Global Warming And Democrats

The sensitive and caring Democrats are such responsible tree hugging stewards of the land aren't they? You have to wonder sometimes though why it is that they can find so much energy and passion to save sacred and majestic redwood trees but none to save millions or even a couple of hundred thousand victims from genocide in Darfur?

As Darfur must frustrate Democrats so must global warming. For some twisted psychological reason beyond anyone's understanding they are intensely passionate about global warming at the very time everyone here is driving giant SUV's. Moreover, India and China have 6 times the population of the U. S. At current growth rates in those countries they can easily make up for 10 times any carbon savings we might manage here with more fuel efficient liberal vehicles.

Sadly for the Democrats too, scientists don't agree on global warming. And, to add insult to injury, all the oil on earth will be burned up despite the liberal's heartfelt efforts. For the world's poor it will always be the cheapest source of desperately needed energy because it already exists underground just like water, and, potentially, at the same price as water. If the industrialized world were to miraculously change to hydrogen or solar power the price of oil would fall accordingly until every poor person on earth could afford it or until there was no oil left to pump out of the ground. So, while one hippie Democrat can limit his very pious "carbon footprint," the planet really cannot, but, it is a great way for the Democrats to go nuts, or perhaps to establish a state of fear that will result in the all powerful liberal government they want so badly, or in the imposition by government of their value judgment about the decreasing returns to our standard of living from conspicuous, frivolous, capitalist consumption.

If it did turn out that the 1 degree rise in temperature that is forecast over the next century did finally begin to raise sea levels in a destructive fashion there would be many options, despite the Democrats who want to make you believe their are none except to become a tree hugging carbon free hippie today. We might enjoy the warmer temperatures. People do seem to move to warmer climates anyway. We might enjoy the longer growing seasons, increased farmlands, and cheaper food prices that would result. There would be less expensive clothing, less expensive construction, cars, and heating costs, and less expensive lifestyles in general. All this would mean a substantial increase in the standard of living for much of the world's population many of whom live on the brink of starvation and can ill afford the cost of pollution control technology and devices. Moreover, impoverishing the planet now with expensive pollution control devices may not be wiser than to let the world develop economically so as to be in a position to cope with and afford the effects of global warming should they materialize as per the wild predictions of slightly crazed liberals such as Al Gore.

Or, if they need to be so pious wouldn't it be more efficient to simply save the million or so people who die every year from malaria for lack of 15 cents worth of medicine or a $6 mosquito net? In theory, in the 100 years it will take for the planet to warm one degree, 100 million people could easily be saved from needless deaths. And, 100 million dead people might seem like a trivial number of dead people as compared to what might happen if at some point in the next 100 years the liberals were put in charge of our defense against genocidal Islamofacsism. So why the messianic fuss about global warming of all things ?

Perhaps the weather is getting worse as Democrats love to say, but so far the evidence is that current hurricane activity, to pick the liberal's best example, is no different from the hurricane pattern we saw in the 1940s, at least according to Max Mayfield of the US Government Weather Service. Moreover, while carbon is the one enemy worth fighting on earth to Democrats, in reality it might be our friend. On 9/11 all jet planes were grounded. The temperatures shot up dramatically in three days because the chemtrails from the planes no longer shielded the planet from the sun. And guess what? Jet traffic is only going to grow and shield us more from the warming sun. It might be far cheaper and far more efficient to schedule more jet flights at high noon than to switch the whole world to an expensive carbonless economy. This is just one accidental solution that might be maximized 1000 times if it was ever studied and implemented. A few years ago an accidental release of a tiny piece of algae from the Jacque Cousteau Institute on the shores of the Mediterranean triggered a huge growth that now covers much of the Mediterranean, and, coincidentally, acts as a huge carbon sink absorbing huge amounts of the carbon dioxide liberals love to hate. The list can go on and on.

In short, scientists don't agree about warming, the effects of global warming are unknown; possibly acceptable, we can't stop carbon production, and the potential solutions are many, if needed and they are possibly extant. We should, then, resist the Democratic state of panic which they are using once again to centralize our psyche's and our gov't in the pursuit of silly collectivist goals, while always ignoring infinitely more deadly and direct threats from people like Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the deadly mosquitoes.