« Courting Controversy at NYU | Main | Hollyweird Airhead Charlize Theron Compares USA to Cuba »
February 21, 2007
Why the War on Weather Isn't Funny
Posted by Dave Blount at February 21, 2007 6:13 PM
An Op-Ed by Pete du Pont covers some familiar ground in dismissing global warming as bunk, but makes an important point: moonbats' bunk can hurt people.
As du Pont notes, Greenland wasn't covered in ice when the Vikings farmed there, long before the first Escalade rolled off an assembly line. The warming we've experienced over the last 100 years has been extremely slight, and is due far more to solar radiation than human activity. Not even the UN supports the outrageous claims of Al Gore, who promises a 20-foot rise in sea level by the end of the century; the UN is saying 17 inches. Nor does the UN expect global warming to affect the number of hurricanes, which has been steadily declining. As most of us know, the infamous "hockey stick" graph that makes it look like the temperature was static until it shot up in the mid 1970s is utterly bogus, having omitted the Medieval Warming Period.
But global warming is no laughing matter, because whenever moonbats bark themselves into a lather, people get hurt. Du Pont notes that mosquito-killing DDT was credited with reducing malaria in Sri Lanka from 2.8 million cases to 17, and deaths from malaria from 7,000 to none. Then Rachel Carson came out with a book called Silent Spring, which convinced the gullible liberal elite that DDT is bad. Third-World countries like Sri Lanka were pressured to stop using it, and malaria predictably skyrocketed. Environmentalists' reaction: tough luck.
There are two things we need to keep in mind about environmentalists:
- They are fanatics, impervious to reason.
- They don't care what happens to human beings.
Consequently, their War on Weather campaign is no laughing matter.
On a tip from Bergbikr.
