Quantcast
MobileRJ | RSS TwitterTwitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

Opinion
Jul. 19, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: A loony sect of modern flagellants

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ
MORE COLUMNS

There is one good thing about the lunatic "global warming" catechism now taught our youth in the mandatory government youth propaganda camps :

When they are finally forced to admit that the globe has been cooling again, not warming, for the past decade, yet proceed to demand precisely the same remedies for "global cooling" (which they will cleverly dub "climate change") as they did for "global warming" -- that is to say higher electric bills, more government controls, taxes sufficient to cripple our industrial economy and generally lower our standard of living in keeping with the world socialist doctrine that America and particularly the "capitalist rich" must be "punished" and "made to sacrifice" in penitence for our former prosperity -- there is finally a decent chance they'll simply be laughed out of town.

Most Popular Stories
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: What stops mass murderers? A gun
  • SHERMAN FREDERICK: Call evil by its rightful name
  • EDITORIAL: Terrorism on trial
  • EDITORIAL: A pre-9/11 approach to terror
  • LETTERS: Public-sector workers are still doing well
  • LETTERS: Harry Reid: Working hard for all Americans
  • EDITORIAL: 'That's the ticket!'
  • Our politicians are the greatest, all right
  • EDITORIAL: I believe in free speech, but ...
  • EDITORIAL: They took our jobs!




    • "The same punishments to be inflicted on us in retribution for global cooling, as you prescribed for us in punishment for global warming?! Ha ha! Good one! Have you heard the one about the prostitute and the midget?"

    For the record:

    1) The globe is now again cooling, albeit infinitesimally, just as Time and Newsweek declared in major feature stories back in 1975 -- and the next Ice Age is indeed the real problem, since (if the world were to warm again), modest warming is actually good for us, since more people die of cold than heat, and warm climates allow us to grow more food.

    2) The modest fluctuations in question, of a couple of degrees per century, are of minimal importance to anyone. Even the "rising ocean levels" predicted by the extremists' worst-case scenarios are on the order of one inch.

    3) During years when the globe has warmed, man-made carbon dioxide has had no significant impact on that warming, which is caused by the oceans and mostly the sun. (Mars warms in a rhythm which matches the Earth's. Do we believe this is because Martians are driving too many SUVs and burning too much coal?) Mankind creates about 3 percent of the atmosphere's carbon dioxide, which is not the largest contributor to the blessed greenhouse effect, in the first place. Water vapor is.

    4) Even if we could de-populate and throw America back into the Stone Age tomorrow, and even if man-made carbon dioxide did contribute in some measure to global warming, this would still have no effect on the climate, since the authority of Mr. Reid and Mr. Obama does not extend to India and China, which are building new coal-fired power plants every day.

    "Man-made global warming" is a scam promoted by those who want more taxes, more control of our lives, less enjoyment of the freedom represented by private automobiles and single-family homes -- a modern sect of flagellants who (when you come right down to it) view mankind as a pox and parasite on an otherwise lovely world full of weeds and bugs more deserving of care, opportunity and "protection" than our own children, a sect who would view as a "regretful necessity" any government policy that could reduce the number of humans by at least half.

    I'm not making this stuff up. See www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92557; www.rightsidenews.com/200907035325/energy-and-environment/climate-delusions.html;

    or www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will021509.php3.

    Or, if you're willing to do a little old-fashioned book reading, try the fine new book "Climate of Extremes/Global Warming Science They Don't Want You To Know," from the Cato Institute, by Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling, Jr., or "Re-Thinking Green/Alternatives to Environmental Bureaucracy," from the Independent Institute, edited by Robert Higgs and Carl P. Close.

    These are thoughtful, well-documented books. Choose your favorite and buy copies for all your friends.

    -- -- --

    Meantime, a number of thoughtful respondents to my hypothetical example, last week, of a small group of freedom-lovers attempting to set up a tax-free town in the countryside, finding their efforts stymied by squatting socialist newcomers who promptly "vote" to create taxation, unionized government schools, etc., suggest the answer is to "not allow any voting mechanism other than unanimous consent, the only voting mechanism compatible with the Zero Aggression Principle."

    Sounds good, but how to go about the "not allowing"?

    American freedom-lovers are currently surrounded by a casually socialist majority of looters, trained in the government propaganda camps to believe "making the rich pay for the things which are demanded by all the people" is "only fair," since they "have more to begin with."

    Go to the store. Buy $10 worth of stuff. The clerk asks you for $10.81. Reply that you will gladly pay the $10, but not the 81 cents in tax, since you gave no consent to this levy, which was rather imposed by a majority of state lawmakers you never voted for under the mistaken impression that "something other than unanimous consent is compatible with the Zero Aggression Principle."

    Even if we assume your cashier is well-read in libertarian philosophy and Austrian economics -- a bit of a stretch -- he's still likely to say, "I know what you mean, bub, but if you don't pay the 81 cents I can't let you have the stuff. That 8.1 percent would come out of my paycheck at the end of the day, assuming I still had a job, and if I let everyone do that it would add up to more than they're paying me, here."

    Attempts to "not allow" the withholding of tax from our paychecks will have equally predictable, albeit more onerous, outcomes.

    And thus we "allow" the kleptocrats to take 8 percent, 24 percent -- heck, effective combined tax rates for "the rich" will soon top 51 percent, again -- of our wealth and our earnings, compounding their Depression-breeding levies every day, because this doesn't yet seem to be the perfect day to die in a shoot-out with the armed agents of the kleptocracy.

    I have no fast or easy solution. I just find advice as to what we should "not allow" to be not terribly useful, unless those bestowing the advice are going to tell us how to "not allow" it, in circumstances where those who believe in the beneficial effects for all of freedom and property rights remain considerably outnumbered.

    Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of the books "The Ballad of Carl Drega" and "The Black Arrow." See www.vinsuprynowicz.com/ and http://www.lvrj.com/blogs/vin/.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 45 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Titus wrote on July 28, 2009 07:27 AM: Onoes! Those Evil Big Oil Companies are suppressing Pat's "evidence!" Dick Halliburton Cheney personally called LVRJ to have his comment stricken! Quick, call Coast-to-Coast-AM, Pat! George Nori will put you on the air between the guy who saw Bigfoot and the guy who got the Martian rectal probe…


    XVen wrote on July 26, 2009 06:19 AM: Mr. Suprynowicz: You might be interested in the response to the crisis in Honduras that Senator Harry Reid wrote a constituent.
    http://www.haloscan.com/comments/danielyaracuy/8323809705542100002/#456612

    For information on Honduras, I recommend http://faustasblog.com/, and the English language blogs on Venezuela:
    http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/
    http://devilsexcrement.com/
    They know tyrants.


    patrick wrote on July 25, 2009 01:24 PM: Nice, I post a "well reasoned" response to a "well reasoned" comment from "Titus" and MINE gets removed.

    Typical rj "bloody favoritism".


    Bill Smith wrote on July 24, 2009 07:54 AM: Any names and evidence to back up your claims Patrick? A poster challenged you and you resort with a fallacy and nothing to back your “claim” up.


    Titus wrote on July 24, 2009 07:52 AM: See, Patrick, I knew you had nothing. You're just a screaming, indoctrinated little child with an empty head. It's trolls like you who prevent the grown-ups from having any reasonable discourse on the matter in a public forum. Congrats on the thread-crapping: you now have all the attention you didn't get from your neglectful parents. Now, please go.


    patrick wrote on July 23, 2009 08:14 PM: I'll call your bluff and raise you:

    Every scientist who disputes global warming and that man is a significant contributor has received funds from oil or mining interests and STFU.

    And Data:

    You might have missed it; I didn't say it was a winning argument, I said it was a reasonable one, certainly more reasonable than saying man is not a significant cause of global warming, which of course is just absurd.


    Titus wrote on July 23, 2009 08:06 AM: Patrick writes, "This is all these soldier of fortune "scientists" are doing; they are being paid alot of money to create a false perception that a real dispute exists among real scientists about global warming."

    I'll call your bluff -- name names or GTFO.


    DataDon wrote on July 23, 2009 05:31 AM: Funny...I sent Unbalanced Fred an email about his challenge and never received a reply...hmmm


    DataDon wrote on July 23, 2009 05:28 AM: "more reasonable if these people would just say that the consequences of man's contribution to global warming is not known to a certainty and that spending lots of money to avoid a consequence that we do not know will occur is unreasonable. At least this is a reasonable position,"

    Well Patrick...it seems that you are starting to get it. That is what many are saying. That and the recent (last ten years) cooling are reasons alone not to go ahead with the cap and trade/tax policy in front of congress. Lets have a debate, which Al Gore refuses) and not move ahead until there is a consensus is made but the mere fact that you yourself is saying that it is not known is reason enough not to do something that may be disastrous to the economy especially while the economy is so frail. Lets not destroy the planet either way...environmentally nor economically.


    patrick wrote on July 22, 2009 10:29 PM: tweedle:

    I know this is probably a waste of breath since this board is a little old, although I'm confident that the subject will come up again so I'm just practicing here, but, I'll note the first line in your post addressed to me: The senate MINORITY report...

    Huh, minority. Did you say minority? Imagine that, a republican supporting a minority? Funny sorta isn't it?

    Anyway, tweedle, the point is the minority of people think astronauts never landed on the moon. The minority of people think Elvis is still alive.

    And, no, it is not my opinion that someone who buys gas at Exxon is bias against reason, its that Exxon spends millions of dollars supporting people who will say whatever Exxon will pay them to say; doesn't this matter to you?

    You do know that many of those same "scientists" former worked for Phillip Morris and towed the company line about cigarettes not being addictive right? There goal was not to prove the tobacco was healthy, their goal was to confuse people so that they could claim that there was a "legitimate" dispute among "scientists"; sound familiar?

    This is all these soldier of fortune "scientists" are doing; they are being paid alot of money to create a false perception that a real dispute exists among real scientists about global warming.

    It would be so much easier, and a lot more reasonable if these people would just say that the consequences of man's contribution to global warming is not known to a certainty and that spending lots of money to avoid a consequence that we do not know will occur is unreasonable. At least this is a reasonable position, but arguing that its not happening, or that man is not contributing is just, well, dumb.


    Read All Comments