Time to burn some tires and clear-cut rainforests…

…’cause apparently that’s what it would take for the U.N., Al Gore, and other global warming alarmists to be correct.

You know the line: the earth is heating up, humans are to blame, the ice caps will melt in about five minutes, etc. The Very Smart People who tell us these things and then advocate for all sorts of new, expensive, insufficient means of producing electricity that ostensibly will slow the warming of the earth (and in which, oddly enough, they sometimes have a financial stake) have developed Very Complicated Computer Programs that ostensibly show exactly what will happen.

Except that reality is turning out to be very different from the models. From an article in Forbes:

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth’s atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a “huge discrepancy” between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

Amazing: the earth and its natural systems are far more complex than even our pointiest-of-pointy-headed people imagine.

Now, there are plenty of good reasons to constantly seek more efficient and cleaner means of producing energy and propelling vehicles, chief among them are responsible stewardship of the earth’s resources and limiting the pollutants that cause health problems.  But that even has its prudential give and take—e.g., health benefits have an exponential rather than linear drop-off as technologies improve, eventually dwindling to a miniscule improvement at a massive new cost; and affordability must be considered lest oil, gas, and electricity become too expensive and an undue burden on the poor. But now that the scientific facts have shown the scientific theories to be false can we back off the doomsday talk?

Because I like the rainforests right where they are.



  • Fred

    And for the record….its not global warming..
    Its just Obama trying to make it more like Kenya.

    I hear they are renaming the “San Andreas Fault” line- The Obama fault line!

    • Paul

      A horribly offensive racist joke? Seriously? I hope you are going to confession immediately. And for what it’s worth, I think CatholicVote should delete this comment ASAP.

    • Fred

      Awe come on! I was making a funny! I thought this would go over well on here, since they want to blame Obama for everything. Where is your sense of humors?

  • Davide

    …and shoot some dear

  • Brian A

    Let’s burn some tires and cut down some rainforests. Who cares if my neighbor’s son is suffering from emphysema because of it. WOO-HOO! let’s hear it for ME, ME, ME, ME, Me, me ME!

    • http://twitter.com/tomcrowe Tom Crowe

      Brian A— Before you embarrass yourself further, I suggest you either actually read the post or develop a tongue-in-cheek detector.

      • Brian A

        I’m a different Brian A, but I think we should stand up for each other. I did read your post. I see where you express concern for people suffering poor health due to pollution, and the following sentence that says we should only address those issues if they don’t cost ME any money or if they don’t inconvenience ME. I think this entire article is just petty.

        • http://twitter.com/tomcrowe Tom Crowe

          Brian A (the other one) — Only if you also assume that I am referring to myself as “the poor.” You might note that in so saying A) I was referring to a prudential judgment, which means reasonable people can differ without sin; B) the balancing point is not ME ME ME ME but does this added cost TO ALL PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY THE POOR justify the increased health benefit, understanding that initial efforts to clean up energy generation will realize massive increases in health benefits and thus are easily justified while later ones will realize less health benefits, likely at a diminishing rate of return (i.e., “exponential,” rather than “linear), and thus are less clearly justified; C) It was tongue-in-cheek, sure, but petty only if you have thin skin. Have a good night.

          • 330treehugger

            I think what Tom implies here is that if the cost of perfectly clean air is so great that buyers of energy, some of whom are poor, are deprived of funds for healthcare, food, etc., then we have further impoverished everyone’s lives in our quest to improve quality of life. Our air, automobiles and coal fired plants are much cleaner than we could have imagined in 1975. The EPA’s new Puritanism destroys human prosperity.



Receive our updates via email.