Wednesday, 28 October 2009

Without a doubt, we're winning...

...and by "we", I mean the "denialists" as the green left like to call us. And with that level of disdain they shoot themselves in their minute green brains, because Mr and Mrs Public have a keen sense for censorship of dissent...

A question...are the so-called climate skeptics so far out there that their views don’t qualify as within the realm of reason? Consider that the skeptics are holding their own, if not actually prevailing, in the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans on climate.
No significant federal legislation has passed and it’s not clear that any will any time soon. Polls indicate that
Americans aren’t so concerned about global warming. Democrats on Capitol Hill have been advised to give up on global warming and, instead, to focus on “clean energy.” How powerful must the skeptics arguments be when this small, under-funded, rag-tag “band of brothers” has held off for more than 20 years the onslaught of the giant eco-industrial lobbying machine....Finally, consider Obama chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel’s effort to denigrate and dismiss Fox News as a media outlet with a “point of view.” The White House may not like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, but at least those two don’t pose as unbiased journalists...more from GreenHell blog, here...

...and why are global warming/climate change sceptics winning ? For several reasons; the main one being that alarmists have overstated their case, and that the small kernel of truth in their argument has been hyperinflated to the point of farcical hysteria. Consider this...

...and this...it may well be that global warming is best tackled with a variety of cheap fixes, if not by pumping SO2 into the stratosphere then perhaps by seeding more clouds over the ocean. Alternatively, as "SuperFreakonomics" suggests, we might be better off doing nothing until the state of technology can catch up to the scope of the problem. All these suggestions are, of course, horrifying to global warmists, who'd much prefer to spend in excess of a trillion dollars annually for the sake of reconceiving civilization as we know it, including not just what we drive or eat but how many children we have. And little wonder: As Newsweek's Stefan Theil points out, "climate change is the greatest new public-spending project in decades." Who, being a professional climatologist or EPA regulator, wouldn't want a piece of that action? Part of the genius of Marxism, and a reason for its enduring appeal, is that it fed man's neurotic fear of social catastrophe while providing an avenue for moral transcendence. It's just the same with global warming...more from the Wall Street Journal here...

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

They are insane, pumping SO2 into the atmosphere ????
If they need to do that just start using dirtier coal fired power plants.
Shit, then we'd get some power at the same time.
That idea shows how disconnected from reality some of these people are.

Ayrdale said...

Anon, I think the point is to illustrate that IF global warming were a real problem, then it wouldn't be necessary to ruin the economies of the developed world to "fix" it. All that would be necessary to halt or slow down runaway warming would be SO2, a helium balloon and a few miles of hose.

Anonymous said...

WTF, the planets cooling. A few degrees of heat is a hell of a lot better than a few degrees colder. How many will a new ice age kill ?

Anonymous said...

Silly basterds you dont now what your talking about the planet is gettin hotter and weel have to start killing people to servive.

Ayrdale said...

Anon, again, we know that we are at heart a virus on our Earth Mother, and that to endanger Her is to besmirch our goddess.

But hey, environmentalism is based on science isn't it ? not religion ?

123 123 said...

Nice story you got here. It would be great to read something more about that matter. Thank you for posting this information.
Sexy Lady
Busty escorts