Saturday, February 11, 2006

A rant against the myth of Global Warming

On my fave site someone started a thread that posted a site that touts some Evangelical group espousing Global Warming as something to actually be concerned about. They said the post might start a debate, so naturally I chimed in and started a debate that slammed the idea of Global Warming. Here is the post I submitted:

Ok, I'm game. I'll start the debate.

This is ludicrous. Global warming is the biggest socialistic attack on capitalism in a hundred years, next to the Communist regimes of the last century.

To think that mere humans can affect the temperature of the Earth is ludicrous. It is the height of pride to think that we can swing the mean temperature of an entire world.

And think of the solution: petroleum based economies of the world (the capitalist countries, the successful countries) must halt their activities while the third world countries can expand their economies with a separate standard regarding the use of fossil fuels. I.e., they can use them and we must curtail them.
That is BUNK!

We, the leaders of the capitalistic world must continue with our successful use of petroleum fuels to expand our economies. Petroleum fuels are not responsible for the so-called warming trends of our globe.

A single large volcano emits more CO2 than the entire annual output of all the world's fossil fuel utilization. Trees emit more CO2 than our cars do. There are other explanations for so-called global warming.

Don't fall for bad science! Remember the same originators of this argument also argue that a fetus is not a baby and thus can be destroyed for any reason under the sun. They argue for centralized governments that lend towards socialistic oligarchies.

They prey on guilty white, egocentric people who want to think they are the center of the world's problems. They try to paint SUV owners as evil bigots. They voted for Bill CLinton, for Pete's sake!!!! Heh, that last one was an attempt at humor.

You can have my gas guzzler when you pry the steering wheel from my cold, dead fingers.


1 comment:

Ed Pie said...

I'm happy that this kind of business raises awareness, so far as it's getting people to actually think more about proper stewardship.

I'd also be happy to develop fuel options that send less money to the middle east.

When someone cites a scientific community--even when they identify one--that claims consensus, as someone mentioned on Mark Shea's blog, I have to hesitate.

I'm a scientist, so I'm slow to lean against the weight of concordant research, but the AMA reached a consensus about the naturalness of homosexuality in the early 1970s, and declared it wasn't a disorder to be treated--on the grounds that there was no apparent way to cure it. Hardly a scientific conclusion.

If the AMA can screw it up, I have no reason to doubt that a cadre of scientific journalists, claiming shrinking glaciers for support and writing off old German olive groves and Scottish vinyards as anecdotal outliers in the same breath, is just as vulnerable to mutilating the whole discussion.