believer of Al Gore's global warming. It's rare when a liberal opens up and
speaks in coherent sentences. In many way, Justin reminds me of me when I
was in my early twenties. That's why I wrote back to him.
He expended a lot of effort writing and deserves a careful answer. I hope
you also find it helpful. cb
Justin: I'm sure I'm going to regret this because you will feel the need to
defend yourself (which you have the right to do), sparking off yet another
political-based argument, but I can't sit back any longer and listen to this
slander about the environment any more. This is long, so please give it the
respect it deserves.
Justin: Of all the things I care about politically, the environment is
without a doubt the one thing I care the most deeply about - not because it
will immediately and directly affect you or me, but because of the
longstanding and future implications it has on our world. The world is
shrinking.
Ex-Liberal: I'm not sure I know what you mean by shrinking. but okay. You
sound like a "population bomb" theorist.
Justin: .and the ONE thing that will be there for our children and their
children and their children's children is the planet that we all inhabit.
Ex-Liberal: It is good that you care for our progeny. That is not usually a
leftist attribute. I also accept the evidence of global warming. I accept
that global warming has warmed the planet for 100,000 years, and will
continue to warm our planet for another 100,000 years, with minor 1,500-year
heating cycles that may occur.
Justin: To deny that the environment is not important and that "a far off
glacier melting" will have no impact is to deny that we don't need air to
breathe. Is terrorism and the threat to our lands a serious issue that must
be met? Most certainly. Is terrorism the most important issue we have to
worry about right now? Probably - it certainly is the most salient. However,
why must we play this game of black and white where one issue must be so
important to remain on the agenda that it doesn't allow room for other
important concerns, such as the environment?
Ex-Liberal: This is not an either/or black/white red/blue issue. This is an
apples/kangaroo argument - one that more closely resembles the "how do I
deal with the home-invasion robbers who are threatening to kill my family
right now?" argument versus the inane "boxers or briefs," or "Mac or PC"
arguments that preoccupy so many intellectually lazy Americans.
Ex-Liberal: There are also disingenuous and dangerous implications to your
arguments as well. The disingenuousness comes from liberal environmentalists'
1) irrational preference for fossil fuel over nuclear energy, 2) the
prevailing hypocrisy illustrated by Al Gore's energy bill, and 3) their
refusal to intellectually grasp facts like electric cars create MORE carbon
emissions than regular cars because of our present reliance of fossil fuels
to generate electricity (and the loss of electrical power due to electrical
resistance) before the electricity reaches the car, or the fact that we rely
on more fossil fuel to create the energy needed to create hydrogen to drive
hydrogen cars, and so forth. There's a huge disconnect between their
emotionally-driven passion and the effort expended to avoid their
intellectual grasp of reality.
Ex-Liberal: NOTE: Our reliance of emotionally-driven passion may stem from
youthful immaturity. Immature men love liberal women because they're easier
to have sex with. Immature and insecure women prefer liberal men because
they're "less judgmental" and, therefore, less of an emotional threat. But
as we mature, men grow up to prefer smart women who respect themselves,
while women prefer men who represent the virtues of emotional stability. It's
a good thing for America that liberals enjoy recreational sex
(un-reproductive sex). Europe's impending demise illustrates how liberal
ideas can be as genocidal as death camps - without the muss or fuss. But I
digress.
Ex-Liberal: The danger comes from liberal environmental disingenuousness.
ELF is America's most active terrorist group today. They use terror, arson,
and vandalism to enforce their disingenuousness as a pretext of their
"morally superior sensitivity" to protect the planet from those who do not
accept their drivel as fact. I'm not saying that all environmentalists
support terrorism but, rather, that liberal environmentalists assume that
conservative environmentalists who expose liberal disingenuousness are
anti-environment. I can look at the facts, use efficient cars, BBQ with
propane instead of charcoal, and be environmentally-sensitive without being
disingenuous. The danger comes from disingenuous liberals who want to impose
their irrational policies (that actually cause greater harm to the
environment) on those they ostensibly want to protect. Two examples: 1)
their irrational refusal to permit nuclear energy plants to be built in the
US (France gets 70 percent of their electricity from nuclear energy) in
favor of fossil fuels, and 2) their refusal to permit loggers from thinning
forests that would prevent millions of acres from being burned in wildfires
under the pretext of "preserving the habitat."
Ex-Liberal: Their reckless disingenuousness also leads to questions of how
they expect to enforce and impose their irrational hypocrisy on other people
of far dirtier nations. Because leftist (disingenuous) environmentalists are
promoted and supported by leftist teachers (by brainwashing our children)
who are supported by leftist politicians who create expensive and
meaningless laws that hurt our country, our economy, and our environment,
conservative environmentalists do more for the planet than liberal
environmentalists. These arguments undermine your following arguments.
Justin: The fact of it is this: the environment should not be a Red/Blue
issue (I *HATE* to quote Gore and those other "Hollywood Liberals" since
their claims were kind of corny and I'm not getting my facts or statements
from them); the environment should be something that everyone should
genuinely have concerns about.
Ex-Liberal: Most Americans, (I'd estimate 95%-plus) are either
environmentalists (defined) or at least sensitive to the environment. They
are represented by all Americans, not just liberals. I consider myself an
environmentalist not only because I have cleaned despoiled reefs from
fishing nets and promote ecologically-sound practices for sport divers, but
also because I pick up trash when I walk and turn off lights and appliances
that my left-leaning wife likes to leave on (the lights are pretty, the
sound of the TV is soothing, etc.). She'd consider herself as concerned for
the environment as I am, but has only recently begun to care enough to get
rid of her high performance MBZ 500 SL. We still have an SUV but I mostly
ride my motorcycle. (I'm still working on the lights and TV.) My liberal
Hollywood neighborhood is jammed with SUVs and muscle cars that they
purchase under the pretext of "child safety" (again, disingenuous).
Justin: Why should they have concern? Because the effect of global warming,
deforestation, air pollution, water quality, toxic waste, biodiversity, etc.
has enormous implications for us that cannot be ignored. Species are going
extinct at a faster rate than ever before recorded, less natural land is
available to provide the essential oxygen that we all need to breathe and
provide for the overall biodiversity of the world, we are depleting the
earth of its natural resources like oil and coal and an exponential rate,
and the list goes on.
Ex-Liberal: This is where Justin's thesis unravels: Anyone who challenges
hysterical and disingenuous leftist environmentalists either hate the planet
or are, at least, anti-environment partisans. Anyone who does not share
their hysterical passion of ecological paranoia threatens our planet.
Justin: Global warming IS happening.
Ex-Liberal: There is no argument. The planet has warmed for 100,000 years -
long before SUVs and the Industrial Age. Some evidence shows that our planet
gets hot every 1500 years before cooling again. Vikings once farmed on
Greenland!
Justin: Just because we do not see tropical weather on a daily basis and
because we still have blizzards and snow and cold doesn't mean it's not
happening.
Ex-Liberal: Again, Justin illustrates leftist disingenuousness: Lefties, who
so gratuitously antagonize conservatives for their Judeo-Christian
teachings, God, religion, and faith, are the first to genuflect before
alternative religions of global warming, UFOs, and cow farts.
Justin: Here's a piece of statistical fact for you: Over the last century
the average temperature has climbed about 1 degree Fahrenheit around the
world. During our last ice age 10,000 years ago the Earth's average
temperature was only 4 degrees colder annually than what its average annual
temperature is today (and those 4 degrees changed over the course of
thousands of years). Small variations in the Earth's climate can have
enormous effects - four degrees can be the difference between today and an
ice age. In fact, many physical anthropologists, scientists, and other
professionals have released data suggesting that prior to the Earth's ice
ages there was actually a general GLOBAL WARMING of the earth's climate
(this time by natural causes based on the sun and the position of the Earth's
orbit and celestial orientation rather than through the rapid enforcement of
climate change by the Earth's inhabitants).
Ex-Liberal: MANY other physical anthropologists, scientists, and other
professionals have refuted that data as well (1, 2, 3, 4). Leftist
theologians prevail by consensus, while scientists prevail with unassailable
evidence. Galileo knows what I'm talking about.
Ex-Liberal: This goes back to liberal ...
read more »