darinsmasthead2

Thursday, December 27, 2007

World ends in catastrophic floods, right wingers and conservatives hardest hit…

J-Dub writes about this on his blog, MoCommonSense.com---I certainly don’t agree with J-Dub very often, but I enjoy reading all the same.
He and I have a healthy and respectful mutual disagreement, which is rare in these “polarized” times.

Mr. Lindorff wrote in the Baltimore Chronicle a quick little op-ed predicting a catastrophic climactic shift and openly hoping that it disproportionately affects people in the “red states,” or to put an even finer point on it, conservatives.
While I understand the spirit of the writing, it boggles the imagination that; A. an intelligent commentator would embrace this sort of logic, and B. the Baltimore Chronicle would give him a megaphone to preach from.
“Global warming” as it is sold to the public is a farce, an imaginary statistical bugaboo created by environmental activists with a political agenda that is too radical to openly state and is activated via small integral steps. The American people and scientist in particular are correctly skeptical about people making proclamations about the future climate, as we have been down this road before: a little humility is in order.
The PLANET is a complex system, with thousands if not millions of variables interacting. To claim that our increased emission of CO2 is responsible for increasing the global mean temperature is a deliberate misinterpretation of historical data for the express purpose of advocating a specific regulatory change---namely the forced conservation of fossil fuels—and more specifically an attempt to hamstring the American economy.
To be clear: I believe that we should be good stewards of the planet, I believe that we should pursue alternative technologies, but to abdicate our national energy policies to a small but vocal group of “green” activists would be disastrous.

3 Comments:

Anonymous JW said...

Scientists have shown that the polar ice caps are melting. That water has to go somewhere... it's reasonable to suggest that will cause flooding in low lying coastlines. It's already happening in Bangladesh.
So who's crazy? You think environmentalists like myself only seek to hamstring the economy. Seriously, why would that be my goal? How would I benefit?
I get that you disagree, but your reasoning for our differences is lacking.

10:38 AM  
Blogger djobe said...

While it's true that there is less ice in the Arctic, there is more ice in Antarctica---so while the ice coverage for the Arctic is at it's lowest since satellite monitoring began in 1979, the Antarctic had the highest amount of ice coverage since 1979...
I can't know what motivates you to be an a vocalist for a particular ideaology---I can say with certainty that for many "green activists" their stated purpose is a global tax on the American economy--retribution for our disproportionate wealth. The KYOTO protocol, for example, was a regulatory scheme that explicitly seeks to hamstring our economy while leaving China and India free from many of emissions caps, and even the EU that signed KYOTO isn't actually reducing it's emissions. In point of fact, the US has reduced it's growth of emissions more than the EU even though our economy and population is growing at a faster rate and we DIDN'T sign KYOTO...funny how we don't hear that reported.

10:21 AM  
Anonymous CBranum said...

I just wonder what the effect of body heat has on global warming? Let's see, in 1950, there were @ 2.5 billion people in the world... now we are hitting and estimated 6.6 billion... at 98.6 degrees from each person, I'd say it has something to do with it! Nah, that is too simple of an answer... nevermind.

11:19 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home