Humanity Can't Survive Any More Guardian Columns

Apparently we're all going to die, at least according to global warmist Oliver Tickell. The only thing that puzzles me is whether the global warmists see that as a good thing, or a bad thing. After all, humans are evil, consuming, capitalists who repeatedly rape Mother Earth, right? Anyway, here are some snippets from comrade Tickell's hysterical piece in today's Guardian.

"We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global Warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction."

Hmm, well that seems very well thought out and reasoned. A 4C rise in the global temperature would indeed change the face of the earth, and humankind may have to radically adapt, if we can at all (I always like to bet on humanity). But is there any evidence that this is absolutely going to happen? There are many possibilities that would be disastrous to humanity, but we don't feel the need to destroy our economic prosperity without evidence. A bloodthirsty race of ant men with a taste for human infants could suddenly burst up from the Earth in central Asia and destroy most of the human race. Fortunately, geologists have yet to find evidence of giant ant tunnel labyrinths beneath Asia, but it could happen! We need to take action now! The human race can't survive in influx of 10 trillion murderous ant men! We'd be talking extinction!

Tickell goes on:

"To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth."

How did mankind increase the global temperature 6C 55.5 million years ago? The Earth doesn't warm and cool naturally. Humans are responsible. And surely humans could have stopped the Earth from warming 6C, we have that kind of power. We can control weather and climate. We don't have to wait for Al Gore's dream of falling into a vat of toxic waste and gaining Captain Planet-esque powers to come true. Tickell's got a plan to stop the warming this time, unlike those selfish humans of 55.5 million years ago:

"The answer? Scrap national allocations and place a single global cap on greenhouse gas emissions, applied "upstream" – for instance, at the oil refinery, coal-washing station and cement factory. Sell permits up to that cap in a global auction, and use the proceeds to finance solutions to climate change – accelerating the use of renewable energy, raising energy efficiency, protecting forests, promoting climate-friendly farming, and researching geoengineering technologies. And commit hundreds of billions of dollars per year to finance adaptation to climate change, especially in poor countries."

Interestingly, Mr. Tickell doesn't say who will enforce this "global cap on greenhouse gas emissions". How are we going to keep sovereign nations in line? Maybe we could make them a little less sovereign? I think I see where Mr. Tickell is going here. Let's have the UN regulate global emissions like you know they're dying to do. We'll give them sweeping new powers to fight global capitalism and move one step closer to a socialist one world government. Hooray! I'm sure in a hundred years, when we're all serfs on a UN commune, there will be no bitter feelings when the next ice age hits.

No Time Left For You

Nancy Pelosi has no time to entertain Republican proposals to end the congressional ban on off shore drilling because she's "trying to save the planet". How arrogant can you get? If Republicans don't fall over each other to get to a camera, then we're pretty much doomed. If we don't take this and run with it, then we're too stupid to run the country anyway.

The Democrats weren't elected by the American people to "save the planet" by keeping oil supply low. If Mrs. Pelosi wants to make that case, I say be my guest. I'd love to hear a different Republican every day lambaste the Democrats over oil prices. This is our issue. Its their fault that we aren't exploiting domestic sources of oil. (Well, we can also blame George H. W. Bush, but then again we can blame him for a lot) There's a reason that Congressional approval is in the teens. If only Republicans would grow a set and go on the attack.

Pelosi is completely inept. She thinks she still represents San Francisco. I hope it isn't news to House Republicans that most Americans don't want to become San Francisco. I shudder to think of even setting foot in that God forsaken place.

Seperation of Church and State in California

I'm shocked to discover that there is anything conservative about California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Lo and behold, however, he said this after he vetoed a Bill that would have required climate change be added to California schools' curriculum:

"I continue to believe that the state should refrain from being overly prescriptive in specific school curriculum, beyond establishing rigorous academic standards,"

Decentralization of power, in California? How scandalous. This coming from a State that seems to believe that it can mandate auto mileage standards for the rest of the country.

This may come as a surprise to some of you, but I believe that "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" does deserve a place in school curriculum, the World Religions class.

Another Reason Not to Vote for John McCain

Al "Manbearpig" Gore is calling for a Kennedyesque national effort to "produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years". I've already documented how fascistic I think this "Apollo Program" line of thought is, but there's another nugget in this article:

"The Nobel Prize-winning former vice president said fellow Democrat Barack Obama and Republican rival John McCain are "way ahead" of most politicians in the fight against global climate change."

Does Mr. McCain realize how aghast conservatives are when they hear a radical, anti capitalist, greeny like Al "Manbearpig" Gore say their presidential candidate is on the right track when it comes to global warming? Beyond the right, how about an average American who thinks the global warmists and environmentalists are wackjobs? What's he going to think? You don't have to be a conservative or a Republican to realize that Al Gore is bat shit crazy. Unfortunately, I'm sure McCain will be consistent and divine how conservatives want him to act and do the opposite. Expect to hear McCain refer to Gore as a "pioneer", or a "great American", or some such drivel in the coming days. Meanwhile, China chuckles to itself as it takes another shot of oil and grabs the reigns of history.

Well La-De-Fricken-Da

The Chinese say they are preparing to "modify the weather" if need be for the opening ceremonies. Um, ok. I guess we should all learn Mandarin now and prepare to submit to our glorious new ChiCom masters since they appear to have a SPECTREesque weather machine that can destroy us all (and they blamed Bush for Katrina). On the bright side, the environmentalists can throw in the towel now that China can press a button and stop any "global warming" that's occurring. Everyone, back to your SUVs!!

Psychologists Identify "Climate Change Delusion"

Yeah, I identified "Climate Change Delusion" as soon as I realized Al "Manbearpig" Gore was the main proponent, but you shouldn't call it a delusion. Its not cool to ridicule people's religious beliefs.

Trees? Screw Trees!

What's wrong with California, let me count the ways. . .

I can't imagine how conservative Californians put up with this crap. A global warming sticker on every new car? What's the point? To ostracize people who drive what they want and are willing to pay for it?

Now, I've got no problem with recycling, cleaning up our messes, and common sense. "Don't empty your septic tank into the stream." "Hey, don't throw away that can brother, recycle it." "Hey man, don't build your campfire at the base of that redwood." "Bro, you should stop strangling condors for fun," etc. etc. Blah, blah, blah. But you couldn't just peacefully try and persuade us through rational discussion. You had to become hysterical and begin imposing your beliefs on the rest of us. You know what? Fine.

I'm moving to California and I want the car that puts out the most pollution. If one is the worst rating, give me a zero. In fact I'm going to drive down the street towing a trailer full of burning tires, and you know what? You environmentalists drove me to it. I wouldn't provoke you if you hadn't messed with me, but now its on. I'm going to drive around in a tank that burns pure crude oil in the most inefficient manner possible. I don't care how much it costs. I'm going to drive down the road spraying aerosol cans out the window. I'm not going to brake for animals, in fact, I'm planning on dumping crude oil on any wild animal I can find. I'm not even going to turn my car off, I'm just going to let it idle all night while I sleep with all the lights on and the refrigerator door open. I want a carbon footprint bigger than Al Gore's. Trees? Screw trees. I'm cutting em down for no discernible reason. Does that make me a monster? Maybe, but remember you created me. I'm mad as hell and I'm not taking it anymore.

On second thought, nah. A transgender, antiwar protester from San Francisco would probably follow me home and strangle me with his/her fabulous new neckerchief.

I Think Baby Pandas Cause Global Warming

A new submission for the Warmlist.

Someday, in the next Dark Age, some monk in Scranton will be studying the fall of our Civilization, and he'll say to himself, "Those Assholes had flat screens and thought it was a problem?"

Workers of the World Unite to Save the Planet!

Great column by Bret Stephens in yesterday's Wall Street Journal that hits on a point I've been making here:

"The first (reason for an irrational belief in global warming) is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore – population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations – and global warming provides a justification."

This is why I call them "Global Warmists". Its ideology, not science.

War of the Warm World

Want to know how all the global warming pseudoscience is already hurting ordinary Americans?

I don't understand why insurance companies are being criticized, when you manufacture a fake crisis, people are going to react.

Does Yelling "Heil Hansen" Produce Too Much Carbon?

Anyone who doesn't believe that the environmental movement has become a haven for anti-capitalist types like Communists and Fascists needs to take a good look at NASA scientist James Hansen's testimony today before Congress. According to The Guardian he plans to call:

"for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer."

Regardless of your opinion on climate change, this is Stalinist. Outlawing your opponent's opinion and making free speech a high crime "against humanity and nature" is a bald faced tyranny that I'd hoped would stay relegated to Canada. Oil companies doing too well refuting your points? Just make fossil fuel apology illegal. Much easier to make your case when you make your opponents out to be the moral equivalent of the Nazis. Stalin first found this handy when he branded Trotsky and any other Communist he found inconvenient a "fascist". Now those found inconvenient are branded "deniers" which implies a moral equivalence that I hope outrages anyone who had a family member killed in a Nazi death camp.

There is a deeper point here however, and one that must be understood in order to see where this is leading. Like many global warmists, Hanson is screaming that "radical steps need to be taken immediately if the 'perfect storm' of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable." This is a favorite global warmist tactic. There is no debate to be had, the crisis is now. "Deniers" are merely filibustering and wasting what little time we have left. Society must unite under the government for a superhuman effort. Hansen says "the new US president would have to take the initiative analogous to Kennedy's decision to go to the moon." Global warmists didn't invent this tactic, its been in use since the days of Woodrow Wilson. Use a crisis -- real or imagined-- and exploit it to expand the powers of government and unify the State into one combined will. Wilson did it during World War One, FDR during the Great Depression and World War Two, Kennedy with Space Program, LBJ with the "War on Poverty". What Americans need to be perfectly clear on is what ideology underpins this line of thought. Manufacturing a crisis in order to unify the collective will behind the leadership of the State is a Fascist method of governing. I cannot emphasize this enough. Anytime a crisis is given the moral equivalence of war (as the global warmists have given the fight against "climate change") and there is a call to abandon selfish interests (your SUVs) and unite in common cause with the State, it is fascism. From Wilson's "War Socialism" to LBJ's "Great Society", national calls to action have been right out of the fascist play book. Even the "War on Drugs" is at its heart fascistic.

While Ike may have seen the costs of putting a man on the moon as a boondoggle, this green effort has more ominous consequences than 25 billion dollars to stick it to the Soviets. This crisis is created by the celebrated "American way of life". Its our cars, our food, the temperature of our homes, even the light bulbs we use. This call for Americans to work together on a new "Manhattan Project" or "Apollo Mission" to combat "climate change" is a permission slip for the government into the life of the private citizen that would make Hitler drool. This is a back door attack on capitalism and must be recognized as such. Capitalism itself isn't directly questioned, just its results: unfettered access to fossil fuels, oil company profits, bigger cars, private jets, unlimited travel, larger homes, cheap light bulbs, cheap anything really. Instead of our affluence coming at the expense of the "proletariat", it now comes at the expense of "Mother Earth". For a self described middle-of-the-road conservative, James Hansen has certainly let himself become the pawn of big government socialists.

Al Gore - The Fairy Queen

An Italian opera is being written for Al Gore's religious text/movie "An Inconvenient Truth", set for the 2011 season. That will be too late. We have to get the Milan opera crowd on board with carbon neutrality now or we're all screwed.

Everyday is Carbon Belch Day. . .

For Al Gore. Be sure to mark your calenders, June 12 is "Carbon Belch Day"

Blue Planet In Green Shackles

Kudos to Czech President Vaclav Klaus for calling a Red a Red. Don't hold your breath waiting for Al Gore to take up his challenge of a debate on global warming. The Supreme Pontiff of the world's fastest growing religion has declared the debate over before it began. Hopefully some of the major book chains will carry Klaus' new book: "Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?", don't hold your breath though.

Red and Green Isn't Just For Christmas Anymore

If you want to see what America could possibly look like in the future, you only have to look across the Atlantic to socialist Europe. There, leftists have succeeded in creating the welfare states that liberals seek to create here. Europe has plunged into social statism much more enthusiastically than America has, so we have the benefit of seeing the endgame of liberal ideas and policy proposals before we implement them. Today, the Daily Mail has a chilling piece on Tory MP Tim Yeo's plan for "carbon ration cards". The scheme would roughly work like this:

"Every adult in the UK would be given an annual carbon dioxide allowance in kgs and a special carbon card.

The scheme would cover road fuel, flights and energy bills.

Every time someone paid for road fuel, flights or energy, their carbon account would be docked.

A litre of petrol would use up 2.3kg in carbon, while every 1.3 miles of airline flight would use another 1kg.

When paying for petrol, the card would need to swiped at the till. It would be a legal offence to buy petrol without using a card.

When paying online, or by direct debit, the carbon account would be debited directly.

Anyone who doesn't use up their credits in a year can sell them to someone who wants more credits. Trading would be done through specialist companies."

This is a veritable statist goody bag that should make any freedom loving American cringe. Essentially, the British government would put limits on its citizens' life styles, their travel, their vacations, their diets, and the temperature of their homes just for starters. Go beyond that limit and an individual must "buy top-up credits from individuals who haven't used up their allowance". The article doesn't go into the consequences if an individual doesn't buy more credits.

What's worse, the scheme would criminalize the purchase of gasoline without a government issued card. "Ah, Mr. Smith, you wish to purchase petrol? Papers please comrade." In other words, the government would control the sale of a commodity essential to the lives and livelihoods of most of the citizenry. The restrictions it places on travel alone reminds one of a more totalitarian Europe that many thought dead and gone. "York is a long way from here Mr. Smith, what business have you there to justify the use of so much of the State's fuel?"

I'm certainly not an expert on the carbon footprint of the food I buy, but the mere idea of the government being involved is startlingly Orwellian. How much carbon is produced to make a 2 liter bottle of soda? What's going to be the yearly Big Mac allowance? Will vegetables be allowed? Will farmers be able to harvest wheat and corn fields considering they convert carbon into oxygen?

This may seem ridiculous, but do you trust the British Parliament or any government to police itself? To keep itself from from venturing into the absurd once it has license? Essentially this scheme would allow the government to regulate demand. As a consequence, they control supply. If only a certain amount of wooden bookcases can be bought with the available pool of carbon credits, the bookcase maker is going to have to cut production to stay solvent (and perhaps raise the price). The same with oil, coal, steel, etc. The government will have de facto control of the means of production. How long until they make it de jure? Still seem ridiculous? Perhaps, but this is at least a step in that direction.

This needs to be exposed for what it is. Anti-capitalist, anti-consumerist, socialism at best. At worst something much darker. For the first time in western history, societies are on the verge of intentionally lowering their standards of living. Since the first city states emerged in the Mediterranean World, Western Civilization has made steady progress toward freedom and abundance. Its wasn't without its setbacks, but eventually the ideas of personal and economic freedom lead to unimaginable prosperity. Our children are not unhealthy for lack of food, but because they are too fat! We are want for nothing, and are told its a problem. We have to tighten our belts and make do with less instead of trying to make more. A little more misery is the price for sustaining human life. The Communists made us miserable, but at least they promised a glorious future.

The "regressive" environmental movement aims to stifle capitalism, not for the Proletariat, but with the same result. The "sustainability" dogma is a branch off the Marxist tree. "Capitalism has failed, the earth is dying, the State must intervene and put limits on individual prosperity or else the robber barons and industrialists will destroy us all." At least they're finally being truthful though. Now they say to our faces that they're going to ration the hell out of us. That we must make do with less. That the future is grim and we may not survive it. That prosperity is the problem. It is a sad commentary on the crisis of confidence our Civilization is experiencing that we'd contemplate throwing the game and ceding the future to the Chinas of the world. Let's hope they're a benign hegemon.

All three Presidential candidates here in America buy into this manufactured crisis, though I don't think low enough of McCain to believe he sees it for what it is. Make no mistake Senator, a cap and trade scheme is not a capitalist solution to this imagined problem. It cedes a point that must be staunchly opposed. Once you accept the premise and establish the precedent, much of the fight is already lost and we're resigned to try and keep our footing on the slippery slope.