It always amuses me when people, who challenge my stance on the global warming hoax, tell me that I am not a scientist. Well is Madonna a scientist? Is Al Gore a scientist? Are you a scientist?I'm no more of a scientist than Dean is. But I have been reading about global warming for the last few years, and have yet to see an article that appeals to the authority of Madonna, or of Al Gore for that matter. I don't believe that global warming is a serious issue because Gore does. If anything, my dislike of the former veep served as an impediment to admitting to the reality of warming. I have softened my view of Gore in the last few years for the obvious reason that the man who finished second to him in 2000 has been a disaster.
It would be pointless for me to try to change the mind of anyone who argues that global warming is a "hoax." People who are deeply invested in a viewpoint don't necessarily respond to arguments, or to news reports about melting permafrost, drought and wild fires; and I lack the skills and knowledge to present a convincing case on the topic.
As wrong as I think Dean is, he is a model of clarity compared compared to the other Glen, er, Glenn, on the issue. Glenn Reynolds has affected occasional concern about global warming, but his more frequent posts on the topic are of two varieties. One kind argues--with some justification--that this or that environmentalist is a hypocrite. The other breathlessly announces that it's cold somewhere! The substance of his views on the issue differ little from what one might read at NRO's Planet Gore.
UPDATE. In a later post, Dean veers into bizarre territory:
What right do these decadent charlatans, these fake environmentalists, have to tell me to change my ways? Tell me something else. Why do you "real environmentalists" not hold these people to account? Why do you direct your venom toward little folks like myself? It is like I said before. Global warming is nothing but a t-shirt. In twenty years, Gore and all of his sheep will be a laughingstock. Hopefully we'll still have a little bit of personal and economic freedom by then.Well, even rock stars have the right of free speech. I'm not sure which "real environmentalists" favor exempting spoiled celebrities from new rules and regulations. As a fake non-environmentalist, I would favor policies that require people, rock stars and Crimson Tide fans alike, to pay the cost for their carbon emissions. The best way I can see--and I'm open to alternatives--is by way of a carbon tax. Any carbon taxes should be offset by reductions in income and payroll taxes.
6 comments:
I think Crimson Tide fans should be exempt of all taxes. Auburn and UT fans should have all their property confiscated from them.
Surely they have a right to say what they want, as far as the constitution is concerned. Everybody has the right to say anything. But morally speaking, I just don't think they have any standing to say anything. It would be like the Pillsbury Dough boy telling people to go on the Atkins diet.
As for the carbon tax, Clark. Could you at least allow a little more study into this stuff before we start taxing people more, thus further increasing the power of government and decreasing economic freedom?
Clark,
Ive said over and over for a good while, the American Public would be suprisingly eco-friendly if corporate America gave them the choices to so.
If GM had made the EV1 electric car, and sold it for about 20,000 bucks, they would be all over the road. The Prius, at 23,000 (and kinda ugly), getting 50-something a gallon-on the highway and more in the city, sells pretty damned well despite its high expense.
If Detroit made an electric with the RANGE of a Tesla Electric car (275 miles before recharge) that was roughly as large as a Ford Focus, and cost 20,000------------they'd sell like hot cakes. Nobody wants to pay 3.00 a gallon for gas. But Corporate America hasn't made those kinds of products available to us yet.
If the new solar panels, which look like roofing tiles, were put on every new house, thus making many homes "off grid" as these can produce more electricity than many homeowners consume...............people would not complain, they'd use the "free" juice from the sun. People use outdoor solar lights now.
The public has nothing against affordable non-CFC energy sources, but they cant wave a wand and make these things happen. Congress has often stood in the way (they have blocked several windfarms). Then the media turns around and blames John Q. Public for being a pig.
Gore is a joke who has never held a real job, and was born with a silver spoon. I want a REAL AMERICAN MAN to be our next president. Candidates for this include Paul, Tancredo, Thompson, and perhaps a couple of others. No senator daddy's, no born-wealthy's, no Harvard/Yalies, but a guy who was once "one of us" out here in flyover country (for me that be Tennessee).
Well, Clark, as someone who seems to pay attention to my blog, you should have seen my previous posts on the cold-weather stories. For example, I've said things like this:
http://instapundit.com/archives2/004156.php
"But keep this in mind when they start claiming, as the press inevitably does, that unusually warm days are evidence for climate change. The truth, as I've noted before, is that weather is very "noisy," and that warm (or cold) days, weeks, or even years don't mean much. And by pointing out the cold weather now, you get people to go on the record about that . . . ."
Or this:
http://instapundit.com/archives2/003987.php
"Does this cold weather disprove global warming? Nope. And hot weather this summer won't prove its existence, either. For that matter, no particular spell of weather proves or disproves any climate theory -- something that press reports tend to miss. Hence the fun in posts like these!"
If the press were honest, I'd have less to do. Luckily, that's not an issue.
Clark, it’s nice to see your site. Being a conservative environmentalist gets lonely sometimes, especially for those of us who also think of ourselves as populists to a greater or lesser degree. I think the real issue here is about what kind of morality is being used to justify protecting the environment. The same people who tell ordinary Americans to accept permissiveness on other questions want to impose asceticism when it comes to environmental protection. It’s no accident that environmentalism is widely seen as anti-Christian, even as something that wants to replace Christianity. Americans need an argument for sacrifice to be phrased in religious terms, except in the case of major war where patriotism almost takes on the characteristics of a religion. Would you agree?
The Global warming fad has reached it's hysterical peak now. It's all down hill from here.
Five years from now, no one will even remember what it was all about.
broodrack
Who will tax the taxers? If the purpose of the carbon tax is to discourage pollution, how will it discourage government polluters who will be tax-exempt?
Post a Comment