Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Lemon: Delusionals vs Realists

We are in a great global battle of interests that threatens the wealth of our species at a level unseen since we bonded together into tribes for protection from cave bears and sabre-toothed tigers. And it's not about our "planet" burning into a crisp.

It's whether or not reason ultimately wins or loses the debate against delusion.
With more and more evidence that the AGW/CC theory is bunkum and more and more earth scientists coming out of the climate closet to confirm that it's hokum, the delusional - embodied by Gore, Suzuki, May and their acolytes - are looking to change the terms of reference.

The Delusionals latest exercise
in propaganda is to change the topic of the debate from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". Only words? Well, not really because Global Warming suggests only one outcome - that we will fry. But Climate Change is less specific - it gives them the flexibility to hedge their arguments with examples of how our desire to keep our houses warm and cars running will result in frying some of the earth while freezing other parts. In other words, if the world continues to do as it has for millennia, then it is due to human activity.

The Global Warming debate can logically be won by the realists on one simple argument; is it good or bad? If global warming actually saves lives that would otherwise be lost to freezing, if it results in massive increases in food production and reduced deaths to starvation, if it actually helps species survive then the best thing we might do for the earth might be to put an SUV in every driveway.

So the Delusionals wants to move our cheese.

Statements from one of our leading Delusionals after the Throne Speech night reflect the thin ice that they're treading on. From Elly May of the Green Party:
"A statement of fact that in 2007, after almost two years of Harper sabotaging global action and domestic action — we knew a year ago we couldn’t meet Kyoto," said May.
"It’s an attempt to sound like they’re committed to climate change, which we know they’re not, but he hasn’t used language that has made the implicit explicit, so on that basis, it’s not as bad as I thought."
Whatever that means...

No comments: