With the opening of Al Gore’s new movie, “Inconvenient Truths,” many of the liberals, particularly those who practice the religion of ecology and earth science, are all worked up. Consider the reasoned opinions of Dr. Sue Blackmore, and English psychologist. Here is what she writes:
I know this. The science has been building up for years and is now clear. When sea levels rise further millions will drown, when the deserts grow bigger millions will starve, when the glaciers end their present flood of excess melt water vast cities will become uninhabitable almost overnight. Then what?
But things are not as bleak for our tea sipping neighbors.
Britain looks set to be one of the few places on earth that might remain habitable for some time. If the Gulf stream switches off our climate will cool, offsetting the general warming. We may still have drinking water, be able to grow crops, and lose only a few of our finest cities to the floods. As an island nation we might be able to protect and rehouse our own flood refugees. But what about everyone else? The world will be awash with eco-refugees, desperate to get to anywhere with land and fresh water. What do we do?
Take a look at the good doctor’s photo. Oh my.
Perhaps the answer is nothing. We should do nothing. Seems that in the 1980’s the Earth was cooling so fast that we faced an unending winter that would destroy crops and kill billions. I guess that the eco-libs were not entirely correct in that calculation but somehow they’ve got themselves straight and we should now destroy our economy and culture to prevent world calamity. Al Gore thinks global warming is THE issue with which we should most concern ourselves. Warming is a greater threat than say….millions of murdering Muslims, genocide in Darfur, Iran’s nuclear threat, North Korea and all of the other real problems effecting us.
Consider this from Pete Dupont:
But during these 35 years of growing population, employment, and industrial production, the Environmental Protection Agency reports, the environment has substantially improved. Emissions of the six principal air pollutants have decreased by 53%. Carbon monoxide emissions have dropped from 197 million tons per year to 89 million; nitrogen oxides from 27 million tons to 19 million, and sulfur dioxide from 31 million to 15 million. Particulates are down 80%, and lead emissions have declined by more than 98%.
When it comes to visible environmental improvements, America is also making substantial progress:
• The number of days the city of Los Angeles exceeded the one-hour ozone standard has declined from just under 200 a year in the late 1970s to 27 in 2004.
• The Pacific Research Institute’s Index of Leading Environmental Indicators shows that “U.S. forests expanded by 9.5 million acres between 1990 and 2000.”
• While wetlands were declining at the rate of 500,000 acres a year at midcentury, they “have shown a net gain of about 26,000 acres per year in the past five years,” according to the institute.
• Also according to the institute, “bald eagles, down to fewer than 500 nesting pairs in 1965, are now estimated to number more than 7,500 nesting pairs.
Emotion verses facts and logic. To give you some idea of Dr. Blackmore’s frame of mind consider some closing remarks that she makes.
Finally, we might decide that civilisation itself is worth preserving. In that case we have to work out what to save and which people would be needed in a drastically reduced population – weighing the value of scientists and musicians against that of politicians, for example – a prospect that does not look at all easy from here. [emphasis mine]
What? Decide if civilzation is worth saving? This unfortunately is the nihilistic mindset of many on the fringe left and within eco-lib movements.
God help us all. Maybe the greatest threat is really liberals with power.
