jump to navigation

Global Warming and Spinal Tap April 5, 2007

Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Global Warming, Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberal self-loathing.

The Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle is a wonderful place.  Though it does raise some interesting issues:

  1. My kids are a tad too bright for this place.  While they appreciate the opportunity to observe animals they might not otherwise get the chance to see, they are troubled by the captive environment the animals are forced to live in.
  2. Liberal guilt suffuses the zoo.  Some examples:
  • CONSTANT reminders of the place’s enviro-friendly stance, from their no-flush toilets to the “100% Compostible” cups and spoons. 
  • Equally constant reminders that the Zoo is committed to protecting wildlife habitat still extant worldwide.

But my favorite example comes from a display found in the reptile/amphibian habitat.  The displays describes itself as the primary reasons that amphibians, particularly frogs, are disappearing at such an astonishing rate.  The List:

  1. Pollution from factories and mines
  2. Acid Rain
  3. Unusally cold winters
  4. Drought
  5. Draining and filling of wetlands
  6. Logging of forests
  7. Introduced species as predators and competitors
  8. Pesticides
  9. Declining ozone layer, ultraviolet radiation
  10. Air pollution from volcanoes
  11. Global warming

 Note, out of 11 cited reasons, 8 of them are anthropogenic causes for species reduction.

But note #11That baby was added recently, as it appears that it was put on the display after it was originally formed.  After all, it directly contradicts #3.

Pause for a moment of reflection:

Nigel Tufnel: [pointing to a customized Marshall amplifier head unit] This is a top, to, uh, you know, what we use on stage, but it’s very, very special, because, if you can see…

Marty DiBergi: Yeah…

Nigel Tufnel: [pointing to the control dials] …the numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board: eleven, eleven, eleven, eleven…

Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?

Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.

Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it’s louder? Is that any louder?

Nigel Tufnel: Well, it’s one louder, isn’t it? It’s not ten. You see, most… most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You’re on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up… you’re on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?

Marty DiBergi: I don’t know…

Nigel Tufnel: …nowhere! Exactly! What we do is if we need that extra… push over the cliff, you know what we do?

Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.

Nigel Tufnel: …Eleven. Exactly. One louder.

Marty DiBergi: Why don’t you just make ten louder, and make ten be the top… number, and make that a little louder?

Nigel Tufnel: [pause, blank look and snapping chewing gum] These go to eleven.

Yes indeed.  The argument for liberal self-loathing does indeed go to eleven

Things not working right in the natural order of things?  Used to be that you blamed God (or gods, as the case may have been).  Now that Man is God in the current cosmology, man is now to blame for all the world’s ills.

Sorry, Publius.  But to me the current craze on global warming is simply a variant on the Man is God complex, and frankly, we simply aren’t that significant.

My prediction is that we will continue to pursue this flawed paradigm on global warming, and as the expected horrors fail to materialize, the Chicken Littles will simply mumble into their caviar and espresso that they “didn’t have enough data at the time.”

Damned straight there isn’t enough data.

And I’ll say it again:  We need to be better stewards of the environment.  We need to replace the IC engine.  We need to find less invasive means of power production.  If not tabletop fusion or fuel cells, then let’s at least build more nuclear power plants and wind farms.  Especially wind farms off the coast of Nantucket, so limousine liberals like Fat Ted Kennedy can walk the walk as well as bloviate the bloviation.

But let’s stop with the delusion already that we can control the environment.  That’s a long way from being a steward. . .and in the end a mindset that is counterproductive to real environmentalism.



1. Publius - April 5, 2007

Anyone who believes that we can control the environment is delusional. However, we do have a huge impact on it. The point is to lessen the negative impacts.

2. demolition65 - April 5, 2007

Granted. Now, let the rhetoric be honest rather than inflammatory.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: