Green Liars and Other Truths (Asteroid Anyone?)

Read the previous entry about NBC (now officially the "Propaganda" network, as CNN is officially the "Liar" network), and about "green" propaganda week on NBC.

My entry had one significant omission, as I omitted the biggest "green" lie of all. What is that lie? Is not an asserted 200 foot rise in sea levels, when the estimates--scientific "consensus--from scientists who actually buy into the "global warming" fraud--are for a rise of 2 to 4 feet in sea levels by 2100. After all, there is little or no evidence of an actual, significant rise in sea levels over the past decade, or even over the past 100 years.

No. These outrageous exaggerations (lies), such as the 200 ft. rise in sea levels wiping out the people living on coasts everywhere, are merely the surface propaganda. The fundamental lie of the "greens" is the repsonse to complaints out their exaggerations and lies (the response of a religion, and not "science"): "Can we afford to take the chance that sea levels will actually rise 200 feet, even if that is unlikely? What harm does it do to be "green" ("moral and spiritual issue", according to high priest Gore), when "green" is the right moral thing to be (even if those "moral" people are addicted to exaggerations and lies)?

You can make the same (better, actually) argument about asteroids. If a big enough asteroid hits the Earth, it will probably kill all life on Earth. It would certainly destroy all civilization on Earth. Further, "science" agrees (more than on "global warming") that such asteroids have hit the Earh in the past, and that it is entirely possible that one will hit the Earth in the future.

Remember, with an asteroid we are talking about the possible end of all life on Earth. So it is unlikely to happen any time soon. It is still a definite possibility. Given the seriousness of this possibility, should we not be bankrupting the country (throwing money at NASA) in order to make sure it does not happen?

It is an absolute fact that "global warming" (short of a solar flare large enough to kill all life on Earth--another possibility) will not destroy all life on Earth. In fact, "global warming" made civilization possible, since otherwise we would still be in an Ice Age. The whole idea of "global warming" as a bad thing depends on your perspective, and what year you are looking at the situation. More life on Earth lives in tropical environments than in colder environments. Dinosaurs found warmth to be just fine.

You say that it does not make sense to bankrupt the country, and destroy our economy, to try to prevent the remote possibility of an asteroid hitting the Earth (a much bigger disaster than "global wrming")? You say that it is unclear that we can even prevent an asteroid from striking the Earth, even with great expenditures of money? Ah. But you have not been listening to the priests of "global warming". This matter of stopping killer asteroids is a "moral and spiritual matter"--necessary to protect all of those species on Earth that will be wiped out if a killer asteroid strikes the Earth.

Let me be as blunt as I can be: the chances of sea levels rising 200 feet in the next hundred years are probably less than the chances of a large asteroid hitting the Earth over that period. Nor is it clear that we can stop "global warming"--if it exists anymore, no matter what we do. Now there is an affirmative advantage to ignoring the possible mass destruction of a large asteroid hitting the Earth. While such an event would cause massive extinction, and loss of life, it would almost certainly "cure" "global warming". Such an asteroid is one of the "explanations" for the disappearance of the dinosaurs, and such an asteroid strike would put enough material in the atmosphere to dramatically cool the Earth. In fact, if we were really serious about the threat of "global warming' (instead of using it as a bogeyman to advance a leftist agenda), we would be working hard on the idea of throwing material into our atmosphere (or other, similarly expensive ideas), which is one method to directly "cure" "global warming".

Nope. This is a Big Lie. It is a Big Lie to suggest that the threat is so great, and the downside so small, that there is no downside to addressing the "problem" of "global warming". The downside is bankruptcy for us all, and the downfall of our industrial civilizationi.

Look at the auto industry. "Global warming" legislation has already contributed to the threatened extinction of American auto makers. My brother (that co-owner of a trucking company) says that, by 2010, recent environmental regulation will have increased the cost of trucks in this country by 20%--virtually, and maybe actually, requiring that truck engine exhaust be cleaner than the air used by the engine. My brother is doubtful that these vast increases in cots imposed by the government (including other increases in my brother's cost of operation) are really effective to either clean the air or prevent "global warming". However, they are very effective at threatening (further) our economy.

It is Barack "World" Obama who said, in San Francisco--where he seems to tell most of his truths, that "green" (cap and trade tax) policies will bankrupt the cola industry and utilities using coal power, while causing the cost of electricity to "skyrocket".

I repeat: The downside of an hysterical religion of "global warming" is the destruction of our industrial civilization. We would be better off worrying about asteroids (which we should be doing, in a rational way, if we can figure out cost effective ways to reduce the chances of a large asteroid destroying civilization on Earth).