Posted by: bridget | 2 March 2007

Global Warming: A “Crisis” for Drama Queens

Finally joining the “blogging about global warming” bandwagon. Ann Coulter opined that liberals want us to retreat to living in caves and wearing (presumably non-leather) loincloths. While this pachyderm usually adores Miss Coulter, she thinks that this week’s column was a bit lacking. Her point – that America depends on fossil fuels – is exactly the reason why sane people want to develop hybrid cars (or 18-wheelers) and alternative technologies: so American industry will not grind to a halt in the future. She buries her best point at the end:

“If we accept for purposes of argument their claim that the only way the human race can survive is with clean energy that doesn’t emit carbon dioxide, environmentalists waited until they had safely destroyed the nuclear power industry to tell us that. This proves they never intended for us to survive.”

You can’t be anti-nuclear energy, anti-fossil fuel, and expect the country to run on your good intentions alone. (Of course, she’s also completely correct in pointing out that liberals think that the entire country is NYC and Malibu – their scorn for the flyover states, that produce their food and oil and every American product – is legendary.)

Electricity bills are part of the public domain; a non-profit, non-partisan research group found out that Al Gore’s 10,000 square foot Tennessee home uses more electricity in a month than the average American uses in a year. He justifies the use by claiming that he buys carbon credits, so somewhere, a forest is being planted to offset the extra carbon dioxide being put into the air. Nevertheless, unless those trees are being planted next to a power plant, they are only making clean, rural air even cleaner. The worst example of his reasoning is:

“Focusing on Gore’s personal electricity consumption misses the point of “An Inconvenient Truth,” Kreider said, which is that governments and the public can work together to reduce emissions.”

Of course, When “the government and the public” “work together” to reduce emissions, that means legislation. Like the alternative minimum tax, such legislation will be burdensome on the working, middle, and professional classes, but the super-wealthy will be able to avoid it.

Meanwhile, back on the island, the ailing Fidel Castro praised Al Gore for his work in helping the environment. (Like we needed another reason to dislike Gore!)

David Ignatius opines that global warming will be catastrophic. The problem is, he quotes a “futurist,” which is about as rational as quoting Britney Spears on the subject of particle physics. According to the report by the Global Business Network, global warming will cause radical climate change which will cause destruction among third-world countries. The big issue with global warming “climatologists” is that they neglect to look backwards, at a natural experiment, and instead uses unreliable projections. The Earth’s climate is rarely stable; over the past thousand years, it has moved from incredible warmth (1000 CE) to a mini-Ice Age (circa 1600) to our modern climate. (Previously blogged, here.)

“Predicting” the effects of a climate change is just as ridiculous as “predicting” the effects of breaking the sound barrier. Have a question about it? Ask Chuck Yeager. Want to know what will happen if the earth rapidly heats up? Do some research on the Vikings. It’s already happened, and it will happen again. Oddly, the Earth seems to adapt, but that doesn’t fit a radical agenda made by people intent on sending humanity back to their caveman roots.

The report is, as are most things related to the Left, irrational. It lists, as two main problems with global warming, “more intense precipitation events” and “increased summer drying.” The only semi-rational way to reconcile those two statements is if global warming would produce more dry rain, which is presumably a variant of dry ice. ;)

Worse still are the predictions about what will happen in the wake of environmental disasters. “But in Bangladesh, where millions of people live at or near sea level, even a small increase could produce a catastrophe. In a severe monsoon….” Didn’t learn from Katrina? Don’t live at or below sea level. This is like complaining that an earthquake could devastate California. Climatic stability isn’t going to make living below sea level a smart idea, ever. It’s part of living on earth, not Pleasantville.

Of course, Katrina is used as an example of how severe weather patterns, resulting from global warming, will cause chaos in urban centers. For those who missed the memo: Katrina was only a Category 3 hurricane when it made landfall. How a category 3 storm can be an example of freakishly extreme weather is beyond this pachyderm’s comprehension.

All in all – a drama-fest appropriate only for Hollywood.


  1. Pollution was much worse in Communist countries than in Western democracies. I wonder why the Left hasn’t clued into that.

    I like the idea of letting the market work out some good solutions. Ethanol is a joke (uses tons of land, gets worse mileage, costs more, is politicized, etc.).

  2. Hi Bridget,

    I’ve missed you, odd as that sounds.

    I love Coulter too, precisely because she has nothing to lose by overstating, often rudely, her case. I agree, this column was just another example why she’s read by millions of adoring fans, warts and all. Drama queens r us make for good subjects of articles as well as heightened, enjoyable rhetorical blurts she always manages to skillfully produce.

    I agree with Neil, adding that making fuel from food doesn’t seem like the right direction to me.

    I think we all make judgements and assign motive seperate from the issue at hand, and the same crowd now ending humanity in a ball of fire flushed the baby of effortless energy creation down the enviro-demonizing toilet. Wind is another joke, and reduced consumption seems the only alternative.

    I’ve established a carbon credit payment station on my blog for guilt ridden lefties to pay homage to Mother Earth.
    What a waste of energy these folks expend when so many other real problems could use a devoted following with resources, committment and resolve.


  3. Hi Neil,

    I was going to point out that pollution in Victorian England was much worse than it is now. Generally, technology brings us cleaner air. As much as people may complain about NYC, there’s virtually no way to produce less waste for 8 million people.

    I’ve noticed that my car gets much worse mileage on ethanol gasoline – like 20 mph v. 25-27 on the other stuff. I’ve also meant to blog about the ethanol issue, mostly from a cost and health perspective (if it reduces Americans’ intake of HFCS, it might not be a bad thing!). The completely unbiased Iowa Corn group states that it is difficult to determine if ethanol decreases mileage:

    Apparently, they think that if you can’t measure it perfectly, it can’t be measured at all.

  4. Hi Hank,

    The computer ate my original response. (Guess computers need their dinners, too.)

    Good to hear from you! I’ve been busy lately – hence the sporadic blogging.

    The long and the short of it: I think we can reduce consumption without radically changing our lifestyle… it irks me when people imply that American engineers just aren’t innovative enough to figure it out. Technology can make for much cleaner living, so why not use that to our advantage?

    I love the carbon credit programme! :) Of course, those all really only amount to letting the rich be wasteful while the hoi polloi conserve… ah, Leftist policies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: