Nuclear satire- The Terraist Letters; by author who wrote Down and out in Mendocino

The global warming debate is over. It's a redundant distraction to the actuality of global environmental destruction. The point of the debate is not to find out if the planet is warming, the point of the debate is to determine if human machines are polluting the planet on such a grand scale as to spur global warming. The debate is supposed to be scientific, but is politicized by the usual clichés of fascist right wingers and wussy lefties, or is that wussy right wingers and fascist lefties? I get it mixed up now and then, or they mix me up more and more I should say. Political discourse has entered scientific debate and distracted us from the real question. Is human activity negatively altering the environment? Yes it is. Is it so altering the environment as to be causing rapid warming? Inconsequential to the matter of change. Whatever the temperature is, the water and ice are now tainted by pollution of many forms.

The debate of global warming never was a real debate. It was and remains a political distraction, not scientific discourse. The global warming question distracts people from the evidence of global environmental destruction and the ultimate decision of changing the oligarchical energy distribution systems responsible for most pollution, like petrol and nuclear. The debate is politicized and not scientific, for even now with global dimming an accepted reality, (look it up, like a scientist) most "scientists' are not considering everything that is scientifically understood as fact, making the worst mistake a scientist could make; omitting information that is already known. They also commonly make the second worst mistake a scientist could make; omitting the potential of unknowns influencing their considerations, results and predictions.

Is the global exhaust of millions of petrol powered factories and millions of cars influencing the earth and the atmosphere? Or is the earth warming part of a solar cycle? Who the heck cares? If you are caught up by the global warming debate, you are missing the point and have been led down a vortex of butterfly effects and chaos theories ignoring the obtuse and obvious smog, soot and industrial crap in your air, water and food. The unending debate of global warming is moot and used a distraction to consideration of the real problem, global environmental destruction. The point of considering global warming is to consider global pollution and ultimately global environmental destruction. Yet global pollution, directly caused by the oligarchical collectivism between energy industries and states is evident, and is often unconsidered because of the ongoing global warming debate.

The scientist James Lovelock, who originated the Gaia Theory, is locked in the global warming debate, and is himself (if not the scientific community at large) incompetent, possibly corrupt and presents ideas which are sometimes basic stabs in the dark. The former global warming advocate recently stated, "so-called "sustainable development' " is meaningless drivel " We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can't stand windmills at any price... (windmills) are ugly and useless." Lovelock is a supporter of nuclear experiment power generation and expanded use of natural gas, which is some mental environmental perspective when one considers these destructive, altering industries.

Whole regions have been made uninhabitable via the status quo of the petrolithic era and nuclear era and the whole planet has been degraded by these operations. There is no question that the oligarchical collectivism and globalization of today are unsustainable and beyond that totally destructive, like repeatedly crapping in one's own bed. The debate of global warming is moot and made to distract people from the fact that the crap of our machinery and mechanizations is destroying life on the planet.

The global institutionalization of petrol and nuclear industry is destroying the planet. Do the ice caps have to melt before the global warming debate might cease for a moment to do something about the fouled air, water and food? Global pollution and the environmental destruction of the earth is obvious, apparent and affronting. The oligarchical status quo of globalization and institutionalization has resulted in pollutants and toxins which permeate the oceans once thought to be limitless and pierced the atmosphere.

What is known about global environmental destruction is enough to institute drastic change in order to prevent drastic change. And the change ought to start with changing the formation of institutions. Individuals, already burdened with bioaccumulative toxins of all sorts, should not be the focus of the hardship of change. The burden of change should be placed on the institutions of globalization, the source of the original hardship of global pollution anyway.

Politics is about nuanced views and at one time it was common science that our industrial byproducts were heating up the planet. But that nuance has come and gone, it is time to step up to the real deal. Mankind's collection of polluting oligarchical energy systems are destroying the planet and the global warming debate only catalyzes our island hopping, destructive behavior further. It is time to face the global environmental destruction taking place as a result of the institutionalization of globalization.

Mankind is negatively altering the whole planet with our pollution. We have made a new environment, one spawned from the petrolithic era and the nuclear era, a physically detectable layer on the plane of all sorts of poisons. These global systems of oligarchical energy distribution are destroying life on the planet. All life and the whole planet has been negatively altered by mankind's oligarchical energy industries.

The same fascist and wussy loons, the same right wing cranks and left wing nuts who tout the ingenuity of human institutions will deny alternative systems of energy delivery to the oligarchical status quo of today whether petrol or nuclear. Well NASA, supposedly on the technological forefront uses solar power in their satellites. NASA once launched a plutonium powered satellite, which naturally came crashing down, (SNAP 9A) causing "climate change' and further pollution and again alluding to hubristic and ill thought out science. The fact is our oligarchical energy industries are destroying Mother Earth. The fact is that Fukushima and the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill is causing direct, obvious and affronting "climate change.' And the fact is such oligarchical industries more than likely restrict and inhibit energy distribution systems, like solar, which are not oligarchical formations. The global warming debate is over. As is any debate on global environmental destruction. It is occurring and requires institutional change. Clean water, no matter the temperature.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00852BHKC


http://www.amazon.com/Ethan/e/B0058V4P2U/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0