<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar/7626745258811529122?origin\x3dhttp://opinetree.blogspot.com', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Shocker: Eco-Fanatics Most Likely to Contribute to Global Warming

September 24, 2008 |

In a day-making story from the Guardian, you can read about a study which showed that people who claim to have the greenest lifestyles can be seen as "some of the main culprits behind global warming."
According to the researchers, people who regularly recycle rubbish and save energy at home are also the most likely to take frequent long-haul flights abroad. The carbon emissions from such flights can swamp the green savings made at home, the researchers claim.

Stewart Barr, of Exeter University, who led the research, said: "Green living is largely something of a myth. There is this middle class environmentalism where being green is part of the desired image. But another part of the desired image is to fly off skiing twice a year. And the carbon savings they make by not driving their kids to school will be obliterated by the pollution from their flights."

Some people even said they deserved such flights as a reward for their green efforts, he added.
I think one of the requirements for being a global-warming eco-warrior is a certain amount of hypocrisy. I'm not damning these people for taking long plane trips - if they can afford it, by all means, have a blast. But what do expect when Mother Earth's very own savior (ahem, Mr. Gore), owns a house that consumes more electricity than 20 times the national average, and who continues to dart about the globe in a private jet?

Labels:

Need a Scapegoat? Try Global Warming

July 1, 2008 |

Since global warming is the new national religion, it probably won't shock you to learn that almost anything can be (and is) blamed on it. In fact, if you adopt the most recent vernacular and just say "climate change," you can pretty much never be held responsible for anything.

The following list contains links to news articles in which something is blamed solely or in part on climate change, so join me in taking some time to consider the age of hysteria in which we live.

From the top: acne, Afghan poppies destroyed, Africa in conflict, amphibians breeding early, cannibalism, increased anxiety, increased cougar attacks, better tasting beer, beer shortage, blackbirds not singing, Buddhist temple deteriorating, crocodile sex changes, conflict with Russia, increased street crime, genocide in Darfur (no joke), 50 million homeless people, psychiatric illness, traffic jams, terrorism, stingray invasion, suicide, world war...

And it's all because the planet is one degree warmer than it was 100 years ago.

Labels:

Global Warming Archives: 1993

June 12, 2008 |

15 years ago the New York Times published an article reporting scientific findings which suggested that "the period of stable climate in which human civilization has flourished might be unusual," and that the current climate may "get either warmer or colder much more quickly."

The findings, based on an analysis of extracted ice from the Greenland ice sheet, showed that with the exception of the last 8,000 to 10,000 years, "the climate over the past 250,000 years has changed frequently and abruptly." Given that there were so many SUVs, oil companies, and Republicans in the last quarter million years, this is understandable.

In a commentary with which the findings were published, Dr. J. W. C. White of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research said, "We humans have built a remarkable socioeconomic system during perhaps the only time when it could be built, when climate was sufficiently stable to allow us to develop the agricultural infrastructure required to maintain an advanced society. We don't know why we have been so blessed, but even without human intervention, the climate system is capable of stunning variability."

When reached for comment, Al Gore said this article was planted by an oil executive who invented a time machine in order to bribe the New York Times 15 years in the past, and expressed dissatisfaction that the overweight crude-thirsty CEO didn't have the decency to invent a hybrid model.

Labels:

Eat Bugs to Save the Planet? You First, Mr. Gore

June 2, 2008 |

June is here, and with it, one of the most ridiculous stories I've seen in a while.

Scientists are claiming that eating insects would be part of a nutrient-rich diet, and would reduce our impact on the planet when compared to the ecological effects of consuming meat.

Above: No joke.

Why do I suspect this will have a hard time catching on in the States? Although, with the right marketing and the beauty of capitalism, anything is possible. I can see it now: New Eco-Friendly Carbon Neutral Green Grasshoppers -- The solution to America's food crisis and climate crisis!

Pass the red meat, please.

Labels:

Islamic Submission or Carbon Emissions?

April 28, 2008 |

Last week's cover of Time magazine is the most poignant example of exactly where those on the Left have found themselves.

I'm sure you're familiar with the iconic image of U.S. soldiers planting an American flag on the island of Iwo Jima, where over 6,000 Marines were killed. Take a look at the alteration Time Magazine thought was appropriate:

Above: No more do we simply "address"
global warming. Now it's a "war."

There is nothing more telling of where the Left's priorities lie than this picture. Don't take this as condemnation - take it as clarification. Liberals have become anti-war, not anti-evil, and are therefore missing in action in the war against radical Islam. The threat of submitting to the will of the Islamists is a "scare tactic," but a human-induced global warming catastrophe is not.

How many times will you find the phrase "Islamic Terror" in any of the Democratic debate transcripts? Try zero. When you ignore true evil by regarding it as a mere "scare tactic," you have to manufacture something to take its place. Time magazine to the rescue.

What is despicable about the cover, and I shouldn't have to tell you this, is that it equates those who fight carbon-dioxide emissions with those who gave their lives to fight Japanese imperialists and German fascism.

What must you give up to fight "climate change?" Carbon dioxide does not aim to convert or murder your family, and will not have you seeking refuge after threats have been made on your life for speaking out against it.

But it sure makes liberals feel good, doesn't it? Yes, we're just as noble and heroic as the soldiers on that tiny island, bravely leading the charge in the battle against the seminal evil of the modern world: climate change.

It's not heroism. It's deceptive, pathetic, and cheap.

Labels: ,

Greenpeace Will Surely Save Our Children

February 27, 2008 |

We all know that breaking the law is the best way to spread environmental awareness. London's Heathrow airport had a security breach Monday, during which four Greenpeace "activists" climbed on top of a plane, and unfurled a banner reading "Climate Emergency -- No 3rd Runway."

You've got a climate emergency, Britain! But what about your demographic emergency? What about the waves of immigrants who aren't assimilating? What about your suicidal birthrate?

What about your failing health care system? What about the 1 in 5 British men who will die from prostate cancer while simply waiting for treatment? What about the gradual disintegration of your personal freedoms? No, you're right. The real emergency is the carbon apocalypse.

Above: It's funny how they didn't choose any
Muslim activists to "breach security."

According to the article, the "activists" were on top of the plane for about an hour and a half. So, let's get this straight. Four people were allowed to "breach security" and sit atop an airplane for ninety minutes at one of the world's busiest airports, in the era of jihad, and at the center of Londonistan? Were they even armed?

Anna Jones, a Greenpeace member participating in the protest, said:

"I am standing on this plane because our planet and the people who live on it are in danger."

Yes, they are in danger. They're in danger of having clowns like you manage their lives. Still think conservatives are they only ones who play "the politics of fear?" Here is some wisdom from a statement posted on Greenpeace UK:

"Security threat? Yes, we've exposed a security hole at Heathrow, but we've done it to expose the gaping hole on Brown's climate change policy. Brown's carrying on as though climate change has never happened."

You're right, climate change did happen. You know when? When there were no airplanes, because there were no humans.

Labels:

got something to say?

You can be heard here. If there's an article that isn't getting enough attention, a story that's not being told, or an opinion that isn't being voiced, send an email and I'll start the presses.

hits counter