Of course you missed one important point, higher fuel efficiency standards encourage/allow drivers to drive more, thus, using more fossil fuels. Not that I disagree with your hypocricy point, but then, isn't hypocrite synonymous with politician?
Posted at 2007-05-30 17:13:23 [PermaLink]That was a good catch. Another is the political left's take on the environment and immigration. They keep crying about an environmental holocaust, demanding that we shrink our environmental footprint while cutting back on greenhouse gasses. Then, they turn around and demand that we increase immigration. Oddly, immigrants use up much more energy and generate far more pollutants here in welfare rich, consumerist Canada than they ever would back in Africa or Pakistan. Here, they drive cars, ride gas guzzling busses, shop at Walmart, and use copious amounts of water and electricity in their multi bedroom apartments. Back there, many do not drive. They shop at the local market and live in much smaller dwellings, often with no running water or electricity. If we really want to save the environment, perhaps it would be better if they remain in their homelands, where they will use the least resources and do the least environmental harm. Anyone who puts the environment first should surely see that mass immigration to the west and environmental protection are conflicting priorities.
Posted at 2007-05-30 19:52:54 [PermaLink]And of course, I'm watching CBC right now with Jack Layton complaining about the loss of manufacturing jobs in Canada.
So, if he gets his wish, more manufacturing jobs means more manufacturing which means more energy to power those machines which means more pollution and CO2 generation which means more climate change.
But, if he does not get his wish, fewer manufacturing jobs means fewer immigrants required meaning...oh, just read INP.
Global warming, Jack Layton, enviromentalism....where does one begin?
You know, I bet 90% of the world's *climatologists* can't even distinguish between an oral and an anal thermometer!
In case anyone's wondering, the difference is in the taste....
On a more serious note, we should never, ever forget that climatology is NOT a hard science in the same sense that physics and chemistry are.
Somehow, though, I just don't think many dippers were big on science in highschool.
The discipline simply can't account for all the minute details, factors and variables that combine in an unknown myriad of ways to create the weather.
The proof of this claim lies in the fact that meterologists can't so much as predict next week's weather with even a 50% success rate.
And yet we're gonna trust these suckers when they tell us what the sea levels will be a century from now?
Hard science has a predictive aspect, it can reproduce with 100% accuracy the same phenomenon, the same reactions, over and over and over again.
Jeez, if climatologists were so convinced of the predictive properties of their meterological certainties, then why aren't more of 'em planning outdoor weddings....in the Scottish Highlands.
The day climatologists can make it rain anywhere at anytime in the Atacami, you'll know the discipline has become a "science".
For the moment, it's all just glorified alchemy.
That is, of course, when it's not a substitute religion.