Regular readers of the Chicago Flame probably know by now that I'm politically conservative and, as such, there are certain stereotypes designated to me by the urban university mindset. I've long since given up trying to hide the glaring fact that I spend my moonshine-induced evenings engaging in sexual intercourse with toothless family members, while contemplating the sadistic joy I'd wallow in from reading (if only I were literate) Fox News articles on death toll predictions for the next Bushitler crusade against oil-owning non-Christians. Having said that, there is one stereotype in which I don't fit the traditional neo-Nazi reactionary mold, and that is the assumption that I'm unconcerned with the state of our planet.
Scraping the nadir of ideological ignorance has yet to callous me to the cause of environmentalism. This doesn't mean that I'm one of these rent-a-protester types who refuses to bathe and advocates we all live naked and eat grass. But I do believe that taking care of our world is an obligation (I'd say "individual responsibility", but I realize that term is the secular leftist's equivalent to the ninth circle of Dante's Inferno).
It goes without saying that the biggest environmental issue of our day is global warming, or the theory that our planet's temperature is unnaturally increasing as a direct result of manmade pollution. Now, I have nothing against this theory, it seems plausible enough to me. But there are scientists who argue against this theory, and I'm interested in what they have to say too. I'm not going to buy into the global warming theory just because it would fit nicely into my political ideology.
The World Meteorological Organization concedes that global temperatures have not risen in a decade (BBC News, Apr. 4), and that when they did rise in 1998, it was the direct result of the El Nino storm. In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has acknowledged that global temperatures have plateaued. Furthermore, NASA's Aqua satellite, launched in 2002, has collected atmospheric data showing that last decade's warming resulted in weather processes compensating for the change and limiting the greenhouse effect on their own (The Australian, Mar. 22). This means that if humans refuse to reform, the earth will do it for us.
You wouldn't know this from Al Gore, his legions of lice-ridden eco-warriors, or his Nobel-winning Power Point presentation. Why not? Because, according to them, global warming is common knowledge, it's beyond dispute, it's accepted science, and the only people dumb enough to resist this onslaught of progressive enlightenment are all those red state knuckle-draggers who have mental orgasms knowing their energy consumption is slowly killing babies in third world countries.
But if global warming is such a done deal, why not have an open debate about it? It should be an open and shut case, right? John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, wants to debate Al Gore in court, with both sides presenting their best scientists and researchers. Well, why not? Why wouldn't Gore jump at the opportunity for a Scopes sequel?
Maybe it's because Gore isn't too interested in global warming to begin with. His Nashville mansion used 191,000 kilowatt hours of electricity in 2006, compared to the 15,600 kilowatt hour Nashville average. In August of that year, NeverGore Ranch used 22,619 kWh, which is more than the average American family uses in an entire year (CBS News, Feb. 28, 2007).
Or maybe it's because many of the global warming alarmists aren't that concerned either. For the first few years of the Bush junta, we heard a lot of blather about how America's refusal to sign Kyoto is single handedly destroying the planet. Those cries have significantly dampened as of late. Why, I wonder? Maybe it's because the University of California, using data from the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency, has determined that China is now the world's top carbon polluter (BBC News, Apr.14). Since America is no longer the most convenient whipping boy, the issue suddenly takes the back burner.
But why? Why aren't our environmentalists as concerned about pollution from Chinese smokestacks as they are about America's? Pollution is pollution, and it does the same damage to the environment regardless of which nation produces it. If they were truly serious about global warming, they'd demand the same standards from China (and other industrializing nations) as they do from America.
That's not how researcher Dr. Auffhammer sees it. "…there is no sense pointing a finger at the Chinese. They are trying to pull people out of poverty and they clearly need help," he told BBC News, and stated further that, "The only solution is for a massive transfer of technology and wealth from the West".
Aha! So that's it! The cure, the ONLY cure, to global warming is not actually stopping countries that pollute, but rather for "the West" to give massive amounts of wealth and technology to China. The good doctor Auffhammer couldn't have exposed his real agenda more blatantly had he crop circled it onto an organic farm field. And it's socialist, laughably moronic "solutions" like these that turn off a great many people to taking global warming more seriously.
So first, we need a consensus from the experts on the validity of global warming. Second, if the consensus is that global warming is indeed a very real threat, we need serious, practical solutions to the problem. If Auffhammer feels "the West" needs to give massive amounts of wealth away, he can start with his own massive wealth, which I'll wager is much more massive than mine. Ditto Gore, DiCaprio, Streisand, etc.
Finally, every nation which significantly pollutes must be part of the solution. We could play blame-America-for-everything politics, or we could try to solve the problem. Only when the global warming crowd shows the rest of us that they're serious will their movement gain the traction and support it needs to make a difference.
Be the first to comment on this article!