Do we need to spend billions of dollars to "fight global warming"?
Or might it be more effective to spend a fraction of the cash fighting malaria and other curable diseases? Politicians, spurred by mass media bleating like frightened sheep, scramble to expend unimaginable amounts of money and other resources to battle an enemy that doesn't exist.
Meanwhile, millions continue to live and die in abject poverty, millions more die of preventable or curable disease or malnutrition, and yet many of these lives could be saved, economies strengthened, and environments improved simply by directing a fraction of the resources that are being diverted to "save the planet" toward these ends.
While few maintain that global warming does not exist, there is substantial disagreement between the pseudo-religious faction led by AlGore, who claim that it is due to the release of carbon dioxide by human activity and scientists who note dispassionately that cycles of global warming and global cooling have been occurring since the formation of the solar system.
One unique feature of this circumstance is that AlGore and his acolytes in the psudo-religious Cult of Athropogenic Global Warming (AGW) have decreed that no debate is possible. You're either with them, or you're a heretic; a pawn of Big Oil, a useful idiot. Not since the day of Galileo have we seen such a religious push to silence disagreement.
I've used this image before, as has AlGore and others of his pseudoreligious persuasion. The difference is that while they portray it as symptomatic of the dying polar bears and their plight, I note that the photo was taken of a melting iceberg located about 100 yards offshore.
What they also don't tell you is that of the twenty sub-populations of polar bears presently in exisitence, only two are in an apparent decline - and they happen to inhabit areas where it's actually been getting colder for the past five decades. The remaining 18 sub-populations have actually increased in numbers - and very significantly. 50 years ago, there were about 5,000 of the animals. Today, the population ranges around the 25,000 mark.
If AGW is going to kill off the polar bears, it's clear that the bears didn't get the memo. The claim has been that AGW will result in the extinction of polar bears within the next decade. That's what they tell you. The data, however, clearly indicate otherwise.
The claims of the AGW acolytes cannot be regarded as accidental; theirs is a deliberate campaign of misinformation. Why would they engage in such behavior?
One ominous answer emerges: it's all about power. The idea is to scare you to death and to guilt-trip you into believing that your lifestyle is killing the planet. The only way to "save the planet" involves controlling your behavior, curtailing your freedoms, and doing so by force if neccessary.
