Wednesday, August 22, 2007

THE DANGERS OF THE DANGERS OF GLOBAL WARNING

Some things are hard to swallow; sea urchins come immediately to mind. Considering a famous blue dress with an infamous stain on it, one can conclude that Clinton DNA doesn’t go down very well either. Much like the spiky Echinoid or the end result of some Oval Office afternoon delight, the flawed theory of Global Warming doesn’t slide down the throat with ease. That is why so many people with a D after their name are working like hell to ram it down our collective gullet.

Liberals and science don’t get along very well. Science keeps debunking their heartfelt beliefs and hurting their self esteem in ways that no amount of affirmations can heal. This is why when confronted with unbiased scientific research on Global Warming; most of the MoveOn.org crowd will do one of the following: get really, really mad, call a lawyer and try to have the offending research removed from human sight, or go to Old Country Buffet and eat their feelings. These hardwired reactions to science in its purest, unadulterated form would explain the sort of Naziesque hate that radiates from any online presence that caters to loony left. It would also account for the reason that Ben and Jerry’s ice cream Empire openly celebrates their liberal leanings. It is simply good business for them to associate themselves with those who’s most reasonable response to thickening Antarctic ice is to yell and snack.

When it comes down to the brass tacks, Global Warming is a faith based initiative. This is agreed upon even by those who have a picture of Leonardo DeCaprio tattooed in places that are socially unacceptable to expose outside of a Kennedy Compound mixer. This fact was eloquently expressed in 2002 by Eco-Nazi and Sierra Club spokespoodle, Ariana Silverman. In one statement she praised what she referred to as a “scientific consensus” while in the next breath said about Global Warming models and the accuracy of their predictions that: "nobody knows; we don't have god-like abilities to predict the future”. So according to her the “consensus” doesn’t know what is going on, but they are quite certain that it is your fault for driving an SUV. It would actually be funny if it were not for the fact that forcing this flawed idea on the population is actually as dangerous to the world as they think a man-made climate change is.

Whenever you hear somebody talk about the dangers of Global Warming, they always add the caveat, “there is scientific consensus”. This idea of “consensus” is heavily flawed in two ways.

First of all “consensus” does not always translate into the right answer. For a very long time there was consensus that the sun revolved around the Earth. Facts have proven that those who were in agreement on this idea were wrong. Today we know that the Earth revolves around the sun and that the only balls of flaming gas that call Earth’s orbit home come from blue states. Second, the idea that there is consensus on Global Warning is the sort of lie one would expect from the same people who forge documents to get a boost when they are behind.

In the days where the consensus agreed that that sun traveled around the earth, there was a gentleman named Galileo who had other ideas on the subject. He proposed the earth was actually the one that schlepped its way around the sun. Those who controlled the “consensus” arrested Galileo, put him on trial, found him guilty, and made it very clear that if he did not comply with his sentence, he and William Wallace would have the opportunity to compare notes about unpleasant, torturous deaths in the afterlife.

For the crime of contradicting the consensus with factual truth he was sentenced to recant his statements about who really revolved around whom, remained under house arrest for the remainder of his life, and his written works were all banned. The “consensus” can have a short fuse when the facts don’t break in their direction.

Today the scientific agreement about Global Warming is nothing but a consensus of attrition. There are plenty of scientists who have produced evidence that contradicts the words that randomly fall from Al Gore’s mouth. In fact there is enough evidence to the contrary to not only start a an open dialogue about the veracity about the theory of global warming, but prove that anyone who still believes in it have their head stuck in a place that former NJ Governor James E. McGreevey would find attractive. Liberals don’t want a debate about this. They do very poorly in situations where crying is not an acceptable defense of an idea. So instead of defending their theory in the arena of ideas, they bully, discredit, and use their influence in the press, judiciary, and halls of education to squash anyone who brings forth any facts that proves them wrong. In short their consensus tends to browbeat everyone into agreement with them.

The newest tool that the global warming crowd is using to intimidate people into the “consensus” is to portray disagreeing with Global Warming as equivalent to denying the existence of the Holocaust during World War II. This phrasing has made the jump from the left wing blogs to newspapers such as the Boston Globe. On February 9th, 2007 Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote the following: “I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers”.

Neither this wording nor the overall effort to equate fact based opposition to Global Warming with Holocaust deniers is accidental. In Europe denying the Holocaust is a crime. Here in the United States, denying what happened to Jews under Hitler may not be illegal, but it is definitely not smiled upon in the general public. Knowing liberals as we do, how long does anyone think it will be before they get the law involved with those who deny Global Warming? In Europe, the law already forbids anyone from denying the Holocaust. By equating Global Warming deniers with those who think that Auschwitz was simply a really unpleasant summer camp, opens the door to making it illegal in Europe for scientists to put forth information that proves Global Warming is a myth. If that happens all the leftists in the United States have to do is find judges like Supreme Court Justice Breyer, who believes that foreign law should be used as a reference point for the High Court. At that point Global
Warming can become the law of the land.

Debate is not an option when it comes to the topic of Global Warming. This is because Global Warming loses when the discussion is based on science and not who won the Oscar for best documentary. To protect the theory, any scientist who comes out against it with credible data is the target of professional and personal destruction. Add to that the fact that the seeds are being sown to make disagreement with this imagined global crisis a crime, and an atmosphere is created where there are serious consequences of not agreeing with a contingent of people who think gassy cows are destroying the planet. This bullying is dangerous because it will have a chilling effect on science (and not one caused by flatulent bovines). Research will stall for fear of Inquisitors in fetching green robes forcing people they don’t like to recant solid facts and apologize to Bette Midler for making her sad.

First of all, objective observation suggests that the most ardent Global Warming apostles don’t believe in it themselves. They simply want to create an artificial crisis for political gain. Fox News, using public records, reported on February 27th, 2007 that Al Gore’s Tennessee home was putting out energy at a rate of 20 to 1 when compared with the middle class carbon hogs whose behavior they are trying to influence. In “carbon footprint” terms; if the rest of us are kicking the earth in the naughty bits while wearing a size 11 shoe, Al has gone OJ on the planet and is clomping away from the crime scene in size 220 Bruno Mali's.

Gore was also instrumental in a concert tour that was intended to bring awareness about Global Warming to the unwashed masses that don’t watch the news, but know everything about Britney Spears. Chartering buses and planes to cart pampered celebrities and literally tons of material all over the world threw more pollutants into the air than every Memorial Day BBQ in the state of Texas combined. If these folks were serious about their environmental footprint, they wouldn’t be burning fossil fuels to send bands across the world; they could do one concert and just televise it via satellite. No, wait…that still takes too much energy. They could simply air a 30 second commercial that asks us to whistle a happy tune (preferably something from U2’s album “Actung Baby”). In short, getting the message out about global warming by sponsoring a concert tour is sort of like fixing Ted Kennedy’s sex and alcohol addictions by having him sip bourbon out of Shana Hiatt’s navel.

Al’s hypocrisy is not unusual. Most of the folks who want to change the behavior of the people who inhabit “flyover country” engage in exactly the sort of energy wasting, pollutant creating practices that they claim will turn the planet into something that resembles the afterlife that Madelyn Murray O’Hare is probably enjoying.

There probably IS a climate change going on. According to the geologic record there would be something very wrong with the world if the climate remained stable. Liberals want to turn the natural, sometimes violent, climate issues that are inherent with the planet into a control tool. Back in the seventies a record that reflected decades of cooling temperatures got leftists screaming about an impending ice age unless we all started walking everywhere and squatting in caves. The planet stubbornly refused to play along, so the theory had to be adjusted. Now instead of an ice age, we are headed for an everlasting heat wave that will kill all of our polar bears and result in Armadillos becoming the dominant species.

The planet is still refusing to validate this idea and continues to suck up the excess water created by the thinning northern glaciers by expanding the southern glacial ice and facilitating a cooling trend in the Antarctic regions. So there is something going on here, and SUV’s are likely to have nothing to do with it.

The Earth has home field advantage on climate issues, and has wiped out more species than Big Oil, Big Lumber, and Ted Nugent combined. Unfortunately, scientists may not be able to react to what may really be happening because the real answers refuse to validate Global Warming. This means that the world population as a whole will be completely unprepared when the earth decides to hit us upside the head with same sort of changes that destroyed a perfectly good ammonia/methane atmosphere by introducing a corrosive element called oxygen or creating the snowball earth phase (a time when the planet was fundamentally one big white glacier spinning through space). While we are all watching the Global Warming puppet show, a hurricane (in the metaphorical sense) could be building beyond sciences policy limited sight. This could do us great harm while we are arguing over fuel made from corn squeezings. Considering how the Democrats who control New Orleans and Louisiana reacted before and after Katrina, this would be consistent with their normal operating practices.

No comments: