Global Warming Gravitas (UPDATED)

I'm amazed that the very people who've bought into the scam that is global warming are now  quick to display these kinds of cartoons and wag them in our faces:

More chutzpah-ish is the notion that these same people would link to an article stating the following:

The subsidized conversion of crops into fuel was supposed to promote energy independence and help limit global warming. But this promise was, as Time magazine bluntly put it, a “scam.”

Calling this alone a scam is in actuality part and parcel of a much bigger trickery because quite frankly, all of global warming is the scam to end all scams and far too many people have been suckered by it.

Including those ballsy enough to be promoters of Al Gore's religion while decrying it's fallout.

I've said it before and it's worth repeating.

Al Gore is lying, people are dying.

Why be a part of that?

UPDATE: Thanks to Kate, a photograph (with embedded link) that best informs from whence came Mike's rules for discourse:

Comments

[Mike Todd]

Rick - Throw $10 into the Rwanda/Burundi pot (I noticed you neglected to link to that particular post but always find these ones...) and I'll look the other way on this insult.

: )

Peace.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

Shouldn't be a surprise at all.

Once you simply consider the possibility that would offend them the most -- that their thinking might, just might, be a tad simplistic -- everything falls into place. The formula is First World == White People == Bad, Third World == Brown People == Good. Global warming has nothing to do with the environment at all. It's about restricting commerce in the first world, and establishing a large flow of money to the third world. With that in mind, it just makes sense that once the third world becomes hungrier still thanks to global warming policies, the same people would be using more GUILT to sell us more nonsense.

And Mike's "throw money into the pot" remark above falls perfectly in line with that.

It all goes back to what bad policy is. Bad policy never admits its badness, never, never, not ever. Once its effects are felt, those who promote it insist it simply a) wasn't carried out right (or left a loophole); b) was unfairly blamed for the wreckage of something else; or c) needs more time to work properly.

The United States is (so far) still a capitalist society. It's worked well for us: Our poor people are fat. The message around the world is that we are supposed to be "deplored" or "disdained," and the last thing any other country should ever want to do is be like us. And so internationally, people are starving -- other countries don't want to be like us, and so they aren't.

I know there are supposed to be caveats to that crude summary, but hard evidence doesn't suggest any.

[Rick]

Mike, you want to talk insults?

How about your continued insistence to mark my comments at your place as Spam and thus disallowing my participation...

Please, take your "insult" comment and find the bodily orifice of your choice to go hide it in...

[Mike]

Fair enough Rick, it's your house.

As you're already annoyed with me, perhaps I can push my luck and suggest you update your post a 3rd time, this time to indicate your particular issue, not with global warming, not with Al Gore, but with my view on ethanol. First check the stats on how much crop land is being converted from food production to ethanol production. Check with the grain markets (a capitalist tool!) and ask the experts what is driving up the cost of corn.

After all, that's what my post was about in the first place.

(And if you change your mind about the $10, let me know.)

Peace.

[Rick]

Mike,

I'm not a smart as you emergent progressives so educate me. Are you stating that you think demand for biofuels, a by-product of the Chicken Little Global Warming (and fabricated) crisis, has nothing to do with any of this?

If that's the case, why not enlighten my uneducated (and bitter) butt?

You might also fill us all in with what your view on ethanol is... and then tell us who you believe to be responsible for what's occurring... though I predict your answer will start with a 'B', end with an 'H' and rhyme with tush.

And by the way... this isn't my house... it's an open-air market where there's a free exchange of ideas pal... all I do here is get the exchange moving... I take it you're not familiar with the concept... go figure...

[Morgan K Freeberg]

Why is it when people KNOW THEY'RE WRONG they never come out and say anything? It's always "go do the research." Google this. Go look up that.

[Mommynator]

If this is the best thinking the emergents can come up with, the Church is in grave trouble. The more I read from them, the more disgusted I am by them. That's all I have to say about this.

[Leslie]

Here's a 3rd update for your post, Rick:

The idea that driving up the cost of corn is bad for poor people is a fallacy. People in poor countries, agrarian countries, GROW the grain and eat a portion of their own and sell the rest.

What's good for the poor? HIGH PRICES.

It appears the poverty industry is hell bent on keeping the poor in poverty always.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

The corn ethanol subsidy is a big business, and right now the country doesn't get an awful lot out of it. But they get what they want, including a huge mandate for 7.5 billion gallons by 2012.

For the time being, they're joined at the hip with the global warming movement through tax credit legislation and carbon credit trading. "Morgan's Rule of Environmental Activism" seems to hold up just fine here: The purpose of environmental activism is to show off, get attention, and send signals to each other, and has very little to do with anything that might help the environment or anything in it.

Two things need to be added here: A scarcity of corn, just like a scarcity of petroleum, is going to have a dependent-commodity effect on the food market overall. For example, the price of anything that has to be transported isn't going to stay static, if the price of gas goes up. By the same token, if there's a (man-made) scarcity with corn, there will have to follow a partially-commensurate scarcity of beef (which can be corn-fed or grass-fed), and a much more commensurate scarcity of flour. Corn is "upstream" from a lot of other commodities in this way, and I don't see anyone discussing the resulting (man-made) scarcity in those terms other than knuckle-dragging right-wing rubes like me.

The other thing I'd like to add is that, since I've made the effort to pay some closer attention to environmentalists, which is a big chunk of the last century and whatever has passed by in the current one -- I can't remember too many examples of environmentalists being told NO about things. With negligible and rare exceptions, they get what they want. The science that underlies their demands, during the stretch of time I'm addressing here, has been correct about as often as I can make a green traffic light during rush hour. Which is far less than half the time.

Honestly, I can't think of a single other activist group that gets exactly what they want, nearly as often as the environmentalists do. The whiny feminists would have tied for this distinction until the Equal Rights Amendment didn't get ratified. But the whiny feminists put themselves in a position where 38 states had to say "yes"...environmentalists are never that accountable to the people who have to live with the consequences of their crap.

Which is exactly what that cartoon addresses. Rather cleverly, I think.