2008 Woodie Awards
Snowballs in Hell: fallacies of the global warming debate
Feature Editorial
Christopher Skeet
Issue date: 5/5/08 Section: Opinions
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.
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.
Be the first to comment on this story