Global Warming Follies

A warning about global warming fanatics and the threat they pose to freedom.

Posted in Common Sense by tjgavin on May 28, 2008

This warning should command your attention because it comes from someone who’s seen something like it before. Czech President Vaclav Klaus says the GW alarmists remind him of his former communist masters.

Klaus, an economist, said he opposed the “climate alarmism” perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia.

“Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality,” he said.

“In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat – this time, in the name of the planet,” he added.


“It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda,” he said.

“You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time…” Let’s hope its not one of those times.



Global warming activists I can enjoy!

Posted in Follies by tjgavin on May 27, 2008

I wonder if the Lettuce Entertain You restaurant people thought of this?

New Orleans–Wearing nothing but strategically placed lettuce leaves, a pair of PETA’s Lettuce Ladies will hand out free Tofurky brand mock-turkey sandwiches and two free gallons of gas to the first 50 people at a New Orleans BP gas station on Wednesday. PETA is “doing lunch” at the gas station to let drivers know that the best thing that they can do for the environment is jettison their meat-based diets.


“In a time of rising gas prices and rising concern for the environment, we’re going the extra mile to help Americans fill up on vegan fuel for their tummies and gas for their tanks,” says Lettuce Lady Colleen Higgins.



Jonah produces a whale of a piece!

Posted in Common Sense by tjgavin on May 22, 2008

Sometimes an opinion piece says it all so well that you have to read it all to appreciate it. So we’ve included it in all of its common sense.

Church of Green
America‘s environmental mea maxima culpa.

By Jonah Goldberg

I admit it: I’m no environmentalist. But I like to think I’m something of a conservationist.

No doubt for millions of Americans this is a distinction without a difference, as the two words are usually used interchangeably. But they’re different things, and the country would be better off if we sharpened the distinctions between both word and concept.

At its core, environmentalism is a kind of nature worship. It’s a holistic ideology, shot through with religious sentiment. “If you look carefully,” author Michael Crichton observed, “you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.”

Environmentalism’s most renewable resources are fear, guilt, and moral bullying. Its worldview casts man as a sinful creature who, through the pursuit of forbidden knowledge, abandoned our Edenic past. John Muir, who laid the philosophical foundations of modern environmentalism, described humans as “selfish, conceited creatures.” Salvation comes from shedding our sins, rejecting our addictions (to oil, consumerism, etc.) and demonstrating an all-encompassing love of Mother Earth. Quoth Al Gore: “The climate crisis is not a political issue; it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.”

I heard Gore on NPR recently. He was asked about evangelical pastor Joseph Hagee’s absurd comment that Hurricane Katrina was God’s wrath for New Orleans’s sexual depravity. Naturally, Gore chuckled at such backwardness. But then the Nobel laureate went on to blame Katrina on man’s energy sinfulness. It struck me that the two men are not so different. If only canoodling Big Easy residents had adhered to The Greenpeace Guide to Environmentally Friendly Sex.

Environmentalists insist that their movement is a secular one. But using the word “secular” no more makes you secular than using the word “Christian” automatically means you behave like a Christian. Pioneering green lawyer Joseph Sax describes environmentalists as “secular prophets, preaching a message of secular salvation.” Gore, too, has been dubbed a “prophet.” A green-themed California hotel provides Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” next to the Bible and a Buddhist tome.

Whether or not it’s adopted the trappings of religion, my biggest beef with environmentalism is how comfortably irrational it is. It touts ritual over reality, symbolism over substance, while claiming to be so much more rational and scientific than those silly sky-God worshipers and deranged oil addicts.

It often seems that displaying faith in the green cause is more important than advancing the green cause. The U.S. government just put polar bears on the threatened species list because climate change is shrinking the Arctic ice where they live. Never mind that polar bears are in fact thriving — their numbers have quadrupled in the last 50 years. Never mind that full implementation of the Kyoto protocols on greenhouse gases would save exactly one polar bear, according to Danish social scientist Bjørn Lomborg, author of the book Cool It!

Yet 300 to 500 polar bears could be saved every year, Lomborg says, if there were a ban on hunting them. What’s cheaper — trillions to trim carbon emissions, or a push for a ban on polar bear hunting?

Plastic grocery bags are being banned, even though they require less energy to make and recycle than paper ones. The country is being forced to subscribe to a modern version of transubstantiation, whereby corn is miraculously transformed into sinless energy even as it does worse damage than oil.

Conservation, which shares roots and meaning with conservatism, stands athwart this mass hysteria. Yes, conservationism can have a religious element as well, but that stems from the biblical injunction to be a good steward of the Earth, rather than a worshiper of it. But stewardship involves economics, not mysticism.

Economics is the study of choosing between competing goods.

Environmentalists view economics as the enemy because cost-benefit analysis is thoroughly unromantic. Lomborg is a heretic because he treats natural-world challenges like economic ones, seeking to spend money where it will maximize good, not just good feelings among environmentalists.

Many self-described environmentalists are in fact conservationists. But the environmental movement wins battles by blurring this distinction, arguing that all lovers of nature must follow their lead. At the same time, many people open to conservationist arguments, like hunters, are turned off by even reasonable efforts because they do not want to assist “wackos.”

In the broadest sense, the environmental movement has won. Americans are “green” in that they are willing to spend a lot to keep their country ecologically healthy, which it is. But now it’s time to save the environment from the environmentalists.

Link…. not necessary Google it if you must.

A cooler head speaks his mind on Global Warming

Posted in Common Sense by tjgavin on May 20, 2008

First John Coleman, meteorologist and founder of the Weather Channel, said that human-caused global warming is junk science. Others followed him though their statements were mainly reported only in local newspapers. Now 31,000 scientists including 9,000 Phd’s sign a petition with the same message. That’s 15 times the number of “scientists” who sighned the IPCC report. The petition is predictably ignored by the media.

At least the Minneapolis StarTribune uses the petition’s announcement as a reason to talk to one of that city’s top TV meteorologist.

Longtime WCCO-TV meteorologist Mike Fairbourne says that the environmental movement is practicing “squishy science” when it ties human activity to global warming.   Fairbourne’s assessment Monday came on the same day that the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine appeared before the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., and announced that it has the signatures of more than 31,000 scientists — including Fairbourne’s — who agree that the human impact on global warming is overblown.

The petition states, in part:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

“Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Do other meteorologists agree with Fairbourne?

Fairbourne said he has talked “to a number of meteorologists who have similar opinions,” adding that he is concerned about “the extremism that is attached to the global warming.”

He noted that in the 1970s “we were screaming about global cooling. It makes me nervous when we pin a few warm years on squishy science.”

So what about glaciers melting and such? Aren’t we “destroying the Earth”?

Fairbourne said there are “other things going on — ocean currents, changes in salinity — other things not related to carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere.”

But what motivates the GW alarmists to say these things if there’s no proof?

Fairbourne said, “They’re doing it for a lot of reasons; some may be scientific, but most of them are political. We need to be calm and look at scientific evidence and evaluate it.”

Wow! Let’s hope other cooler heads find their voices as clearly as Fairboure did.


Fatty’s fault (no offense)

Posted in Follies by tjgavin on May 18, 2008

I sure hope you’re not fat, because it’s making my world warmer. I mean, c’mon people. Don’t you realize that your thickness is causing you to engage in activities that are ruining our planet?

Sounds silly, but that’s what a scientific report said as told to us by our skinny friends at the L.A. Times.

That pesky obesity thing. First it forced Disneyland to increase the sizes of its theme-park costumes, and hospitals to buy larger hoists and beds. Now, in a letter published Friday in the medical journal Lancet, two scientists write that obese people are disproportionately responsible for high food prices and greenhouse gas emissions because they consume 18% more food energy due to their greater body mass — and require increased quantities of fuel to transport themselves and the food they eat. “Promotion of a normal distribution of BMI would reduce the global demand for, and thus the price of, food,” write the authors, Phil Edwards and Ian Roberts of the evocatively named London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for promotion of healthy habits; Lord knows I need to get me some. But please don’t try to tell me that the incremental consumption by the heavier crowd is making any sort of material difference to the already minuscule effect the rest of us have on our atmosphere.


News you can use from the BBC!

Posted in Follies by tjgavin on May 11, 2008

…but I worry about our less well-endowed fellow travelers.

Great tits cope well with warming

By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website


Always willing to advance the cause using other peoples’ suffering

Posted in Follies by tjgavin on May 7, 2008

Despite the fact that the scientist who first posited that GW can make hurricanes worse now says that theory is “no longer operative”, Al Gore just keeps on spouting.

Using tragedy to advance an agenda has been a strategy for many global warming activists, and it was just a matter of time before someone found a way to tie the recent Myanmar cyclone to global warming.

Former Vice President Al Gore in an interview on NPR’s May 6 “Fresh Air” broadcast did just that. He was interviewed by “Fresh Air” host Terry Gross about the release of his book, “The Assault on Reason,” in paperback.

“And as we’re talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated,” Gore said. “And last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China – and we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.”


The Global Warming “Truths” are falling left and right.

Posted in Common Sense by tjgavin on May 4, 2008

When the results don’t match the predictions all you have to do, if you’re a global warming true believer, is change the prediction…again. Here’s a clip from London’s Telegraph.

A notable story of recent months should have been the evidence pouring in from all sides to cast doubts on the idea that the world is inexorably heating up. The proponents of man-made global warming have become so rattled by how the forecasts of their computer models are being contradicted by the data that some are rushing to modify the thesis.

So a German study, published by Nature last week, claimed that, while the world is definitely warming, it may cool down until 2015 “while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions”.

This excellent article is full of recent evidence that contradicts GW theories and the way that evidence has been either ignored or explained away, in pretty ridiculous ways, by the GW true believers.