Given that Sheryl's a carbon generating machine, no wonder Sheryl is feeling guilty and wants to cut back on something....but notice that she didn't vow to stop world-touring or selling plastic discs all over the globe.

But while the toilet paper thing grabbed the headlines, you missed what else Sheryl is touting to Save The Earth: "I have designed a clothing line that has what's called a 'dining sleeve'. The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another 'dining sleeve'. after usage.
The design will offer the 'diner' the convenience of wiping his mouth on his sleeve rather than throwing out yet another barely used paper product... this idea could also translate quite well to those suffering with an annoying head cold."

This is MADNESS. You want to have people cut down on using paper napkins and disposable paper tissues? You don't need to INVENT a "new line of clothing" wherein they will WIPE THEIR SNOT ON THEIR SLEEVE. All you need to do is to encourage people to use CLOTH NAPKINS and HANDKERCHIEFS...but that LACKS THE DRAMA of a "new clothing line."

[Gail]

It seems that she was joking about the TP - but I think you are absolutely right about the moral preening business.

[DRaftervoi]

I caught that she said she was joking, and it's likely to be true. She may just be riffing on the gullibility of people like me, who are predisposed to think that rich rock stars are just a tiny bit insufferable (see: Sting, Bono). But if so, she's doing her cause a disservice. There's so much NONSENSE circulating about environmental issues that making legitimate issues looks silly is, well, silly. I think people shouldn't be wasteful because I think THRIFT is a general virtue. I agree with Crow that energy independence, recycling, etc., have strong arguments supporting them as good things towards which we need to work. We're entering a period, though, where people are going to START COMPARING their carbon footprints (do a googlesearch for "carbon calculator"). I'm FAR LOWER than the average American, not because of any sacrifices that I have actually made, but by virtue of circumstance...(short commute, temperate climate, no dishwasher ... )...but I can LORD IT OVER YOU: my carbon footprint is SMALLER than yours! Nyah, nyah, nyah!

[Gail]

I was just as gullible and so were many others who thought she was serious.

The issue of global warming deserves attention and study, but why make this one, out of so many others, their pet peeve? Why not Darfur or China or Iran or cancer or any one of a zillion things that provide bad karma for the world?

The answer seems to be because it dovetails so well with the leftist agenda.

If they kept it at the level of science and would quit politicizing the issue they would get more support from the right - which actually is concerned about global warming, but is willing to ask more questions, isn't taking it for granted that WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE TOMORROW IF NOT SOONER as a result of it, and doesn't want to willy-nilly make law which will impact the nation's economy until we are sure. We don't know for sure how much natural temperature cycling enters into it and what it all means yet.

[DRaftervoi]

Yeah, that's the core of the issue. What portion of the temperature change is attributable to human activity, and then what do we do about it? One of the big issues is that computer modeling is not precise - and sometimes what it tells us sure as shootin' needs some sort of testing before you act on it.

There's a computer model that "shows" that clear-cutting all of the world's boreal forests would reduce global warming. Even if the computer model IS true, do we actually want to chop down every tree in America? It's not ALL about the global warming.

There's interesting little side issues like the Holocene Maximum, too...tough to blame that one on the internal combustion engine.

[Gail]

I had to look Holocene Maximum up of course. (grin) Whenever I am dealing with He-Who-Knows-Everything, I end up having to look stuff up.

The crazy thing is, if an answer to global warming (if indeed it turns out to be a real problem) is going to come from anywhere, it will probably come from research and technology done by or connected in some way to big business. Corporations fund lots of research and development of ideas and technological solutions. Cut them off at the knees by regulating them to death and there also will be fewer jobs, fewer people who can afford to send their kids to college, less money for academic research, etc.

And no one will be able to to buy Sheryl Crow CDs. Hollywood folks don;t realize that they are being useful idiots for an agenda that's bad for not only them, but for everyone else as well.

Thankfully, the economy is doing well despite the best efforts of the left. The DOW was up 135 today!

[DRaftervoi]

Ah, you know me, I always hope the Dow goes DOWN, not up, so I can buy at a discount. Damned if MMM isn't up 4% today on higher earnings.

Yeah, do look up the Holocene Maximum...and if you're interested, cross-check it with the development of agriculture and the domestication of animals. I recommend IGNORING a lot of the people who are using the Holocene Maximum to debunk Global Warming (because they have an agenda...) and just read about it as an interesting historical fact...and then draw your own conclusions.

In general, reading up on the prior Interglacials is educational.