Hollywood: Pushing Global Warming Down Your Throat
by Michael van der GalienOne of Hollywood’s main heroes today is former Vice President Al Gore due to the success of his film “An Inconvenient Truth.” In this documentary, Gore tries to explain to the public that man-made global warming is real and that something has to change if we want to undo the damage we cause to this wonderful planet which would have been so much more wonderful if only those pesky humans lived on, say, Mars.
Since the above is a message Hollywood can believe in, liberal actors and directors (but I am repeating myself) jumped on the bandwagon and repeated it whenever possible. See for instance the $80 million remake of “The Day The Earth Stood Still” starring Keanu Reeves. Sci-Fi fans like myself will be happy to know that watching this movie is like listening to Barbara Streisand (or Jane Fonda) give a a political speech. The original movie may have been great, the remake is nothing but Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” poured in a sci-fi jacket.
Blogger Brian Kane did quite a good job summarizing and interpreting the movie: Reeves is the main character, who believes that earth would be better off without human beings due to the destruction they cause to the environment. The solution, then, is simple; wipe out all human life, let the other life forms take over. It is a message even Greenpeace knows better than to repeat publicly.
Since human beings would rather not be killed they try to convince Reeves to revise his plans. Isn’t there a way for all of us to get along? Can’t we change? Reeves is at long last convinced by a liberal professor (need I comment?) who, although intellectually inferior to the almighty and all-understanding Reeves, convinces him nonetheless that humans “can change!” Reeves decides to give human beings another change, but not before forcing them to adopt a more environmental-conscious lifestyle. This means that much of our present technology does not work; one wonders why it is that Hollywood’s war on technology seldom is not, for some reason, applicable on televisions; perhaps because we will always “need” Hollywood?
With movies like “The Day the Earth Stood Still,” Hollywood tries to rather obviously influence the American public; but it is not merely influencing Americans. Foreigners too watch Hollywood movies, and they have about the same impact and influence – arguably even more – down here in Europe than in the U.S.
Let me explain: depicting English-speaking peoples in a movie as too egotistical to take care of the planet, thereby possibly bringing destruction on all of us, confirms the anti-American image spouted by Europe’s anti-Americans for decades.
Americans are selfish. They do not care about anyone but their own instant satisfaction. The latest example or proof of this is global warming; we all ‘know’ it is man-made, except for those silly and egotistical Americans who would rather destroy us all than switch on the lights a little less often (or use light bulbs that use less energy). You know the drill.
“The Day the Earth Stood Still” (and many other movies) confirm this negative, anti-American image of America, which has already had a tremendous impact on Europe; ironically, Hollywood has done more to spread Anti-Americanism and make it socially acceptable, than most non-American America-haters. The more Hollywood repeats this message, the more anti-Americanism will increase here, and the more popular outspoken anti-American movies will be. Hollywood is not merely pushing global warming down your, and our, throat, it also often paints and spreads a highly negative picture of America and Americans. A picture deemed realistic by most foreigners who have little to no contact with ‘real’ Americans.
Perhaps Hollywood could, every once in a while, portray Americans as normal people who care just as much about the rest of mankind as the rest of us. Of course it will have to approach issues such as global warming in a fairer and more objective manner in order to do so. As a man much smarter than I once said: keep hope alive!
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
76 Comments
[...] first post for Andrew Breitbart’s new blog adventure, Big Hollywood, is up. You can read it here. The main subject of the post is global warming, and then specifically the way Hollywood treats [...]
It’s been three years since I spent money on a movie. I saw Fireproof, liked it a lot and now unless there is another worth spending money on I’ll just sit out another three years. It may sound funny but I have better things to do than be brainwashed by Hollywood. It is nice to go to a movie though and I hope maybe Hollywood will change and actually make movies that we, the ones that made them rich, would like to see. But I don’t see that happening.
Global warming, my butt! It was a bone-chilling 52 in south Florida this morning!
It matters not what Hollywood does, global warming has merit. Man made global warming is a myth. Our government is the one that’s going to cram this down our throat. This is the sad truth and it’s going to be inconvenient to all of us, weather we like it or not our lifestyle is being destroyed.
‘hollywood pushing’?
gore doesn’t equal hollywood, but i guess you have to stretch to fill this idiotic new hollywood section.
‘the day the earth stood still’ is a remake of a 1951 film.
‘hate hollywood liberals’ material will sustain your base for a while, but before long it’s going to be grown up time, and we’re going to have to fix this country.
stirring the us vs them pot and profiting from divisiveness, will only marginalize your base.
but a buck’s a buck, right?
When I was a teen, we were warned about the coming Ice Age—but there was nothing we could do about it.
For the last few years, we were told that our selfish behavior is causing global warming.
I’m freezing here in suburban Cincinnati—-so would someone please tell me what is causing global warming so we can all start doing more of it immediately.
I know that Obama is taking care of everyone’s mortgage and heating bill, but I don’t want to give him a really big bill his first month in; might be a bit intimidating, even for the omnipotent one who will fix all.
When I was a teen, we were warned about the coming Ice Age—but there was nothing we could do about it.
For the last few years, we were told that our selfish behavior is causing global warming.
I’m freezing here in suburban Cincinnati—-so would someone please tell me what is causing global warming so we can all start doing more of it immediately.
I know that Obama is taking care of everyone’s mortgage and heating bill, but I don’t want to give him a really big bill his first month in; might be a bit intimidating, even for one as omnipotent as BO.
What does it mean, exactly, “pushing [x] down our throat?”
I hear this quite a bit from the right, in many different contexts. But I haven’t yet been able to detect a principled definition that describes something that a free people should actually worry — or even care — about.
No one is holding you at gunpoint and marching you to see Al Gore movies. (Surely that would be unconstitutional. I’d go with the Eighth amendment.) You are free to ignore them, just as I am free to ignore cultural elements that I find obnoxious: reality TV, boy bands, politicized music from both sides, etc. You, like most people who use the phrase, seem to mean “people are expressing themselves openly and unapologetically! And its popular enough/makes enough money that there’s a lot of it! But I DON’T LIKE IT!” I have to ask — so? I respect your right to cultivate your tastes and your right to express them, but why should I respect you donning the garb of victimhood?
Surely if liberals complained that Fox News and the Wall Street Journal editorial page and talk radio are “shoving conservatism down our throats,” you would ridicule them. And you should.
Have you no self-respect?
I think I’ll just plug in my dvd of the original classic. The last movie I actually bothered to see on the big screen was “American Carol.”
Now Al has more material from a science fiction movie that he will try and pass off as “actual footage” in his next “documentary”. The film “An Incontinent Truth” has scenes from “The Day After Tomorrow” but it is treated as actual footage. Of course we are all too stupid to catch on, typical liberal elitism. Fireproof is a great movie.
When I was a teen, we were warned about the coming Ice Age—but there was nothing we could do about it.
For the last few years, we were told that our selfish behavior is causing global warming.
I’m freezing here in suburban Cincinnati—-so would someone please tell me what is causing global warming so we can all start doing more of it immediately.
I know that Obama is taking care of everyone’s mortgage and heating bill, but I don’t want to give him a really big bill his first month in; might be a bit intimidating, evento one as omnipotent as BO.
Also if Al really believes in global warming, why does he have to lie to convince people and live in a home with a monthly power bill of 16,000? It proves that it is all about money, not saving the world.
As a kid I liked the original movie and was planning on going to see the remake. After reading this and Kane’s review it appears that won’t happen.
Hey REVHATCHELL if you find this site not to your liking then take your blind liberal hollywood loving self somewhere else. Those of us that have started reading the articles here are finding hope that a new voice can and should be heard coming out of Hollywood. The issues discussed in this article are serious and worthy of discussion. Anti-americanism is a real problem. My son is living in Brazil for a couple of years and he has personally been hurt by the anti american attitudes of people there. Where do those attitudes come from? They are taught and fed by the movies exported to the world from America-hating, America-blaming Hollywood. The rest of the world could gain much from modeling themselves on what is good in America. But they don’t see a much of that side of us. They see the side portrayed by Hollywood.
my apologies to all regarding the multiple posts–and my state switching!
Yes REV, hollywood does try to push the hoax down peoples throat, that are stupid enough to watch their movies that is. His movie was made by the enviro-wacko’s, to get into the heads of people that can’t think for themselves, also Gore could,nt make that movie without serious help, because he sure did’nt invent the internet, or anything else except this hoax. Just remember you only have about 5 years left till the world ends according to al
I don’t understand the fixation many from Right have with constantly thumping the global-warming-is-a-myth drum.
As someone who leans Right, I simply don’t understand the logic of this.
Despite all that you know (or think you know) in regards to how Man influences (or doesn’t influence) climate… isn’t it the prudent thing to do to actively preserve the one planet we have, the one thing we will pass on to our children and their children and subsequent generations?
Is it not the smart thing to do… to actively seek to preserve and protect our Earth?
Maybe the Goracle can come to Chicago and shovel my freakin’ sidewalk. Again and again and AGAIN! When does An American Carol come out on DVD?
Ken –
If it were merely a matter of letting GW alarmists vent about the environment, I’d be fine. But now that their rants are gospel (if you say anything often enough, it’s true, right?), and passing “Kyoto”-like curbs on energy and freedom are around the corner, my family and yours are about to be taxed — AGAIN — on every mile we drive and light we turn on. That will REALLY boost the economy, eh? Save the world on your own dime — you know, you are welcome to give the federal government more of your money than they ask for. Have them earmark it for global warming; I’m sure it will be efficiently spent and all our problems will be solved.
Please understand that when the great scientist Albert Gore says the science is over, it’s not science he’s pushing. (See Galileo, van Leeuwenhoek, Semmelweiss, et. al.) Cap and trade is about money and power, not the environment — I’m sick of people trampling my freedom and having me pay for it.
I read Earth in the Balance a few years ago and I didn’t have a problem with the general message until I got to Mr. Gore’s industrialized nation killer of a plan to solve the problem. It’s pretty clear that science has not conclusively proven that global warming is real. Pollution and deforestation are facts, though, and ones that we’d do well to concentrate on instead of global warming. Contrary to the belief of some, the way ahead is through improved energy technology, not through social regression to the more eco-friendly era of serfdom.
Here’s my thought: if man is THE cause of global warming (remember, Joe Biden made that statement during his debate with Palin) because of his use of technology, cars, etc., then how did the Earth come out of the last Ice Age? Did Carlo the Caveman drive cars, emit greenhouse gasses, etc.? Give me a break.
If any one believes in this global warming and carbon emissions malarchy, perhaps we can convince them to reduce their carbon footprint and thereby global warming, by televising these idiots in a mass suicide. Talk about the ultimate in narcissistic reality TV! The only downside to that is you cannot use them for fertilizer afterwards because tomato gardens would have a high THC count from all the pot they smoked.
The “shoving down out throats” part is right. You can’t watch tv, any tv, without hearing about GW. Discovery? The Weather Cahnnel? HGTV? Nope, all they talk about is saving the earth, global warming, blah, blah. And then there’s the commercials. I have now refused to buy any product that says it is “green.” I am just so turned off by the pandering to a certain segment. If they want to make some all natural products, fine, but I get so tired of seeing it. Oh, forgot to mention the kiddos who get indoctrinated by Nicklodeon, PBS, etc. No, we aren’t forced to watch these ourselves, we can turn them off, but the message is spread all over the world thru this Hollywood crap. Maybe this is why those movies do poorly here, and gangbusters overseas. Like all those anti-America war movies. Get a clue, Hollywood, we don’t want them, if you want movies to succeed, make something that you personally hate, that will get butts in the seats.
It’s amazing how many liberals complain about conservative opinion… Then they go around teaching young kids propaganda who aren’t smart enough to do the research.
As a result, Hollywood has become a propaganda machine. Convincing people, giving awards to movies that promote propaganda. Every liberal should complain about the corruption of thought and the rallying of propaganda.
It’s nice to watch as Hollyweird begins it’s final approach to financial implosion. As the economics tighten and financing for films that aren’t worth seeing go the way of the dinasours we can all sit back and have a great big laugh.
As far as global warming – check the facts and GO OUTSIDE. If there’s any threat to the environment it’s Al Gore “passing gas” – he’s like the a Human Hindenburg. And all those “crafters” that carry water for him can consider what alternatives they have for income as their industry SINKS.
I’m wondering how global warming is working for the Pacific Northwest this week? Or maybe call Alaska during their 2 week deep freeze. No worry, we now have a new moneymaker for Al Gore in solar storms. Gore did such a great job inventing the internet we really should let him solve the solar storm issue.
Forgot to remind everyone to buy your CFL lightbulbs so Al Gore can address the mercury in our water supply during the next 10-20 years. He can begin studying mercury effects by studying the history of Lake Erie. Of course, be safe and have your hazmat team’s phone number nearby for those breakage moments.
When is someone going to make the late, great Michael Crichton’s State of Fear? I’d love to witness the uproar over that film.
I do not believe in Global Warming….and you are totally right about HollyWood shoving it down our throat. Just wait until 2012 comes out in the big screen! Everyone is going to have a going away party and buying each other 2012 survival gear and books.
The polar icecaps are melting. Antarctica is breaking up and floating into the ocean. 2 and 2 is 4. The anti-intellectual, anti-education, anti-knowledge, anti-everything if it doesn’t come from their own lips right would rather gamble *against* the future of our civilization than give up a political talking point.
Global warming isn’t about the temperature rising in your own back yard, you knuckle-draggers. It’s about climate chaos. Ironically, one of the first evidences that our earth has finally succumbed to the dangers of global warming will be the entrance of Europe into another ice age because the “great conveyor belt” of the Gulf Stream decides to turn around south of Greenland instead of north of it.
The result will be the loss of life in the tens if not hundreds of thousands.
But, hey! At least the self-proclaimed “party of life” makes its political point at the expense of the death of Europe as we know it.
Here’s one of dozens and dozens of articles about this crucial aspect of global warming you can find by doing “a google” on one of the internets:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm
Global warming is a moral issue. Not a political one.
The problem of global chaos *might* be soluble. Alas, there appears to be no solution for stupidity.
Global warming (i.e., “climate change” as it’s now referred to since there is never a consistent warming to hang around mankind’s neck), like the tides and the weather, is a reality. But, it’s not man’s fault or responsibility, nor can we change any more of it than we have caused. I wondered if there was any real justification to the entire furor, until I read this week about the government’s plan to charge a tax for cattle and other farm and feed stock animals that cause “problems” with the environment. THAT told me that it IS all about the money grab and nothing else. So does the fact that Al Gore and others stand to profit handsomely from efforts that strangely benefit them when the environment becomes the number one pot to put tax dollars into. If no one could make a reasoned argument against it, I would be among the first to recycle, light a candle and ride my bike to work. But, because there are so many otherwise respected scholars who have proven scientifically that it is a scam, please, tell me where I can find some black market incandescent light bulbs so I don’t go blind reading intelligent articles about important and realistic matters.
By the way, what other fads down through the years have the elites in Hollywood clung to as the next end-all-be-all that have just drifted away into reasonable obscurity? If it’s not the latest kiwi-vinegar-pineapple diet drink, it’s a plea for all of us to take better care of the ticks on our pets. After all, they have rights, too….right? I am sure they mean well. So do I when I try to keep my yard neat and clean, but I will NOT demand that everyone do the same to theirs or drop everything to ooh and ahh at mine as being the best and only one that deserves any attention. Unless, of course, I can find a way to make money off it.
No, no, no. No need to use a hammer on this one where a flyswatter will do. In 11 words: Just a preachy, condescending sausage made of 50-year-old meat.
Respectfully, Hecowe, this is really not an answer to what I asked.
If our government is making decisions fecklessly based on junk science, that’s a flaw of our government, that should be addressed through the political process. If the government passes laws that tax us or restrict our activities unfairly, then the government is restricting our freedoms.
But twits blathering junk science — or anyone else spewing political thoughts, or cultural norms, that we do not like — are not restricting our freedoms in any way that principled free people should worry about. That’s what I hate about the “shoving down my throat” language — it smacks of the modern liberal notion that if you say things I don’t like, I have been wronged and my rights violated in a way society should care about and possibly even regulate. Encouraging society to view unpopular expression as, by its very nature, an involuntary assault on others (”Fox News is shoving conservative views down my throat!” — as if I can’t turn Fox News off) is the first step towards normalizing the idea that society should regulate expression.
The way for conservatives to be taken seriously — in Hollywood or anywhere — is not to ape the worst attributes of liberals. So when nominal conservatives complain that anything is “shoved down their throat” just because someone is saying something they don’t like, I wince.
Whatshisname are you insane? We are in a cooling trend. Its natural. There is no such thing and never has been any such thing as man made climate change. But hey its an easy bat by which statist nutjobs like you can bash the rest of us over the heads with. Now you go and live in Wisconsin, North Dakota or any of the states in the upper midwest where they have had more snow in the last two years than in I believe recorded history just hug you Algore doll somemore cause oh boy you are gonna need something to keep you warm what with all that climate change going on. I despise leftists but there has to be a special place for these environmental freaks…..truly.
And why would anyone waste the 10 spot to see such a piece of utter garbage as this movie? And when will people learn Keanu Reeves can’t act. He makes Arnold Schwarzeneggar look postitively articulate and natural…..ugh.
The only way this project (film is too kind) cost $80M (if indeed it did cost that much) is due to Reeve’s salary and creative “cost” accounting. CGI that in many places was video game level and frankly unnecessary (what, you can’t find a real helicopter for a scene or two?) render this low budget, junky remake of a decent film a joke. What a waste.
“isn’t it the prudent thing to do to actively preserve the one planet we have, the one thing we will pass on to our children and their children and subsequent generations?”
Depends on what we are preserving it from and what the costs are, doesn’t it? “Preserving” the planet from a hoax at an enormous economic cost that also translates into many, many human lives lost … some of us aren’t so keen on the idea. Some of us might even prefer to pass along prosperity, intellectual advancement, technological development, and the other blessings of liberty. Things may be different for you.
BILLYDAD: “until I read this week about the government’s plan to charge a tax for cattle and other farm and feed stock animals that cause “problems” with the environment.”
The irony of it is that the government is probably already subsidizing the dairy farmers with mile price supports, so the government will subsidize them and then tax it away from the farmers. Duhh!
In reality that is a drop in the bucket in comparison to the cost of cap-and-trade legislation or carbon tax legislation.
“Big Chill” Investors Business Daily 12/09/2008
“So why in an economy reeling from a market collapse are we still considering emission controls certain to kill both jobs and economic growth? The EPA said the cap-and-trade lunacy of the recently stalled Lieberman-Warner bill would have caused a loss of $3 trillion in GDP in a $14 trillion economy.
An analysis by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation concluded that passage of Lieberman-Warner would by 2030 cost the average American household $6,752 a year, with job losses as much as four million.”
“Carbon Tax: The Lesser Of Two Evils” Investors Business Daily 01/09/2009
“Take last fall’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPA) by the EPA, which the new president has vowed to implement. ANPA sounds innocent. But cutting C02 output by 70%, as Congress has mandated, won’t be easy. The costs will be enormous and could wreck our economy.
According to Global Insight, ANPA could cost the U.S. nearly $7 trillion in real output by 2030, or about $650 billion a year. Meanwhile, 800,000 U.S. jobs would be lost annually for several years.”
Before we spend billions of tax dollars on cures that are likely to be worse than the malady and cause our economy to lose trillions in GDP and potentially millions of jobs, here are some questions to answer:
1 – Are we actually experiencing warming temperatures?
We only have actual thermometer temperature readings for the past 100 years and there are currently approximately 1,200 reading stations (some located at airports, near air conditioners, over pavement, next to buildings, etc). Obviously, a period of statistical insignificance. Before that we have proxy data from soil samples, ice core samples, tree rings, etc.
Even NASA admitted to calculation errors in the data, which made 1934 the warmest year on record (the middle of the Great Depression) and not 1998. But of course that is still statistically irrelevant, but telling of the margin of error especially when we are discussing an increase of less than a degree, none-the-less.
Are the measurements from those 1,200 stations actually legitimate. Anthony Watt has visited quite a few of them and documented measurement bias issues. Remember the warming they are concerned about is less than 1 degree centigrade. See: “How Not to Measure Temperature”: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/; http://www.surfacestations.org/; http://wattsupwiththat.com/
2 – If so are the increasing temperatures statistically significant over thousands of years of “measurement”?
3 – If so are the increased temperatures due to Greenhouse Gases and not sun spots?
4 – If they are due to Greenhouse Gases, is it because of Greenhouse Gases from man made sources?
Greenhouse Gases are approsimately 95% Water Vapor, 3.62% CO2, and 1.38% Other.
CO2 (the 3.62%) sources are 96.6% from Nature and 3.4% from man made.
Termites produce more CO2 than from all man made sources.
Ruminates (cows and sheep) produce more greenhouse gases than from all fossil fuel sources (everyone willing to stop eating hamburgers?)
5 – Then given all of the above, can we, man, actually make enough changes which would significantly affect Greenhouse Gases enough so that it would reverse the trend or at least stabilize the temperature and not go back to the stone age or create an economic depression?
One must factor in the fact that practically all of the signatories to the Kyoto protocol (which excludes China and India) have failed miserably to meet their goals and in actuality the US has done a better job without being a signatory.
Economically speaking, any reduction in oil consumption by the US by substituting alternate and more expensive energy sources, would increase the cost of our products (and hurt exports). Any reduction in oil consumption would also be offset by increased oil consumption by China and India, which will result in the same or greater emissions worldwide and the US would end up being at a competitive disadvantage as a result (think loss of jobs and GDP here, which means less tax dollars to spend on Global Warming as well).
China has 25 millions cars and is expected to have 125 million cars in a few years.
Every 7 to 10 days, another coal-fired power plant opens somewhere in China that is big enough to serve all the households in Dallas or San Diego. India is not far behind.
Anyone up for not buying cheap Chinese goods? How about if you are poor and your only choice is a $12 pair of sneakers from WalMart for your child because you just had use up most of your pay check to fill up that old jalopy that you drive to your job (you can’t afford a new hybrid), which of course you may lose (the job) soon due to above competitive disadvantage and the resulting economic recession?
Corn based ethanol is questionably a zero sum game fueled by political need. Given the amount of fuel that it takes to plant, till, water, harvest, transport and process the corn (not the stalks) and the fact that ethanol is less efficient (lower MPG), chances are it will not solve anything and only contribute to higher food prices as other crops will be offset by increased corn planting, not to mention more trees being cleared for more farm land to grow corn, etc. Ethanol also cannot be pumped through pipelines as it eats gaskets, but instead has to be transported in tankers by truck or train (more fuel use). Ethanol’s sole reason for existence is a government subsidy and a tariff on Brazilian sugar cane ethanol.
6 – Now do you think it might be better served to use the billions of tax dollars to better society in other and more effective ways?
CO2 is not a pollutant. Humans and animals inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, which plants use to create oxygen. Might it be better to at least look for ways to decrease toxic waste and real pollutants in the air and in the water? Also, focus on world hunger and poverty (because of economic ignorance, corruption, despots, etc.).
Before we spend billions of tax dollars on cures that are likely to be worse than the malady, here are some questions to answer:
1 – Are we actually experiencing warming temperatures?
We only have actual thermometer temperature readings for the past 100 years and there are currently approximately 1,200 reading stations (some located at airports, near air conditioners, over pavement, next to buildings, etc). Obviously, a period of statistical insignificance. Before that we have proxy data from soil samples, ice core samples, tree rings, etc.
Even NASA admitted to calculation errors in the data, which made 1934 the warmest year on record (the middle of the Great Depression) and not 1998. But of course that is still statistically irrelevant, but telling of the margin of error especially when we are discussing an increase of less than a degree, none-the-less.
Are the measurements from those 1,200 stations actually legitimate. Anthony Watt has visited quite a few of them and documented measurement bias issues. Remember the warming they are concerned about is less than 1 degree centigrade. See: “How Not to Measure Temperature”: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/; http://www.surfacestations.org/; http://wattsupwiththat.com/
2 – If so are the increasing temperatures statistically significant over thousands of years of “measurement”?
3 – If so are the increased temperatures due to Greenhouse Gases and not sun spots?
4 – If they are due to Greenhouse Gases, is it because of Greenhouse Gases from man made sources?
Greenhouse Gases are approsimately 95% Water Vapor, 3.62% CO2, and 1.38% Other.
CO2 (the 3.62%) sources are 96.6% from Nature and 3.4% from man made.
Termites produce more CO2 than from all man made sources.
Ruminates (cows and sheep) produce more greenhouse gases than from all fossil fuel sources (everyone willing to stop eating hamburgers?)
5 – Then given all of the above, can we, man, actually make enough changes which would significantly affect Greenhouse Gases enough so that it would reverse the trend or at least stabilize the temperature and not go back to the stone age or create an economic depression?
One must factor in the fact that practically all of the signatories to the Kyoto protocol (which excludes China and India) have failed miserably to meet their goals and in actuality the US has done a better job without being a signatory.
Economically speaking, any reduction in oil consumption by the US by substituting alternate and more expensive energy sources, would increase the cost of our products (and hurt exports). Any reduction in oil consumption would also be offset by increased oil consumption by China and India, which will result in the same or greater emissions worldwide and the US would end up being at a competitive disadvantage as a result (think loss of jobs and GDP here, which means less tax dollars to spend on Global Warming as well).
China has 25 millions cars and is expected to have 125 million cars in a few years.
Every 7 to 10 days, another coal-fired power plant opens somewhere in China that is big enough to serve all the households in Dallas or San Diego. India is not far behind.
Anyone up for not buying cheap Chinese goods? How about if you are poor and your only choice is a $12 pair of sneakers from WalMart for your child because you just had use up most of your pay check to fill up that old jalopy that you drive to your job (you can’t afford a new hybrid), which of course you may lose (the job) soon due to above competitive disadvantage and the resulting economic recession?
Corn based ethanol is questionably a zero sum game fueled by political need. Given the amount of fuel that it takes to plant, till, water, harvest, transport and process the corn (not the stalks) and the fact that ethanol is less efficient (lower MPG), chances are it will not solve anything and only contribute to higher food prices as other crops will be offset by increased corn planting, not to mention more trees being cleared for more farm land to grow corn, etc. Ethanol also cannot be pumped through pipelines as it eats gaskets, but instead has to be transported in tankers by truck or train (more fuel use). Ethanol’s sole reason for existence is a government subsidy and a tariff on Brazilian sugar cane ethanol.
6 – Now do you think it might be better served to use the billions of tax dollars to better society in other and more effective ways?
CO2 is not a pollutant. Humans and animals inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, which plants use to create oxygen. Might it be better to at least look for ways to decrease toxic waste and real pollutants in the air and in the water? Also, focus on world hunger and poverty (because of economic ignorance, corruption, despots, etc.).
I swear! Conservatives can’t win! When we say the media is biased we’re told Fox news and talk radio is evil and from Satan. When we say we don’t believe in man made climate change we are called “idiots”. When we create a place to go to express our thoughts among others who think like we do (isn’t that what they do at Daily Kos and Huff Post?)we are really mean people who like to go off and say lots of nasty things about liberals. Yeah, cause liberals NEVER say nasty or mean things about ANYONE do they? They are so open minded and always try to understand where an opposing side is coming from. As long as you agree with them. But tell me, since this was still America, last time I checked, should I not be frustrated when they are teaching global warming in schools as fact to my daughters when over 600 scientists are at the same time saying this debate is far from over and the facts may even be totally wrong?
Let’s see: We’ve had global cooling, then global dimming, then the attack on coal through the acid-rain scares and the inevitable lakes and streams in the US that would all have dead fish because a small but growing percentage were near the tipping point for acidity due to smokestack-caused (man-made) acid rain, with the inevitable, by the end of the decade, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% and higher of the number of lakes and streams that would be “dead” of all fish because of acid rain/coal burning/smokestacks/pollution…that was around 30 years ago. iirc 60 minutes or 20/20 devoted a few segments to the acid/dead lakes issue (along with global cooling/global dimming. And let’s not forget Algore’s trial balloon of a btu tax during the first or second year of his first v.p. gig. Then we switch to global warming, but windmills are no good because they kill birds (study found otherwise), Kennedy doesn’t want his beloved ocean view obstructed by windmills miles away, they make “noise”, the rotation creates a magnetic field that negatively affects some of the extremists, etc. Solar (PV) is not acceptable because of all the wildlife it kills in the desert, using “carbon sinks” (preserving or planting forest land) is unacceptable because the US has so much forest land that it would diminish the economic attack of “global warming” on the US…nuclear is unacceptable because of waste that could easily be rocketed into space (we might irradiate an alien planet and that would be immoral and we would risk interplanetary war) even though France has been using nuclear for decades…dams (hydro) are unacceptable, think of the salmon!,
Humans are a virus. It all boils down to that damn military-industrial complex in the US. Anything that can be done to slow down, tear down those capitalist pigs and their corporate overlords will help preserve the planet. Hugo Chavez, Castro, the French, any State against Israel, and China are the models the world should be following. Any wrench that can be thrown into the gears of the US should be utilized. We just can’t admit to it in mixed company, just like some of us can’t be caught using the n word in mixed company even though it’s part of our own daily vocabulary.
China
Why your description of the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still sounds like Moonraker. Dax wanted to take his perfect/elite human specimens to space so he could sterilize the earth of imperfect misfits and then repopulate it.
Anyway was watching one of those history of earth shows the other night. They got into the notion of cyclical ice ages and noted we are now emerging from the prior ice age.
This is all an experiment in right versus wrong. Do you believe Al Gore or do you believe in your common sense. Slow down, think about it, put yourself about 200 miles in outer space and look down on Earth and the rest of the Universe. What are we on this planet? Did we evolve to destroy Earth? Or did we evolve out of God’s love for all things good? Hate, lies, spite, fear, jealousy and deceit are not naturally inherited but spread by selfish desires. These influences will wear down with time – we don’t want them – they make us tired and loathsome.
All is good. Ignore the noise – regect the untrue, it will go away.
Hollywood idiots. That’s why movie attendance is down.
hey lynn shut your pie hole. how’s that?
there was no serious discussion in this ‘article’.
if you would like to get a clue on why there is a high level of anti-americanism you might want to look at our economic and narco policies that we have forced upon south american counties for decades.
‘food for peace’ is a good start. have your son talk to local farmers about how our tax money subsidizes big corporate food and undercut the local markets.
you could google ‘cia+south america+human rights’ and find all kinds of fun facts instead of gnashing your gums about corrupt hollywood. who doesn’t know this? hollywood filled with idiots? this must be news!
i’m not a neolib.
i’m not a newcon.
two sides of the same fascist coin.
i don’t care about who’s right or who is wrong.
i don’t care about power.
i care about the people in this country and the odds of us surviving this division.
16 years of division. 8 on each side. you’re tied. let’s call it a day.
if you have any talking points to spout about that position, i would love to hear them.
“i don’t care about who’s right or who is wrong. ”
Obviously. Equally obviously, most of us do.
There is no benefit in agreement if we all agree on something wrong.
The country has survived worse disagreements.
We’ll keep pushing for what’s right and let you know when the fight is over.
Or you can just watch if you like.
More then 600 of the world’s top scientists have said global warming is a hoax. With the ice dramatically increasing in the Artic area, I absolutely believe it is a hoax.
BUT, it HAS made a multi-millionaire out of Gore. He has his mansion eating up power, and his private jet eating up fuel. Global wrming only applies to others.
Do your own research and you will learn the truth. Dumbama isnt so smart, he is willing to fall for it. Oh wait, that is just an excuse for the government to collect more money from us.
Just to be pedantic: Global Warming is true. Around 1/2 of the time, anyway. The rest of the time Global Cooling is true. So has it ever been. Anthropogenic Global Warming (or Cooling) is the myth.
As I understand it the evidence for Global Warming comes from this scientist who took ice cores in Antartica. Two other experiments were done. Ice Cores in Greenland which do not agree to the South Pole experiment supposedly due to Calcium Carbonate. The other a stody of the microscopic pores in leaves that allow air into the plant. Supposedly the plant grows less in high CO2 environments. This also did not agree with South Pole data supposedly due to seasonal variations making the experiment unreliable.
It is said that Antartica being segregated from pollution is a superior test. Fine. Here is the problem I have with the description of the experiment as I read about it. It fails to mention that the coldest recorded temparature at the South Pole was -88 degrees Celcius (-127 F). It fails to mention that in the South Pole Winters (our summers) it routinely gets under -78 degrees Celcius.
For those non chemists that is the temparature at which CO2 condenses to a solid at normal atmosphere. CO2 weighs 44 g per mole while water ice weighs 18 g per mole. Water is also a very unique substance in that it actually expands when it freezes. In the Antartic Winters storms blow with heavy winds from time to time.
Now the question I have and I don’t know the answer is when the CO2 gets buried under the water ice by the storm and then sublimates to a gas and rises up. How would that not affect the amount of CO2 found in the upper layers of the ice core. Would this circumstance not cause an increase in the CO2 in the ice in the first 50 years of that core. Since it is the 50 recent years where the CO2 levels go from I belive it is 280 to 360 ppm why would this not effect the results?
Funny thing is that the news articles mention the problems with the leave and greenland cores but seem to be silent about this issue regarding the antartic cores.
I am skeptical.
I enjoyed the original when I first saw it so naturally I thought this would be a great remake. I am so thankful I found this site and didn’t waste my money or eyesight.
Maude 1-0-09…you are so right. Just try going over to DailyKos, Crooks & Liars, Huff Post, etc. they will either attack, ban or just plain refuse to print. I know I try to get different points of view and give mine but that is what I experienced when I went to their sites.
Oh and it is snowing like crazy here in the land of Blago..could use some of that global warming
WHATSHISNAME said, “Ironically, one of the first evidences our earth has succumbed to the dangers of global warming will be the entrance of Europe into another ice age because the “great conveyor belt” of the Gulf Stream decides to turn around south of Greenland instead of north of it.”
So, it will be “another” ice age? Did the last ice age occur because it “succumbed” to global warming?
And you think humans can control it?
Due to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those last seen 29 years ago. The rapid rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
Yes, Hollywood IS shoving it down our throats. They’ve contributed greatly to the success of An Inconvenient Truth with their Documentary Academy Award and their insufferable fawning over Gore. Now, this stupid movie is shown in classrooms, indoctrinating children. It was even scrutinized in the High Court in London due to it being shown in schools.
Here is some of what the High Court said; it was littered with nine inconvenient untruths and that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration.” Mr. Justice Burton pointed out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film”, he said in his ruling. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film–although it is clear it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion–but that it is a political film.”
The bottom line is that CO2 is not a driver for temperature. Temperatures have actually been dropping the the last three years while CO2 in the troposphere has marginally risen. The computer generated climate models are all wrong and fatally flawed because climate is such a complex system that there is no possible way account for all the unanticipated variables that will arise without warning–like the the oceans currents changing from el nino to la nina. Hollywood is ignorantly on board with this because of the political mileage they can get for the left with this trumped-up cause. I have yet to hear one of these Hollywood talking hairdos say anything about climate change that is remotely intelligent. I wonder how they all dealing with headlines indicating the coldest winter in the northern hemisphere in years? Weather happens–get used to it and adapt.
Rev makes a very interesting point (or series of them).
First, Gore isn’t Hollywood….so I guess we should ignore the film he made, the fundraisers, parties, awards, and tons of positive press from both Liberal “news” people and hollywood nitwits.
Second, I’m a big fan of the original, “Day The Earth Stood Still.” I don’t recall anything about Klautu traveling millions of light years to save the earth from the icky people polluting it.
Third, the phrase, “Grown up time.” I had a Liberal friend use that on me once, and amusingly it was her fear that the rest of the world doesn’t like us enough (so I guess being a “grown up” is tied into kissing enough butt to be popular). It’s funny that the majority of the posts from the Right here seem more or less reasonable, while virtually all of the posts from the Left are angry, invective-filled rants, with little attempt at facts to back up the emotion. I guess we have different ideas of what it means to be a “grown up.”
Global Warming is a fallacy. Not because I say so, but because measurement of global temperatures shows that the earth has cooled for almost 10 years now after peaking in just before that. We might be entering a period of more severe weather, or we might not. No one can say for sure, but if you follow the money you’ll find that many of the scientists insisting it’s our fault are funded based on those opinions (we won’t even get into the $100,000,000 plus Gore has hauled in as the official GW spokesman). Unfortunately, people who have already made up their mind that it’s real refuse to examine the data that shows mistakes were made in the original assessment (which may or may not debunk the theory). They’ve made up their minds, and insist anyone who doesn’t agree is either stupid or evil (even equating GW skepticism with being a Holocaust denier).
BTW, for anyone who says it’s not being forced down our throats, many school children have been forced to watch Inconvenient Truth as part of their curriculum. That may be the saddest commentary on what passes for science in our education system to date.
Global warming is the hula hoop of our time. Let that idiot Gore come shovel the 2 feet of global warming that’s filling up my driveway.
Ken, Ken, Ken……..
When little rug rats are indoctrinated in their public schools from 3rd grade on up with the propaganda play “Inconvenient Truth” (advertising for al Gore’s “cap n’ trade” investments), there is a real Hitlerite/Stalinist tinge to Hollywood’s complicity in this myth in indoctrinating children. Soon Barry will have the little crumb crunchers tattle on their parents for the good of the country……….. by the way, this form of Maoist indoctrination is freely practiced in most urban school districts.
I know that it is hard for you and your colleagues to realize that your political masters (Barry, Rahm, Nancy, Barney and Chucky) are using the time honored (?) techniques of Mao and Uncle Joe (Eleanor’s terms of endearment, not mine) with their 5 year plans, indoctrination of youth, and silencing of debate (new House rules, Fairness Doctrine, etc.) to solidify their control over the masses………… but maybe, like most Leftists, you agree, hope for, and welcome this “Change We Can Believe In” (or else).
“Global Warming” is a serious subject in the news, despite little hard evidence that there is anything more than the typical climate cycles that have been in existence for millenia. It has become a political platform for those in the media who seek to expand their power base and their political philosophy. Unfortunately, the declining quality of scientific education over the last two generations has brought us to a “tipping point” where the majority of media consumers have little or no educational background to seriously question the JUNK science that is being fed to them on a daily basis.
Thus we have posts on this blog from those who are screaming that the “ice caps are melting”, “tens of thousands of deaths” are imminent, etc., etc…even though the actual data suggests nothing of the kind.
A frightening majority of people simply have become incompetent to critically analyze things.
That’s why Al Gore can become a millionaire, hundreds of scientists can spend millions of dollars in federal grants and Hollywood can try to make really silly movies about New York suddenly going underwater, plants killing humans and spaceships enforcing the Kyoto Treaty.
The fact that these films don’t play well in Peoria is heartening for us all!
My suggestion: Lets stop giving CONSERVATION a bad name by aligning it with radial environmentalism. We need the former. The latter is a blighted cult.
Also, Let’s stamp out GLOBAL IGNORANCE and do something about the quality of scientific education for our upcoming generations so that we can exercise freedom of thought!!
[...] van der Galien on the evils of unchecked Land Protoplasts. Posted by Dan Collins @ 8:38 am | Trackback SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Sea Kittens Dine [Dan [...]
“Is it not the smart thing to do… to actively seek to preserve and protect our Earth?”
However, the fact is Earth’s Force of Nature can destroy humans in a savage and brutal instant, without an iota of remorse or compassion or thought of the value of human life.
This is what I do not understand about the hysterical Climate Changers, exactly what is it that they believe they are protecting?
Perhaps it is ill-advised to think one can protect a force so superior as Earth’s Superior Force of Nature.
Global warning, what a brilliant piece of manipulative horse squeeze. This is a collectivist wet dream leading where? I count the days when we all suffer rolling black outs, and lets say, a group of Americans sit down to watch, the Super Bowl, or the inauguration of the Anointed One, the “Bambster Barry Obama, and there is no power to your house. In America this will go over like a fart in a space suit, and once again our abundant coal fired power plants will light up so fast, that the raging wave will send the liberal bedwetters scurrying for their mommy’s skirt. Alterative fuels will be a wonderful thing one day, but until working Americans can pull up to their, we’ll call it, “ energy station, and fill up with alternative, you damn well better have Petroleum available or there will be angry insurrection from the people who actually make this country work. Not useless intellectual moon bats, trust fund babies, or emotional dribbling college students who frankly couldn’t identify their ass from a hole in the ground. I recommend gainful employment for all of our high minded egalitarians, in search of, “Utopia. Or perhaps open a business this will take care of your spare time and maybe after you put in your 80 or 100 hour work week you won’t have time to screw up the greatest country the world has ever known, the USA.
On New Years Eve I rented the original version from 1951. It still holds up. The story didn’t need the super duper flashy techno effects that so many of our movies use today. The movie did have a message, but they didn’t bludgeon you over the head with it.
It remains one of my favorite movies.
Can’t we just all grow up and face the truth? Even a little “inconvenience” on each of our parts might do some good. What’s your problem?
Costs and benefits, Sheldon. Just as with everything else grownups evaluate. Pure hearts and empty heads aren’t enough for us.
My goddamn furnace is running on overtime what with all this icy global warming sh_t going on outside! I swear that the next Inconvenient Truth spouting butthead who gets in my face with his the-science-is-in meme is going to get a frigidly inconvenient dose of John Wayne’s “Fill your hands you SOB!” right upside his empty eco-friendly head!
How many movies would they be able to make without electricity?
N.O’Brain!
Nice to see you over here.
On to the B.S….
Proponents of AGW: I have a question.
Since the release of AIT, a new “gulf stream” has been found off Australia, it has been determined that Earth’s magnetic field has decreased around 10% in the last 100 years [not mentioned in AIT, more radiation into the atmosphere means more heat], sunspot research has show a far higher correlation, several credible studies have been published that show CO2 trails rather than leads temps and ice readings are now at their highest levels in two, almost three decades.
Given that the foundation for the conclusion for AGW is so easily questionable from a scientific and cognitive point of view, how can you say that “‘X’ will happening to the environment,” in 50 years?
The data sets are not even known.
The system is not even remotely understood.
Hubris, possibly?
Sheldon the problem darling heart is this: We, the people who don’t have time to get freaked out over a pretend, and false issue are grown up. its you people who tow this line to stupid who are not grown up. There is nothing in any of the science that leads any person with a sane thought to believe you n me and the cows in the barn with their leftovers have anything to do with the natural tendencies of nature. Now you can go explain how changing our lifestyles (like hell I will) will help. Help WHOM? WHOM?
Did you know there is is upwards of 30 million or more White Tailed Deer roaming the USA? Did you know that back when Columbus landed in 1492 that estimates were that tehre were no more than 100,000…explain the explosion in population and DO not blame the fall of predators such as the Cougar or the Timber Wolf…do you know why deer populations are so high? Human Agriculture. Deer do not thrive in deep dark virgin timber. They live happily in edge country, thickets, with cover to take them to their fields and water. Human agriculture has made the world the White Tails Eden. Now because of tree huggers and fruit loop animal rights loons there are so many deer we can’t cull all of them. Its a bad thing to hunt? OK fine. The grass grows, the deer eats the grass, I shoot the deer, I eat the deer, I die, I become the grass, circle of life. Thats reality. Thats what nature is. Shocking I know. But you people with your Climate Change Garp and Grizzly Man mentality will cause more damage to ALL of us, Man and Beast alike than any coal plant, Ford Pick UP and Exxon Oil Plateform ever will.
Not only is Al Gore promoting this nonsense, he apparently has Barack Obama sold on it as well. Billions and Billions (pretty soon it will add up to real money) of his deficit stimulus plan are headed toward so-called green projects. This could be a long four years. Join conservatives online:
http://ConservativeAmerican.org
It is really quite simple to explain why global warming should be a non-issue. Even if global warming were happening and is caused by human activity (and none of that is proven), the following would still be true:
We have little idea if the effects will be positive or negative, but they may well be lost in the background noise of the multiple cycles of natural climate change we know exist.
We should not spend astronomical sums and hinder economic growth now to prevent something the amelioration of which will just cost a small part of our GDP in 2080.
We cannot stop it anyway. The European Union or Al Gore talk a good game, but they have not reduced their “carbon footprint” – how dare they expect the rest of the world to commit economic suicide? Isn´t it immoral to make such demands when a billion human beings still live in absolute poverty? For them, “environment” means no clean water and cooking over a dried dung fire, not invented horror stories about polar bears, lead or passive smoking. For them, growth and wealth creation is the solution. I know many greens do not care about brown or yellow people (they consider them overpopulation) but the brown and yellow people will not ask for their permission to try and climb out of poverty.
Sheldon Gilman: “Can’t we just all grow up and face the truth? Even a little “inconvenience” on each of our parts might do some good. What’s your problem?”
That’s what I love about you liberals, you call billions in tax dollars spent and trillions in lost GDP which could mean a million lost jobs and you call that a “little inconvenience”. Wow!!
And you know who it will hurt the worst? The poor. The people at the bottom of the heap for whom the liberals are supposedly the champions, are the first to be hurt by rising energy costs, by carbon taxes, by EPA fines, by trade barriers and all kind of other crazy liberal economic and environmental policies.
Now if you are planning on helping the poor in China or India, knock yourself out because that’s were all the manufacturing jobs and any other carbon intensive industry will move to.
JPM – I agree with your notion that we need to separate conversation from what passes for ‘environmental’ protection, which is in reality an effort to enact facist/socialist policies on an unsuspecting public. In reading “State of Fear” for a critique in my Environmental Law class, I was impressed with the footnotes and documentation that Mr. Chrition provided to backup his ideas he put forth in the book. Reading the book and following up on the footnotes, it clearly pointed out to me that the science is far from settled and that it was less about protecting the environment and more about ceeding power to the government or some other central authority. Since the book was published we have seen that the computer models relied upon to ‘create’ these dire predictions have been flawed or even intentionally manipulated to create the outcome that the believers wanted.
I am all for individuals exercising their personal rights and choosing to support with their wallets or time causes that I may not agree with. That is part of what makes America a special place. If someone wants to lesson their carbon footprint because they think it helps, be my guest. The company I work for got rid of their annual 24 page calendar for a foldout calendar that puts six months on each side and printed it on recycled paper that smells like trash. They used all the typical environmental buzzwords justifying the change. I don’t like it, but it is a private company and they can do what they want for whatever reason they choose. It is when people advocate using the government to enforce those beliefs that I have an issue with. As we all know, once the government becomes involved, you will never get them out. And along with government intervention come unintended consequences that are almost as bad or worse than the initial problem. As an example we can look to forestry policy. The government stepped in and crafted policy changing the use of old growth forests. While the policies had the intended effect of saving some old growth trees it had the unintended effect of creating more and longer lasting forest fires because these set aside areas cannot be cleared of the dead trees and other dry underbrush and this material creates a greater likelihood that a lightning strike will start a fire or once a fire starts this material provides more fuel to keep it going than it would otherwise have.
Not to mention how the vague language of whatever is passed would be manipulated to serve ends that they were never intended for. There are examples in every major piece of environmental legislation that Congress has passed (Endangered Speices Act, Clean Air Act, etc.)
Whatever large scale “solution” the advocates come up with will have greater and longer lasting consequences than intended.
This is a topic that needs careful long term study, not celeb-scientists shouting down their opposition that they are wrong and we need action now.
One final thought? Why do the biggest supporters of AGW refuse to debate and descend into adhomenim attacks anyone who disagrees with their belief?
When it comes to global warming, I’m both a skeptic and a skeptic of the skeptics. Use some common sense conservation, switch to cleaner fuels when possible, but don’t destroy the damned economy.
But that’s besides the point of the film. The Day the Earth Stood Still is an example of the idiocy that surrounds the global warming hysterics.
Humans will not and cannot cause the planet to “die”, and there is absolutely no reason for an alien intelligence to screw with human development to save the pandas. A single supervolcano eruption (which is coming, one way or another) will in one day have a greater impact on this planet’s climate than all of human activity throughout history. A large meteor strike (also inevitable) will be even worse. Don’t see Keanu giving two ****s about that, huh?
This is fun
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
data type – Mean Temp
period – Annual
first yr- 1940
last yr- 1980
Submit
Now in the 70’s, weren’t they pushing the idea of another ice age?
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Now try
first yr- 1895
last yr- 1940
I guess there must have been a lot of emissions back then.
And now we’re gonna burn they say.
Temps go up and down. Man made warming is BS.
I love my carbon footprint.
For those Liberals (or rabid environmentalists of any bent) who say that we should do “something” because it’s better than doing nothing, even if we aren’t sure what is the right thing to do.
From the experts….
[b]Robert Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health said in 2007 that “The ban on DDT may have killed 20 million children.”
From the media….
[b]When John Stossel accused USAID of not funding DDT because it wasn’t “politically correct,” Anne Peterson, the agency’s assistant administrator for global health, replied that “I believe that the strategies we are using are as effective as spraying with DDT … So, politically correct or not, I am very confident that what we are doing is the right strategy.”[/b]
From the countries….
[b]It has also been argued that donor governments and agencies have refused to fund DDT spraying, or made aid contingent upon not using DDT. According a report in the British Medical Journal, use of DDT in Mozambique “was stopped several decades ago, because 80% of the country’s health budget came from donor funds, and donors refused to allow the use of DDT.”[105] Roger Bate of the pro-DDT advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM), asserts that “many countries have been coming under pressure from international health and environment agencies to give up DDT or face losing aid grants: Belize and Bolivia are on record admitting they gave in to pressure on this issue from [USAID].” [/b]
Gotta love people who want to do something to feel better about their empty lives, no matter who has to pay.
Good article Michael!
This comment “Hollywood has done more to spread Anti-Americanism and make it socially acceptable, than most non-American America-haters.” says it all. The irony of it all is that “we the people” pay to make these left wing know it all’s wealthy. I hate irony.
[...] van der Galien Big Hollywood Monday, Jan 12, [...]
Dear Whatisthatvelvet and other save-the-planet-even-if-not-proven people,
I understand your philosophy, which can be summed up as “we don’t know, but aren’t we helping the planet and humanity by these measures?” The answer is no, we are not. Policies to reduce globabl warming are often at odds with those that actually reduce pollution.
For example, Compact flourescents are horrible. They carry mercury sufficient mercury that if broken, will literally turn your closet into a superfund site.
Second, wind and solar power have massive land-use and resource-use problems and wind causes massive noise pollution. Their energy production is very small in comparison to their environmental impact. In comparison, a modern, efficient coal plant produces only CO2 when working properly. If CO2 is not a problem, then the environmental impact of a coal plant is significantly less than wind power (definition: irony).
Third, several environmentalists have suggested turning off pollution control equipment to reduce planetary temperatures. Specifically, they want to increase sulfur emissions (white smoke). This will mildly increase the albedo of the planet to cause a miniscule amount of cooling. However, it will drastically increase acid rain.
Fourthly, these suggested massive restrictions on energy use will harm the poorest of the poor most. Increasing fuel price litterally takes food out of the mouths of the poor who have to choose between freezing and starving on a daily basis. Should we increase costs so much that we push more people to rely on charity for basic necessities?
You must be logged in to post a comment.