Saturday, December 19, 2009

Oh, The Humanity!

"Obama forced to leave Global Warming summit to face massive DC snowstorm"

"Big DC snowstorm forces Pelosi to cut short her global warming trip"

Oh, the irony!

Oh, the humanity!

On the other hand, imagine how cold it would be if the planet wasn't "on fire".

And that's the way the climate Ball bounces.

6 comments:

hunter said...

Yup, it's pretty funny. I think Mother Nature has a sense of humour!

lastchancetosee said...

Supposing for the moment that you were right, and that there really was no AGW.

What exactly is your problem with the measures being taken to prevent it? For the most part they seem to me to be very sensible in their own right, things we should be doing anyway.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/12/the_bottom_line/betterworld.jpeg

RkBall said...

Lc2c: Man, I always respect your opinions, but you just jumped the shark. The "remedy" is the transfer of billions of dollars from functional economies to dis-functional; the creation of vast government and quasi-government bureaucracies to rule over all of this, the intrusion of government into every aspect of individuals' lives, and the continued railing against all the actions that human beings have taken to produce the wealth and comfort which we in the west have come to enjoy, and from which we can bless undeveloped nations and societies. Doesn't the fact that some UN-friendly guy declared 2009 as the beginning of "world governance" give you pause?

lastchancetosee said...

No, it doesn't. I think there is no way around some sort of world governance, whether we like it or not. Many issues we face today are global in nature. They won't be dealt with locally, so the result will be world governance. My guess is a kind of loose federation, but we'll see.
One other point: Our economies have been global for some time. Governance will have to keep up with that, because it is the only way to regulate these economies.


Addressing your counterpoints:

a) disfunctional economies: Prove it to me. You can't just claim them to be disfunctional.
The industries most targeted by anti-climate-change measures are those based on fossil fuels, and they are disfunctional already. It would be hard to replace them with anything less functional. They are dead, they just haven't stopped moving yet.

b) bureaucracies: Again, prove it to me. There will probably be some additional bureaucracy needed, unfortunately, because apparently that is the one thing we humans truly excel at. But for the most part it is just changing regulations that can be enforced by existing bureaucracies. Their staff will increase, no doubt, but "vast government bureaucracies"? Oh well, I concede half a point.

c) government intrusion: You'll have to elaborate, otherwise I'll have to call pure, paranoid bullshit on that one.

d) wealth etc. . Yes, we have used fossil fuels etc. to create an immense amount of wealth. But that time is over, climate change or no climate change. And to rail against these kinds of business methods today does not devalue what they did for us in the past.
The future has arrived. They've become unsustainable. Get used to it.

e) blessing the undeveloped. You don't truly believe that, do you? Look around the world. Oh, how we've blessed our former colonies! Oh, how Europeans blessed the Indians! Oh, how we're blessing Africa today by taking their resources and giving them guns! By testing our unproved pharmaceuticals on them! How we've blessed the middle east with our cold war!

RkBall said...

Addressing your counterpoints:

a) disfunctional economies: Prove it to me.

Take a look at Zimbabwe. Their leader was given if not a standing ovation, something close to it. If foreign aid really worked, Africa would be prosperous now. It is not. Why? African nations are disfunctional.

b) bureaucracies: Again, prove it to me.

Two words: The UN.

c) government intrusion: You'll have to elaborate, otherwise I'll have to call pure, paranoid ... on that one.

How about CO2 rationing, for starters? "Everyone in Britain should have an annual carbon ration and be penalised if they use too much fuel, the head of the Environment Agency will say."

How about governments imposing a one-child policy on its citizens? "The "inconvenient truth" overhanging the UN's Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.

A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days."

e) blessing the undeveloped. You don't truly believe that, do you?

Well, the third-world countries seem to believe it. The are chomping at the bit for the billions they think is going to be handed over to them as a result of Copenhagen.

I don't think the West brought on AIDS in Africa -- and yet George Bush the hated American President gave more to help fight AIDS in Africa than any other US President before or since. He could not do this if America had no wealth. The USA keeps world shipping lines open at no cost to the rest of the world -- it could not do this if it did not have wealth. The US and other developed nations produce wonder drugs that save lives and make life easier for people -- they could not do this if not for western wealth (or if they were living the electricity-free life advocated by AGW extremists.)

Man, you need to balance whatever you are reading now with a bit of Mark Steyn.

Good to hear from you. It's Sunday night. I'm signing off.

RkBall said...

"e) blessing the undeveloped."

Friends of mine have a container-load of goods ready to be shipped to Zambia. I realize it's just a drop in the bucket in terms of Africa's needs, but, again, if we didn't have wealth over here in Canada, we couldn't do it, nor would we have the $10K or so it costs to ship the container over.

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"