Let us not mix pollution and global warming. I believe that pollution exists however just because an area is polluted and causes diseases in people and animals, the effects on the environment are never permanent. If the source of pollution is removed, the area will clean itself up.
1. How global warming theory of today is different from global cooling theory of 1970s, which predicted that the earth would slip off its axis and polar icecaps would melt and we would drown? And humans could not have undone it even if they removed all the effects of progress, technology and civilization. Is this why it is called now “global climate change” because these so-called scientists cannot decide if the earth is cooling or warming?
2. Liberals claim to be very sophisticated in their outlook and they reserve simplicity for foolish Conservatives who believe in absolutes. Why do they then so quickly jump to blaming humans for global warming instead of considering broader scientific theories like maybe alignment of planets causing some gravitational pull of solar flairs which warm the Earth in cycles, etc? Why such an unsophisticated rushing to conclusions and instant laying of blame?
3. Liberals believe in the inability of human masses to provide for themselves, therefore the government must be empowered to give these helpless ones a handout. Are we really that incapable or are we so powerful that we can destroy the Earth, which according to the same Liberals, has been around for millions and billions of years? Has the “primordial slime” become so smart and powerful that it is capable of destroying the very planet upon which it has crawled so long?
4. If carbon dioxide is the number one green house gas then the plant life and not cars are its chief emitter, is it not? As most of us have learned in school botany class, as the Earth makes its full circle, the plants on the lit side convert carbon dioxide into oxygen and on the dark side, convert oxygen into carbon dioxide. This process is called photosynthesis. If we somehow were able to remove all carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the plants would die.
5. It is very exciting to note a certain level of hypocrisy among preachers of human-caused global warming, who fly in private jets, ride armored sport utility vehicles, live in mansions, lavished with every imaginable luxury which consume tens of times more energy then average American and yet they tell us to conserve, drive little electric lawn-mower with seat belts for cars or even better ride public transportation, live in little houses or even better to get rid of all technology, civilization and progress.
6. The latest from Al Gore the environ-wacko-in-chief who keeps insisting that “growing animals for human consumption produces more green house gases then cars” including SUVs. I doubt that he is a vegetarian. But to suggest now that flutuating cows are the biggest threat to our planet’s “fragile eco-system” is bizarre to say the least.
7. There are three steps to proving a scientific fact, observation, theory and test. This is called a scientific method. Anything untested stays in the realm of theory. A civilized debate is at the core of true science. This is how scientists safeguard the integrity of science. On the other hand the environmental scientists talk about consensus. They do not tolerate debate. When their theories are questioned, the spoiler will instantly be kicked out of their circle. These self-proclaimed scientists do not observe, theorize, test and debate but they state their unproven theories as facts and then persecute those who disagree with them. They blacklist, deny tenures and assassinate character. That is how they keep scientific community in fear and their false sciences propagated.
рео. There is no such thing as scientific creed or dogma. They belong in religion. There is no such thing as scientific consensus. Politicians reach consensus when they compromise. And that is exactly what environmentalism is. It is religion and politics. If these people could only become a holy inquisition and burn scientists at the stake. But this is nothing short of religious and political war on science. Because global warming is nothing short of a creed of liberalism. Which finally brings me to its political roots.
9. Are not environ-wackoes former communist? They are indeed. They hate free enterprise system, corporations, which employ thousands and millions. They hate all progress. Some of them like earth liberation front and sierra club are domestic terrorists. They burn down SUV dealerships. If you read history of communism, you will find that very few communists were purely theoretic in their idealistic thinking. Most of them were thugs and terrorists in their beginnings. All of us know this famous phrase, uttered by Ulyanoff-Lenin after his brother’s execution. His brother was one of the assassins of Tsar. Lenin said, “We shall take another way!” which became the Red October revolution. And Joseph Dzugasvillee aka Stalin ambushed local convoys for living in his native country of Georgia in the beginning of his communist career. And so in late 50s early 60s this was a plot by some liberal democrat senators to impose more government regulation on American companies by arguing that there was pollution which would eventually destroy the environment. And these are the origins of this religious and political movement.
1. How global warming theory of today is different from global cooling theory of 1970s, which predicted that the earth would slip off its axis and polar icecaps would melt and we would drown? And humans could not have undone it even if they removed all the effects of progress, technology and civilization. Is this why it is called now “global climate change” because these so-called scientists cannot decide if the earth is cooling or warming?
2. Liberals claim to be very sophisticated in their outlook and they reserve simplicity for foolish Conservatives who believe in absolutes. Why do they then so quickly jump to blaming humans for global warming instead of considering broader scientific theories like maybe alignment of planets causing some gravitational pull of solar flairs which warm the Earth in cycles, etc? Why such an unsophisticated rushing to conclusions and instant laying of blame?
3. Liberals believe in the inability of human masses to provide for themselves, therefore the government must be empowered to give these helpless ones a handout. Are we really that incapable or are we so powerful that we can destroy the Earth, which according to the same Liberals, has been around for millions and billions of years? Has the “primordial slime” become so smart and powerful that it is capable of destroying the very planet upon which it has crawled so long?
4. If carbon dioxide is the number one green house gas then the plant life and not cars are its chief emitter, is it not? As most of us have learned in school botany class, as the Earth makes its full circle, the plants on the lit side convert carbon dioxide into oxygen and on the dark side, convert oxygen into carbon dioxide. This process is called photosynthesis. If we somehow were able to remove all carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the plants would die.
5. It is very exciting to note a certain level of hypocrisy among preachers of human-caused global warming, who fly in private jets, ride armored sport utility vehicles, live in mansions, lavished with every imaginable luxury which consume tens of times more energy then average American and yet they tell us to conserve, drive little electric lawn-mower with seat belts for cars or even better ride public transportation, live in little houses or even better to get rid of all technology, civilization and progress.
6. The latest from Al Gore the environ-wacko-in-chief who keeps insisting that “growing animals for human consumption produces more green house gases then cars” including SUVs. I doubt that he is a vegetarian. But to suggest now that flutuating cows are the biggest threat to our planet’s “fragile eco-system” is bizarre to say the least.
7. There are three steps to proving a scientific fact, observation, theory and test. This is called a scientific method. Anything untested stays in the realm of theory. A civilized debate is at the core of true science. This is how scientists safeguard the integrity of science. On the other hand the environmental scientists talk about consensus. They do not tolerate debate. When their theories are questioned, the spoiler will instantly be kicked out of their circle. These self-proclaimed scientists do not observe, theorize, test and debate but they state their unproven theories as facts and then persecute those who disagree with them. They blacklist, deny tenures and assassinate character. That is how they keep scientific community in fear and their false sciences propagated.
рео. There is no such thing as scientific creed or dogma. They belong in religion. There is no such thing as scientific consensus. Politicians reach consensus when they compromise. And that is exactly what environmentalism is. It is religion and politics. If these people could only become a holy inquisition and burn scientists at the stake. But this is nothing short of religious and political war on science. Because global warming is nothing short of a creed of liberalism. Which finally brings me to its political roots.
9. Are not environ-wackoes former communist? They are indeed. They hate free enterprise system, corporations, which employ thousands and millions. They hate all progress. Some of them like earth liberation front and sierra club are domestic terrorists. They burn down SUV dealerships. If you read history of communism, you will find that very few communists were purely theoretic in their idealistic thinking. Most of them were thugs and terrorists in their beginnings. All of us know this famous phrase, uttered by Ulyanoff-Lenin after his brother’s execution. His brother was one of the assassins of Tsar. Lenin said, “We shall take another way!” which became the Red October revolution. And Joseph Dzugasvillee aka Stalin ambushed local convoys for living in his native country of Georgia in the beginning of his communist career. And so in late 50s early 60s this was a plot by some liberal democrat senators to impose more government regulation on American companies by arguing that there was pollution which would eventually destroy the environment. And these are the origins of this religious and political movement.
