The Conservative Case
The Kyoto Treaty will become International law on the 16th.
The geographic state of the United States will not be part of it.
All over the world, there will be ceremonies marking the date when a large part of humankind decided to do something about the growing concern over climate. Even if it is not enough.
See if you can find the announcements and stories in the media you use.
Last week, when all the new reports of climate change came out, I e-mailed the articles to certain individuals who I know are conservative, and who I know just can't seem to get with the program.
They always seem to think that this is a religion not science.
The responded to my e mail politely but cutely.
If their house was on fire and their wife and kids were inside,
I doubt if they would have been so cavalier, or cute.
But now, I have the proof.
They do think it is religion.
At least Tom DeWeese of the Conservative Voice thinks so.
The UN finally got what it wanted. The Kyoto Climate Change treaty becomes international law this month on Wednesday. The treaty went into full effect with the approval by the Russian Federation, even without the support of the United States. Time will tell if and when the treaty will begin to affect the U.S. economy. What is certain is that truth and reason had no part in the process.
Global warming has become a new religion. No one is supposed to question whether it is a fact.
Global Warming has become a religion that the faithful have vowed to follow no matter what the true facts may show. Global Warming is a theory, nothing more, and large numbers of scientists around the world are beginning to question its validity. There is no consensus of support.The fact is the Kyoto Protocol will have absolutely no effect on climate change, but the faithful demand that it be implemented anyway, because “we have to do something.”
Global Warming is nothing more than a euphemism for redistribution of wealth from the rich, development nations to jealous dictatorships who refuse to allow their citizens the right to gain their own wealth through free markets.
It’s about political redistribution from strong, independent sovereign nations into the hands of a power-hungry global elite cowering in the United Nations. These are the same cowardly scoundrels who used to try to rule the world through global communism. Today they pretend that the same lies have something to do with protecting the environment.
The truth is there is no man-made global warming.
There’s only the scam of an empty global religion designed to condemn human progress and sucker the feeble minded into worldwide human misery. I rest my case. Amen.
Sounds like Tom is the one with the religion.
I bet he thinks the world is 6000 years old too.
I rest my case. Amen.
.
posted by oZ @ 6:06 PM
5 Comments:
You made this up right. This cannot be real. I checked the link and found the guy but not this editorial.
About twenty years ago, my Great-Aunt accused my Father of cheating on my Mother. At the time, both my Great-Aunt and my Great-Uncle were what can only be [dramatically] described as Texas Oil Barons. Because my Father was/is in the oil and gas distribution business, both parties had dealings with one another and my Great-Aunt believed she had some secret knowledge of my Father's dealings with female colleagues that no one else was privy. He did not even justify her poison with a response.
As the story goes, my Great-Aunt was later diagnosed as clinically crazy, and in fact, my Father never engaged in any sort of impropriety. My Mother took my father's word on faith and hope and based on what she knew was his heart. Years after the incident, the family learned that it was my Great-Aunt that enjoyed "sloaching" around after hours. My Father and my Mother have been married for the better part of 35 years, and have never known intimate knowledge of anyone outside of their relationship. Never... before or after their wedding vows.
The moral of this story is two-fold.
The obvious: Human experience and action dictates that people engaging in certain behaviors often accuse others of the same behavior as a way of justifying their actions. In this, my Great-Aunt was projecting; often times, accusations are both confessions and attempts at relation. It is the first fallacy of humanity: People assume others are just like themselves. In the case of the "right wingers" (regarding Oz's post) they often assume people of opposing ideologies are engaging in conspirital activities because they too engage in conspirital activities, though the ends are altogether different.
The second, more latent moral, regards what I'll call "party-baiting." I've attempted to address this in past responses, unsatisfactorily.
There is no longer a "real" divide between what in the American Political Tradition we've formerly labeled "left and right." The political spectrum is much, much, much more diverse. I am a perfect example of this.
Not many people know how I came to know Oz, but suffice it to say that during my annual trip to the local bookstore to pick up a copy of a classic I read every year, I came across Oz's book only to read it cover to cover later that same evening. I read it as a skeptic, and even went so far as to research what I believed was pseudo-science, researched all of the notations, foot-notes, etc., only to come to the conclusion that times we're indeed, a-changin'.
I went back to the same bookstore and picked up 10 copies of Oz's book and forwarded them to my former boss (a congressman) and most of my immediate friends and family. The responses were positive, generally, but the overwhelming first blush regarded my seemingly 180 degree turn away from a position that I was born and raised on, and a position that I believed was correct, without affording myself a real opportunity to look at the evidence directly. In short, I found my own real value, challenged my own hierarchy of ideas, and came to my own conclusions, and that is why I now advocate a new look at automation, transportation, power supplies and sustainable fuel sources, just to name a few.
On the flip side, I still advocate "Austrian" economics, which is largely considered a conservative position. How is this consistent? Alternative fuel sources and sustainables are expedient. Even if you do not believe climate change is in the here and now, even if you do not believe Hubbert's assertion that demand has surpassed direct and reserve supply, reason dictates that change is necessary because the current means are finite, whether it be in our lifetime or in our children's lifetime; and any change is an opportunity at new markets. But because, current regimes, be them liberal or conservative, maintain a monopoly on old-world resources, said regimes and institutions will defend their shares even if it comes at the expense of others. This basic reaction is neither conservative nor liberal, this basic reaction is human. Love them anyway, because "the fool persisiting in his foolishness will inevitably inherit wisdom," and you never know if you have an opportunity to expedite the inevitablity.
To this end, it is fallacious and altogether ineffective to spend any of your time attacking party lines because sooner or later you'll run across inconsitencies. Plus, when it really comes down to it, it devolves to childish argumentation. It is much more effective to say nevertheless by promoting a consilient concept, a consistent unilateral idea, as the pundits shoot their poison arrows, withou having to balk your day away. Eventually, you're vindicated. But should you disregard this plea, please note that by demonizing opposition, you only slow the process and possibly make the perfect enemy of a potential ally.
As a politically homeless citizen of the world that just happens to love his country, just happens to believe that there is absolutely no contradiction being American and being a citizen of the World (not a slave to the UN,) if me and mine are redeemable, anyone is.
TALK ABOUT YOUR IDEAS. BACK YOUR IDEAS UP. STOP TALKING SHIT BY ATTACKING THE INTERLOCUTOR. And finally either work towards or invest in sound policy. Because resource change is inevitable, and because it will open the world up as a new market, you not only stand to be right, but rich, too. It is really this simple.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
thanks for your comments SG.
You thoughts and advice are welcome and helpful.
I absolutely agree that the left/ right is a very tired way to view political events.
I am not attacking Mr. DeWeese however, he seems perfectly capable of doing that by himself.
The point here is that, with those who have strong idealogical ideas, information may not be enough. Creationist believe what they believe even as they look at dinasours in the museums and suck the oil from decomposed 300 million year old fossils. This takes a special kind of filter.
If DeWeese and his lot believe that Climate Change is a religion from the godless communist, no amount of actual science will change their minds.
Those who wish to move towards a sustainable and advanced world must understand this mentality in order to produce effective counter measures.
Where you and I meet is where the political spectrum can meet.
To anonymous,
No I didn't make this up. Deweese published this yesterday as a guest opinion on Conservative Voice.
I agree, if the world is truly going to mount a unified effort to deal with Climate Change, we must find a way to get the far right to embrace it. I think working through the Church is the key.
There are many conservative church groups looking at the issue today and changing their positions. DeWeese's rantings marginalize his people and his position, as you accurately displayed by posting his own words.
There are many in the Christian church who believe that we should care for God's creation, not completely destroy it in the name of capitalism and freedom.
Post a Comment
<< Home