Wednesday, February 13, 2008

WSJ recommends letting the poor freeze to death to combat global warming

Last Wednesday, the Senate voted on several amendments to the proposed economic stimulus bill. Democrats wanted to add an extension of unemployment benefits and home heating subsidies for poor families. The Wall Street Journal editorial board didn't think that was such a good idea. They wrote:

As for home heating subsidies, these encourage greater energy use, especially in the Northeast, which depends on oil more than natural gas. This is thus more of a stimulus to foreign oil exporters than to the U.S. economy. Think of it as one more subsidy to add carbon to the atmosphere, notwithstanding the usual global warming grandstanding.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board is a leading global warming denier and has consistently opposed the Kyoto Protocol and any other efforts to mitigate this potentially apocalyptic problem. But with their editorial on February 8th, it seems they've found a plan to combat global warming that they actually like -- namely, letting the poor freeze to death. So, according to the WSJ -- investing in green energy technologies = bad, regulating power plants = bad, allowing the poor to freeze to death (especially those freaks in the Northeast who heat their homes during the winter) = good for the environment and a plan they can really get behind.


Anonymous said...

If you eco-mentalists are wrong and the planet's temperature is actually driven by solar cycles, you're all about to be responsible for many more deaths from cold weather than you could possibly blame the WSJ for.

Toby Rogers said...

I've got my first troll! Ah, a sign of progress. Just a few thoughts:

1.) Did you see my No Haters Policy over in the sidebar? Yeah. Those who are committed to corporatism at any cost (in this case the cost of the survival of the planet) I think are gonna be much happier at littlegreenfootballs or redstate or whatever.

2.) Is there anyone on the planet talking about the threat of global cooling? Really? That's a threat you're worried about? Hmmm. Okay.

3.) Seriously, I would LOVE to live in your world -- where no human activity could ever possibly alter a darn thing here on the planet. I'd love to live in a world where millions of tons of soot and toxic mercury pollution coming out of coal-fired power plants are really no big deal. It seems that the Republican corporatist answer to everything is "just shake it off." It's easier right -- the challenges of the world are so complex that it's just easier to trance out?

Thanks for writing. Good luck with the solar cycles.

Anonymous said...

1.) No. I only read the article. I don't remember saying anything about corporatism.

2.) Yes there are people on the planet talking about global cooling. I'm not particularly worried about warming or cooling, humans will adapt to either, as they always have, but it's a fact that cold weather kills many more people than warm weather every year.

I think it's much more likely that the climate system is subject to negative feedbacks than the imaginary positive feedbacks touted by alarmists. I don't believe this viewpoint justifies the "denier" tag & implied comparison with holocaust denial that you & your kind fling around. The climate is changing, has always been changing, and will always change.

3.) Nice mind-reading skills there, but "Republican" and "corporatist" are comically wide of the mark, I can't see the bit where I said "no human activity could ever possibly alter a darn thing", and the real challenges of the world are way more complex than the childish babbling of eco-mentalists.

Toby Rogers said...

Hmmm. I'm fascinated by the way you build your argument:

You wrote: "I'm not particularly worried about warming or cooling, humans will adapt to either." Will plants adapt to either? Animals? Oceans? Eco-systems? If crops fail don't people die too? If the oceans turn into massive dead zones (see for example today's LA Times) doesn't that kill lots of people too?

"The climate is changing, has always been changing, and will always change." This seems like another sleight of hand -- to throw an insignificant factual statement in that has nothing to do with the point. The question is whether human activity is impacting the climate and the overwhelming evidence is that it is.

"Cold weather kills many more people than warm weather every year." My original post was about the WSJ editorial board being opposed to heating subsidies on the bogus claim that they (the WSJ editorial board) actually cared about global warming. You wrote in defense of the WSJ position. So it seems that you are concerned about cold winters killing people while simultaneously in favor of doing nothing about it.

My point is that if someone is genuinely concerned about global warming, investing in solar or other alternative technologies is a better approach to dealing with the problem than turning off someone's heat during the middle of winter (as recommended by the WSJ). It's not even a controversial point.

Anonymous said...

Nice strawman argument bozo. I did not, and do not, defend the WSJ's position.
I have no more time to waste on you, I usually find adults better to debate with.

Toby Rogers said...

Dude (and yes, I'm making an assumption here but it's pretty clear you're a dude) you can't have it both ways.

You can't be a troll AND be thin skinned when someone pokes holes in your argument.

You can't rely on sleight of hand AND then act like others aren't playing fair.

You can't argue for nuance and adult conversation when you use childish insults.

Oh but wait, you just did. Never mind. Good luck with the battle against global cooling.

Anonymous said...

30 years ago I thought we were going through global cooling?

My point is that there is a good possibility that scientists just don't know. Overwhelming evidence that humans are responsible for global warming does not exist. Believe what you want, but more research and evidence is needed.

Not trying to raise hell, but if your thoughts on global warming are indeed wrong, billions upon billions of dollars will be wasted on this effort. This massive waste of capital could be used in far more efficient ways.

I came across this blog through a link in another blog. I am just trying to offer an insightful opinion. So go ahead if you like, and pick apart this post sentence by sentence.