Go nuclear, they told us in the '60's and when plants were built complained about nuclear waste, they said go hydro in the '70's and then complained about the snail-darter habitat, the '90's they said wind was the future and now of course wind turbines are not acceptable. The rub is this; if we ever solve our energy problems then the left loses some more power and as we have seen since the 2000 election that nothing has stirred the up left more than being out of power. The coastal lefties which supposedly hate wealthy “summer people” have failed to admit that the money to oppose wind turbines and the construction of LNG terminals have come from wealthy coastal homeowners who do not want their pristine views marred by something that might actually benefit coastal states. That fat fraud Ted Kennedy fought to get the turbine project on Cape Cod stopped, God-forbid he should have to see a windmill on the horizon while sitting on the patio in Hyannisport drinking himself into a stupor. All along the Spanish coast and in Holland you will find these wind turbines, here in Japan we have them, even in view of my house, and they are almost artistic and not at all eyesores or the destroyer of nature the left makes them to be.
As for the global warming part my wife, a Texas A&M trained marine scientist, points out that while many scientists believe global warming is caused by greenhouse gasses there are an equal number that believe global warming is the natural evolution of the planet, it has happened before and will happen again. Yes there is climate change but then again the climate has been changing constantly since the “big bang”. There were periods of much more extreme global warming (and cooling) long before man was ever in the equation, the dinosaurs after all lived on a tropical planet. If it were not for global warming, we would still be in an ice age. Even those that do believe have not been able to make a link between “greenhouse gasses” and global warming. There are well thought out theories but no actual link. Those that say they have proof such as Al Gore have reached there conclusions using junk science. A perfect example of junk science is this; all cats have four legs, my dog has four legs so therefore my dog must be a cat. Mr. Gore's supporters say there are more "greenhouse" (misleading name) gasses in the atmosphere so therefore they must be causing the earth's extreme warming (actually quite miniscule). Correlation does not equal causation.
I do support more study on the subject but the doom and gloom supported by the enviro-wackos is not called for. Does the left push the conclusion highlighted in a 1990's Nova episode that the southern polar ice cap is melting from underneath and climate change may not be responsible for all of the reduction? There were those that did not even want PBS to run it because it goes against their view that man is the ultimate evil. Many reading this will say can we really afford to wait? I mean they even reference the great scientist Sen. George Mitchell's (oh, wait he’s not a scientist is he?) new book or Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" which are not science but are only opinion. How does Sen. Mitchell or Vice Pres. Gore know more about than science than scientists that disagree with them? Many of those predicting the end of the planet also predicted the end from global cooling during the 1970’s. Does anyone remember the Newsweek cover story?
Remember this most the researchers live on grant money and one does not get grants to study the climate if all is predicted to be peachy keen.
No comments:
Post a Comment