The Sky is Falling or Climate Change Hustle?
I’m a big fan of clean air and water, and I really hope someone figures out a way to get rid of the large amounts of plastic bottles that float in the oceans. But, I’m not buying the horrendously dire forecasts of damage caused by climate change that get shoved at us at every turn because of our way of life.
When I hear the urgent, climate change crisis chatter concerning the rapidly approaching doom, I want to ask those folks what they themselves are actually doing about it, if they truly believe it’s that bad. Are they riding their bikes to work and to run errands, taking public transit everywhere they go, carpooling to work, flying less, unplugging computers, TVs and other electronics when they’re not using them, washing clothes in cold water and hanging their clothes outside to dry?
Or are they like Al Gore, who is a huge crier of the climate change disaster, but owns private jets, a big mansion, and even invested in beach front property, despite his dire warnings of rapidly rising sea levels? You can bet the former vice president doesn’t ride his bike to the store or hang his clothes out to dry! I’m not one to be skeptical, but you don’t think Mr. Gore is a climate change hustler, do you? After all, how do you think he affords his mansion, private jets and beach front properties?
Speaking of Al Gore:
Speaking of Al Gore and the sky falling, he falls into the alarmist category that gets people all riled up about climate change. Even though he comes across with heavy passion, he doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about. At one point more than five years ago he said “the entire north polar ice cap may well be completely gone in five years.” How did that one turn out, since it’s been more than five years now?
In Gore’s infamous movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” the alarm bell was rung with dramatic rising sea levels, new ice age in Europe, the South Sahara drying up, massive flooding in China and India, Polar Bear extinction and harmful temperature increases due to out of control CO2 emissions. None of these predictions have come to pass, coloring me and millions of others with a lot of skepticism.
It reminds me of the “Earth Day” dire warnings in the early seventies that caused hysteria and fear in so many. Stuff like 100-200 million deaths to starvation yearly for 10 years, a new ice age by 2000, even the end of civilization in 15-30 years. Last time I checked, we’re still good on that stuff.
I get confused with this climate change stuff. First, it was Global Warming, but when that didn’t seem to fit the narrative, it was changed to Climate Change. But what really confuses me, is that when the drought was in full bore, climate change was the culprit, but now that there is predication of more El Nino events, climate change is blamed for that. Which is it?
If more rain is coming because of climate change, thus eliminating the drought, then climate change is a good thing, right?! Maybe, just maybe, God is control of his creation, and what us mere men think is no match to what he will do.
Don’t Do It:
Hey, don’t do what the liberal, emotional, idealism-driven President of France did to force his people into a rage by increasing energy taxes to heights they can’t exist under. We can’t tolerate the likes of the new lady libs coming into office who want to do whatever they can to force their climate change beliefs on us with the same sort of nonsense that is going on in France.
If the lady-lefties have their way with the Green New Deal they want, it will be a big push to keep banks from financing new oil pipelines and blocking any sort of fracking. This is the sort of nonsense that could back push us back to the Obama days, and we all know how that worked out. What’s worse is that we could see the same type reaction that’s going on in France, and that wouldn’t be good for anyone.
It doesn’t help either when the left-leaning LA Times has a headline that read, “Sadly the car is still king here,” or a photo caption of people under a bus stop cover during a rain storm that read, “Climate change is making California’s extreme weather worse by turning up the heat during the dry season and supercharging storms during the wet season.”
Come on; cut the crap with the biased, fact-lacking headlines that swing the opinions of low information folks who just browse the paper. It is stuff like this that could make people think we needlessly need to harm our economy and way of life by taking drastic measures to solve a crisis that may not exist.
-Liked, and agreed with your opinion on the City Council selection. But then you showed your GOP flag. You’re just another blind conservative.
-Was this actually ‘seen and read in the Gazette’, or just posted on FB so people might see and read the Gazette?
-Holy crap, there are a lot of “straws” that could break that camel’s back aren’t there? When he puts them all laid out in print there it’s amazing just how many things the orange clown gives to scrutinize due to impropriety.
-Anyone who has been following the detailed analysis knows we’ve barely seen the tip of the iceberg in MSM. And that “the patience of Mueller” will someday be a trope.
Quips, Quotes and Headlines:
“When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them, and, in fact, there’s good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false.” (Michael Isikoff, Yahoo News reporter who was amongst the first to break the news of the dossier’s existence.)
*For those who aren’t aware, this dossier is what was used to secure the warrant that jump-started the Trump/Russian collusion investigation, which is appearing more and more to be a complete hoax. (Me)
“If Trump weren’t president, do you think: 1) There would be any talk of defending our borders and a creating an immigration policy that serves OUR country? 2) Would ANYONE dare to call out China and try to eliminate its unfair trade practices? 3) Would anyone tell our “friends” in Europe to pay their FAIR SHARE of their own defense? Would we have the lowest unemployment in decades, for women and minorities too?” (Portion of a ‘Letter to the Editor’ in The Signal Newspaper)
*How nice it is when I get the warm fuzzies of not being the “Lone Ranger” of Trump supporters. (Me)
“Yes, Democrats destroyed California in record time. Now that they have a supermajority in the state legislature and yet ANOTHER loony left governor, the state is literally plunging into the liberal abyss.” (James Wood, Actor)
*Don’t you wish a lot more Hollywood types would think like Wood? (Me)
“Why aren’t republicans hi fiving about the judge’s ruling overturning Obamacare? Democrats have convinced most of the country that health care is a right and that the free market won’t work. Republicans are afraid they’ll lose their jobs if they tell voters otherwise.” (Larry Elder)
Dear Santa: “Brains for Democrats, Balls for Republicans.”
Obamacare ruled unconstitutional (Headline)
*So what? What does “unconstitutional” matter anymore when it comes to anything related to the left? (Me)
Letters to the Ranter:
Re: Electric grid as terrorist target; Your mention of this in the last “rant,” the last decent film in the “Diehard” series, Live Free Or Die Hard, had this as the heart of the plot. If you haven’t seen it, watch it. It’s a really good movie, and the plot is scarily plausible. Mark
I TOTALLY AGREE with your rant about districting in the City Council races. I make it a specific point of NOT voting for the name-brand incumbents who just won’t go away. So… there you go… we’re actually on the same page sometimes. And the fact that Doug Sutton believes in diversity of opinions/voices pulls at my heartstrings. Really. Blair
Love the rant. Paul Ryan has been a puppet for his master Mitt Romney, and unfortunately Mitt seems to still be holding a grudge for what was said in the past. I only hope they don’t continue working against the President. It’s all about leaving a legacy, not about solving problems for the people of this country. Our representatives need to be held accountable; otherwise it is only going to get worse. Agron
This is actually meant for Stephen (Smith), but I don’t have a relationship with him other than having read many of his contributions to the Gazette. I also don’t have his email. So I figured I’d share some thoughts with you about his opinion pieces. Stephen is clearly a thoughtful guy who does a great deal of reading on his topics. He also strikes me as a well-meaning individual who likely defers to the same Authority I do.
That said, if I were good friends with Stephen, I would exhort him to engage more on the issues and on the specificity of what someone whose position he opposes has said. It is a grave mistake, yet one that is indicative of a great shortcoming of our time, to uniformly label an entire group and profess convicting judgment over that broad swath of perceived adversaries. (Frankly, Doug, I’d offer you the same suggestion.) Stephen often has me intrigued by his own policy positions on any number of issues. Further, the moral compass from which many of his positions spring is admirable. Unfortunately, he displays a blindspot, dare I say, a certain kind of bigotry every time he utters a phrase such as “leftist-progressive Democrat” and labels the whole lot of them as acting “stupidly (evilly).”
Those who’ve supported certain Democratic candidates or specific initiatives from left-leaning politicians (such as my dad, who you’ll hopefully hang out with next week) can not all be found guilty of nodding in agreement as some random Senator says some randomly disagreeable utterance. “They” can’t all be charged with the offenses that some crazed neo-Jacobin unleashes at the latest rally for whatever on the campus of the University of Wherever. If Stephen opposes something someone said, it would be much more productive if he were able to articulate his opponent’s position more accurately, even allowing for nuance from that INDIVIDUAL. That is a much firmer place from which to engage effectively and powerfully. Look at the early 20th Century’s dialogue among the likes of G.K. Chesterton and Bertrand Russell, or in more recent years John Lennox and Christopher Hitchens. Our guys (if you want to look at them that way), Chesterton and Lennox were so much more poignant specifically because they took the time to really understand and grapple with their debate partners’ actual positions.
The likes of Chesterton and Lennox didn’t dismiss their rhetorical opponents by assuming the posture that said, “I know all I need to know about all you people because I saw what your guy said/did. So I’m here to tell you who you really are.” That’s what Stephen says in one or another every week… and that’s where he loses me… and that’s a shame because so much of what he has to say, the research he puts into it and his sincerely good intentions are all worth digesting.
I hope this makes some sense. I’d be interested in your thoughts. Best, Corey