Totally. And the Washington Post even uses a wonderful picture of steam, otherwise known as “water vapor”, to tell us how bad it is
The moral issue of climate change
The politics of selfishness was embraced enthusiastically last week by Sen. Mitch McConnell. In dismissing President Obama’s deal with China to reduce carbon emissions,the incoming Senate majority leader said“carbon emission regulations are creating havoc in my state and other states around the country†by undermining economic interests.
For McConnell (Ky.) and other GOP critics, regulation of carbon emissions is a pocketbook issue where constituents’ short-term interests must prevail. They reject or minimize the arguments of leading scientists that such emissions are directly linked to global warming and climate change and could have catastrophic long-term consequences. The doubters question the data, to be sure. But their basic argument is political: Action to protect the environment will hurt “my state.â€
But what if the climate change problem were instead treated as a moral issue — a matter like civil rights where the usual horse-trading logic of politics has been replaced by a debate about what’s right and wrong?
This morality play has been growing in recent years as a way to force other countries to implement measures that redistribute money to the whiners. Lots of island nations have been trying this schtick. The United Nations has also be pushing the morality meme, particularly with their prognostications about millions and millions of climate change refugees, and how millions will die from…the weather. It has now started hitting the Warmists themselves as they try and reframe the political issue of Hotcoldwetdry, hence the reason they are attempting to get churches and organized religion to take a stance in favor of higher taxation and government restrictions on citizens lives.
Treating this as a moral issue will allow Warmists to better implement their hard-core Progressive (nice fascist) agenda.
The case for treating climate change as an ethical problem is made subtly in “The Bone Clocks,†a new novel by David Mitchell. It portrays a dystopian future in which normal life has been shattered by environmental decay, rampant disease and global disorder. Mitchell’s book is long and complex, but it might just become the “1984†of the climate change movement. It dramatizes the consequences of our improvident modern economy in the way George Orwell’s novel awakened people to the “Big Brother†mentality of Soviet communism. (snip)
Is this a moral issue? After reading Mitchell’s stark novel, and imagining the world of 2043, I am beginning to think the answer is yes. If the future quality of life around the world is at stake, people who resist action are not just misguided, they’re wrong.
Is this a moral issue? Well, it’s certainly not a scientific one. It’s political.
Of course, none of the Warmists think it is that much of a pressing moral issue that they actually practice what they preach.
So climate change should be considered a moral issue because of a fiction novel.
Sounds about right for the climate-change cultists.
But as Ignatius also writes: “Is this terrifying future really ahead of us? The honest answer is that nobody knows.”
Global warming is a moral issue: Oh Good, (pun intended) now Warmists are wrong morally, wrong scientifically, and wrong politically. three strikes and they are OUT.
Questions: To Whom do warmists Pray?
Does this make The Gorecle a Pope?
Do they now pay warming tithe as well as carbon use taxes?
Where are the Carbon Reduction 10 Commandments that Warmists will fail to obey?
Does Separation of Church and State now apply to Global Warming?
Are Warmists going to use the State to impose their morals on the rest of us?
They already have carbon off-set indulgences. And they are good at proselytizing.
