How the concern for the worlds poor hurts. The pain! Ian D’oherty skewers the fake compassion. As I said in Global Bullies Want Your Money, How many people would you kill in order to save us from a theoretical “modeled” threat? Would that be thousands? Could it be more?
Could be… Let’s count the ways wasting money on climate change betrays sick? Indur Goklany estimates that biofuels lead to nearly 200,000 deaths in 2010 alone. Is that enough? Warming kills less people than cooling, but let’s demand money to stop the warming. Poor climate predictions lead to real deaths, so why not shut down polite debate before it begins? Jail those deniers!
Researching pointless things will undoubtedly mean some people die who could have been saved — (never ever count the opportunity cost, unless you’re talking about how much funding green programs could have got). Fake markets feeds corruption, farmers die, rivers run dry and some are left homeless, what does a caring person do, call the fake market a “free” market and ask for more. Who hurts the most when cheap energy gets more expensive, not the rich doctors wives who can afford subsidized solar (see point 4).
Skeptics entirely hold the moral high ground. It’s time more skeptics unapologetically plant the flag there and call the fake compassion for what it is. The only ethical choice is to look at the evidence. D’oherty bluntly pokes at the contradictions of those who pretend to care.
Climate change or starving babies – so what bothers you more?
Ian D’oherty
The UN has released its latest report into global warming or, as we’re now meant to call it, climate change.
And, like all UN reports, it should be treated with the same kind of scepticism and contempt that greets every utterance that is farted out of the bowels of that corrupt, counterproductive, bloated and profoundly dangerous organisation.
…if you want to stop climate change, you must automatically be happy to see black babies die. Or you are happy to let brown and yellow babies live in misery, squalor and fear. And are you happy with that?
I’m going to be a bit presumptuous here and suggest that, maybe, you’re not all that happy with starving children. If anything, they end up on the news and make you feel guilty when you’re eating your dinner.
But where do you think the massive increase in emissions is coming from? America? No. Europe? Are you mad?
No, the biggest polluters and biggest emissions are coming from emerging countries and superpowers such as India and China who have spent the last decade engaged in a process of massive industrialisation, hence the spike in emissions
Someone like Robinson and her idiot followers can change to as many crap light bulbs, or buy as many bad cars, as they want. And Robbo can continue to fly around the world and further engorge her carbon footprint wagging her fingers at gullible, guilt ridden Westerners all she wants. But one uncomfortable fact remains – the people who matter in all this couldn’t give a toss what Robinson or Al Gore or Duncan Stewart have to say.
Because the only way to drag your people out of poverty and starvation is industrialisation – of food, of the economy, of the way they live their lives.
Increased living standards and life expectancy comes through industrialisation and with that comes pollution and with pollution comes emissions – which is making poor Mammy Earth feel unwell.
So what do you want? Clean air or dead babies?