The other night I was listening to Neal Boortz yet again (I can't seem to stop doing so) and he said something totally off the wall, even for him.
As anyone who has listened to him for any time knows, Boortz rejects the idea of global warming, insisting that the changes we've seen in recent years are simply part of a natural climate cycle and that humans have little, if anything, to do with it. Well, that's fine if he believes that, and I actually hope that he's right and that our climate changes are something that will simply cycle back the other way at some time in the future. Unfortunately, I think he's wrong.
But the prudent and sensible thing to do is not to reject the idea of global warming out of hand until there is conclusive evidence one way or the other. It's better to be safe than sorry, and all that.
I've long suspected that Boortz' main objection to global warming theory is that efforts to reduce it will interfere with large corporations making money; the worship of the Almighty Dollar.
What I heard the other night confirmed my suspicions. Boortz made the comment that the real agenda of global warming activists is not to preserve the planet, but, rather, the destruction of capitalism! He went on to say that after communism in eastern Europe went defunct, the communists had to find a new vehicle to promote their anti-capitalist agenda, so they chose environmentalism. He apparently cannot conceive of anyone believing that a clean planet is its own reward. And never mind that capitalism will be effectively destroyed if we have no planet to make money on.
I don't know about you, but this comment places Boortz squarely in the tinfoil hat brigade in my book.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I have found that this is the main reason why those who oppose global warming do so.
Naturally (no pun intended), I think it's a ridiculous concept, yet, can we really blame them for dreaming up such a conspiracy?
Even if there is no "plot" to enact communism/socialism, the fact is that today's standard environmental tactics reduce profit and micromanage businesses.
The EPA alone has THOUSANDS of pages of regulations, all of which can never be remembered and many of which do not accurately reflect common sense management of the problem taking place, all of which costs businesses millions of dollars.
Small businesses, in particular, are often run out of business because of the cost to comply with regulations that often don't do anything but cause more environmental problems or simply don't make logical sense.
Can we really blame the conspiracy theorists for thinking what they do, under those circumstances?
My question is...what would happen if we found out how to reduce or eliminate pollution in a way that does not tamper with profit or micromanage business?
That should be the goal. Because if such a goal could be achieved, both sides of the issue would be neutralized and the issue could be solved.
Currently, both sides of the issue have solid points. We're not saving the planet by perpetuating the differences in those points.
Post a Comment