Climategate Roundup Number 3

Chris W. Bell has an article in today's American Thinker entitled Save the Planet by Banning Ice Cream. The article talks about the environmental movement, as illustrated by goofball wormening's true believers. But in reality, Bell is trying to show where the logic (or lack thereof) of goofball wormening leads, if taken to its illogical conclusion. Taken to its conclusion, goofball wormening leads us back to being primitive hunter gatherers. Forget the industrial revolution, forget the agricultural revolution that took place 10,000 years ago. A quote:

For now, the environmental movement is asking us to give up a small amount of our creature comforts so that our environment can be saved from global warming. I submit that we must project this movement to its logical end. If it is good to use energy-saving light bulbs, is it not better not to use light bulbs at all? If it is good to drive a small car, then it must be better to not drive a car at all. If we seek to eliminate unnecessary energy usage, why should we stop at light bulbs? If saving the environment by not burning fuel is your goal, then it is better to eat raw food than it is to eat cooked food because you save the energy required to cook your food.


The discretionary use of energy for things like vacations, music, frozen foods, and air conditioning, must, by the modern environmentalist standards, be eliminated. Imagine how much energy it takes to support ice cream. We must feed and water the cattle that are raised for the cream. We must supply the energy to make and freeze the ice cream, we must use energy to make the containers to pack the ice cream, and we must use energy to transport the ice cream from the dairy to the store. We must use energy to keep the ice cream frozen in the market, we must use energy to drive to the market, and we also use energy to power our freezers where we store the ice cream. Just think of the energy we could save if we just got rid of ice cream.


How can we sit by and watch ice cream being made if we believe its production is contributing to the doom of mankind? Every scoop pushes the hand of our doomsday clock that much closer to midnight. This reasoning can, and eventually will, be used to demonize virtually all of modern society. How can we justify watching a television show when the burning of the fuel that powers the TV is destroying our environment? How can we justify using energy to create a computer when that energy use will destroy us? How can we justify powering our air-conditioner when we could survive without it, as billions before us did?

Ben and Jerry, call your office!

Meanwhile, Clarice Feldman reports in AT that AWG not stopped yet by Climategate. I agree with her. The facts don't matter to people who believe the narrative. Indeed, in this case, the facts are so complicated, that it is just far easier to keep believing the narrative, even if the narrative was supposedly based on the facts.

C. Edmund Wright reports in AT that Sarah Palin weighs in on climategate. Good for her. Reading through her statement, she hits just the right notes, again.

Anthony Watts has a great post here. Read through the entirety and enormity of what the "climate scientist" commented. This is at the heart of the problem. This is why I get so frustrated with people who say that climategate doesn't matter. The whole premise if goofball wormening, of alarming the public, of scaring the children, is that science tells us so. But now if the science doesn't tell us anything of the sort, shouldn't goofball wormening swept into the dustbin of history, along with Piltdown Man?

I'd love to keep working here, but once again, I have to run.