Did you know today was Earth Day? I sure didn't. The WSJ editorial board did, and put forward an optimistic view on our efforts in reducing what we put into the air. Since 1971 the output of carbon monoxide is down 55%, sulfur is down 50%, particulates by 80% and lead by 98%. As the Journal points out you won't hear the global warming crowd complimenting this achievement.The reasons are obvious and not flattering. The left (yep, I will lump them all together) is first and foremost negative as a group. They are the glass half empty club. I use to think this was just the case when the president happen to be Republican and it was just a refusal to acknowledge anything positive could happen under their reign. But a quick look at the rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims during periods when the Oval Office was occupied by a Democrat proves that theory wrong. It is clearly more obvious during Republican terms as it has been during the Bush years. While independent reports on the economy, health care, education, the environment or pretty much anything may show either positive progress, or just plain old good news, the left will not acknowledge and even claim the opposite is true.
Beyond just being a glum lot, liberals will not take note of the environmental progress because to do so takes the wind out of the global warming sails...or would even make the movement irrelevant. It's similar to the black leaders claiming nothing has changed since the '60's. What's interesting is that intelligent and educated liberals have made up their mind on global warming with a sample size (compared to the age of the planet) they would normally consider laughable.
There is a blind faith that global warming is a fact much like blind faith of an evangelical Christian makes the existence of God a certainty. I love to lump those two groups together! The emotional attachment the global warming crowd has to their position also blinds them on understanding those who don't buy it. They assume the opposition ignores their evidence and won't accept what it says. No, the evidence is thin and also ignores weather and geological cycles since earths creation. They assume opponents don't believe global warming exists. No, most believe man could be effecting climate, we just don't leap to that conclusion based on the evidence to date. There is also evidence ignored by the climate alarmist (gases and particulates put into the atmosphere by the planet and not man) and so the integrity of position is put in question.
Recently the comparisons and claimed links by such blind Chicken Littles as Al Gore are morally corrupt. Even indirect comparisons to Nazis, or Nazi sympathizers, is corrupt and irresponsible. To claim that Katrina is a direct result is simply politically motivated and not factual. Playing on the emotions of the intellectual challenged poor affected in the region shows the character of those involved. The Journal says Gore uses a W. Churchill line as his way of linking the evil of Nazi Germany to those who don't swallow global warming hook, line and sinker. And the label of fanatic the Journal gives Gore is just given the definition they quote, also from Churchill: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." And of course somehow global warming is more Dubya's fault in the last 6 yrs than it was in Clinton's previous 8, or anybody before..funny how that worked out!
Living in Silicon Valley I am surrounded by hard core liberal global warming disciples in my neighborhood. Oblivious to their hypocrisy I watch a plethora of Hummers, Suburbans, Expeditions, Excursions and Range Rovers each weekday morning rushing to work from our tree lined streets with one occupant.
And on the strange and bizarre factless sheep following of liberalism rolls on.
No comments:
Post a Comment