On the one hand, you run around and you have made a career and you have tried to identify yourselves by saying, “Keep the government and everybody else out of my womb!” and in the next sentence, you want in everybody’s mouth by telling them what they can’t put there. You want everybody out of your womb, but yet nobody should eat cheeseburgers; nobody should eat Big Macs; nobody should eat this or that. As long as you keep up with these contradictory statements, you will become more and more marginalized and more and more kooky and you will <sigh> only affirm similar emotions and thoughts within your little group but you’re not going to persuade others. This global warming thing is a great example. I think global warming is almost a hoax. I think it’s almost a hoax but it’s so easy to believe because anecdotally people can look out there when it’s a hundred degrees in July and say, ”Man, I don’t remember it ever being this hot, and even if it has been, I don’t remember it feeling this hot. Gee, there’s got to be global warming,” and bam, everybody believes it just because it’s a hundred degrees in July, when it’s always a hundred degrees in July.
Or you may have the weird weather front where it’s 60 degrees in January. “See? It’s global warming!” So it’s easy to fall for this. For those of you who know it, you believe these wacko experts that say it, the same wacko experts who say it have conceded that Kyoto will have no impact on them. Yet they believe in Kyoto. “Despite the fact the green groups at the U.N. climate summit in Buenos Aires called President Bush immoral and illegitimate for not supporting Kyoto, the groups themselves concede the protocol will only have symbolic effect on climate because they believe Kyoto’s too weak. Kyoto is international treaty, seeks to limit greenhouse gases of the developed countries by 2012,” but China’s exempt from it and China is on its way to becoming the #2 greenhouse gas producer. China’s exempt. Tell me what Kyoto is all about, then — and so the keyword in this paragraph is “it will only have symbolic effect.” Symbolic effect is all the left is interested in terms of persuading people. We are never to ask the results of their work, only their intentions. We’re never supposed to dig deep to find out how their ideas work or fail.
We’re only supposed to applaud them for their “good intentions,” and along with their good intentions, almost a synonym for it is their symbolism. They want to be thought of as great symbols of caring and compassion, and sensitivity and all of these things. But when you look at the results of their ideas and their plans, what you see is destruction, devastation, mistakes, misery, pain and suffering. Peter Roderick of Friends of the Earth said, “I think that everybody agrees Kyoto’s really, really hopeless in terms of delivering what the planet needs. It’s tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny,” he said. “It’s woefully inadequate. Woefully. We need huge cuts to protect the planet from climate change.” Hey, uh, Peter? You can’t protect the planet from climate change. There’s not one thing we can do, not one thing anybody can do. We can’t cause “climate change.” If we can’t cause it, how can we prevent it? The mistake that you people make is believing that we cause climate change. That has not been factually established nor proven nor I doubt will it ever be, because I don’t think it can be — and the people on the other side of the argument, scientists, are totally ignored, laughed at and impugned for their believes which are indeed rooted in science, not religion, as the pro-global warming crowd often is.
So I just point this out because the evidence keeps mounting and you have to ask yourself : “Why are they so hell-bent on this, then?” and look, now, all of a sudden, Kyoto just a year ago was a panacea; two years ago panacea; three years ago it was the end all, be all. Now? “Oh, no! Things have gotten so worse, so bad, because we have not enacted Kyoto. It’s not enough now. It’s not enough now. We have to penalize America even more. We got to tax America even more. We got to shut down American development. We’ve got to make sure Americans start riding around on these little lawn mowers with car seats on top of them. We got to do whatever we can to punish Americans because Americans are too free. They’re too prosperous. Americans are too rich; Americans are too happy. It’s not fair!” Well, we don’t need Kyoto — and this is typical liberalism. You look at the scale of happiness and sadness, income and wealth and poverty, prosperity or lack of it.
You always got people at the top; you always got people at the bottom. The left’s solution is to bring those at the top down. The rich, too rich. Tax them. It’s not fair. They never, ever, ever talk about elevating those at the bottom. Never, because it’s not possible. They’re such doom and gloomers and they need those people at the bottom to be in constant need so that they’re always victims, so that the left continues to have power and it derives its power from its sense of need and as long as you’ve got these poor schleps that can’t get through the day without calling their Congressman or whatever, then bammo! I’m telling you what, if you’ve created a bunch of people walking around in veritable fear that they’re going to die if they have a Big Mac, you’ve got a constituency out there. The last thing you want those people learning is the truth. So global warming and militant environmentalism is just one element of this whole industry here, which has as an ultimate aim the downsizing and the weakening of the United States of America as it exists today. They will fail, but they will keep trying.
<*ICON*> Environmental Wackos: Dangerous Extremists?
<a target=new href=”/home/eibessential2/april_28__1975_newsweek___the_cooling_world_.member.html”>(April 28, 1975 Newsweek: “The Cooling World” -02.06.04)</a>
<a target=new href=”//home/folder/june_4_kyoto_aim_to_steal.member.html”>(UN, Kyoto Aim to Steal From Us -06.04.02)</a>