As I have been watching this Global Warming farce play out I have come to notice that the Green Movement has become broken down into two main categories. Warmers and Wilders.
Warmers are those who subscribe to all the fantacy that is part and parcel of Anthropogenic Climate Change. They demand dramatic changes from industrialized societies because they claim the world is at a tipping point to disaster if we don’t stop putting CO2 in the atmosphere. As David Hansen claimed in his book, “Storms of My Grandchildren” that we were facing a "sweltering Earth devoid of life”.
All of this in spite of the fact that CO2 is a naturally occurring gas that is a good thing for plants and animals, of which mankind’s total contribution is insignificant to the overall volume, especially when compared to one volcanic eruption.
Wilders is my term for those who insist that more land be devoted to wildlife, especially wildlife that may be endangered. This includes animals and plants. They believe, irrationally, that every species must be saved at any cost in order for life to continue to exist. These modern Druids would have us believe that all life is so interconnected that the loss of one species would cause overwhelming disaster. History of course shows that this is blatant nonsense because over 95% of all species that has ever lived has gone extinct.
What I find fascinating about this is that many of these people are Darwinian evolutionists and supposedly believe in survival of the fittest. Why then do they attempt to save species that are clearly biologically incompetent? Is it possible they are holding two diametrically opposing views in their heads at the same time and believe that both are correct?
Thomas Sowell once said that there were three questions that must be answered by those who demand change.
- Compared to what?
- At what cost?
- What hard evidence do you have?
The greenies had always been against nuclear power. Then, when this CO2 issue came up regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming there were some who changed their views and decided that nuclear was acceptable to save the planet. They were promptly vilified by the rest of the green community. At this point the wilders and the warmers decided to agree that nuclear was still evil.
Previously the greenies touted the idea that everything should be changed from nuclear, coal and oil based energy sources to natural gas. However the warmers decided that natural gas is bad because it emits CO2 into the atmosphere. So now they are all on board with the idea that nuclear, coal, oil and natural gas energy based sources are evil.
What about hydroelectric? No exhausts, no pollution of any kind! Good, right! Yes, if you are a warmer. But not if you are a wilder! You see hydroelectric alters the natural flow of rivers and changes the environment for so many fish and plants. So hydroelectric is out too.
All the greenies were absolutely in love with bio-fuels at one time. An all natural energy source! The warmers think it is the cat’s pajamas. However, the wilders are against it because they have discovered that everything their adversaries have been saying right along is right. Bio-fuel from food is driving up the price of food worldwide.
As a result more and more land mass is being devoted to growing corn and other commodities thereby eliminating forest areas for wild animals. So then we have another conflict between the warmers and the wilders! The wilders have also pointed out that forests are being stripped around the world to provide organic material for cellulose based fuels. So now the wilders want the government subsidies stopped for biomass fuel production, and without those subsidies biomass cannot exist.
Wind energy is one of the most beloved sources of energy by the warmers. However the wilders point out that these gigantic fans are killing birds and bats at such an alarming rate that wind energy is wreaking havoc with those populations, including endangered species…..and in large numbers. If a small fraction of that number was killed by any traditional energy program they would be put out of business by the federal government under the Endangered Species Act.
Solar energy has been one of the great promotions of the green movement. Only it takes untold acres to supply the nation with the needed energy to live our lives in the manner we have become accustomed. The warmers are willing to do this, but the wilders point out that this amount of acreage will disrupt way too much habitat, which will affect wildlife and of course, way too many tortoise, some of whom are endangered.
Something that isn’t mentioned nearly enough is that even if the world changed from traditional sources of energy, i.e., power plants, to solar and/or wind we would still have to build and maintain traditional power plants as a back-up. You see, the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. That means we will be paying for energy we don’t use in order to pay for energy we don’t need.
The greenies are against every know source of energy production known to mankind, so here is my question; what are their answers to Sowell's three questiongs?
Q. As opposed to what?
A. They are offering nothing that is better than what we have, and what they are offering is opposed by many in their own camp.
Q. How much will it cost?
A. The financial costs are completely unsustainable and the social costs are morally unsustainable.
Q. What hard evidence do you have?
A. Everything they tout ends up being so full of holes that for all practical purposes their "evidence" is a lie.
Tell me; how long should we have wait for them to come up with a viable solution to any of these imaginary issues they are constantly caterwauling about? How long before we come to the realization that the green movement is terrific at finding fault, but they don't have a clue when it comes to finding solutions? How long will it take for us to realize that all these modern advances they decry has been wonderful for humanity? How long before we realize that everything they offer as solutions has left dystopia in its wake?
These shouldn’t be difficult questions for the most casual observer. Their misanthropic history should make the answer to these questions axiomatic.