Destroy your economy, or else: Global Warming Edition
The Conservative citizen knows that the past contains valuable lessons for the future, and that rapid, sweeping reforms should be avoided at all costs. When radical thinkers try to stir the pot with fear and reckless claims, it is our job to remind the masses to be calm, and approach any problem, perceived or otherwise, with caution and reason.
Radicalism has famously struck again with the Global Warming craze. Based on a dwindling research community (vying for federal grants), willing accomplices in the activist media (vying for ratings and pushing an openly radical agenda), and one rich man who claims moral authority (and now a Nobel Prize) over the issue, the world has been swallowed up in a panic to save ourselves before it is too late.
Before we even examine the reality of the issue, what would it take to fix if it were just accepted as true? We are going to foolishly guess personal responsibility, self-control, ingenuity, and low-cost initiatives.
How childish of us. How about international bodies, tons of new taxes, sweeping government programs, and laws upon laws meant to protect us from ourselves, cloaked in naivety and ignorance. The government will save us, thank God. Each new program will require money, which means new taxes and fees. Tax is a synonym for body blow to our economy, as we all know.
So, the radicals have come up with a whole new plan to increase federal government, check our sovereignty at the door of international bodies, and injure capitalism. Conservatives need to heed this war cry and respond in kind. Given free reign, radicals will certainly destroy the majesty and personal freedoms of this country with a grand vision of being cared for by our elected leaders. At some point, we expect an appeal of “its for the children” in there as well. That old saw always gets the media going.
Anywho, lets now focus briefly on Global Warming itself, namely its existence and nature. S&S has expertise in the fields of Conservatism and Biomedical Research, but not natural science. In that light, we will pass the baton over to the founder of the Weather Channel in link format.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/
This pretty much sums it up: ” It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM,” but please read more if you want to understand a little more about his rationale. There are a growing number of papers like this, and we’ll spare you any laundry list of them.
Next up is a Harvard Opinion article by Peter Tilton. This article is written by a student at the daily newspaper on campus, and he is clearly quite green in his viewpoint, but he nicely illustrates the audacity of Al Gore and those who would legislate us into servitude to a greater good clearly have no intention of suffering under the yoke of their reforms. Essentially, the prime minister of Global Warming doesn’t believe enough in the cause to really make any effort to follow its tenets. That’s only for the normal Americans. Its almost as if he’s doing this for publicity and fame… Who said that?
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=520555
Both of these articles disagree about the nature of GW, but they do illustrate one important point. There is little to be gained in this situation. Even if you believe in it, and our influence on it, why follow the clarion call of the media and hollywood elite into tax hell? What makes them trustworthy on this or any other issue? Where are the rational people in this argument?
S&S believes that its unimportant whether you believe in global warming (we personally believe in warming, but not the real influence of mankind on temperature). The Conservative doctrine only disagrees with the knee-jerk radicals who claim that the world is ending unless we surrender our money and freedoms. Why don’t we instead make small revisions to policies that will not crush our economy? More fuel-efficiency is a good thing, but why legislate it? Rising gasoline prices will do that on its own, driving consumers to more reasonable automobiles. The market has always driven itself, and the system has driven us to never before seen riches as a country.
The answer, of course, is that even those politicians who believe in GW are also hungry to increase the power of the government over its populace, and to raise taxes. This is the war on freedom, and our government is winning. Small policy changes to benefit the environment are just that, too small to satisfy the liberal radicals. Remember which party this movement affiliates itself with.
Finally, we’d ask you to remember back to grade school, when you had a fire drill. What did they tell you to do? They said leave the building quickly and calmly. Its important for everyone’s safety that you not stampede and cause injury. Right now there might be a fire in the environment, so leave the classroom without hurting anyone or anything. The adults who run this country and those who follow Al Gore would be well advised to take that advice.
Christopher said,
November 8, 2007 at 4:26 pm
http://www.realclimate.org/. ‘Nuff said.
There are far more scientists supporting Global Warming than are against it. If you actually research the topic instead of following what you hear on FOX news, you’ll find that most “scientists” who speak out against Global Warming receive grants and donations from Big Oil.
The “radicalism” you speak of is warranted, as GW is a problem which effects the planet as a whole. For example, World War II affected a majority of the people on the planet, but you wouldn’t regard that as “unnecessary radicalism,” would you? I understand from your earlier posts that you probably don’t care about future generations, but rest assured, most people do, and their “radicalism” is the only possible way to combat Conservative apathy and spin.
“This is the war on freedom, and our government is winning.”
You’re right there, but you’re wrong to associate GW with the “war on freedom.” In actuality, Conservative creations like the PATRIOT act and excessive use of National Security Letters (in the name of the so-called “war on terror”) are to blame for the destruction of freedoms in this country. A Conservative such as yourself is in no position to tout freedom, I’m afraid.
“S&S has expertise in the fields of Conservatism and Biomedical Research, but not natural science.”
Clearly. The existence of an anti-GW post is evidence enough of that.
regulusred said,
November 8, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Chris,
Radicalism has very little to do with a particular issue or party. Radicalism is the institution of sweeping reforms and drastic changes to our society over a short period. Comprehensive immigration reform is a good example of this (or any bill with Comprehensive in its name). Conservatism is the practice of small reforms and slow adaptations to existing policies. It protects our society, tradition, and populace from movements that require “urgent” attention.
I’m a little disappointed in you, actually. I have come to expect your jabs at the Republican establishment (which is distinct from Conservatism, by the way), but here you’ve missed the boat on our point.
S&S does not care if GW exists, Chris. Our desire is that we not make drastic changes to international and federal policy to respond to this “urgent” crisis. Check your pro-GW sources, and you’ll notice that while many of them acknowledge its existence, several will not commit to man’s role, and fewer still claim destruction of the world as a result of warming. (There is a post on realclimate.org right now addressing the uncertainty of climate sensitivity to CO2 levels. Maybe things aren’t as concrete as the media and Mr. Gore claim.)
The “war on freedom” comment is not merely a GW initiative. We happen to believe that the Patriot Act is bad legislation, but you consistently ignore that S&S is not some monolithic representation of the Republican Party. Frankly, we believe that if we seal our borders against illegal immigration and kill enough terrorists, it will be completely unnecessary, but I digress.
The destruction of freedoms includes taxation. We believe that taking money from the people is taking freedom for the people. Each new government program is a measure of freedom lost. Removing trans-fats, smoking, and gas-guzzlers from society is an attack on our freedom merely hiding under the veil of “protection”.
In closing, this post is in no way “anti-global warming”. Its just not. We presented an opposing point of view, and then suggested that it does not matter which side you are on. We then presented an editorial revealing the nature of a few elites trying to rally us for a cause they don’t believe in. Hardly, an assault on GW. We also mentioned our belief in warming, as well.
Conservatism only takes issue with the call for new regulations and laws on a large scale. There are small changes and alterations that can be made without large tax increases. The government is not the answer, as usual. We see no need to rush headlong into reform for a problem whose magnitude is in question, even amongst its supporters.
Thanks for the comment,
S&S
Christopher said,
November 8, 2007 at 6:21 pm
“I have come to expect your jabs at the Republican establishment (which is distinct from Conservatism, by the way).”
Actions speak louder than words.
“S&S believes that its unimportant whether you believe in global warming (we personally believe in warming, but not the real influence of mankind on temperature).”
This “yes, it’s there but humans aren’t doing it” attitude is a fairly recent development. It arose when GW was proved to exist, but Conservatives (due to cognitive dissonance) had to find another excuse to support GW legislation. Whether you believe it or not, whether you think humans are behind it or not, a post opposing the major proponents of Human-Induced Global Warming is an anti-GW post, plain and simple.
“We see no need to rush headlong into reform for a problem whose magnitude is in question, even amongst its supporters.”
A few years ago, it would have been a legitimate statement. However, the magnitude of the problem is becoming more and more concrete amongst GW supporters. And, I think you’ll find, the article you refer to on RealClimate.org (“There is a post on realclimate.org right now addressing the uncertainty of climate sensitivity to CO2 levels”) is listed only to be rebuked by realclimate.org! Perhaps you failed to read the entire thing: “The bottom line is that climate sensitivity is uncertain, but we can pretty much rule out low values that would imply there is nothing to worry about. The possibility of high values will be much harder to rule out. This is something policy makers should recognize and confront.”
“Conservatism only takes issue with the call for new regulations and laws on a large scale. There are small changes and alterations that can be made without large tax increases.”
And this is the issue with Conservatives and Republicans. The problem is large. It demands large legislation. And, furthermore, money for any legislation, large or small, has to come from somewhere! It doesn’t grow on trees! This is why the country is so far in debt: those that love to spend but don’t want to charge. A bit naïve, don’t you think? The country has no allowance.
Christopher said,
November 8, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Whoops! Typo:
“It arose when GW was proved to exist, but Conservatives (due to cognitive dissonance) had to find another excuse to support GW legislation.”
It should read to “oppose GW legislation.” Apologies.
Thanks for not blocking opposing comments. In the blogosphere that is admirable.
Chris
regulusred said,
November 8, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Thanks for the kind words. I’ll only address a few things in your reply (in somewhat of a hurry).
I realize that the article is refuted by the website realclimate.org, but its existence is what I was pointing out. There are alternate opinions that are valid. That article is going to be in Science magazine, the most recognizable scientific journal in the world. So something is behind it, and its not big oil, Dick Cheney, Halliburton, or Rush Limbaugh.
Apparently it was a mistake to include our views on the issue. We do not have any stake in the nature of global warming. Only the implementation of government programs to enforce laws that limit our freedom.
As far as requiring new taxes, what about all the frivolous spending by our government? Outlaw pork-barrel spending and suddenly we’ll have enough money. No Child Left Behind is another joke of a spending spree, and so is the Medicare Prescription bill. (Told you Conservatives are different
) There is money waiting everywhere, but our government fails us on a daily basis by spending money on things OTHER than what we elect them for.
Failing that, we should scrap old environmental programs and replace them in favor of the new ones. We only strive for reason here at S&S. There is no need for an environmental organization from 1918, 1934, 1950, and 2007 (dates are made up) reflecting popular political movements of the day. Many of these archaic institutions built by radical thinkers and policymakers have never been torn down, and more are just thrown on top. There are plenty of ways to generate money other than simply taxing the people into poverty. That’s why we “foolishly” guessed ingenuity. Foolishly hopeful is more like it.
I feel alot more protected when I have a wallet full of cash, rather than knowing that wasteful radical politicians have it instead.