According to a recent Wall Street Journal staff editorial, Al Gore has finally come clean about his politically-motivated past support of corn ethanol.
Gore has admitted that he backed subsidies for the alternative energy because he needed the support of corn-growing Iowans to win a Democratic presidential nomination, as well as the continued votes of his home-state farmers, in order to maintain his House and Senate seats prior to being Vice President.
"Warm Boy" Al told a group of "clean energy financiers in Greece this week,"
"It's hard once such a program is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going."
The editorial notes Al's opposition to "first generation" ethanol, leaving open subsidies for so-called advanced ethanol that the piece contends "is just a year or two away from viability for two decades."
Republican Senators DeMint and Coburn are pushing the new Congress to let current ethanol subsidies expire next month. When challenged by Iowa's Chuck Grassley, a GOP colleague, to treat oil and gas subsidies similarly, the first two Senators rose to the offer.
In effect, DeMint and Coburn know that oil and gas are economically viable and in demand without subsidies or tax preferences, while ethanol has no chance without them.
Showing posts with label Al Gore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Al Gore. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Bjorn Lomborg On Global Warming From A Bangladeshi's Perspective
One time Greenie, now rationalist Bjorn Lomborg wrote a priceless editorial in a recent edition of the Wall Street Journal concerning the view on global warming from Bangladesh.
He visited the country to find out how people in a poor, low-lying country feel about what the richer countries propose to do to mitigate the presumed, yet unproven effects of global warming.
Sorry. "Global climate change," since as soon as WarmBoy Al Gore began making the former phrase popular, the damned planet began to cool.
Anyway.....
Lomborg writes,
"For Mrs. Begum, the choice is simple. After global warming was explained to her, she said:
"When my kids haven't got enough to eat, I don't think global warming will be an issue I will be thinking about."
One of Bangladesh's most vulnerable citizens, Mrs. Begum has lost faith in the media and politicians.
"So many people like you have come and interviewed us. I have not seen any improvement in our conditions," she said."
So much for patrician UN-types deciding to soak the rich in developed countries for the presumed benefit of the poor in places like Bangladesh. As Lomborg noted,
"Getting basic sanitation and safe drinking water to the three billion people around the world who do not have it now would cost nearly $4 billion a year. By contrast, cuts in global carbon emissions that aim to limit global temperature increases to less than two degrees Celsius over the next century would cost $40 trillion a year by 2010. These cuts will do nothing to reduce the number of people with access to clean drinking water and sanitation."
Lomborg's work has consistently shown that the simplest, cheapest things that can be done by the developed world, e.g., providing clean water and working on basic diseases in the third world, offer the best returns in terms of lives improved and productivity of people around the world.
Now, he's shown that even the very people who would be affected agree with him.
He visited the country to find out how people in a poor, low-lying country feel about what the richer countries propose to do to mitigate the presumed, yet unproven effects of global warming.
Sorry. "Global climate change," since as soon as WarmBoy Al Gore began making the former phrase popular, the damned planet began to cool.
Anyway.....
Lomborg writes,
"For Mrs. Begum, the choice is simple. After global warming was explained to her, she said:
"When my kids haven't got enough to eat, I don't think global warming will be an issue I will be thinking about."
One of Bangladesh's most vulnerable citizens, Mrs. Begum has lost faith in the media and politicians.
"So many people like you have come and interviewed us. I have not seen any improvement in our conditions," she said."
So much for patrician UN-types deciding to soak the rich in developed countries for the presumed benefit of the poor in places like Bangladesh. As Lomborg noted,
"Getting basic sanitation and safe drinking water to the three billion people around the world who do not have it now would cost nearly $4 billion a year. By contrast, cuts in global carbon emissions that aim to limit global temperature increases to less than two degrees Celsius over the next century would cost $40 trillion a year by 2010. These cuts will do nothing to reduce the number of people with access to clean drinking water and sanitation."
Lomborg's work has consistently shown that the simplest, cheapest things that can be done by the developed world, e.g., providing clean water and working on basic diseases in the third world, offer the best returns in terms of lives improved and productivity of people around the world.
Now, he's shown that even the very people who would be affected agree with him.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Glenn Beck & PETA On Al Gore's Hypocrisy
Al Gore's hypocrisy is beginning to become more apparent.
First it was Bjorn Lomborg's challenges to many claims in Warm-Boy Al's (liberal) prize-winning documentary. Al has been ducking a direct confrontation with the esteemed researcher for years.
Next, it was the subtle change from 'global warming' to 'climate change,' because, well, the earth hasn't actually been uniformly warming according to Al's schedule.
Then it became more well-known that Al has made well over $100MM from investments which benefited from his false cries of coming environmental destruction.
Now, PETA is after the Warm One to go vegetarian. Glenn Beck provides an interview with the head of PETA in this hilarious clip on YouTube.
Strange bedfellows, indeed.
But I think the PETA head is on target in labeling Al a hypocrite for ignoring what would be a simple and easy lifestyle change in keeping with his alleged concern for the environment.
How's that for an "inconvenient truth?"
First it was Bjorn Lomborg's challenges to many claims in Warm-Boy Al's (liberal) prize-winning documentary. Al has been ducking a direct confrontation with the esteemed researcher for years.
Next, it was the subtle change from 'global warming' to 'climate change,' because, well, the earth hasn't actually been uniformly warming according to Al's schedule.
Then it became more well-known that Al has made well over $100MM from investments which benefited from his false cries of coming environmental destruction.
Now, PETA is after the Warm One to go vegetarian. Glenn Beck provides an interview with the head of PETA in this hilarious clip on YouTube.
Strange bedfellows, indeed.
But I think the PETA head is on target in labeling Al a hypocrite for ignoring what would be a simple and easy lifestyle change in keeping with his alleged concern for the environment.
How's that for an "inconvenient truth?"
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
"Warm Boy" Al Gore Ducks Bjorn Lomborg
I saw a brief clip of a scene from the Wall Street Journal's recent climate conference on Sean Hannity's Fox News program last night. It seems that the same clip is on YouTube this morning, as well, but it is marked 'private,' so I could not view it.
The scene was hysterical. Noted former Greenpeace scientist Bjorn Lomborg, now a prominent and credible doubter about global warming, Warm Boy Al's signature issue, challenged Gore to a debate.
The offer was simple and unmistakable. Bjorn issued an offer to Al to debate the topic of global warming.
Al ducked.
he hemmed, and hawed, and took about 15 seconds to manage to squeeze out a contention that all sorts of scientists had now determined that humans are responsible for global warming, so that's it.
No need for further debate.
Lomborg is the world's most credible, vocal and pragmatic voice regarding analysis of various green initiatives. He's given seminars all over the world and conducted workshops for the UN and other bodies involving the rating of importance and benefits/costs of key environmental initiatives.
With Lomborg's guidance, these groups always rate global warming at the bottom of the list of urgent topics on which the world should actually spend money. That's because it is:
a) not clearly identified as caused by humans;
b) may be a natural earth cycle that we cannot control, and;
c) the cost of doing anything about it is enormous, while the effects of human action will likely have little effect on any natural earth processes.
Faced with a real debate opponent, rather than a mute video camera, Oscar-winning Al was continuing to weasel his way out of the challenge when the clip ended.
Does that sound like a confident proponent of his position to you? Instead, it sounds like Warm Boy thinks that just because a bunch of Hollywood airheads gave him an award, his conclusions must be true.
No need to debate it anymore. Hollywood said it's so!
Sadly, our newly-inaugurated First Rookie thinks so, too. So much for intelligence in the Oval Office for the next four years.
The scene was hysterical. Noted former Greenpeace scientist Bjorn Lomborg, now a prominent and credible doubter about global warming, Warm Boy Al's signature issue, challenged Gore to a debate.
The offer was simple and unmistakable. Bjorn issued an offer to Al to debate the topic of global warming.
Al ducked.
he hemmed, and hawed, and took about 15 seconds to manage to squeeze out a contention that all sorts of scientists had now determined that humans are responsible for global warming, so that's it.
No need for further debate.
Lomborg is the world's most credible, vocal and pragmatic voice regarding analysis of various green initiatives. He's given seminars all over the world and conducted workshops for the UN and other bodies involving the rating of importance and benefits/costs of key environmental initiatives.
With Lomborg's guidance, these groups always rate global warming at the bottom of the list of urgent topics on which the world should actually spend money. That's because it is:
a) not clearly identified as caused by humans;
b) may be a natural earth cycle that we cannot control, and;
c) the cost of doing anything about it is enormous, while the effects of human action will likely have little effect on any natural earth processes.
Faced with a real debate opponent, rather than a mute video camera, Oscar-winning Al was continuing to weasel his way out of the challenge when the clip ended.
Does that sound like a confident proponent of his position to you? Instead, it sounds like Warm Boy thinks that just because a bunch of Hollywood airheads gave him an award, his conclusions must be true.
No need to debate it anymore. Hollywood said it's so!
Sadly, our newly-inaugurated First Rookie thinks so, too. So much for intelligence in the Oval Office for the next four years.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
What If? Bill Clinton's Impeachment Conviction
Last week I was discussing the current Presidential campaign with a friend. Remarking on Hillary's trust problems among the electorate, I mused about something I had never really explicitly considered before.
Both Al Gore, Bill Clinton's VP, and Clinton's wife, Hillary, have had uphill struggles when trying to leverage their connection with the two-term President into their own stint in the Oval Office.
Let me be clear. While I don't like BIll Clinton, and disagreed with most of his policies, and his perspectives on what was and is good for America, I respect his rare accomplishment of winning two terms as President of the United States. That's more than many accord our current President, George W. Bush, also a man of uncommonly high achievement.
How is it that Clinton's own VP failed to win the White House? And prospects for his wife are similarly clouded as I write this piece.
How would the fortunes of Gore and Hillary, and US and world history have changed, had:
Hillary divorced Bill over Monica's blue dress and his own obstruction of justice and the trail of victimized, openly confessed women with whom Bill had sex over the years as governor and President; and
Gore resigned as VP upon viewing the wealth of evidence that Bill Clinton obstructed justice, using the vast machinery of the Executive branch, to impeded his impeachment and threat of criminal trial?
It's my contention that those two events, especially if they occurred within about six months of each other, would have damaged Bill Clinton's efforts to avoid conviction in his Senate impeachment trial.
If Gore had resigned, perhaps the Republicans, in concert with the Democrats, could have arranged for a Nelson Rockefeller-type VP to be confirmed, who would agree not to run again in 1996. Then both parties' Senators could have safely convicted Bill and ousted him.
By doing the "right thing," both Gore and Hillary may each well have been able to capture the prize that eluded the former, and may still prove unreachable for the latter.
Both Al Gore, Bill Clinton's VP, and Clinton's wife, Hillary, have had uphill struggles when trying to leverage their connection with the two-term President into their own stint in the Oval Office.
Let me be clear. While I don't like BIll Clinton, and disagreed with most of his policies, and his perspectives on what was and is good for America, I respect his rare accomplishment of winning two terms as President of the United States. That's more than many accord our current President, George W. Bush, also a man of uncommonly high achievement.
How is it that Clinton's own VP failed to win the White House? And prospects for his wife are similarly clouded as I write this piece.
How would the fortunes of Gore and Hillary, and US and world history have changed, had:
Hillary divorced Bill over Monica's blue dress and his own obstruction of justice and the trail of victimized, openly confessed women with whom Bill had sex over the years as governor and President; and
Gore resigned as VP upon viewing the wealth of evidence that Bill Clinton obstructed justice, using the vast machinery of the Executive branch, to impeded his impeachment and threat of criminal trial?
It's my contention that those two events, especially if they occurred within about six months of each other, would have damaged Bill Clinton's efforts to avoid conviction in his Senate impeachment trial.
If Gore had resigned, perhaps the Republicans, in concert with the Democrats, could have arranged for a Nelson Rockefeller-type VP to be confirmed, who would agree not to run again in 1996. Then both parties' Senators could have safely convicted Bill and ousted him.
I believe that Gore's defeat in 2000 was at least in part due to his defense of an obviously deceitful sitting President. Much in the manner in which voters held Ford's pardon of Nixon against him, and elected Carter in 1976, it's reasonable to assume that a fair number of voters in America's heartland never forgave Gore for defending Clinton.
Had Gore resigned as Clinton's VP for ethical reasons, he could have probably won the 1996 election with ease, had he faced Dole. A convicted Clinton would be out of the running.
Had Clinton still evaded conviction for obstruction of justice, Gore might have given Democrats a better hope of winning the White House than a damaged President abandoned by both his VP and his wife.
The 1996 election would probably have been too early for the current President Bush to have entered, especially with his father having only vacated the White House four years earlier. And it's not certain that Bush could have defeated a sitting President Gore in 2000, unless the bursting of the stock market's tech bubble contributed to a Gore defeat.
Turning to Hillary, her divorce from Bill would have garnered the emotional sympathy of women everywhere, as well as potentially smoothed some of the rougher edges off of her public persona.
Next to the sympathy she'd generate, though, such a move would have helped her answer the constant suspicion that she is purely calculating, including her seemingly unemotional, unloving marriage to her husband.
A Hillary thus softened and playing victim could have more easily followed Gore to the White House.
Would any of this have happened? Who knows. But I think it's quite reasonable to suggest that Gore could have at least followed Bill Clinton, should the latter have managed to evade conviction in his impeachment, and hung onto the Oval Office for another four years.
To me, the moral of this hypothetical scenario would be that both Gore and Hillary might have achieved their ultimate objective, the Presidency, had they 'done the right thing,' rather than sticking by a President so obviously involved with obstructing justice in the case of the probe into his lies regarding his affair and sexual activities with Monica Lewinsky.
By supporting a President who became a laughingstock for attempting to redefine the word "is," I believe both Hillary and Al Gore damaged their own plans to become President as well.
The voting public would almost certainly have trusted both associates of Bill Clinton more had they done the ethical thing and voted with their feet when evidence clearly pointed to his sexual activity with his intern, while he continued to deny it and attempted to obstruct the inquiry about his misuse of power to protect himself.
They are interesting questions to ponder.By doing the "right thing," both Gore and Hillary may each well have been able to capture the prize that eluded the former, and may still prove unreachable for the latter.
Friday, June 22, 2007
More On Global Warming: Dissent !!!!!!
I learned, via CNBC this week, that the Drudge report featured this piece on global warming. Some excerpts include,
The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." Liberal MP Ralph Goodale's June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world," would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.
Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.
The Financial Post is a respected Canadian newspaper. Funny how they can manage to have an open mind about global warming, but a country to their south, with an order of magnitude more people and media outlets, can't.
How'd it get so easy for the liberal Democrats to brainwash America so quickly into taking global warming seriously, as if:
a) we know humans are the major cause, and
b) we know our planet does not, itself, experience cycles of warming and cooling that will dwarf in magnitude any effect mankind can manage to exert on the process?
I can hardly wait for various 'global warming' programs, mostly involving restricting carbon-based energy sources, to stoke more inflation, become a wallet issue at the polls in 2008, and rout a surprised Democratic Party from both Congressional House majorities, as well as keeping them from the Oval Office.
The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." Liberal MP Ralph Goodale's June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world," would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.
Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.
The Financial Post is a respected Canadian newspaper. Funny how they can manage to have an open mind about global warming, but a country to their south, with an order of magnitude more people and media outlets, can't.
How'd it get so easy for the liberal Democrats to brainwash America so quickly into taking global warming seriously, as if:
a) we know humans are the major cause, and
b) we know our planet does not, itself, experience cycles of warming and cooling that will dwarf in magnitude any effect mankind can manage to exert on the process?
I can hardly wait for various 'global warming' programs, mostly involving restricting carbon-based energy sources, to stoke more inflation, become a wallet issue at the polls in 2008, and rout a surprised Democratic Party from both Congressional House majorities, as well as keeping them from the Oval Office.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Laurie David: The Debate On Global Warming Is Over!
I saw a truly scary interview on CNBC last Tuesday morning. Cheryl Crowe and Laurie David, producer of Warm Boy Al Gore's movie, are hitting the road for a joint tour in support of global warming. Or is that against it? Hard to tell anymore.
In answer to Joe Kernen's careful, diplomatic questions regarding those scientists who are not part of the 'consensus' on whether there actually is unusual global warming, and/or its definitive cause, Laurie David declared that the debate on global warming is"over."
That's right. Finis. Done. Finished. Now that the liberals have at least a temporary crescendo of popular support, they are moving to close discussion and demand that all humankind 'fix' the problem.
Which means, in other words, something like, 'now that we have momentum on this issue, and have cowed the media into suspecting anyone who disagrees with us, we think it's time to close the debate.'
Yes, I can see how that would be convenient. Sort of like LBJ's War on Poverty. Just full speed ahead, and nevermind any well-founded dissent or contradictory evidence.
Among the bullying tactics David used to parry Kernen's questions were to cast doubt on any research disputing Gore's global warming conclusions. Nevermind that liberals funded his movie. Nobody is above reproach if they dare to actually examine the topic with an open mind. That will no longer be allowed.
In response to a few of Kernen's other questions, including whether we aren't going off a little early on spending untold hundreds of billions on this issue, David pointedly lectured him on some other factoid, using the politician's old favorite, 'answer the question you want to answer, not the one that was asked.'
As if to punctuate this narrow-minded hysteria on the part of liberals about this issue, during that day, one of my more liberal acquaintances actually pronounced herself unable to have conversations with me anymore, because I did not embrace Gore's doctrine on global warming. For added emphasis, she found my business post, here, contemptible, for daring to suggest that Schumpeter's views on monopoly power were correct. I was informed that they are always evil, and if allowed to exist, throttle competition in perpetuity. Guess she really didn't understand the post after all.
To be fair, I should probably enunciate my own beliefs about the topic of observed recent warming of our planet.
Here are five statements pertaining to the topic:
1. The planet has warmed by about 1 degree centigrade over the (fill in your desired timeframe) or so.
2. The planet has recently warmed to an extent, over a time period, that is significantly, statistically, outside the expected range of naturally, historically occurring planetary temperature variation.
3. Scientific evidence shows that, in earlier periods, the earth was much cooler than it is now, although with higher levels of CO2, the 'greenhouse gas' about which Gore & Co. are so worried, suggesting that the scientific community does not actually know with certainty that it is greenhouse gases that cause planetary warming of a statistically significant nature.
4. Even if the planet is warming to an extent outside of historical variation, we do not know with certainty, statistically, that this warming is due to human-sourced activity.
5. It matters, in terms of the sensibility and type of actions to take, whether one believes that recent temperature changes are naturally-occurring, and, thus, a part of the Earth's dynamic processes, or, that the recent temperature changes can be reversed by man's activity.
I agree with statements 1, 3, 4, and 5. I do not agree with statement 2.
I believe that the 'global warming' crowd agree with statements 1 and 2, but disagree with statements 3, 4 and 5.
What is most disturbing to me, from an economic perspective, is their stance on statement #5. As Bjorn Lomborg, an ex-Greenpeace economist, now crusader for more sensible eco-action, has noted, global warming is consistently ranked, by numerous, different deliberative bodies which have participated in exercises with him, among the least attractive issues to address in terms of cost/benefit analysis. Clean water, basic healthcare and hygiene for the poor of the world, and food supply, always rank ahead of this issue.
The reason is simple. If the recent warming of the planet is a naturally-occurring phenomenon, then it makes little sense to attempt to stop it by radically altering the global economic system, impoverish the world's populace to fund the attempt, and potentially forego many other quality-of-life enhancing projects.
The bullying and silencing of legitimate critics and doubters of the certainty that recent warming is human-sourced and outside the naturally-occurring variance of historical temperatures, is a serious ethical and scientific issue. But the ultimate price will be borne by everyone if we foolishly and mistakenly embark on a path of trying to stem a naturally-occurring, dynamic planetary process.
We all know and laugh at the story of King Canute, who ordered the incoming tide to reverse itself, in order to show his subjects that he was not all-powerful.
Who will do the same to show King Al that he, too, cannot stop the earth's natural rhythms?
In answer to Joe Kernen's careful, diplomatic questions regarding those scientists who are not part of the 'consensus' on whether there actually is unusual global warming, and/or its definitive cause, Laurie David declared that the debate on global warming is"over."
That's right. Finis. Done. Finished. Now that the liberals have at least a temporary crescendo of popular support, they are moving to close discussion and demand that all humankind 'fix' the problem.
Which means, in other words, something like, 'now that we have momentum on this issue, and have cowed the media into suspecting anyone who disagrees with us, we think it's time to close the debate.'
Yes, I can see how that would be convenient. Sort of like LBJ's War on Poverty. Just full speed ahead, and nevermind any well-founded dissent or contradictory evidence.
Among the bullying tactics David used to parry Kernen's questions were to cast doubt on any research disputing Gore's global warming conclusions. Nevermind that liberals funded his movie. Nobody is above reproach if they dare to actually examine the topic with an open mind. That will no longer be allowed.
In response to a few of Kernen's other questions, including whether we aren't going off a little early on spending untold hundreds of billions on this issue, David pointedly lectured him on some other factoid, using the politician's old favorite, 'answer the question you want to answer, not the one that was asked.'
As if to punctuate this narrow-minded hysteria on the part of liberals about this issue, during that day, one of my more liberal acquaintances actually pronounced herself unable to have conversations with me anymore, because I did not embrace Gore's doctrine on global warming. For added emphasis, she found my business post, here, contemptible, for daring to suggest that Schumpeter's views on monopoly power were correct. I was informed that they are always evil, and if allowed to exist, throttle competition in perpetuity. Guess she really didn't understand the post after all.
To be fair, I should probably enunciate my own beliefs about the topic of observed recent warming of our planet.
Here are five statements pertaining to the topic:
1. The planet has warmed by about 1 degree centigrade over the (fill in your desired timeframe) or so.
2. The planet has recently warmed to an extent, over a time period, that is significantly, statistically, outside the expected range of naturally, historically occurring planetary temperature variation.
3. Scientific evidence shows that, in earlier periods, the earth was much cooler than it is now, although with higher levels of CO2, the 'greenhouse gas' about which Gore & Co. are so worried, suggesting that the scientific community does not actually know with certainty that it is greenhouse gases that cause planetary warming of a statistically significant nature.
4. Even if the planet is warming to an extent outside of historical variation, we do not know with certainty, statistically, that this warming is due to human-sourced activity.
5. It matters, in terms of the sensibility and type of actions to take, whether one believes that recent temperature changes are naturally-occurring, and, thus, a part of the Earth's dynamic processes, or, that the recent temperature changes can be reversed by man's activity.
I agree with statements 1, 3, 4, and 5. I do not agree with statement 2.
I believe that the 'global warming' crowd agree with statements 1 and 2, but disagree with statements 3, 4 and 5.
What is most disturbing to me, from an economic perspective, is their stance on statement #5. As Bjorn Lomborg, an ex-Greenpeace economist, now crusader for more sensible eco-action, has noted, global warming is consistently ranked, by numerous, different deliberative bodies which have participated in exercises with him, among the least attractive issues to address in terms of cost/benefit analysis. Clean water, basic healthcare and hygiene for the poor of the world, and food supply, always rank ahead of this issue.
The reason is simple. If the recent warming of the planet is a naturally-occurring phenomenon, then it makes little sense to attempt to stop it by radically altering the global economic system, impoverish the world's populace to fund the attempt, and potentially forego many other quality-of-life enhancing projects.
The bullying and silencing of legitimate critics and doubters of the certainty that recent warming is human-sourced and outside the naturally-occurring variance of historical temperatures, is a serious ethical and scientific issue. But the ultimate price will be borne by everyone if we foolishly and mistakenly embark on a path of trying to stem a naturally-occurring, dynamic planetary process.
We all know and laugh at the story of King Canute, who ordered the incoming tide to reverse itself, in order to show his subjects that he was not all-powerful.
Who will do the same to show King Al that he, too, cannot stop the earth's natural rhythms?
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Predictable Hollywood: Al Gore's Oscar
Hopefully, this is a harbinger of the left's loss of the Midwest, as Hollywood continues to idolize liberal causes, Gore, et. al.
"WarmBoy" Al attempted to make his movie 'more than a political cause,' according to his speech, but it's clearly not. There is no convincing evidence that a) his outrageous claims are likely to occur, and/or, b) that humans are responsible for causing more global climate change than is naturally occurring over time.
In fact, if you think about it, the left has misnamed its cause rather intentionally. They castigate humans for "global warming," when it's not the recent, possibly temporary, warming trend that is debated. It is whether we know that human activity is primarily responsible for the warming. There is considerable evidence that CO2 levels were higher in prior epochs, without warmer temperatures. Climatology is far more complex than Al and company would have you believe.
At least the good news is, most people pay zero attention to Hollywood's latest causes for very long. In some ways, this 'award' probably diminishes WarmBoy in the eyes of those who might have taken him seriously as a politician. In fact, as Al tried to make light of the fact, the truth is, he hopes this pandering to the left on environmental issues may re-ignite his political career. Thus the joke about intending to read his announcement of another run for the Presidency.
Isn't it funny, that politics, being so, or almost purely, emotional, leads people to behave in ways that they cannot help? You knew the Hollywood crowd would give Al this Oscar. Despite how it reinforces the extremely liberal bias in Hollywood, and Gore's sucking up to this community. They just can't help themselves, no matter how obvious their motives are to other Americans.
"WarmBoy" Al attempted to make his movie 'more than a political cause,' according to his speech, but it's clearly not. There is no convincing evidence that a) his outrageous claims are likely to occur, and/or, b) that humans are responsible for causing more global climate change than is naturally occurring over time.
In fact, if you think about it, the left has misnamed its cause rather intentionally. They castigate humans for "global warming," when it's not the recent, possibly temporary, warming trend that is debated. It is whether we know that human activity is primarily responsible for the warming. There is considerable evidence that CO2 levels were higher in prior epochs, without warmer temperatures. Climatology is far more complex than Al and company would have you believe.
At least the good news is, most people pay zero attention to Hollywood's latest causes for very long. In some ways, this 'award' probably diminishes WarmBoy in the eyes of those who might have taken him seriously as a politician. In fact, as Al tried to make light of the fact, the truth is, he hopes this pandering to the left on environmental issues may re-ignite his political career. Thus the joke about intending to read his announcement of another run for the Presidency.
Isn't it funny, that politics, being so, or almost purely, emotional, leads people to behave in ways that they cannot help? You knew the Hollywood crowd would give Al this Oscar. Despite how it reinforces the extremely liberal bias in Hollywood, and Gore's sucking up to this community. They just can't help themselves, no matter how obvious their motives are to other Americans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
