Global Warming Philosophy of Death

I am going start this conversation with a quote from Bill Nye the Science. In a recent show of Bill Nye's latest show called "Bill Nye saves the World". He and his guest on the show were discussing global warming and how children in developed nations produce much more carbon dioxide than those in undeveloped nations. Into this conversation, Bill Nye posed this questions.

“Should we have policies that penalize people for having extra kids in the developed world?”

When I hear comments like this the first thing I want to do is jump into my SUV and burn down a tank of fuel, just driving around doing nothing like the good old days when kids used to cruise the streets of their small town. (read previous post "Going Green and driving an SUV") But before I go and fire up my SUV, I will take a moment to discuss with you, my number one problem with "Global Warming."

This statement from Bill Nye speaks to the underlying philosophy of the global warming proponents. The battle cry of the "Global warmers" a term I coined to describe those that believe that the Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Except for the last 19 years or so since the temperature hasn't been climbing, but I will save that one for a latter post. Before I digress too far let me return to the battle cry of the "Global warmers". The battle cry of the "global warmers" has been this. We need to cut down on our carbon dioxide emissions to save humanity. This is the great hypocrisy of the proponents of Global warming. Because their solution to saving humanity is to limit humanity.

Most "global warmist" believe they need to limit humanity in three ways. They need to limit the birth rate by regulating the number of children a family can have. They believe abortion is a viable way to decrease the "surplus population" to put it in "A Christmas Story" terms. Along with condemning many in the undeveloped world to death because of the policies they have placed on them.

First, generally speaking, "global warmist" believe they need to limit the birth rate by regulating the number of children a family can have. All we need to do is look at China and what is happening there to understand what the horror of this regulation would be. The following is from a New York Times article entitled "China's Brutal One-Child Policy."

"Almost every one of the pregnant women I spoke to had suffered a mandatory abortion. One woman told me how, when she was eight months pregnant with an illegal second child and was unable to pay the 20,000 yuan fine (about $3,200), family planning officers dragged her to the local clinic, bound her to a surgical table and injected a lethal drug into her abdomen."

Is this what Bill Nye is lobbying for? Does the Science Guy want to bring this type of totalitarian policy to the United States? Really, I think I would rather be a little warm than have my daughters be subjected to this type of policy. I will take my chances that global warming is a bunch of "Huey".

Second, you may be asking yourself. What does global warming have to do with abortion? Below is a piece from a politico article entitled. "What does global warming have to do with abortion?"

“For years, organizations like International Planned Parenthood and the United Nations Population Fund have argued for abortion worldwide to fight what they perceive as overpopulation,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. Pope Francis, “has preemptively argued against those who would use his encyclical to justify abortion.” Ronald Lindsay, president and CEO of the secular Center for Inquiry, agreed with Tobias’ interpretation and criticized Pope Francis for this stance.

“It’s unfortunate,” said Lindsay, adding that the Catholic Church’s opposition to birth control contributes to overpopulation, which he believes “is a significant contributing cause” of climate change. “[A] rapidly expanding population will only exacerbate our environmental problems.”

Lindsay makes the connection here between global warming and overpopulation of the world. What is the prescribed cure to this problem of over population? Having more abortions. There have been over one billion abortions in the world since the early twentieth century. How many cures for diseases does humanity not have because the world does not have these billions? How many technological advances does humanity not have because of the loss of these children?

This is what I find horrific about the those that would have us go down this path of abortion and limiting family size. Their belief that children are a liability that needs to be controlled and regulated and not what they actually are. Children are humanities second chance to greater things. Children are Gods gift to humanity with the potential to bring glory to HIm, with unlimited potential for the betterment of humanity.

I am still good with getting a little warm. I will just stock up on some sunscreen. Maybe, I will call some friends to drive around with me. It will be just like the good old days.

Finally, global warming policies have placed a death sentence on many in the undeveloped world. Forcing many of these countries to stay undeveloped.

An article from Bloomberg entitled "Poorer Countries Shouldn't sacrifice Growth to fight climate change said this.

There’s a widespread, understandable desire to pretend that poor countries don’t need to pollute to develop—that they can escape their poverty without increasing carbon dioxide emissions, for example. A set of “Sustainable Development Goals” being negotiated for signature by a gathering of the world’s leaders at the UN in 2015 will almost certainly call for limiting climate change, preserving biodiversity, and protecting forests and oceans alongside poverty reduction and improvements in global health. It will likely say little or nothing about the trade-offs among these goals and instead suggest they’re all mutually reinforcing pillars of the same overarching agenda. But that’s just not true—or, at least, it’s not true yet.

If we place global warming policies on these countries we will be condemning millions in these countries to death. Many in these countries cook over open fires which will eventually kill them because of the smoke that the fires produce. They have no clean water because they do not have the power grid to produce clean water or the basic sanitation that those of us in the developed world have. These policies condemn those in the third world to death by not allowing simple development that would save millions.

The question has to be asked how much death is too high of a price?

This is the hypocrisy. They "preach," they are for life but in reality, they are only for the life of those that they deem worthy of life.

The "Global Warmers" talk of the potential of mankind but at every turn, their choice is to limit mankind.

This philosophy is a philosophy of death, not life

It condemns the unborn to death in the name of family planning.

And now "the Climate Changers" want to deny many of those in humanity even the right to exist.

This is unacceptable to me, the price is too high. Now I will go hop in my SUV, since it has been running this entire time, and burn a tank of fuel. Oh, goodness I am pretty upset maybe I will make it two tanks.