Sunday, December 20, 2009

The REAL Global-Warming Agenda

Today's 'watermelon' environmentalist (you know: green on the outside, but red on the inside!) is virtually always an anti-capitalist, anti-democratic statist (and Al Gore is a Democrat which, more and more, amounts to the same thing). This is not coincidence, but consequence: the Modern Left has adopted environmentalism, global warming and climate change as the vehicles by which to destroy Western democracy, and redistribute wealth to the so-called developing world (we call 'development' in an egg something else: rotting!).

They are beyond parody, and out of the reach of irony, in their belief that the West's wealth will remain and continue once they've achieved that goal. Because, of course, the failed history of Soviet-style collectivism that has died almost everywhere it's been tried -- and continues to fail even where it has survived, a la Cuba -- demonstrates with clarity that ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit suffocates without the motive and goal of personal profit. Now, that profit can come in the form of money, acclaim, or personal satisfaction, but it's beyond proven that those benefits accrue in the West's capitalist societies, and wither where the state claims all those benefits to itself.

On the other hand, how can one blame Bangladesh, Nigeria, et al, from seeking the shortcut of rescue by the forced distribution of someone else's assets after failing to husband any of their own virtually since existence? Pretty hard to figure, though, how turning the West into another Russia is going to result in anything but a disastrous and petty, universal plutocracy. I guess that would be a good thing for the would-be plutocrats, though. Hence, the efforts in the West to subdue populist democracy before the citizenry identifies their statist goasl.


Climate Change (Sigh!)

A couple of thoughts about global-warm(onger)ing, which seem obvious to anyone with a lick of sense -- which seems to leave out the modern, liberal anarchist:

  • It's not secret that 'global warming' has been going on for some time, or the Ice Age glaciers, for example, would still be covering half of North America. And, of course, some global cooling must have occurred before that to form those glaciers. All of which would seem to point to the fact that (drum roll, please!) EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGES. Naturally. I lived through the "New Ice Age" warnings of the mid-'70s, so am amused that many of the same alarmists now are alarmists again, but at 180 degrees.
  • Is all of this -- or any of this -- man-made, and therefore man-preventable? That IS, of course, the Kyoto/Copenhagen argument. Obviously, the folks who think they know this for sure sure don't want to compare analyses with anyone who expresses any doubt. Again, this is emblematic of today's modern, liberal mind-set: "If we can't persuade you with our arguments, you must be a small-minded idiot incapable of reason, because if you won't simply accept our conclusions, you're being unreasonable. Don't be so stupid I have to explain things to you!" Because, you know, they can't. It's all Post-Modern emotionalism internalized, with nothing to do with rational thought. 
  • Finally, even if we were to conclude that humanity has caused the ice caps to melt, how does one predict the consequences -- particularly the unintended ones -- of returning our 'carbon footprint' to early-20th Century levels (and, understand, that IS what the stated goals amount to!)? Have we learned nothing about unintended consequences from all the centuries of recovering from them? I think there's an awfully good chance that even should we get the diagnosis right, we'd foul up the treatment. We're not nearly as smart as we are conceited. That's another symptom of the modern Left!