[Dean's World] Ali Eteraz: Why Do Democrats Love Global Warming

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Ali Eteraz:
Why Do Democrats Love Global Warming
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1182543563.shtml


   I really have no time for the politicization of environment. I do my
   recycling, don't use styrofoam and I want my prosecutors to target
   criminal dumping. Let's sign up for an international protocol and
   enforce it via the UN. That's about it. The rest is hubris. This
   article below I got via email. It is too polemical for me to say that
   I agree with it. But clearly this guy is frustrated and confused by
   the environment obsession as well.

     Why Do Democrats Really Love Global Warming?

     Simple, it gives them a chance to be Democrats,i.e., a chance to be
     part of a herd. Of course, a herd needs a leader and so Democrats
     must always have one. No one ever made this point more innocently
     and more accurately than George Clooney when he recently said,
     "when Obama walks into a room you see a leader". Never mind that
     Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans instantly transformed all of
     human history by founding America to be free of leaders. To
     Democrats, the need to be joyously and caringly led in a spirit of
     community by a benevolent leader feels deeply profound regardless
     of what its real meaning might be. It moves their very soul in a
     way that is virtually indisguishable from their confused need to be
     part of a loving family.

     The animalistic Democratic herd instinct played out in history
     until it was gainsaid, at least temporarily, by Thomas Jefferson.
     One might have thought the success of America would have put a
     permanent end to the mentality that produced Caesars, Czars, and
     Kings, but instead it just spawned new creative forms of herd
     gov'ts that purported to be superior to the older failed forms, and
     superior even to Jeffersonian freedom. Theses included, primarily,
     Nazis, Communists, Fascists, Socialists, Liberals and American
     Democrats. But the collectivist herd mentality of the Democrats
     just never worked very well no matter what form it took. Freedom
     was the obvious intellectual victor. In Jeffersonian America , at
     least, the wisdom of the masses was replaced by the genocide of the
     elite, but that did not change millions of years of evolution that
     left many human beings with the herd genes of their animal
     ancestors and a relatively small rational brain with which to
     discipline those genes for a modern age.

     So what's a innovative Democrat to do? He must find a new rationale
     for a powerful central gov't that brings the herd together once
     again, and global warming provides the perfect rationale. Yesterday
     Sen. Harry Reid alluded to it this way: "renewable forms of energy
     are all around us just waiting to be utilized". He seemed like an
     earnest Girl Scout leader describing to all the summer campers the
     meaningful communitarian fun they were going to have while joined
     together around the camp fire to save the planet. Could the herd
     have a higher more inspiring reason to following along? Harry Reid
     and the Democrats seem to have topped even Karl Marx, and just when
     you thought it could never happen again, let alone here.

     But, because global warming appears to be just another rationale
     around which a herd can develop , it makes no rational sense to
     thoughtful Jeffersonian Republicans. If scientists agree that the
     warming from to 1900 to 2000 (when the carbon based industrial
     revolution reached full steam) was only 1.3 degrees F how could
     that be significant given that temperature rose more from 1800 to
     1900 (before the Industrial Revolution) owning to an end to the
     universally recognized, Little Ice Age? When George Washington
     crossed the Delaware it was laden with ice, people were walking
     from Manhattan to Staten Island, and the Themes River ice was
     parceled out to the homeless for living space in winter. There is
     no doubt that temperature rose more during the century immediately
     prior to the Industrial Revolution than in the century during it.
     If you then conclude that the 20th Century was too soon to measure
     cumulative effects of the Industrial Revolution then there is no
     relevant period from which to cite data about warming.

     If that doesn't discourage true believers, consider then that if
     mankind raised the temperature only 1.3 degrees in the 100 years
     from 1900 to 2000, then wouldn't modern technology enable us to
     lower it 3 degrees in just 3 days now? Actually yes, and we did it
     on 9/15/2001 when we again allowed jet planes into the air in the
     aftermath of 9/11 whereupon their exhaust contrails shielded us
     from the sun and in doing so raised the temperature in the US by 3
     degrees. Jet travel is only going to grow and grow so why not
     merely schedule more flights during the day (when the dreaded sun
     is out) and put some biodegradable particles in the exhaust to
     shield us as much as we want from sun, and not bother transforming
     the entire economy behind Harry Reids totalitarian and bankrupting
     herd instincts that propose an entirely new economy in which energy
     will cost enough to dramatically expand the ranks of those
     Americans living below the poverty line by a significant multiple.
     And this is to say nothing of how it would affect poorer people all
     around the globe.

     If that's too is not discouraging to the Democratic herd then
     consider how passionately the Democrats want us to unite behind
     their leadership by driving small cars? Al Gore called our cars the
     greatest threat to civilization on earth. Gee, but they did switch
     to small cars in Europe 50 years ago and it led exactly no where?
     But consider also that there only 110 million cars in the USA. Even
     if you accomplished the absolutely impossible and took each one of
     them off the road forever the carbon saved would only amount to
     2.5% of the new carbon that China's new coal plants (a new one goes
     on line each week) will add to the atmosphere over the next 30
     years. There coal will be the equivalent to China putting 4 billion
     new Ford Expeditions on the road. And this is to say nothing of
     other sources of carbon that China, and India, will add to the
     atmosphere as their economies( with 5 times the US population)
     fully diversify into the industrial age as ours did 100 years ago.

     Complaining to China and India about this gets us nowhere as they
     are desperate to grind their way out of dire poverty. Expensive
     windmill power there would simply mean more people would die from
     poverty. Their other argument is that their per capita pollution
     will be a tiny percentage of ours for the next 75 years so it is us
     who must reform; not them. But in 75 years, we are assured, by the
     herd, that if we don't all drive hybrids we will all be deep fried
     by global warming? But hey, why let reason stop us from missing an
     opportunity to join the Democratic herd to enjoy all the good
     feelings that will surely come from playing with windmills with all
     our friends at summer camp.

     S 608 Ted Baiamonte comments: bje1000 at aol.com