Postby dolfan » October 12th, 2007, 5:16 am
The thing that bowls me over on this is that he got the peace prize, not the science prize. That's telling, isn't it? If what he said is really true, really based on hard science, why not give him the science prize?? Peace prizes are given to politicians for reasons related to politics; Gore's speech yesterday said that the environment is NOT a political issue, but a moral issue. Where's the science, Mr. Vice-President??
DaJudge has a great point: the peace prize is given to some of the most horrible people on the planet. To calculate the value of the NPP, just look at its one recipient that totally wipes out any credibility it could ever have: Yassir Arafat.
This trumped up business about wars erupting from "climate change" is as much a fear-mongering tactic as the liberals and envirofascists accuse the "neocons" of engaging when they speak of WMD's and Islamic terrorists. At least we know that terrorists are real, there is no need to reach "consensus" on the fact that they have killed thousands of people, and that they do it in the name of the Muslim religion. But, to go beyond the dubious scientific support for global warming and to extrapolate that wars will erupt because of it is so irreponsible, so inaccurate, so speculative and so improbable that it wouldn't even make a good cartoon.
But, here's a question that keeps circling back in my mind. IF --- big if --- there is some truth to this idea that there will be a 'one world religion' and some sort of unholy conspiracy unfolding itself through time and culminating in the typical sort of end-time scenario that has been popularized among evangelicals, doesn't it make sense that instead of a faith that offers solutions in terms of personal autonomy (freedom of choice, tolerance, etc.), that the face of that faith will be one of extreme inhumanity?
When I survey the ascendancy of Islam worldwide --- and make no mistake, it is a field on fire --- and the anti-freedom, obeisance-demanding features of envirofascism, it looks to me that those two schools of thought are headed for an inevitable marriage. Instead of a man of peace with promises of utopia that the evil one in the customary end-times scenario could be a man of war with demands of comply-or-perish.
Of course, all that can be couched in language of peace, as we see with Gore winning the NPP when, in fact, his beliefs have little or nothing to do with peace, but have everything to do with a ruling class (which you'll find in the greeny whack-jobs and among the belligerent and tribal Muslim world view) getting its own (whether by ignoring what they preach and doing what they want, as with the hypocrisy of Gore and others using disproportionate amounts of fossil fuels to spread their message and as with the 'peace' talk of Muslims who strap bombs to themselves and issue fatwas on those who disagree with them), and doing so on the heads and shoulders of a compliant mass (as with those who have bought into the left-wing environmental story and as with those who yield and pledge blood to satisfy the calls to arms of their imams, etc.) who get no benefit at all from the causes they espouse (where is the benefit for the environmentalist except in being able to speak riotously about how bad America and the West are, and where is the benefit for the Muslim bomber or machine-gun carrying cold-blooded killer except in being able to speak riotously about how bad America and the West are?).
Human government bears the same relation to hell as the church bears to heaven. (David Lipscomb, On Civil Government, 72).