Thursday, May 24, 2007

Alan Caruba on Global Warming

Some weeks ago, I posted this about that nutcase Sheryl Crow

Now, Alan Caruba expands the global warming nonsense in his most recent article.

The suggestion by singer Sheryl Crow that the Earth could be saved from destruction if everyone used just one square of toilet paper brought howls of derision from all corners, but the environmentalist’s opposition to flush toilets for the very same reason during a United Nations conference evoked very little reaction.

In 2002, at the United Nations’ Earth Summit, held in Johannesburg, the delegates, when not dining on lobster and caviar, derided flush toilets. The list of other recommendations these gilded twits had to offer defied reality in a dozen other ways.

In the United States, environmentalists got Congress to decrease the capacity of toilet tanks, thus insuring that a lot more flushing would ensue. Just how much more intrusive into our personal lives can environmentalists and our government be than to decide how much toilet paper and water we should use?

Just how crazy are environmentalists? I’m not talking about people who love to garden or hike and thus think of themselves as "environmentalists", but rather the hardcore Greens who set and drive the environmental movement’s agenda.

Some leaders of the environmental movement are now openly saying that human beings are the real problem for planet Earth. They think having babies should stop or at least be limited. Paul Watson, the founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society says that mankind is "acting like a virus", noting that "We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion." This is the kind of talk that ultimately leads to genocide.

The latest lunacy is the assertion that the Earth can be saved from destruction if we all switch from the trusty incandescent light bulb to the use of fluorescent lighting. The theory is that the former use too much electricity. The fact that the latter also include mercury, a highly toxic substance, in its manufacture is conveniently overlooked. Where you get your light from has absolutely nothing to do with climate change.

Apparently, though, no Green has thought to suggest that we might actually build more facilities for the generation of electricity and, if most of them were nuclear, there would be fewer alleged greenhouse gas problems. Why coal, the most abundant and cheapest energy resource, has become the bogyman is just one more example of the insanity of the environmentalists who want to reduce the amount of soot in the air to infinitesimal parts per billion. The eastern U.S. gets soot and other "stuff" blown in from as far away as Africa. Just how "clean" can clean ever be?

This leads us to the latest insanity, the assertion that carbon dioxide is a "pollutant." Even the U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate a gas that it absolutely vital to all life on Earth. It is CO2 that insures the growth of all vegetation on Earth, much of which is feed for the herds of cattle and other livestock we consume daily, as well as all other forms of wildlife. Without CO2 not a single blade of grass grows anywhere.

Identifying CO2 as a pollutant or dangerous to the future of the Earth is so stupid that it is truly insane. At this point, some Green is saying, but it is "a greenhouse gas." Yes, but 95% of all greenhouse gas is mostly water vapor. Shall we declare the oceans a pollutant as well?

Meanwhile, the European Union announced recently that the Earth is endangered by the farting of cows and sheep saying, "The livestock sector presents the greatest threat to the planet."

Another form of insanity is "saving endangered species." Any review of the Endangered Species Act will swiftly reveal what a complete and total failure it has been. Millions have been wasted "saving" creatures that Mother Nature has decided belong in the loser’s list. Most all of the species that ever existed on Earth are extinct.

One example of how crazed this environmental effort is the announcement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that the Spotted Owl of the northwest, famed for having been the reason a huge swath of the timber industry in that part of the nation was destroyed in order to save it, is now being pushed out of its habitat by barred owls, a more aggressive cousin. Listed 17 years ago as endangered, the FWS is actually contemplating spending millions to shoot the barred owls at a cost of $139 million over 30 years. You cannot make up stuff like this.

While there is much worthy lamenting about the fate of people in Sudan’s Darfur region where perhaps 200,000 have died at the hands of that nation’s government and another two million displaced, one still does not hear much about the millions of Africans and others who have died from malaria because the United States took the lead in banning the use of DDT that formerly protected them against the mosquitoes that spread the disease.

The ban on DDT was advocated by one of the icons of the environmental movement, Rachel Carson. Not long ago, decades into the dying, the World Health Organization decided that maybe DDT was a good idea.

One of the dumbest ideas riding high these days is the mandated use of ethanol in all gasoline blends. Ethanol is made mostly from corn and, as a result, the price of corn is soaring as much of the crop is being converted into moonshine presumably to help the environment. I guarantee you that the use of ethanol will be found to endanger the environment in ways we don’t even know about yet. For now, all it does is drive up the cost of every mile and every gallon.

Soon enough we will hear it is bad for the environment as well. Does anyone remember the additive, MTMB, found to foul underground water? In the meantime, the cost of every food product that uses corn will rise proportionally thanks to supply and demand. You will feel it in your grocery bill.

Another campaign underfoot, literally, these days is to ban the use of fertilizers and pesticides to insure a healthy lawn. Health lawns are Nature’s air conditioners, cleaning the air, and are safer, too, for children to play on. But, no, the environmentalists want to put an end to that, claiming that only "organic" fertilizers should be used, not synthetic ones that do a far better job. "Organic" anything is one of the biggest scams around. Pay more for a potato? Be my guest.

The list of invaluable, beneficial forms of technology that contribute to the fact that Americans are living longer, healthier lives than ever before in the history of mankind, is matched only by the list that environmentalists want to ban. There isn’t a single aspect of our lives that they haven’t managed to make more expensive and even more threatened.

The subversion of real science is best epitomized by the utterly false claim of global warming. Indeed, any time you hear an environmentalist claim that "science" is on their side, just remind yourself that virtually every such claim put forth in Al Gore’s absurd documentary has been refuted with real science, not the boldfaced lies it offers.

Remind yourself, too, that Al Gore wants to eliminate the internal combustion engine!

These were the same people back in the 1970s screaming off the front pages of Time and Newsweek magazine that we were all soon to die from an imminent Ice Age. Ten years later, they were screaming about global warming and they still are.

The greatest insanity of all is the environmentalist’s belief that mankind has any control over the Earth’s climate or weather systems. This totally ignores the predominant role of the Sun, the Moon’s affect on tides, the oceans, volcanoes, and other the other factors that demonstrate on any given day how much more powerful Nature is compared to anything mankind does.

That’s why so many, if not all, of the environmental claims about global warming are entirely based on computer models. Subject to the tinkering of whoever creates a particular model, it can end up telling you that chewing bubblegum affects the rotation of the Earth.

How dumb do you have to be at this point to believe anything they say? How crazy do they have to be to keep saying these things?

Another great post from Alan. Are you getting sick and tired of this issue?


Jeremy Jacobs said...

Just read this very, very carefully

James Higham said...

Jeremy, nutter ostriches and nutter greens are both making stupid statements and turning a phenomenon we should be doing something about into a political slanging match. If the police state doesn't get us, the climate change will.

Lord Nazh said...

the nuts get the 'power' to make these statements by confusing the people like James who is convinced that climate change (which always happens and always will) is caused by mean ole people. :)

coffeecup said...

Why is it wrong to want to save endangered species Jeremy? Who's wasted millions? Whose cash are we talking about? Aren't these organisations usually charitable, money given freely? Would you honestly say that the World wouldn't be poorer if we were saying to our kids in future that there used to be these creatures called 'Tigers' and 'Orangutan' that lived in this habitat known as a rainforest, but hey, we shot them all and replaced the forest with palm oil plantations? I still love you Jeremy but I can see that your in league with the Devil (links).