Heh. I’d been working on a long and thoughtful post concerning the global warming fiasco, but it somehow deleted instead of posting. Thinking it a quirk of fate rather than some cosmic commentary regarding my take on the future of mother Earth, I will likely resurrect those thoughts one day in the future (assuming we have one).
In the meantime, I think this Dilbert panel pretty much captures the gist of what I wanted to say:
Well, there is also this little treatise on the hypocrisy of those attending the Copenhagen climate conference:
The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.
Taking a private jet to a conference on stopping global warming is a bit like traveling in a sedan chair carried by indentured servants to a summit on stopping human trafficking. Except we’re the ones they want to enslave. If they get their way, they’ll crush us with taxes, make our energy bills skyrocket, and otherwise cut our standard of living back to 19th-century levels.
Hmm, it does seem that actions speak louder than words.
You know, the funny thing is I’m pretty much agnostic on the warming issue. But I never quite bought in to the whole “the science is settled” screed, because the science is never settled. I can accept that the Earth may be experiencing a warming trend, but that’s not to say the cause is man-made. And even if it were, the proposed cure strikes me as being just as harmful as the “disease” and clearly unlikely to be effectively implemented.
So, if the problem is burning fossil fuels why aren’t our green friends advocating for building more nuclear power stations? And parking their f’n limos and private jets….
Oh, and I had a mostly friendly discussion with another blogger in Korea (K-blog as we say in the parlance), ROK Sojourn. You should follow the link to read his views and our exchange in the comments. His basic premise was if you don’t believe the Earth is warming, you should just “shut the hell up”. Seems to me that pretty much means you’ve lost the argument. Akin to putting your hands over your ears and yelling “LA LA LA LA I can’t hear you!”.
So, if the science is so settled what are they afraid of?
I saw that same posting over at ROK Sojourn and was tempted to comment but wasn’t worth my time because obviously nothing said to him could possibly change any of his beliefs. Telling him that Al Gore is a false prophet would be like telling someone from one of the world’s many religions that their prophet is also false. Just another example that global warming is more about faith than science.
The most convincing science on global warming I have seen yet has been done by astrophysicist Nir Shaviv:
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
But you can’t tax solar rays and clouds though.
Yes, I wondered if you had read that since you were mentioned disapprovingly. But you are absolutely correct, this whole global warming thing is religion to its adherents.
SHUT THE HELL UP EARTH KILLERS!!@!!
EaRTH KEEEEEEEEELREREEERRRRr!!!!!
What the hell, I figured a Canadian would welcome a touch of global warming. Then again, Canada’s motto is “20 below keeps the riff-raff out” so maybe not….
That can’t be true. I got back in….
I just wish we would quickly invest tons of money into clean fuels so that we could stop sending tons of money to people I hate, like Hugo Chavez and all of the Mid East oil producers. In fact, I hate the CEOs of all the domestic oil companies and their minions in Congress. I guess hate is not the right word, but I do loathe them all.
I actually responded to that ‘tard. Must have been really bored.
Wow, Craig, you really got that guys goat. It’s amazing that he wished not only death to those who disagree with him, but a slow and painful death at that. Pretty scary to see what some folks are reduced to when their “religion” is challenged. Guess were just a couple of infidels to him.
Keith, not sure there is any such thing as a “domestic” oil company these days. But the fact of the matter is if we would invest heavily in nuclear power now our domestically produced oil would be enough to eliminate the need to import from our enemies.
The fact that we are not even contemplating doing so is to me strong evidence that this global warming business is about politics, not climate.
By domestic, I refer to those American companies getting the nice tax breaks for exploration and new drilling. As if they would stop looking for new oil without them. Take away the tax credits and put that money into R&D.
It seems to me the political aspect of climate change is that one group thinks it’s a problem that needs fixing, and another group is the mouthpiece of the energy producers who want to maintain their high-profit status quo. The second group is represented by such luminaries as Sarah Palin.
It is interesting that no one talks about the millions of dollars that the ClimateGate emails show that the alarmists were making off of oil companies for years:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/
The ClimateGate emails also show that these top scientists were bringing in millions for their research and people wonder why they were cooking the books. Remember this the next time someone says skeptics are shills for oil companies. If anything the skeptics operate with shoe string budgets compared to the alarmists who are awash with cash.
Reducing dependency on foreign oil is an entirely different subject than global warming. A push for more electric/hybrid cars combined with the construction of more nuclear plants to charge them would get us off foreign oil in 15 years, however the global warming faithful doesn’t like nuclear power even though it has no emissions.
This more because they rather tax you for your emissions instead of actually implementing ideas to reduce the US’s dependency on foreign oil.
Amen, GI. (We may as well make AGW skepticim a religion too)