Via The Blaze:
Uh, Al? Your analogy is [obviously] flawed in several respects. One, believing it was OK to discriminate against blacks in the old South was largely a majority view back when ... just as belief in global warming/climate change is today. The minority who said "Hey! This is stupid" back in the old South is akin to those who today say, "Hey! Placing severe limits on what we can/cannot do/buy because it may affect the climate."
Second, there was no rational basis to treat people differently just because their skin color is different. There is, however, a rational basis to be skeptical about what people (like Gore) scream about regarding climate change. (By the way, notice how the term has been subtlely changed to "climate change" from "global warming." Why is that?) We've all read and heard about the East Anglia e-mail scandal where devotees like Gore actively suppressed/altered various bits of evidence and contrary views. Why does something that is supposedly "concretely rational" need such actions in its defense? Why is something that is supposedly "concretely rational" make contradictory statements as to its actual effects? Why does something that is supposedly "concretely rational" need to advocate for immediate regulations and lifestyle changes ... when their own science says that the current quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere means climate change is irrevocable for at least a millenium?
And, again, why are devotees to "real science" apparently so fearful of Darwin's greatest contribution to science -- evolution and adaptability? Not only has the climate changed (at times severely) many times in the planet's history, but for as long as man has been present on the globe it has always successfully adapted to environmental changes.
Grow up, Al.Posted by Hube at August 27, 2011 09:53 AM | TrackBack