Technorati search

Tuesday, June 06, 2006


Sometimes I read articles and I shake my head and say 'huh?' because I don't quite understand. If I am reading this right the pollutants created by aerosol use blocked the sun's rays and kept our part of the world from feeling the effects of the greenhouse gases (which are warming up the temperatures at the surface).

However, aersol pollutants are short-lived and are only in the atmosphere for a short time. So as we have cleaned up our act, the air has become clearer and now more sun is coming through. So the planet is getting warmer in our neck of the woods and viola! We have more hurricanes!

Last year I saw signs that accused George Bush of being responsible for Hurricane Katrina. Since I am pretty sure George doesn't control the weather, I found this to be a bit ludicrous. Now, however, I may have to change my position. Not that I would lay the blame at the President's feet, but who was it that came up with the idea to ban aersols? Obviously their long term plan was to increase the severity and number of hurricanes! And to make it so warm, that snowfalls decreased! I want their name and number because they have some 'splainin' to do!


At 5:44 PM, Blogger Larry Bassett said...

I am trying to understand that sometimes people are just being humorous or satiric on their blogs. But the connection between the "banning" of aerosols and the warming of the earth is, I think, being offered as a serious hypothesis. I am not sure where the line is between satire and reality. Of course, that is part of what makes satire funny. Maybe us amateur bloggers need to use footnotes to share what we are actually trying to say!

BTW, I don't think that aerosols have been banned, just some of the accelerants that were used to power aerosols. Air under pressure is not a pollutant. (Though even canned air evidently has created other hazards for some youth.)

Still my favorite quote from the last Lynchburg City Council election: "When I am spraying my hair, I shoot a blast into the air in honor of the environmentalists."

If anyone wants to talk WAR, head over to Rick Howell's blog. It could be a discussion! What about Russ Feingold as the Peace Candidate?

At 9:20 PM, Blogger Melissa O. Markham said...

Larry, I agree, I think it was being offered as a serious hypothesis. To me, it is another example of how we are told opposing things so many times. You know...don't eat eggs for you they are bad, be sure to eat eggs they are good! Sometimes, it makes my head spin trying to figure it all out.

Thanks for the link to the discussion. I try not to get into war discussions. But maybe Dan or Bob will pop over. Larry, let us know if you ever would like to become a poster here:)

At 11:40 PM, Blogger DAN said...

Thanks Larry.

I get my fix of political discussion on the Winds Of Change blog. It's a tough crowd, and not for the light-hearted! (but it has opposing views defended regularly, which is nice)

At 8:42 PM, Blogger Larry Bassett said...

Thanks for the suggestion of a location with multiple views. I keep hoping for something right here in the Lynchburg area offering that opportunity.

Right now I am wondering how much we are going to hear about dead bodies to decide which side is more unspeakable. Right now "run and gun" sounds just as inhumane as decapitation to me. Death is often messy in war. And it is, ultimately, one person killing another person. Which one would you rather be? (Serious question.)


Post a Comment

<< Home