How do you "settle" a scientific discussion when the facts are against your theory? Just don't give your opponents the opportunity to prove you wrong:
Still, if anything, the rhetoric of global warming and climate change has become even more frenzied since 2006, not less, even to the point where scientists skeptical of the warming theory are being gagged by the Obama administration and the UN.
At a time when lawmakers in the United States and Canada are considering new regulations on energy use, new taxes on its consumption and new controls on carbon dioxide emissions -- all of which could compound our economic woes -- they are hearing mostly just from one side of the debate.
The reason is obvious: all this global warming hysteria has never had anything to do with a scientific debate. It's been nothing but a socialist plan
to redistribute wealth on a global scale.
"To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country."
Well, George Orwell could see that coming. The only difference is that instead of using continuous warfare as a way to destroy the products of human labor (to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the people,) the green socialists came up with the idea of "fighting global warming". The result is pretty much the same: people have to work harder, pay more taxes, buy all those phony "carbon credits" just to get nothing in return. Except the moral satisfaction of doing their share to "save the planet".
No comments:
Post a Comment