Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 05/18/2008 6:58:26 AM PDT by shove_it
Oh, That Liberal Media! · The Assault On Reason
Newspapers are an industry that has done the most to spread fear of global warming, and have heavily donated to "green" causes. And now it's time for them to the pay the bill, or risk appearing even more hypocritical than they're currently thought of:
A prototypical publisher selling 250,000 newspapers on each of the 365 days of the year adds nearly 28,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, according to calculations we’ll explain in a moment. That’s roughly equivalent to the CO2 spewed by almost 3,700 Ford Explorers being driven 10,000 miles apiece per year. (Disclosure: I own a 12-year-old Ford Explorer. Anyone want to buy it?)
CO2 matters, because a dangerous buildup of the gas in the atmosphere – caused by the growing consumption of fossil fuels and the decimation of our forests – is causing the earth to warm to such dangerous and unprecedented levels that the health of the planet and its inhabitants are imperiled.
The problem for even the most environmentally sensitive print publisher is that every aspect of the business does uncontestable violence to the environment.
As the Insta-Man likes to say, I'll consider believing that there's a crisis when the people who complain the loudest start acting like there's a crisis.
Besides, isn't it time that Pinch thinks of the polar bears!?
(H/T for Nelson Muntz.)
pinging abb
To logical & rational people, this argument is sound. But to a liberal - this is the way their minds think:
The same way that you don’t condemn Al Gore for his huge carbon footprint (private jetting all over the world) - you don’t condemn newspaper’s huge carbon footprint either. You see, to an irrational way of thinking - Al Gore and the newspapers are the MESSENGERS, and you don’t “shoot the messenger”.
I know, it doesn’t make any sense at all, but there it is.
Unless of course they are proponents of conservative thought.
The Dead Tree media shut down their presses....For Mother Earth.
Pray for W and Freedom Fighters
Good point.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmm, really doesn't pass the smell test but you are spot on.........
Hypocrisy is the primary symptom of liberalitis. Liberals won’t step on a roach crossing their living room floor but will snuff out the life of a baby using a sharp instrument. Liberals won’t speak a word about Islamic brutality but will gladly immerse a crucifix in urine to protest Christian piety. Liberals won’t use DDT for fear of hurting an eagle all the while millions die from malaria.
Do I need go on?
Hypocrisy is the primary symptom of liberalitis. Liberals won’t step on a roach crossing their living room floor but will snuff out the life of a baby using a sharp instrument. Liberals won’t speak a word about Islamic brutality but will gladly immerse a crucifix in urine to protest Christian piety. Liberals won’t use DDT for fear of hurting an eagle all the while millions die from malaria.Liberals aren't hypocrites. Their views are quite consistent, if abhorrent.Do I need go on?
Let's address your points in order:
1. Save a roach, abort a baby: This is perfectly consistent to a liberal. Roaches are "life" they can fend for themselves, they're products of their environment. To liberals fetuses aren't alive yet. They're an extension of the mother. That's how they think.
2. hug an islamist, kill a christian: This is also consistent to the liberal mindset. The US, as the biggest bully in the world, has Christianity as its religion. Poor Muzzies are being oppressed, that's why they act so badly. Muslims should be coddled, Christians hounded out of existence. Quite consistent.
3. Save birdies, kill humans: Humans are part of a natural environment and ecosystem. Without any religious exceptionalism(i.e. a soul) humans are just another animal. You cull the overpopulated animal(humans) to preserve the dying(eagles). Makes perfect sense if you don't believe in a soul.
Liberal views are perfectly consistent if you accept their premises.
You had me until:
“CO2 matters, because a dangerous buildup of the gas in the atmosphere – caused by the growing consumption of fossil fuels and the decimation of our forests – is causing the earth to warm to such dangerous and unprecedented levels that the health of the planet and its inhabitants are imperiled.”
This is, at best, “not proven”. CO2 levels are still lower than they have been at many times in the past, and at none of those times were the health of the planet’s inhabitants imperiled as a whole. There have been many times when many times when climatological cycles have altered the climate of the planet enough to affect various species, but life as a whole has rarely been imperiled.
Short of the sun going nova, there is nothing that can imperil the health of the *planet*. You might be able to argue that some radical shift (and I do mean radical, such as no oxygen, or precipitous drop in nitrogen) in the atmosphere could imperil the *biosphere*, but even then, that’s not what we’re talking about here. Geologically speaking, we’re in an interglacial period. Based on a review of various climatological records, we’re probably at or near the peak of this one. Our current climate is distinctly not the norm for this planet over the past several million years. The norm is way way colder. But, even if the climate does shift out of its historical pattern, there is almost no evidence that a warmer climate will cause anything like the destruction implied by the greeners. Generally warmth=life on this world.
Well said.
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.