No Peace for the Wicked
Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize is just as significant as Halle Berry being the first black woman to win Best Actress at the Oscars.
Remember Berry’s groundbreaking victory? According to her, it wasn’t just Halle Berry who won. It was "every nameless, faceless woman of color who now has a chance because this door tonight has been opened.” What a great lesson! A truly awful actress1 can win an Oscar in order to make nameless, faceless women2 of color feel better about themselves. The Academy Awards are always silly and self congratulatory, yes, but shouldn’t the Best Actress award go to someone who could credibly be called the year’s best actress?
And shouldn’t a “Peace Prize” go to someone who furthers the cause of peace?
Al Gore has done nothing to further the cause of world peace. Actually, he’s done less than nothing, or, that is to say, he’s done positive harm. The alarmist nonsense he peddles is designed to cripple the industrial economies of any nation that buys what he’s selling, which will lead to more strife between nations, not less.
At least terrorist thug Yasser Arafat gave lip service to peace when he got his prize. Al Gore does not bring peace, or even pretend to do so. He comes bearing a green, carbon-neutral sword. He wants us to dismantle American industry to “limit CO2 emissions” and keep those dirty, inconvenient little Third Worlders trapped in their pristine, unspoiled, undeveloped – read “impoverished” –innocence.
Arguments about the science of Global Warming end up devolving into a battle of credentials and not of facts, which discourages honest discussion and allows Gore and Co. to declare the debate over and label anyone who disagrees with them as something akin to a Holocaust denier.
No, I’m not a scientist. I don’t play one on TV. However, I’m going to make an irrefutable scientific statement with which no one can disagree.
The climate is changing.
Everyone who has ever lived on the planet could have truthfully made that statement, too. It has ever been true. It always will be true. We do not live in a static environment.
So Gore takes a true premise – the climate is changing – and extrapolates a massive social agenda with astoundingly far-reaching consequences, demanding colossal expansion of government power.
If you accept the premise, you have to accept the agenda. If you agree with the problem but disagree with the solution, you’re Goebbels.
But there are so many other solutions, and many would be more effective. You know what would really cut down on carbon emissions? Level New York City. Or gather up all the cars and bury them somewhere by Yucca Mountain. Shut down all the power plants. And while you’re at it, close the hospitals. And if that doesn’t work, there’s a quicker, more efficient way.
Genocide. Just kill lots of people. That’ll do it.
Actually, the economic consequences of shutting down carbon emissions is little more than genocide on the installment plan. Denying the positive effects of industrialization to millions means many more of them will die early, painful deaths. In contrast, limiting carbon emissions may or may not have any effect at all on global temperatures. Even if Gore's right - and that's a HUGE if - the costs outweigh the benefits, which are all theoretical anyway. The carnage and death that these policies have wrought are all too real.
If Al Gore continues to get his way, the nations of Africa will remain unindustrialized and riddled with disease, squabbling and murdering to gain control over ever-dwindling resources. Why? Because if they were to burn the fossil fuels necessary to bring their countries out of the Stone Age, they’d heat up the globe and force Ghandi Gore to turn up the air conditioning on his Gulfstream private jets.
This is what the Nobel Prize committee calls “peace.”
Gore and the whole Global Warming movement make me sick to my stomach.
_______________________________
1In the interests of intellectual honesty, I must admit that I have not seen Monster’s Ball, the film for which Ms. Berry won the award, nor do I have any desire to see it. Why? Because I have seen Bulworth, Die Another Day, and the three X-Men films. Ms. Berry is wretched in all of them. There’s a pattern there. If she, in fact, defied all laws of nature and summoned forth one credible performance, she would have drained her tiny reservoir of talent completely. She clearly didn’t have any leftover for Catwoman.
2Isn’t it odd of Berry to refer to “nameless, faceless” people, regardless of their color? Or is this the new, politically correct way to refer to what elites used to call the “little people?”
Remember Berry’s groundbreaking victory? According to her, it wasn’t just Halle Berry who won. It was "every nameless, faceless woman of color who now has a chance because this door tonight has been opened.” What a great lesson! A truly awful actress1 can win an Oscar in order to make nameless, faceless women2 of color feel better about themselves. The Academy Awards are always silly and self congratulatory, yes, but shouldn’t the Best Actress award go to someone who could credibly be called the year’s best actress?
And shouldn’t a “Peace Prize” go to someone who furthers the cause of peace?
Al Gore has done nothing to further the cause of world peace. Actually, he’s done less than nothing, or, that is to say, he’s done positive harm. The alarmist nonsense he peddles is designed to cripple the industrial economies of any nation that buys what he’s selling, which will lead to more strife between nations, not less.
At least terrorist thug Yasser Arafat gave lip service to peace when he got his prize. Al Gore does not bring peace, or even pretend to do so. He comes bearing a green, carbon-neutral sword. He wants us to dismantle American industry to “limit CO2 emissions” and keep those dirty, inconvenient little Third Worlders trapped in their pristine, unspoiled, undeveloped – read “impoverished” –innocence.
Arguments about the science of Global Warming end up devolving into a battle of credentials and not of facts, which discourages honest discussion and allows Gore and Co. to declare the debate over and label anyone who disagrees with them as something akin to a Holocaust denier.
No, I’m not a scientist. I don’t play one on TV. However, I’m going to make an irrefutable scientific statement with which no one can disagree.
The climate is changing.
Everyone who has ever lived on the planet could have truthfully made that statement, too. It has ever been true. It always will be true. We do not live in a static environment.
So Gore takes a true premise – the climate is changing – and extrapolates a massive social agenda with astoundingly far-reaching consequences, demanding colossal expansion of government power.
If you accept the premise, you have to accept the agenda. If you agree with the problem but disagree with the solution, you’re Goebbels.
But there are so many other solutions, and many would be more effective. You know what would really cut down on carbon emissions? Level New York City. Or gather up all the cars and bury them somewhere by Yucca Mountain. Shut down all the power plants. And while you’re at it, close the hospitals. And if that doesn’t work, there’s a quicker, more efficient way.
Genocide. Just kill lots of people. That’ll do it.
Actually, the economic consequences of shutting down carbon emissions is little more than genocide on the installment plan. Denying the positive effects of industrialization to millions means many more of them will die early, painful deaths. In contrast, limiting carbon emissions may or may not have any effect at all on global temperatures. Even if Gore's right - and that's a HUGE if - the costs outweigh the benefits, which are all theoretical anyway. The carnage and death that these policies have wrought are all too real.
If Al Gore continues to get his way, the nations of Africa will remain unindustrialized and riddled with disease, squabbling and murdering to gain control over ever-dwindling resources. Why? Because if they were to burn the fossil fuels necessary to bring their countries out of the Stone Age, they’d heat up the globe and force Ghandi Gore to turn up the air conditioning on his Gulfstream private jets.
This is what the Nobel Prize committee calls “peace.”
Gore and the whole Global Warming movement make me sick to my stomach.
_______________________________
1In the interests of intellectual honesty, I must admit that I have not seen Monster’s Ball, the film for which Ms. Berry won the award, nor do I have any desire to see it. Why? Because I have seen Bulworth, Die Another Day, and the three X-Men films. Ms. Berry is wretched in all of them. There’s a pattern there. If she, in fact, defied all laws of nature and summoned forth one credible performance, she would have drained her tiny reservoir of talent completely. She clearly didn’t have any leftover for Catwoman.
2Isn’t it odd of Berry to refer to “nameless, faceless” people, regardless of their color? Or is this the new, politically correct way to refer to what elites used to call the “little people?”
posted by Elder Samuel Bennett | 7:52 AM
11 Comments:
I guess it could be worse. He could have received the Nobel for inventing the Internet.
I saw Monsters Ball. It was ok but not Oscar worthy.
My wife made me watch it as partial punishment for dragging her to Lost In Space years before. (That is still used when I balk at a movie)
Women have long memories when it comes to bad movie suggestions.
I have lost all faith in the Nobel Peace Prize committee. I'm not sure how much faith I still had, though. They did give it to Carter.
No one mourns the wicked.
What I find most annoying about the discussion is that any instance of an unusually warm day or week anywhere in the world quickly becomes grist for the Global Warming mill. Attempts to indicate that prudence and sanity may be required are met with derision by the cult of personality. I can't even watch the Academy Awards anymore, and couldn't tell you who won any major awards since LOTR III from a few years ago.
Ecology has become very, very good for Al Gore.
But at least he's not running for President. His spokesman said he's "transcended" the presidency. I'm sure they are all wondering why the man hasn't been taken up into heaven to meet God Himself already.
Bring on the heat baby! When the ice melts and y'all are under water, my home which now rests at 7000 feet elevation, will be beach front. I'm ready.
Oh, and Al Gore is full of Caca Doodie.
10 Questions that Enviromental Zealots avoid at all Costs:
1) China has recently surpassed America in carbon emissions. Why aren't you guys nagging the Chinese?
2) Why is the current global climate the most desirable one, when Earth has experienced climates both warmer and cooler than the current period, all of which life, including human life, has thrived in?
How long have we been scientifically measuring climateology data? 100 years? 150 years at most?
3) How accurate were thermometers 100 years ago?
4) The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. So out of 4.5 billion years of potential data you're going to make scientific judgements based on 100 years worth of collected data?
5)Mars among other planets in the solar system have been recently proven to all be undergoing global warming at this period in time. If no Man is present on those planets, then how do you explain their global warming trends?
6) If the Global Warming model is so certain, then why wasn't the Global Cooling model of the 70's equally as certain?
7)Doesn't all plant life on Earth require CO2? By restricting CO2 emissions, aren't you effectively choking trees?
8)Paleoclimatology shows that the deserts in Egypt were once lush rain forests thousands of years ago. And that change took place long before the advent of any internal combustion engines. If that was a natural climate change, then why is this change now not a natural climate change?
9)Today on the news they said that tomorrow there will be a slight chance of rain. A slight chance? It's tomorrow! If these guys can't give us a definite forecast for what the weather will be like tomorrow, how on Earth can anyone give an accurate forecast of what the weather will be 40 years from now?
10) Do current global Warming models based on 30 year old data take into account the newly discovered Tasman Outflow ocean current?
Ask any of these questions, and you will be answered only with insults and many eye rolling emoticons.
They will behave in a manner which suggests that either you don't have the right to ask these questions, or they will treat you with pity as some poor lost soul that hasn't yet been shepherded by Al Gore.
But actual answers to these questions never be forthcoming from the enviromental extremists.
Because what they have is not true science that is open to criticism, instead what they have is their own religion or belief system, where no critical questioning is valid in their eyes.
By the way,
I am both deeply, and highly offended.
A woman with breasts of that magnitude and perfection should not be made light of.
Foodleking -
You know 'Wicked'? I'm impressed. I still think about you when I listen to my Charlie Brown soundtrack, BTW.
OK, but since you're here, I have to say it took me a long time to forgive you and Jim for destroying my favorite teddy bear. You guys ripped its head off and threw his stuffing all over the basement. I doubt if you remember, it was probably far less traumatic for you than it was for me. But I have forgiven and moved on. There is no need to send me a new teddy bear.
Charlie Brown? Aaaaarrrrgggghhhh!!!!
"But there are so many other solutions, and many would be more effective. You know what would really cut down on carbon emissions? Level New York City. Or gather up all the cars and bury them somewhere by Yucca Mountain. Shut down all the power plants. And while you’re at it, close the hospitals. And if that doesn’t work, there’s a quicker, more efficient way.
Genocide. Just kill lots of people. That’ll do it."
Jim, you pointed me to this post as a place where I'd get your take on global warming. Gotta love a good strawman argument.
"Actually, the economic consequences of shutting down carbon emissions is little more than genocide on the installment plan. Denying the positive effects of industrialization to millions means many more of them will die early, painful deaths."
First stage: global warming isn't happening. Second stage: global warming is happening, but humans aren't causing it. Third stage: even if global warming is happening, and we're causing it, there's nothing we can do about it.
We could argue whether it would be possible to cap emissions in already-industrialized nations, develop cleaner energy sources, and then export them to the developing world (which emits carbon in the meantime), and whether this would be possible without overly hurting the economy of the industrialized nations. But I get the sense from other conversations that you aren't past the first stage anyway. So what's the point? If you want to have a discussion on whether global warming is really happening, or whether humans are causing it, I'd be happy to point you to some good sources of information.
Otherwise, the main difference I have with you is that I'm much more optimistic about our ability to develop new technologies and overcome this problem if we set our minds to it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home