Posted on 06/19/2022 4:24:35 AM PDT by MtnClimber
It seems obvious to me that the current occupant of the White House and his backers would rather see the American SUV with all 330,000,000 of us aboard drive off a cliff rather than allow us to use the abundant fossil fuel within our borders. While I admire their dedication to their cause, I would like them to stop long enough for all of us Green “unbelievers” to get off before they complete their journey. I wish the current Democrat party leaders had the insight once possessed by Jefferson Davis, the Democrat party leader in the first half of the 1860s.
Back in 1864-65, as he sensed the demise of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president, said, “If the Confederacy fails, there should be written on its tombstone: Died of a theory.” The idea of “states’ rights” was so strong in the Confederacy, he lamented, that collective cooperation among the Confederate states was very difficult. His constituents faced shortages, inflation, and real hardships because of the “States’ Rights” mantra echoing from one southern capital to another.
The new mantra of “Green Energy” is replacing “States Rights.” In theory, going green sounds great. Like many, I want to live on this planet as cleanly as possible. Like many, I realize that we are stewards of this planet God gave us and that Our Heavenly Father expects us to “clean up after ourselves.”
What I don’t see from Al Gore, Ralph Nader, Greta Thunberg, or all the other apostles of Green, is a plan. I’ve seen their posters and heard their slogans, but I do not see a plan to get us from where we are to the bright and shiny day where trucks deliver, cars drive, and jets fly, all without using fossil fuel.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
From the article:
“Today, our fearless leader seems willing to see inflation, food shortages, hunger, and maybe even starvation before he will allow American oil companies to drill on our lands to supply us with needed fuel.”
It does not “seem” to be their plan ... any rational thinking person has to assume it “is” their plan.
promise the jetsons
deliver the flintstones
Did we not adapt to climate change during the last ice age?
How about when all the ice melted 15-10,000 years ago?
Those people who lived in Sundaland or Doggerland had to move.
Won’t we adapt if the remaining ice on Greenland and Antarctica melt?
People in coastal areas will have to move. Again.
And by the way, a warmer world is a wetter world. Warm air naturally holds more moisture. Which means more rain, which means fewer deserts. In the future, people will say it’s a nice time of year to take a hike through those forests of Las Vegas...
We won’t see a “plan” because that would expose their goal…global depopulation.
Sorry Ned states rights is a good thing. Your comparison is BS. I stopped reading this screed.
They’re going to kill a lot of people.
As I have posted before, if man-made climate change is real, why should I believe the left has an actual solution?
They have failed to reduce poverty, crime, drugs, etc.
So, suddenly, they know what is the correct solution?
Sorry, but I’m not buying it.
Hypothesis, not theory. Theories, like the theory of evolution, pass tests. Hypotheses like AGW still need to be tested. Positing that a minuscule increase in atmospheric CO2 causes AGW rather than being an effect of solar cycles has yet to be determined.
Sure seems that green progressives believe we can skip the “jetsons” phase and expand the “Flintstones” directly to flying rocks. It’s obvious where the rocks are.
IF we are going to impose harsh sacrifices for Gaia worship, then I have a better place to start than the SUV or barbecue grill or utility bill of the average family.
I say we ban private jets. Hold on! I know this will be a painful thing for most of us but private jets spew an enormous amount of carbon and move relatively few people. It would be far more efficient for those people to simply fly commercial.
Not enough? OK.
Next I’d ban yachts. I can hear your howls of anguish already but bear with me.
You don’t really “need” a massive yacht that produced a lot of carbon to build and which guzzles gasoline or diesel fuel to move around. You’ll just have to downsize to a more normal size boat - say max 30 or 35 feet in length. Don’t worry, you can still participate in water sports and go fishing. You could even still have a houseboat at that size. You just can’t have a giant energy sucking monstrosity.
Still not moving the needle enough? OK. Gulp! Most painful of all, we’re just going to have to limit the amount of square footage of residential property each person can own. Say, no more than 4,000 square feet per person. I’ll wait for the screams of anguish to die down.
This would still permit you to have that beach house or mountain house for weekend getaways while maintaining your main home. But the size of your ocean front mansion will be limited - OR you’re just not going to be able to have a giant energy sucking mansion and a ski chalet in Vale and a luxury condo in NY and another in Paris. You’ll have to sell off some of those - as painful as that is.
We all have to do our part. Gaia demands a sacrifice.
And all the Climategeddonistas have to do is show us proof a plan, a cost and mitigation efforts in case it all blows up in their faces and I’ll believe them.
Good points....why don’t we combat the idiocy with sarcastic truth bombs like this?
.
It appeared in the first sentence.
There is no such a thing as a fossil fuel.
You may ask, why, on every green thread do I say this.
Simple.
The whole premise of their argument lies with the stopping of fossil fuel use.
If there is no such a thing, they have no premise.
They have no argument.
I have mathematically disproven the theory of fossil fuels (yes, it is just a theory).
This is why math is racist.
There is no such a thing as a fossil fuel
The global warming nuts want to exterminate about 200 million Americans
When is the President’s Secret Service detail “transitioning” to all-electric vehicles?
In science, agreement on definitions is important. ‘Global Warming’ is not a theory. It’s not even an ‘hypothesis’. It’s not, because experiments and data have shown that the conjecture of ‘Global Warming’ is false. It takes only one verifiable data set to prove it false. There are many: There is no Hot Spot in the atmosphere. Global temperatures have been stagnant for more than half a decade. Global temperatures have failed to follow climate models. Etc.
When data proves that any aspect of a conjecture is false, it’s up to the originator to disqualify the proof, it’s not up to the scientist with the data to defend it. It takes more than media hype as well, at least for real scientists. The global warming conjecture is not supported by real scientists, only by power hungry leftists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.