Tag Archives: AGW

David Suzuki’s Minority Report

There he goes again, suggesting (not for the first time) that we arrest Stephen Harper for his “criminal” inaction on climate change.

We’re not the best ones to make arguments against the whole climate change hysteria, there are plenty of excellent persons and blogs that are dedicated to that cause, and we defer to them.

But it boils down to four questions about the Climate Change debate.

  1.  Is Climate Change real?

Maybe.  Sure.  The earth has gone through a great number of climate change cycles during it’s existence, including several ice ages and several hot-house periods.  They’ve found alligator bones near the Arctic Circle… did those alligators drive there in their SUV’s?  But for the sake of argument here, let’s concede that the earth is in fact warming…. again.

2. Is Climate Change man-made?

This is where the IPCC term “anthropogenic global warming”  or AGW comes in, i.e. that man made “pollutants” (if you consider carbon dioxide a pollutant) is the main cause of Climate Change.  This is more contentious.  You may get us to concede that AGW is a contributor, but to what extent?  What percentage of our current global warming can be directly attributed to our carbon dioxide emissions?  There is no answer that quantifies it.   But again, let’s concede for the sake of argument that we are contributing some appreciable amount to the current global warming.

3.  Are the effects of Climate Change catastrophic?

Here’s where we go rogue; no.  Virtually every IPCC prediction for the doomsday effects of AGW on the earth, from the early part of the century to recently have been false.  Global sea levels – more or less the same… no flooding of Miami or islands in the South Pacific.  Himalaya glaciers melted by 2013?  Just the opposite in fact,  ice caps have increased, not only in the Himalayas but in parts of the Arctic and Antarctic.  Global temperatures have more or less held steady for the past 18 years, despite claims to the contrary about the “hottest year on record” et al.  Climate models have failed to accurately predict future conditions thus far, so why are we trusting that they will get it right eventually?  The effects of Climate Change will not be catastrophic or something that we cannot adapt to.

4.  Do you trust the government to stop Climate Change?

Hell, no.  And last time we checked, there was no WORLD GOVERNMENT that could force China, India, Russia and Brazil to hold their carbon output.  Canada is a mere 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and of that 0.7% was attributed to the oil sands, which is slowing down given global gas prices.

So, David Suzuki is an unfortunate example of that poor soul who shouts into an echo chamber and thinks his own thoughts said out loud are validation of his dumb ideas.  He cannot predict the effects of climate change, so what are we arresting Harper for?  And Harper was supposed to do what to stop global warming?

Go away old man.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

We Love Progressive Vanity

On occasion, for shits and giggles, we here at RA love to agitate on the comment boards of some of these so called “progressive” blogs using pseudonyms and assorted nom de guerres.  It usually doesn’t take much to get flame wars started, but when one does get started it can be amusing, educational and also frustrating to observe the pathologies of lefties on display.

Yesterday, we commented on one of the patented pathologies of the left; the need to reduce opponents to caricatures, rather than debate them as people.  Today, we give you a shining example from one of our flame wars of another common pathology of the left, which is cousin to the first pathology – moral vanity.

From whence this moral vanity springs is actually the subject of a much longer posting that we hope will be coming soon on RA.  But for now it can be summarized as such – we hold that there are Four Pillars of Progressivism (4POP) that are at the core of leftist pathologies, and imbue true believers with the unshakeable resolve that they are, in fact, the embodiment of all that is correct and good, and that opponents must be stupid, evil or both.  Those on the right don’t just hold contrary opinions on how to approach the issues of our world, rather they are malignant, obscurantist, racist and self-centred trolls, and limiting their speech, outlawing their opinions and controlling their activities are all reasonable desires by the left because to not do so would be allowing evil of the right to propagate and ruin chances of achieving utopia on earth.

Take for example the following sampling of a comment on another blog:

Imagine what our country will look like in a few years. Why is it that these conservative morons want to take us 50 years back on every major social issue? Fire the scientists, f*ck the facts, to hell with studies, bring back the good’ol 50′s.

I would love to see an in depths study comparing conservative vs progressive voter IQs. Most days my impression is that their circus is led by a few intellectuals who bring along a bunch of monkeys for the ride.

As can be seen then this poster exemplifies the moral vanity described above.  He being progressive is by extension then a representative of the ‘enlightened’, and the rest of us who don’t agree with him are a bunch of “monkeys”.

This post is humorous and sad on a lot of levels.  This issue of the Conservatives disputing or ignoring the wisdom of academics and consultants seems to be a continuing theme for Paul Wells and Andrew Potter in Maclean’s.  Heaven forbid that the government just doesn’t fall over and defer to those in the know.

But fire the scientists?  Sure thing, since they’ve shown they are not immune to politicking and cooking the data to support their causes, as they have been revealed to do with the IPCC and anthropogenic global warming (we at RA refuse to use the term “climate change” – that’s a distortion of what initial issue was).

Facts?  Refer again to the whole AGW debacle.

Studies?  We all know that if you hire a consultant, and tell him the answer you want, chances are very good that you will get that answer.  And when bureaucrats are doing the hiring, these same bureaucrats that have been a constant in government for the past 20, 30 years, why would we trust these studies to be unbiased?

The 50’s?  That’s rich considering that the left traffics in nostalgia even harder than the right.  Occupy was the new Woodstock, right?  Michael Moore opened his Capitalism movie with homage to… the 50’s – what a wonderful time of manufacturing jobs aplenty, high taxes and surging leftist sentiments.

And we could go on.  But of course, because they are ‘right’ and we are ‘wrong’ there is no obligation for this poster to check himself and what he’s writing for hypocrisy, there is no need for this poster to steer clear of caricatures of the right as a group of simpleton rats (or monkeys) following the Pied Pipers of our side.  Nope, all good because the moral vanity this poster possesses allows him to sit in judgment and post this kind of drivel that he and his buds will lap up and chuckle over how much smarter they are than the rest of us.

Yep, if that’s what it means to be progressive, then we are happy to call ourselves regressive.

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: