Select Page

As with most things associated with the left side of the bell curve, I want to give the Global Warming cultists an opportunity to convince me that their religious fervor is based on rational thinking.

I mean really. How can we get behind all of this hyperbolic rhetoric around our future survival when most of the largest population centers are not willing or able to change their economies without the USA providing the resources they need (i.e. HUGE transfer of wealth). To me, this falls into the category of guilt-based rather than science-based responsibility. Personally, I don’t understand how cleaning the air in Maine will benefit Maine when anybody will tell you that there is this little thing called “prevailing wind” which will send our pristine air to Ireland and we Mainers will not get anything for our ROI. Same thing with the ocean temperatures. How will a little state like Maine contribute to lowering the water temperatures of the Gulf of Maine when there’s this little thing like the Gulf Stream moving currents (again) across the Atlantic to Europe?

Do you see where I’m going with this? We are asked to fundamentally change our lives and economies to “save the world” while the benefits of this is spurious at best.

I’d love to debate anyone that can convince me that they have actually applied any critical thinking to this fanaticism or are just “going along to get along.”

We need to apply the same sort of thinking that the NATO contibution uses. By that I mean that every country on the planet (you know, the one that is doomed here) to contribute some percentage of their annual GDP so that they can demonstrate their skin in the game. Absent that, it’s just another case of shuck and jive.

Live long and prosper my friends.