5 posts tagged “environment”
Earlier this week, I encountered one of the Vox community's more prominent idiots-advocats and high priest in the global warming religion who had the audacity to address my standard "hogwash response" response to one of his comments by saying that he believed the market would magically produce "cheaper and greener" forms of energy. He didn't say "magically" though, because he actually believes that if you simply will it, it will happen, no matter that many of the already existing cheaper and greener forms of energy have been hamstrung in their development by members of his own sect, and overlooking the fact that no part of his vision is currently in view.
And did I just say "overlooking?" You have to be aware of something before you can overlook it, and in that sense this self-proclaimed scientist's dream has apparently transported him into an alternate reality with tangerine trees and marmalade skies, and he's perfectly content in the sort of way that old guy was in his belief that Mount St. Helens wouldn't erupt. Meanwhile, back on Earth, not only are the living standards of advanced nations being compromised, but just as third-world countries start to advance a bit, they are seeing costs rise across the board as the price of oil pushes up the cost of just about everything else.
When a person is willing to ignore immediate and avoidable suffering in favor of an intangible goal fueled mainly by his imagination, he's immoral. he's a Castro-in-training, even a future Stalin or a Hitler depending on how far he's willing to ride his vision. So you'll excuse me if I have no patience with his likes. He has no facts, no timetable, and no concern for interim consequences. He's a madman at best and a tyrant in all likelihood. And of course, he sees himself as benevolent as most any tyrant does.
Now I'm a reasonable person. I'm willing to entertain any view that's supported with evidence, and I'm willing to go along with any program that is demonstrably desirable. That means I'm happy to do my part for the environment and in fact, I already do more than most. A bigger fact is that I won't be affected by the harsh realities imposed by skyrocketing energy costs, and I'm thrilled that there might be many fewer vehicles on the road. But my delight stops when people are hurt by artificial restrictions based on faulty 'science,' and they are hurt by pre-boondoggles like "cap and trade" or such absurdities as designating polar bears as endangered species which then opens the door to unimaginable avenues of regulation.
It's time to recognize that warmalarmists aren't just liars with an agenda, they are dangerous, very dangerous, and you are already experiencing the "fruits" of their labors. I recently had an exchange with a fellow elsewhere who wasn't willing to concede that liberals are evil. I argued that the formal designation made no practical difference since even if they held their ideas and beliefs in good faith, and they have the best of intentions, as does the fellow I've been discussing here, the net result is still evil, and as I've said, I doubt you could get Hitler to admit he was evil, so I'll leave it to you to make that determination, I've made mine. But even if you don't see the members of the Church of Global warming as an evil cult, how many of you would like to live by the tenets of any cult?
Well then, this cult is closer to imposing its beliefs on you than any other in history. They literally plan to control the world. They plan to control you. And they don't care about the cost to any one individual, or even a group of them. The end justifies the means. My mindless adversary said as much, he just wasn't lucid enough to understand his own meaning.
But don't take my word for it, I refer you to one of the most rational thinkers of our time who is far more civil and analytical than I am.
I wanted to save this for a piece I was going to do later today on yesterday's (warming caused) flood of "warming" articles, but I feel I owe it to you to make you aware of this as early as possible. It is just too good to lump in with all the nonsense from the over-heated jackasses who pose as journalists and scientists.
I tried to pull the one quote which best characterized of summed up the commentary by Peter Foster in Canada's Financial Post today, and I found that just about every sentence topped the previous one.
So take this as representative of the greatest column yet on the dire threat that is "global warming"...
Samsung has a home laser printer that I've seen on sale for seventy bucks. I almost bought one. That was last week.
This week, there's a report out of Australia in which researchers found that a third of laser printers emitted dangerous levels of toner dust which is fine and can linger in the air for fifteen minutes.
Of course, in an office setting, where the printer is being used all day long, the air may never clear - and that toner dust may be far worse than cigarettes, the researchers say. But probably not as dangerous as asbestos, I say.
Me: "Do you sit near your office printer?"
Wife: "Yes, it's an HP, why?"
Me "Oh my God... !"
From the article: "The researchers found that... More than half of the printers tested - and all but one of the highest polluters - were made by HP Laserjet."
Late last year, my wife had a routine chest X-ray which showed her to have a small spot on her lung. She was advised to get a follow-up X-ray in three months.
That one showed the same spot, and she was sent for a CT-scan which, surprise, also showed the spot.
My wife was then told to see a lung specialist, and she was fortunate enough to get an appointment - four and a half months later - at the end of August.
So we've been waiting since March to find out if the spot's gotten worse, or if (as I found out from the Net, not her doctors) such small spots are almost never cancer.
Would you feel relieved?
I mean no one asked to see her films to determine if there was any urgency, and when I brought up that seemingly significant point to my doctor (not hers), he advised that they would only do that (examine the X-rays ahead of time) "if she had symptoms."
Amazing, don't you think?
In the meantime, my wife went to Urgent Care last February because she was experiencing what she called "congestion" in her chest. It was determined that she was not having a heart attack, but these episodes have since become so frequent that she now regards them as routine.
And now... do you think exposure to toner particles five days a week could cause "congestion?"
Wife: "What do you want me to do, quit?"
That is the dilemma, isn't it? Does she quit or does she bring this study to her company's attention and possibly risk damaging her career or even being fired?
Or does she say nothing and just wait to see if she's only got months to live anyway?
Oh, and did I mention she works for an environmental testing lab?
Air quality heal thyself.
If you've ever subjected yourself to the chore of reading some of my commentary, you're a better man than I. On the other hand, you don't have to cope with my thoughts, so I think we're even. And you know how I feel about President Bush and conservatives, but you may not fully grasp my regard (really lack of same) for liberals. I mean, I know I say things like "they're more dangerous than jihadists," but that doesn't exactly convey my true sentiments. See, we understand that you can't negotiate with jihadists, you have to kill 'em. Now no, I'm not advocating the wanton slaughter of liberals, I'm advocating a carefully targeted euthanasia or even more preferable, designed disease. Or simply do some gene therapy (no, not the Kiss guy) on their asses. Maybe give liberal women blonde hair and big breasts, and make liberal men less gay and more football addicted. Although aren't most liberal women already top-heavy blondes? I'll leave it to the scientists since... Didn't most mad scientists used to be conservative before all this environment and warming nonsense? This one issue could help regain their primacy, and it would do a lot for the environmental-warmers at the same time if you consider that doing it TO them is also doing it FOR them. Think about it, I've got time. Say what I will about Republicans, they understand that it's better for three thousand of our guys die over a period of years while at the same time killing many more thousands of their guys than it is for three thousand of our guys to die en masse at the office while only a super-baker's dozen of theirs perish at the same time. If you're still with me, you're probably wondering what prompted this, and it's actually two specific headlines I read in which the stories that followed were superfluous. The first headline was yesterday: "Bush Success vs. al Qaeda Breeds Long-Term Worries." The second was this morning: "No more GWOT, House committee decrees." I confess that at first I thought GWOT was some sort of hallucinogen proprietary to the ruling class, but as I read I see that the House Armed Services Committee has outlawed the phrase, "global war on terror," though I'm certain it's not the work of the entire committee. Whether due to shortsightedness or political correctness, it's indicative of America approaching the end of its reign atop the world heap. And all you and I are doing is what we're always doing, wringing our hands at each new signpost. Speaking of which, the first headline I cited leads into a story about how we've been so successful at stymieing al Qaeda, that we've actually brought ourselves closer to more devastation: "we are closer now to an attempt at a major attack in the United States than at any point since 9/11," the article's idiot byte said. I immediately thought of these weather imbeciles who are saying again that this hurricane season will be more active than usual. Since we can't eliminate hurricanes, sooner or later, these fools will be right, but we can continue to thwart al Qaeda. However, since they are ceaselessly trying to destroy us, unless and until we eliminate the last one, there is always the possibility of another attack on our soil. And since time, by it's very nature, adds a new day almost every day, we are absolutely closer to another attack than at any time since the towers fell, and tomorrow, we'll probably be closer still. Even more amazingly, Baghdad is closer now than it was even just moments ago to another suicide bombing. A month back, I got into an argument with Miami John, MiJo, who so typifies what were dealing with that for one brief hideous moment, this very blog became a microcosm of our entire society. John was not unintelligent. He was in fact just the opposite, possibly too smart for his own good, because he couldn't see the conclusion for the premises (that's logic talk for "the forest for the trees). John didn't want to begin at the beginning, and he wanted his version of reality to be the official version. It took me a bit to realize this because he's rather good at what he does, and he's no doubt been bolstered by "successes" in liberal circles. But my experience with John differed significantly from those I have with people arguing religious beliefs who can be infinitely less rational than John - my feeling is that religious advocates mean well, whereas John just wanted what he wanted regardless of consequences. So John got all upset when I wouldn't "debate" him, and he naturally argued that it was because I couldn't. And he was right; you can't debate someone who has already formed his own immutable conclusions. Where I may differ from the William F. Buckleys of this world though is that rather than just admit we can't continue a discussion, I enjoy name-calling and ridiculing, under my All Insults All The Time program. But John did prove something - he proved that anyone, regardless of his level of intelligence, can be an idiot. And no doubt John feels the same about me - or worse. So what's the point? With the world getting dumber and dumber in the reasoning department as evidenced by those headlines I cited, not to mention that Rosie O'Donnell not only still has a prominent network job, but she can actually get applause for her comments and even go out in public without fear of being torn limb from limb... well... I don't know what you think, but I know that you're not going to win a debate with liberals, and I know that were closer now to our demise than we were at any time since 9/11. In fact, liberals use your belief in freedom of speech to undermine you - in the media, in schools, in government, and even on blogs. They are quite bold about it and each success emboldens them even more. You see what I'm sayin'? It's like my friend Mz. Simpson says, "In other words, believe their threats." God be with you... And with your ammunition.
As you know if you've read any of my writing, I am a staunch conservative. There are about a gross (look it up) of us. The rest of those who call themselves conservatives, are Pavlov conservatives. And of course, all liberals are of that strain.
Anyway, what you may not know is that I am also a vegetarian. "But Ted, you ask, how can you be a conservative and a vegetarian? Isn't vegetarianism incompatible with the hunting, environment rampaging image that any good conservative not only embraces. but proclaims proudly?"
Au contraire! Your problem may lie in those who identify themselves as vegetarians, i.e. those who don't eat meat out of sympathy for animals which are on the same cognitive level as they are, and who hug trees - and swear the trees hug back.
I'm not like that. While I don't eat meat because neither I nor (I'm guessing) most of you would, for example, chew on a chicken leg if it were still attached to the walking, clucking bird, I don't have any particular sympathy for animals since my last dog died. No, I don't hold any other animal responsible for that, I just don't like them because they are dirty, take up space, make a mess, and in the case of the eating variety, they are probably uneconomical and hazardous to your health - although I'm not much concerned about that either. At least not where you're concerned.
So I was particularly pleased to see that the UN thinks cows are way more responsible for global warming than people are. Of course, the idea that the UN thinks global warming is a pressing problem or that any living thing is responsible is an issue for far smaller thinkers than I.
What's important is that the UN thinks cows are a problem, and so do I - a rare agreement. So what does this esteemed terrorist haven recommend? Cow catalytic converters (CCC)? How about we do my idea - get rid of them?!?
Now you ask, "But Ted, what about the milk?" Well, now that they've pretty much perfected soy ice cream, who cares?
As you see, I'm a pragmatic conservative. That's one who believes that the best way to stop the senseless slaughter of animals is to remove them from the planet. What do we need them for, anyway? They're cute? What, we don't have enough on film?
You'll miss the birds chirping? Then you've never been asleep beside an open window and have birds wake you at 5am. Maybe your birds chirp. Mine squawk, squeal, and shriek. Then they move to the tree on the other side of the window and do it some more.
Some people argue that some bugs clean up waste, and others catch and kill stuff that destroy crops. They miss the point. OK, keep the petting zoos, everything else goes. DDT their ass!
Yes, I know that means we'll have healthier Africans, but we'll deal with that problem as the need arises. Perhaps I should note here that while I don't want to go on killing animals, people are another story entirely. Let's do a don't-ask-don't tell on that for now.
But I'm not stupid. by all means, preserve the animals' DNA so we can reconstitute them if we find they're useful for something in a couple of hundred years or so. By that time, if we do bring them back, the decision to do it won't be an emotional one like, "My daughter wants a pony." By that time, she'll be jet skiing around the universe, so she probably won't be wanting to clean up road apples.
By the way, I bet Noah would be pissed as hell at God if he knew that if God had only waited a few thousand years to flood the place, all Noah would have had to do today is gather cells instead of whole animals. Not to mention that it would have been somebody else's problem entirely
To recap, I feel the most humane thing, the best thing for the environment, the best thing to stem disease, and the best thing for such disparate peoples such as loggers, dam builders, and property developers, not to mention wilderness joggers is to do the right thing and rid this planet of lesser life forms immediately.
I know that's sounds like a bad idea to liberals, but at least they can take a test to definitively determine if they are a lower life form before we shoot 'em. You put that test in front of a mosquito, and all you'll get is buzzing. The sounds liberals will make may not be any more intelligible, but that's why we'll have a test.
