Hitler does "Global Warming"

Hat tip to American Digest for the following video:



Lest you think that the video is just an amusing parody of the Global Warming scam consider that today's environmentalists are in many ways like the Nazis of yore.  Consider this from Reason:

Hitler was a visionary environmentalist. Think a sensitivity to nature is necessarily progressive and benign? Think again. There’s been no more environmentally sensitive state than the Third Reich, which took ecological concerns carefully into account whether preserving woodlands or planning autobahns. The Nazi “Blood and Soil” mystique drew heavily on anti-industrial work that started appearing in the 19th century, and turned it into public policy. As early as 1913, authors like Ludwig Klages (German link) were excoriating deforestation, consumerism, urban sprawl, tourism, species extinction, capitalism, the idea of progress, and even the slaughter of whales; the Nazis embraced such work. Radical thinkers like Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmeier have been among those attempting to protect contemporary environmentalist movements from their latent regressive tendencies, and it would be helpful to them if their work got big, splashy reviews in the Times.

Like Hitler, liberal fascists have no qualms about forcing their myopic vision of a environmental Utopia down people's throats via totalitarian means.  Environmentalists want to control every aspect of modern society.  If that doesn't make them Hitler-like, I don't know what does.

What Makes Someone an "Environmentalist"?

Every day, no matter the weather, I eat my lunch at a picnic table next to the lake. Yesterday was absolutely beautiful, as most Florida days are, and I was joined by two companions.


Every evening I sit on my porch and enjoy the breeze off the bay. I love manatees. Nothing is more glorious than dolphins playing at sunset. I know it sounds silly, but I love to watch lizards chasing each other.

I feel blessed to have a very simple lifestyle that for the most part centers around nature. So does that make me an environmentalist? I imagine that many people would say "no."


I was recently told by an acquaintance that I only think that I care about the environment but that I am either fooling myself or being insincere because I don't believe in global warming. Now let me be clear, I believe that the globe warms and I believe that the globe cools. That is the "change" in climate change. I also hope that future generations will enjoy the ocean just as I do today. But I am not willing to ruin the economy for future generations based on a risky and unproven scheme.

Nobody can explain the medieval warming period to me. How is that we had period that was much warmer than today but there were far fewer people and no cars, no jets, no factories. Yet, I am to believe that warming is caused by over population, inefficient cars and industrialization.

The medieval warming period ended without Cap and Trade. Nobody met in Copenhagen and there were no carbon offsets. But it ended anyway.

I get that I sound simplistic. I readily admit that I don't understand the science. But from a common sense point of view, Global Warming just doesn't pass the smell test.

We are a pretty smart bunch of people. We can, without sacrificing our market based economy, preserve and protect our environment. Technology improves and evolves when the market is allowed to function. Instead of putting our faith on the alter of questionable science, let's take a step back and put our faith in ourselves.

Al's Next Gig: Poet

Thanks, Gator, I'll never feel about poetry the same:

Sir Al (its just a matter of time):

One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears
In midnight sun

Vapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea
Neptune’s bones dissolve

Snow glides from the mountain
Ice fathers floods for a season
A hard rain comes quickly

Then dirt is parched
Kindling is placed in the forest
For the lightning’s celebration

Unknown creatures
Take their leave, unmourned
Horsemen ready their stirrups

Passion seeks heroes and friends
The bell of the city
On the hill is rung

The shepherd cries
The hour of choosing has arrived
Here are your tools

Whoa, that's deep. Like you know, waders deep. Grand Canyon deep. I need a hot fudge brownie deep. And some Cheetos. Brownies and Cheetos. Whoa, that's funny. No, I mean it. Al's deep. Ya know what I'm saying? Al's the bomb.

Is Wiping Out Black Babies a Viable Green Policy?

Think you’ve heard it all? Don’t be silly! Seems there’s group of hoity toity environmentalists in Jolly Ol’ Great Britain who are doing “carbon credits” one better when it comes to assuaging their guilt over their lavish lifestyles: people credits. How they can possibly feel guilty when they obviously have no shame is beyond me, but here’s the deal-they pay women in third world countries to not have children as a means of mitigating their “carbon footprint.” Stacy writes in Politically correct genocide:

Rushing to the front of the race for the prize of Most Vomit-Inducing Environmental Initiative Ever Devised, the UK's Optimum Population Trust -- which counts such grandees as David Attenborough and Jonathon Porritt among its supporters -- has just launched PopOffsets. This quirkily named campaign is actually deeply sinister: It invites well-off Westerners to offset their carbon emissions by paying for poor people in the Third World to stop procreating.In short, if you feel bad about your CO2-emitting jaunt to Barbados, or the new Ferrari you just splurged on, then simply give some money to a charity which helps to "convince" Third World women not to have children, and -- presto! -- the carbon saved by having one less black child in the world will put your guilt-ridden mind at rest.

The Optimum Population Trust is a creepy Malthusian outfit made up of Lords, Ladies, and Sirs who all believe that the world's problems are caused by "too many people." It recently carried out a cost-benefit analysis of the best way to tackle global warming and "discovered" (I prefer the word "decided") that every £4 spent on contraception saves one ton of CO2 from being added to the environment, whereas you would need to spend £8 on tree-planting, £15 on wind power, £31 on solar energy, and £56 on hybrid vehicle technology to realize the same carbon savings.

If memory serves me, we used to refer to schemes like this as “eugenics.”

Let’s face it, “people offsets” are not only, as Stacy says, “creepy”, on the surface, they don’t seem very well thought out. Consider the average life expectancy in these third world countries: Malawi-48.3 years, Burkina Faso-52.2 years, Congo-46.4 years, Dijbouti-54.8 years and Guinea Bissau-48 years. The Lords and Ladies of the Optimum Population Trust aren’t getting much bang for the buck. Afterall, the average kid in Guinea Bissau probably doesn’t spend its short life tooling around in daddy’s Escalade. If they want to use their money to pay women not to have children wouldn’t they be better off paying for Paris Hilton’s tubal ligation? Now that would benefit society.

Look, I am all for environmentalists not having children. The fewer of them the better. But when they start paying women in third world countries not to bear children they are simply showing themselves to be racist hypocrites. There is much that can be done to improve the lives of children in third world countries-wiping them out should not be anyone’s goal.

ClimateGate: Starting Over

Seen over at Doug Ross:

Jonah Goldberg, writing in The National Review, makes the case that although nothing will come out significance will come out of Copenhagen or Cap and Trade, ClimateGate will not be the reason. Goldberg is much more generous to the scientist at the center of the ClimateGate scandal:

The e-mails don’t show that the scientists don’t believe global warming is real. Rather, they show that the scientists believe in global warming so much, they think they’re justified in doing anything to fight it. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, you never ask questions when Gaia’s on your side.

Personally, I believe that these scientists are a bunch of hacks who figured out that they could rake in the grant money and recognition by peddling junk science and were willing to go to any lengths to keep the money flowing. That's just me. However, Goldberg makes a very good point-there is no way in Hell to convince oil producing countries to leave their oil in the ground. Why should they? What has Saudi Arabia have going for it except its oil?

Being against Cap and Trade, I am, and believing that Global Warming is a scam, I do, doesn't mean that we should give up on energy independence. Energy independence is central to our national security. Make no mistake, every time you or I fill our gas tanks we put money in to the pockets who wish to see us dead.

What ClimateGate shows us is that we need honest scientists working on solutions to the very real energy problems that this country faces. But that will never happen so long as the very powerful environmental lobby is pulling the strings.

You will never see clean wind power being generated off our coasts because the environmental groups would rather worry about migrating birds than real solutions. Why aren't they promoting underwater turbines as a source of clean energy? Why aren't they promoting drilling to insure our energy independence? The environmentalists, and the scientists and politicians who are riding around in their pockets, have no interest in solutions except those that trade our dependence on foreign despots for dependence on one world fascists.

Goldberg says that it’s time to start over, beginning with the science. True enough, but this time around let's insist on honesty and transparency. We've seen what happens when the debate, and science, is left to those with hidden agendas.

Carol Browner, Socialism and Cap & Trade

Doug Ross brings us the story of Climate Change Czar Carol Browner. Browner is a perfect fit for the Obama administration. She is a long term member of Commission for a Sustainable World Society, a part of the Socialists International.

Conservatives are often accused of scaremongering when they claim left-wing
environmentalists are actually socialists hiding behind green disguises. But
with Carol Browner, incoming President Barack Obama's freshly appointed
Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change - the so-called White
House "Climate Czar" - there is no question about the socialism. Browner is a
member of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society (CSWS), which is a
formal organ of the Socialist International. Oddly enough, the group's web site
was recently scrubbed to remove Browner's picture and biography, but her name is
still listed next to the photo-biographies of her 14 colleagues on the
commission. The Socialist International is no group of woolly-headed idealists.
It is an influential assembly of officials from across the international
community whose official Statement of Principles describes an agenda of gaining
and exercising government power based on socialist concepts.

Cap and Trade has been on the back burner because of the ObamaCare fight. That doesn’t mean that the Administration has forgotten about it. Obama made a point to emphasize climate change at the UN this week. Carol Browner, who believes in “environmental justice”, is charged with bringing the president’s environmental tax and regulation scheme to pass. Through regulation, the administration will control the means of production for our entire energy industry. We, the taxpayers will pay for this regulation with increased costs not only to heat and cool our homes, but also by paying more for every good and service we buy. The ultimate result will a lower standard of living. Isn’t that the goal of Socialists?

Read the post on Browner here.

Stay Away From My Toilet Paper!

Via Memeorandum:

Look, we all have our limits. Let me say this as clearly as possible-hands off my TP! According to the Washington Post, Environmentalists Seek to Wipe Out Plush Toilet Paper.

Environmentalists want us to switch to that scratchy stuff made from recycled paper. I understand that the "one square" crowd are trying to save a tree but somethings are sacred.

Pundette:

We never buy the soft tp. In a large family that would mean changing rolls
every 15 minutes or so. And we're just too cheap thrifty. But it's nice to have
a choice, isn't it?

*(What next -- bacon?)

And that's the problem. Today it's my soft TP, tommorrow my bacon. I drawing a line in the sand right here and now.

Papa Don't Preach

From The Daley Gator:



When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, Energy Secretary Steven Chu sees Americans as unruly teenagers and the Administration as the parent that will have to teach them a few lessons.

Speaking on the sidelines of a smart grid conference in Washington, Dr. Chu
said he didn’t think average folks had the know-how or will to to change their
behavior enough to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

“The American public… just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a
way that they should act,” Dr. Chu said. “The American public has to really
understand in their core how important this issue is.”

Whether it is Chu referring to Americans as teenagers or Sunstein's belief that we are not smart enough to act in our own best interest without a "nudge" from our betters in government, the lack of respect for the citizens of this country is apparent.



We are not acting the Chu wants us to act. There seems to be a prevailing conviction in this administration that "leadership" and "dictatorship" are interchangeable. As if through some "natural order" they are the leaders, we are the followers, they will dictate, we will obey. Fortunately, Americans are not docile people.



We are still making our minds up on Global Warming. The science is not settled and neither are we. Chu should brace himself for more "unruly behavior."

More at:

Memeorandum