The British government’s “Green Advisor” doesn’t like kids. At least not more than two per family.
COUPLES who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.
And how does he think that this terrible tragedy should be dealt with? That’s the scary part.
Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming.
So there you have it. Abortion is at the heart of his plan to “fight global warming”. Isn’t that precious?
What do you think will happen if persuasion to kill your children doesn’t work? I’m guessing people like Jonathon Porritt will look to China for answers. “Should” will become “must”.
The lawmakers gazed in awe at the figure before them. The Goracle had seen the future, and he had come to tell them about it.
That’s how Dana Milbank opens his hilarious column in today’s Washinton Post about Al Gore’s appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
What the Goracle saw in the future was not good: temperature changes that “would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth — and this is within this century, if we don’t change.”
The treatment he received from the committee members was one of awestruck reverence as exemplified by this:
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry (D-Mass.), appealed to hear more of the Goracle’s premonitions. “Share with us, if you would, sort of the immediate vision that you see in this transformative process as we move to this new economy,” he beseeched.
To see the Goracle’s answer and to read the rest of this very funny and disturbing column go to the link. You’ll laugh ’til you cry. Literally.
Sometimes you just have to shake your head when, yet another, seemingly unrelated event gets blamed on “climate change” nee “global warming”. (We’ve listed some, who-wudda-thunk-it, things caused by global warming here.)
Well here’s one that even I didn’t see coming: the US Airways crash in the Hudson. That’s right, the Miracle on the Hudson was, in part, caused by our selfishly large carbon footprint. As reported by Time magazine:
While officials use radar and radio collars to track bird populations, habitat destruction and climate change have disrupted migratory patterns. Moreover, the populations of certain species of birds are increasing at rapid rates, thanks to changes in food supply.
So you see, people who unthinkingly produce more carbon than the “planet” can sustain caused ‘climate change’ which caused habitat destruction, which disrupted migratory patterns, which caused the birds to fly into the plane’s engines, which caused the crash. And there it is.
So don’t you now feel guilty about putting thos people on the plane through such a near-death experience? And what about those people on the plane? How long do you think it will take before some environmentalist wacko proclaims that the passengers deserved it by flying in the first place? Do NOT put it past them.
What I wonder is what caused that increase in food supply that caused the increase in population of Canada geese? If CC is so bad it should have caused the bird’s population to decline leading to eventual extinction. Right?
You really don’t have to wonder why journalism’s having such a tough time these days when you read stories like this.
You knew it had to happen.
EPA ‘Cow Tax’ Could Charge $175 per Dairy Cow to Curb Greenhouse Gases
That’s right. A state farm bureau has calculated that each cow farts precisely $175 worth of “greenhouse gases” per year.
The New York Farm Bureau assigned a price tag to the cost of greenhouse gas regulation by the EPA in a release last month.
“The tax for dairy cows could be $175 per cow, and $87.50 per head of beef cattle. The tax on hogs would upwards of $20 per hog,” the release said. “Any operation with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would have to obtain permits.”
Don’t laugh! Next they’ll be hooking your ass up to a meter. (So watch your bean consumption.) And, if you have a big family, you’ll have to get a permit if any of you plan on doing any farting.
Remember all those stories designed to make you cry about polar bears drowning? It was your fault that global warming was melting their ice flows and THAT had to stop RIGHT NOW! Well, those stories will have to be put into storage for awhile.
Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.
Two interesting things happened in 1979. That was the year that satellite observations of sea ice began. It was also the year that Time Magazine ran a cover story headlined “Another Ice Age?” telling us that thirty years of observations indicated that the globe was cooling. (I strongly urge you to read the article and see if you notice how similar it is to the hype you’re hearing now about global warming.)
You might be wondering what happened to the predictions we heard earlier this year that Arctic Ice was disappearing so much that shipping lanes could open up through the Northwest Passage.
Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC’s Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.
Imagine that. Wind and colder temperatures were all it took. Interestingly, the idea that wind patterns can blow sea ice to warmer waters where it melts never got much press when it was happening. Now that ice is growing, its reported in its absence.
But why were all those, oh so smart, scientists wrong?
Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Or maybe it just didn’t fit the expectation of warmer tempertures because “everyone knows that we’re having global warming”.
It used to be that science was a discipline that constantly reassessed its assumptions. Now, because grants are at risk, that’s no longer operative. Now we hear statements like “cooler temperatures are a result of gloal warming” and are expected to believe it.
And its not just a hypothetical arguement. Those assumptions cause our government to act:
In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal’s numbers were increasing.
Let’s hope this “whoops moment” causes some more testing of global warming assumptions before our policy-makers cause real damage to real people. This time its about erroneously putting the polar bear on the endangered species list. Next it will be about food production, what you can and cannot eat, taxes and the entire economy. Now that will be a real “whoops moment”.