Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Global warming becomes global wipeout

Climatologist predicts global wipeout

Professor James Lovelock, a leading climatologist, recently issued an opinion that within the next century the earth’s climate will change drastically with temperature increases of about 8 degrees Celsius, leading to a major reduction in its ability to sustain life. He predicts that the earth will be unable to sustain the 6.5 billion people that currently inhabit it and human population will decrease to approximately 500 million.

That’s not all. According to him, this event is a foregone conclusion and any effort to prevent it is futile.

So now what?

Can we end the debate on global warming? Since it is unavoidable, should we just continue with the status quo and hope that our offspring are included among the 500 million survivors? Of course not.

I linked to this in an effort to show just how maniacal the "global warming" believers have become. Now, it’s to the point where they are just throwing up their hands and saying ‘it doesn’t matter, we’re all gonna die!’. They have these doomsday attitudes, but no one seems to have a viable solution. On this very sight, I have proposed more nuclear power. Of course, that gets criticized and cast aside, without an alternative plan of course.

Lovelock says that China builds a new coal-based power plant every week. India is nearly on the same pace. In fairness, those are countries wrought with poverty and electricity is one way of getting out of poverty. Shouldn’t these countries be the target of the enviro-nazi criticism? Granted, in the US, coal is still a primary form of energy, yet we have the technology and the money to change that. Why don’t we?

My solution is nuclear power for home and commercial use and grain-based fuels for vehicles. It really is that simple. So why the resistance? What alternative do we have? Is Lovelock right? Is it futile to try a change? Is that why the enviro-nazis oppose more nuclear power?

I think that if we spent less time arguing and more time working on a solution then the whole debate about global warming can be closed, and we can all enjoy the comforts of a modern life without worrying about the environment, yet I still don’t hear any viable solutions from the eco-crazies. So we’ll probably just argue about it until: 1) 6 billion people die, or 2) nothing happens. Then the debate will move on to something else.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

It has taken you this long to acknowledge that we should work on a solution? I suppose better late than never.

John The Patriot said...

Sorry to spoil your moment of triumph, but if you had read this site long enough you would know that I ALWAYS have been an advocate for nuclear and grain-based fuels...primarily to eliminate our dependence of foreign oil but also for cheaper energy; and if it makes the global warming nuts happy at the same time then so be it, I don't mind

Flag Gazer said...

Hi John~
Just found you blog and have been reading past entries - great stuff!

I'm old enough to have had university classes of the fear of the coming Ice Age - never got here, but now it is warming up at devilish speeds!!!

Like you a believe that the earth cycle has many shifts in climate. Like you I believe we should be better custodians of our planet - that includes people who pile garbage in their yards. Like you I believe that we should not be dependent upon middle eastern oil.

Thanks! I'll be back!

John The Patriot said...

Flag gazer, welcome. It's always good to hear from someone of equal intelligence. Thanks for stopping by