February Ends With a Bang

LET THEM EAT TOFU!
Italics by Coultergeist
Logic and Reason by Billie Shears
Research Assistance by Jack Mumby

Even right-wingers who know that "global warming" is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.

Ever get that feeling that there just aren't enough hours in the day? This is going to be a looooong AntiCoulter.

Forget the lunacy of people claiming to tell us the precise temperature of planet Earth in 1918 based on tree rings. Or the fact that in the '70s liberals were issuing similarly dire warnings about "global cooling."

Yeah, those loons. Those damned scientists, setting up websites with detailed, accurate, and proven explanations on how this is possible! You tell 'em Ann, you with your degree in...wait no science whatsoever? Ah, well I'm sure you're still an expert. Please, do prattle on.

Simply consider what noted climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge are demanding that we do to combat their nutty conjectures about "global warming." They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt. This means an end to material growth and a cataclysmic reduction in wealth.

Actually, Ann, neither Gore nor Etheridge are climatologists. They are simply concerned citizens, one was actually the vice president. Not to offend you, sir, but I hold Gore in slightly higher regard than someone who amounts to a two bit novelist, railing on with no factual evidence in a column not worthy of town paper's "Letters to the Editor" section. And what you are claiming is absurd. Gore merely wants greater efficiency standards for automobiles, because, while I know you are stuck in the next few years, eventually fossil fuels will run out and an alternative would be, you know, imperative. Things such as replacing regular bulbs with CFL bulbs would be equivalent to taking millions of cars off the road. But, you're right, as always. Disastah, disastah!

There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending "global warming," but liberals simply announce that the debate has been resolved in their favor and demand that we shut down all production.

And here, observed in its natural environment, we can see the Coultergeist revert to its old tricks. It states something provably false with no sources or backup, just pure conjecture. The Coultergeist definition of reputable scientist can be found here.

They think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton — with no Trentons or Detroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)

Actually, poor inner city governments are largely liberal. So I'm pretty certain that the liberals, you know, want Detroit and Trenton. And won't the manufacturing of the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels provide the sort of material growth that you said earlier would come to a halt if environmentalists triumphed? I'm also not seeing the connection between gutting the fossil fuel industry and more environmentally friendly housing, but do carry on.

Liberals are already comfortably ensconced in their beachfront estates, which they expect to be unaffected by their negative growth prescriptions for the rest of us. There was more energy consumed in the manufacture, construction and maintenance of Leonardo DiCaprio's Malibu home than is needed to light the entire city of Albuquerque, where there are surely several men who can actually act. But he has solar panels to warm his house six degrees on chilly Malibu nights.

I'm a liberal living in a suburban three bedroom townhouse. The assumption that all liberals are living on beaches, the assumption that all environmentally aware citizens living in the real world are shacking up with Leo is ridiculous. And an ACTOR is your resident expert on global warming? You realize he's not part of the scientific community, yes? Making these generalizations is like making the generalization that all conservative women are nasally, unattractive, and possessing Adam's apples while refusing to listen to an iota of, well, fact.

Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter — luxuries Americans are not likely to abandon because Leo DiCaprio had solar panels trucked into his Malibu estate.

So by reducing carbon emissions, Americans must give up flicking on light switches? Highly unlikely. And the fact is, America could vastly reduce, not eliminate, merely reduce, the per capita as well as overall pollution. There's no need to be number one on the list. We don't even have the largest population.

Our lives depend on fossil fuel. Steel plants, chemical plants, rubber plants, pharmaceutical plants, glass plants, paper plants –- those run on energy. There are no Mother Earth nursery designs in stylish organic cotton without gas-belching factories, ships and trucks, and temperature-controlled, well-lighted stores. Windmills can't even produce enough energy to manufacture a windmill.

That's fine. So why don't we reduce emissions and use fancy bulbs so that our fossil fuels can go to the factories that you know so much about?

Because of the industrialization of agriculture –- using massive amounts of fossil fuel — only 2 percent of Americans work in farming. And yet they produce enough food to feed all 300 million Americans, with plenty left over for export. When are liberals going to break the news to their friends in Darfur that they all have to starve to death to save the planet?

Are you truly so ignorant of truth that you believe the fossil fuels we burn do anything in Darfur? That is both disgusting, disturbing, and indicative of why this website was created. And once again, since there will be no material growth in your vision, we'll have a lot more potential farmers.

"Global warming" is the left's pagan rage against mankind. If we can't produce industrial waste, then we can't produce. Some of us — not the ones with mansions in Malibu and Nashville is my guess — are going to have to die. To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption.

I'm not going to even address and point out the fact that the majority of liberals are Christians because it is irrelevant. OK, couldn't resist. And again, your original premise is flawed. No one but you is so ignorant of the situation to suggest that the appropriate solution is to eliminate our industrial waste. Nothing is as black and white, or as nice and simple as you would make it seem. Reducing energy consumption is possible, even in today's world.

Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukranians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate poor blacks, DDT opponent Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate Africans (introduction to her book "Silent Spring" written by ... Al Gore!), and population-control guru Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate all humans.

Are you serious? People suggesting that we drive cleaner cars, breathe cleaner air, live in a better, preferably not melted world, are equivalent to Hitler? Are you kidding me? Hitler wasn't even an atheist, he was a Christian. This entire article is a study in insanity, this paragraph is simply more extreme. Conservatives have always had a thing or two in common with fascists, especially you, considering you would like to eliminate a woman's right to, not abort, but VOTE.

But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off "useless eaters." If we have to live in a pure "natural" environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas — 299 million of you are going to have to go.

No one said pure. No one said natural. No one is suggesting we go back to the ways of the Native American ways, though we could take some tips.

Proving that the "global warming" campaign is nothing but hatred of humanity, these are the exact same people who destroyed the nuclear power industry in this country 30 years ago.

Humanity is what it is to be human. Humans, as a hierarchical step above beasts, are prone to logic and reason. By that definition, this column is more of a campaign of hatred of humanity than environmentalists. And the nuclear power industry is far from destroyed, but also far from harnessed, which is why it is not more widely used, along with the economic ramifications you were so gung ho about only two paragraphs or so earlier.

If we accept for purposes of argument their claim that the only way the human race can survive is with clean energy that doesn't emit carbon dioxide, environmentalists waited until they had safely destroyed the nuclear power industry to tell us that. This proves they never intended for us to survive.

Maybe they were just intending that for you. And they are not suggesting this! Stop with the flawed premise! Reduce, reduce, reduce, not something that eliminates NO carbon dioxide at all. The fact that you don't understand the theory you're disputing is mind boggling. How are you published?

"Global warming" is the liberal's stalking horse for their ultimate fantasy: The whole U.S. will look like Amagansett, with no one living in it except their even-tempered maids (for "diversity"), themselves and their coterie (all, presumably, living in solar-heated mansions, except the maids who will do without electricity altogether). The entire fuel-guzzling, tacky, beer-drinking, NASCAR-watching middle class with their over-large families will simply have to die.

Yeah, if that were the vision we "liberals" had, we'd be up in the arctic with lighters. Oh wait, liberal policies are notably more beneficial to the "middle class", whereas your buddies in the White House, who by the way are on the global warming bandwagon, screw them while passing up pork to their corporate buddies.

It seems not to have occurred to the jet set that when California is as poor as Mexico, they might have trouble finding a maid. Without trucking, packaging, manufacturing, shipping and refrigeration in their Bel-Air fantasy world, they'll be chasing the rear-end of an animal every time their stomachs growl and killing small animals for pelts to keep their genitals warm.

I cannot wait to know what occurs to you when you begin your slow drown.