I had no idea Pat Robertson was so easily swayed. Here is a quote:
"We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels," Robertson said during his "700 Club" broadcast on Thursday. The high temperatures in some regions of the U.S. East are "the most convincing evidence I've seen on global warming in a long time," he added.
Really? It’s a summer heat wave and THIS is the most convincing evidence of global warming? This one statement effectively ruined whatever credibility Robertson had with me. How is this summer’s heat wave any indication of global warming?
According to this climatologist, the current heat wave mimics one from the 1930s. Was there global warming back then? Maybe the earth’s climate cycles periodically from hot spells to cold spells (Does anyone remember the panic driven by the science community in the 70s/80s about global COOLING?). Maybe the earth’s climate is a rather dynamic thing. Is this possible? No, says Robertson, it’s the fossil fuels, and the fact that it’s 104 degrees in Washington is evidence of that.
At least Robertson is a good example of the hysteria that has been fueled by the enviro-nazi scientists who see no other possibility in regards to the earth’s changing climate. What I really admire about the Global Warming theory is that no matter what happens with the climate, it can always be attributed to Global Warming.
Getting hotter? Global warming. Getting colder (snowing in South Africa)? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. Fewer hurricanes (they’re scaling down the predictions for this year)? Global warming. Ice caps melting? Global warming. Ice caps growing? Global warming.
No matter what side of the argument you’re on, you can’t help but admire a theory that can utilize any contradiction as a supportive argument. It’s brilliant. In a way, the theory of global warming is kind of like the idea of God. Either you believe it or you don’t. No one will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence or lack thereof. I guess Robertson is now a "believer"…hallelujah.
What I want to know is that if these enviro-nazis TRULY believe in global warming – with all their heart – then why is it the same groups who oppose the expansion of nuclear power? Isn’t that the antidote to global warming? Clean power? No, it’s not acceptable. I guess we should all revert back to candlelight and horse-drawn buggies, that is until the animal rights groups have their say.
4 comments:
Except the earth still had polar ice caps back then.
"why is it the same groups who oppose the expansion of nuclear power?"
Ummmm...because we don't want to exchange one set of problems for another? We'd rather advocate something that is sustainable? Because nuclear power isn't "clean."
We need not revert back to candle-light and horse-drawn carriages, but that's a decent idea. We need to live within our means and not poison our world.
It's a little idea we call, "personal responsibility."
There are certainly problems when the population grows to 7 billion with whatever system you have in place. The point is we need to try to live sustainably and what we're doing currently can't last. Not possible. Limited fossil fuels + unlimited demand = crisis.
Plus, whatever you think of global warming, humanity IS having an effect on our environment. I can't go fishing in my local streams. My friends with asthma can't go outside on certain days of the year. We're making our air and water toxic and as a matter of personal responsibility we need to change that.
"candles or horses, i dont think so, who would shovel all the crap off the streets everyday? Dan? you got a shovel?"
I'd gladly take crap over toxins. The manure can be composted and made valuable. The pollution just poisons us, our air and water. You tell me which makes more sense?
Post a Comment