The Kruiser Climate Manifesto-Part I

Sitting here in LA, breathing all the smoky air, I promised myself this morning that I'd avoid writing about the Climate Commies today. It's difficult, as global warming is my favorite battleground these days and it's come up ad nauseam during the news coverage of the fires this week. As soon as I decided this I started reading another Halloween scare report from the United Nations. Few things this side of Harry Reid annoy me more than the UN dispensing reports about how we're all going to die next Thursday if Al Gore isn't crowned Intergalactic Ruler at once. They get me so worked up I write really long sentences like that.

My first response, as always, is that we could start helping the environment by getting rid of the UN and putting a lovely park in its place.

I've gotten into a few discussions on climate change this week and watched more than a few during the wildfire coverage and noticed that some of the same crap keeps coming up from the Left. What I'm going to do here, and it might take a post in two or three parts, is stake out my territory in this debate and simply refer people to it later when they challenge me with wild-eyed fervor. My hope is that pausing and reading something will take everything down a notch and foster some reasonable debate. I know I'm crazy, but we'll let my therapist worry about that.

I feel so strongly about this that I am going to use bullet points. I don't trot out the BPs unless I'm feeling very formal. I probably should drink some tea and do something special with my pinkies. More on that later. Here are the first of the points I would like to make:

• Nobody denies that climate changes. Whenever I express skepticism about the Climate Commie Party line on climate change the first question I'm invariably asked is, "So you don't believe in Global Warming?" And it's always asked in a jump-down-your-throat, "nanny-nanny boo-boo" kind of way, as if they can't wait to bury me with quotes from Al Gore. It's been a whole 24 hours since someone last asked me that. I heard Alan Colmes ask it while interviewing a scientist from the CATO Institute last night. The one thing I've never heard, however, is someone saying "I don't believe in Global Warming" before being asked the question. What I don't believe in is hysteria. Or speculation (computer models) regarded as absolute fact. What is still up for debate is the level of human contribution to the greenhouse gas problem. It's up for debate unless you're Al Gore or one of his followers. These people take a more Stalin-esque approach to debate and simply tell everyone that there will be none. That's what I don't believe in.
  
• Hysteria based on speculation is ridiculous. What usually gets reported are think-tank and computer model projections about the fate of the planet that are worse-case scenarios. Why? Because the Climate Commies feel that's the best way to get everyone's attention. Don't believe me? Here's a quote from St. Al Gore in Grist magazine: "Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." (Italics mine) Let me get this straight: it's OK to lie if they end up listening and on your side. Is this an environmental debate or a "How-To" primer for frat boys to get laid? You want to get my attention? Present all of the facts and get a spokesperson who isn't unhinged. People who are more insane than I am make me nervous.
• International communism isn't going to save the planet. You almost have to admire the capacity for denial on the Left. No matter how many times they see socialism or communism fail and capitalism work they just close their eyes, plug their ears and hum until the free-market bogeyman goes away. Their solution to mitigate climate concerns isn't to let free enterprise work more of its magic but to enforce a set of international protocols that wouldn't do more than screw up the US economy. Then they get into this weird "carbon credit" trading thing that sounds more like the Catholic church in the days of Martin Luther than 21st Century business. The companies that invested in economically ruinous eco-friendly technologies could sell their credits to the evil polluters and feel better. Then after lying to their stockholders they could buy some plenary indulgences from the Cardinal and-oh wait-we're back to the 1500s again. At least we know they won't be burning any witches. The smoke would be bad for the environment.
  
• Somebody needs to talk about the cow farts. Why? Because they are the biggest contributors of methane gas on the planet. And because it would be fun to see "cow fart" on the front page of the New York Times.
  

Enough for today. You've all been very patient. The nurse is here and telling me that my "outside time" is done for the day.

Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell