An "Inconvenient Truth" for those who are invested in the "Inconvenient LIE" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml
It's CYA time. Since there has been no global warming since 1998, and NONE of their computer models predicted anything but a continual and steady rise in global temperature, they are now scrambling to produce some "science" to explain the unexplainable.
The Left needed another lie to ensnare another generation of voters and the environment coupled with apocalyptic visions of the future was hypnotic enough to do it. The previous one, the War on Poverty, completely failed but there is no exit strategy for it because it still gets votes due to class envy... Helping blacks is another side-issue lie that keeps Blacks on the reservation, right where the Left absolutely needs them to be.......
People will never regain trust in science Unless the Left can create another temporarily believable lie You think people would catch on, but there is always a new generation to fool
Interesting article. I don't see what the fuss is about. If you're conservative or liberal our actions should be the same. Liberals believe in cutting back on green house producing fuels and conservatives should believe in being conservative with natural resources. The methods each goes about this won't be exactly the same but the end results should be going in the same direction. This is one area where conservatives and liberals should be on the same side. This is one of a few issues where I don't understand why liberals and conservatives differ. Some problems aren't liberal/conservative or republican/democrat they are simply problems.
I am a conservative and I am not in favor of "being conservative with natural resources". You obviously do not understand conservatism. I am in favor of the market being allowed to function with as little government interference as is necessary (and then cut that in half). Then the market will self-regulate the use of natural resources in the most efficient manner. I am also in favor of stiff regulations on enviromentalists with long jail times for perpetuating environmental lies so as to impose socialism and communism on free markets and cause the deaths of millions of people, like the DDT scare of the /70's and the ethanol/food shortage debacle now.
Your right according to your definition of conservatism I don't understand it. I was thinking being a conservative had something to do with being conservative. I don't believe your assumption about unregulated markets being the best for us and I don't think history proves your argument either.
Yeah? Well tell that to the millions of people going hungry because of government imposed mandates and subsidization of ethanol and biofuel production...
Let me give it a try. You are confusing conservative with conservationist. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but they are not the same thing. Conservatives distrust government, since history teaches us that government is inefficient and often is motivated by hidden agendas. The history of the former Soviet Union is instructive. A country with vast natural resources and a highly educated and intelligent population was plagued by chronic shortages and misinvestment. Of course, the market system has its own flaws. Regarding the use of natural resources, one of the bigger flaws is the problem of externalities, or costs that are not borne by the people who caused them. Pollution is an obvious example. Society at large has a valid interest in seeing that costs are imposed on those who cause the problem. Otherwise, they are being subsidized. In a democracy, it is often necessary to convince voters a crisis exists to generate a consensus for taking painful yet necessary long term steps to avoid or alleviate future problems. Funding social security and medicare are two good examples. Liberals view the threat of human-caused global warming as such a threat. Conservatives sense a fake crisis, created to justify imposing draconian limits on use of carbon-based fuels and to greatly increase governmental control over the economy, both domestically and internationally. Fake crises have spawned many disastrous overreaches of government power, whether to justify a war on poverty or drugs or a non-existent missile gap or perhaps a war in Iraq. With this history, it is natural for conservatives to insist on convincing proof before incurring the huge costs that global warming alarmists would impose on us.
There is an illustrative story from Soviet history about how the their top down market system worked. Most industries operated on a government quota system. When the economy was slipping into destruction and materials were becoming hard to acquire a major shoe factory began producing proportionately more children's shoes to make their scarce materials go further and still meet the mandated quota. Of course this led to a shortage of adult shoes in the market. But government regulations were upheld...