moonbattery.gif


« Laughing at the Disabled | Main | Another ACLU Knife in Our Back »


June 12, 2007

Libs Get Religion

Apparently mixing Church and State isn't so bad after all, so long as left-leaning churches like Episcopalians and Unitarians back the moonbat faith du jour, global warming.

Leftist chair of the Senate's Environmental and Public Works Committee Barbara Boxer (D-CA) recently held a hearing highlighting the growing exploitation of religion to promote what moonbats are pleased to call "environmental justice." A coalition of religious denominations demanded that we adjust the weather to their liking with a draconian 80% reduction of carbon emissions by 2050.

Screeched Boxer:

[P]eople of faith see the need for action on global warming as a moral, ethical and scriptural mandate.

Historian David Barton, regarded as one of the most influential evangelicals in America, begs to differ:

The Scriptures teach conservation, not preservation. Man was the steward of nature and environment, and while man definitely is to tend and guard it, it is to serve him, not vice versa. From the beginning, God warned about elevating nature and the environment over man and his Creator.

Unfortunately, some global warming money changers have already set up shop in the temple. A 501(c)(3) outfit called the Evangelical Climate Initiative is fleecing the gullible by hawking tax-deductible carbon offsets at $99 per year.

babs-boxer.jpg
Babs indicates the intended effect of the global warming hoax on our taxes.

On a tip from Wiggins.

Posted by Van Helsing at June 12, 2007 9:48 AM

Comments

Does the name Ted Haggard ring a bell? He was one of those evangelicals who embraced the fight against ManBearPig... when he wasn't doing crystal meth and hooking up with gay prostitutes.

Posted by: V the K at June 12, 2007 10:06 AM

The next casualty in the moonbat war against the environment: Your home PC.

Posted by: V the K at June 12, 2007 10:15 AM

Oh, and the disappearing snows of Kilimanjaro? completely unrelated to ManBearPig.

Posted by: V the K at June 12, 2007 10:19 AM

HEY! Any of y'all wanna buy some carbon credits? If you do I'll fix you up. Mine are just as good (if not better) than Algore's, and I've got a half price sale going right now. I'll even send you a fancy official looking certificate with your name on it. (Certificates come in green only.) The more credits you buy, the prettier your certificate will be. :-)

Here's one for you; I heard on redneck radio that, if you include energy expenditures for production, a Toyota Prius is half as cost effective as a Hummer over the life of the vehicle. (Before someone asks me for sources - I heard it on Rush - so look on his website.)

Posted by: Jimbo at June 12, 2007 10:45 AM

An 80% reduction in Carbon emissions by 2050. Do they realize that that would put us back in the horse and buggy stage, pre-WWII? It can be done, but I don't think they would like it. One would have to ban petroleum of any description for any use. That means no cars, trains, buses, and airplanes. Back to stage coaches, buggies and steam locomotives. No motorized vessels on the ocean, back to wind power there. Farmers will have to use oxen and horses, no diesel allowed and bio-diesel will not be in large enough supply to do the job.

Ah, but we could have electric cars you say. Not likely since there will be a grave shortage of electricity when the coal and gas plants are shut down. Wind and solar won't cut it and hydroelectric generation is hard on the fish so we can't have that either. Hydrogen is the answer, right? Nope, that takes power to make too. H2 comes from H2O by electrolysis (read lots of electricity) or from methane (CH4) conversion which releases carbon.

Boxer and Co. are asking us to reduce energy consumption, the reality of cutting carbon, to the level it was when there were fewer than 1.5 billion people on earth. Do we "cull" the human population? Paul Ehrlich would be very happy. If so, who do we... ah, er, terminate? Going back to the 1930's would mean about 150 million fewer Americans, 15 million fewer Canadians, delete about 150 million or so from Europe, and we still have another 4 billion to go. Who will clean up the mess? Not Boxer and Co. and since their plan will result in the non-existence of all the cheap labour, its going to be an expensive proposition.

There is no alternative energy source available now or in the foreseeable future that can provide 100% of our current demand. But with a de-populated planet, we may get by.

You really have to wonder what form of logic is in play when Barb Boxer and her friends gather to plan these things. Do they understand what they are asking not just of others, but of themselves as well. Carbon credit indulgences are not going to buy an 80% reduction in Carbon emission. Barb's lifestyle will change, no limo service, no Gulfstream 550 trips to Europe, no big house parties, just a drastically curtailed lifestyle.

And after all that, where will they set the temperature? Let's see, its warmer now than a hundred years ago by about 0.6°C or 1°F and that's considered too damned hot. I'm pretty sure that Europe doesn't want a repeat of the Little Ice Age when it was about 0.8° C cooler than today, so we'll consider that too cold. I remember as a child that the temperature was just right, David Suzuki agrees with me. It was about 0.1° or 0.2° cooler then but we were headed for a new ice age, not good.

So, a question to Barb Boxer; What is a really good temperature? And what are you willing to sacrifice, besides foreigners, to achieve it?

Posted by: jev2000 at June 12, 2007 10:53 AM

Heh heh- Jev2000, the logic in play with Sen. Boxer and her playmates- uh, I mean colleagues- is, I think, known as "I-wanna-play-dolls-and-the-world-is-my-dollhouse" logic. When it all boils down (from Global Warming, of course), I think that's all it amounts to.

Posted by: Toa at June 12, 2007 11:16 AM

Here's that article Jimbo was talkin about... although, some criticism has surfaced over the accuracy of the research that the article is based on. The problem though--although criticism has surfaced--is that I haven't seen evidence that makes the research wrong... so in the end, it's just criticism (keep in mind that it also comes from envirobats). Without further "adu," here it is:
http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188

Posted by: MoleOnABull at June 12, 2007 1:29 PM

Good analysis TOA.

Posted by: jev2000 at June 12, 2007 2:44 PM

jev2000: A great analysis, but don't you get it? The rules don't apply to Ms. Boxer and her elite comrades -- they will continue to enjoy their full, carbon-belching, planet-destroying lifestyles, no matter what it takes; only you and I and the rest of us plebes will have to forego cars, air travel, electricity, food, water, etc., so that the elites may see their lifestyles utterly unaffected (well, at least until their bestest friends, the Islamofascists of the world, come to remove their heads from their bodies).

Posted by: jc14 at June 12, 2007 8:21 PM

jc14: Yes, I get it. I'm sure that Boxer, Gore, Laurie David, Canada's David Suzuki and others of their ilk are certain that their lifestyles will not be affected in the least. That's what prompts the questions of their logic or lack there of. Afterall, how would they continue their education of us poor slobs?

Posted by: jev2000 at June 13, 2007 9:07 PM