Search This Blog

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Global Warming Day-By-Day

Global Warming - as exposed in the pages of Day By Day I love this cartoon strip, which is presented daily, because it presents a dialogue between viewpoints and yet is skewed towards the common-sense and wise (that is, my point of view)!

Global Warming - It's another one of those pseudo-scientific movements that is both unproven and immensely popular, particularly with those on the lefty side of the ideological aisle. I am not entirely sure why, frankly. Taking measures to decrease dependence on fossil fuels is not a bad thing, as long as those measures don't hamper the economy greatly. But then again, it is these same people who have blocked the expansion of nuclear energy as a power source. Faulty logic, or what?

I have found that whatever Greenpeace wants is usually stupid. I remember discussing the limits on logging in the Western States imposed during the Clinton years with a couple of logging state officials. They bemoaned the lost revenue to the tax revenues and the joblessness created by the reduced logging. They then pointed out how more forest fires now resulted from the new rules. Truth was, if you didn't log the forests, they would catch on fire and "log" themselves. Boneheaded liberals strike again! Now here comes Global Warming and if it really catches on, more troubles for our economy. I have found that it is the little guys who catch it on the chin first when the economy falls. So Global Warming might as well be a euphemism for "Excuse to hurt the economy and increase the number of poor people" as far as I am concerned. Comments to follow...


loboinok said...

Here is an interesting site.

When you get to "A Matter of Opinion", click on the #3 and 4 graphs.

lava said...

I sure hope you are right about global warming- but I doubt it. Even many on the right agree that GW is a man made problem.

Who are these logging state officials you speak of?

Radar, you managed to completely oversimplify forest fires. Yell "Fire"- right? That gets peoples attention, fire burns--it must be bad. But, it is pretty well accepted that given two options (1) logging the forest and (2) the forest burning, the second is the one which will allow the forest to recover quickly, feeding of the nutrients. It is tougher for the logged areas to recover.

Bush jumped on the fear of fires, and eased logging restrictions, simplifying the issue much like you did.

But, hey, I guess I'm just one of those crazy liberals who thinks our national forests are a good thing.