Arguments for global warming don't make sense

Do these wild-eyed environmentalists have an answer for this ridiculous cold and icy weather we are experiencing?  Of course they do.  Listen carefully as their logic is hard to follow and makes about as much sense as labeling the prohibitive Obamacare mess as the Affordable Care Act.  This labeling has brought a new high to the definition of an oxymoron.

            So here is why we are having the extremely cold weather.  The wind is blowing off the polar ice cap and this melting ice is transferred southward across Canada and the United States thus giving us sub-freezing temperatures.  With a straight face our kooky tree huggers give us this explanation.

            Since the polar bear population is exploding, you no longer see the heart-tugging picture of mama polar bear floating on a vanishing piece of ice leading you to believe the poor bear who is an excellent swimmer will perish in this flood of warmed water.

            Today we have a different barrage put forth by the crazy environmentalists.  Now every flood, every hurricane, every drought, every weather extreme of any kind is caused by climate change.  The phrase climate change is almost always preceded by the descriptive two words: man-made.

            If this is man-made because of industrial pollution, how do you explain the terrible drought of the thirties, the hurricane decades ago that ravished Galveston and other coastal cities killing thousands?  And the floods that demolished entire sections of cities like Kansas City in the twenties.  More and more thoughtful scientists are rebelling against the hysterics of Al Gore and his cult.

            So how do you explain the claim that 93% of scientists at one time believed man-made global warming is significant?  This can easily be explained by selective polling.  If you only survey people or scientists that are already committed to the cause and who receive government grants to produce certain results, you will get a biased answer.

            Just like so many of this administration’s programs this would all be humorous if it weren’t so damaging to the economy and the earth’s inhabitants.  Just last month

The New York Times (who else) reported a routine international climate-change conference turned into an emotional forum with developing countries demanding compensation from the worst polluting countries for damage they say they are already suffering.

            The new term shouted by these characters in Poland is “CLIMATE INJUSTICE”.  They mimic Al Gores’ old claim issued about 30 years ago that sea levels by the year 2000 would rise 20 feet.  Since that time there have been only a couple inches of rising sea levels.  That of course makes no difference.  Some of these wild-eyed fanatics are shouting that some of these delegates who live in coastal cities won’t be around much longer.

            Their answer – the advocates want to start by having large nations such as the United States pledge 100 billion dollars a year to a green climate fund.  Of course, that would be only a meager start.  They claim countries like the U.S. could easily pay more.

Their argument is partially based on the fact our congress allocated 60 billion dollars to rebuild from just one storm – that being Sandy which struck the Northeast U.S. just a little over a year ago.

            This is a perfect example of how foolish and irrational spending can be used as a reason for another round of foolish and irrational spending.  If you remember only about one-third of this 60 billion was to be used for hurricane damage.  The balance is slated for pet political projects given to northeastern liberals and to the suck-up Republican Governor Christie of New Jersey.

            It is important to note our Republican Congressman Tom Cotton was one of only a handful of legislators who voted against this travesty.  As Mr. Cotton points out this 60 billion is more than the budget of many states.

            Even the compliant New York Times states that assigning liability for specific events such as the recent typhoon that hit the Philippines is nearly impossible.  The Times goes on to say it can take scientists years just to determine whether global warming contributed to the severity of a particular weather event if it can be determined at all.

            This common sense conclusion by The New York Times will not slow down the radicals who want to blame capitalism and industrial production for most problems whether related to weather or not.

            If you think we have economic problems now with 10 million less people working that we did five years ago, just imagine the catastrophic effect on all of us if we allow the extreme environmentalists dictate our agenda.

(Jerry Jackson of Heber Springs writes his “conservative viewpoint” column each week)