Skepical about 100 mile diet

The Editor:

I believe there is far to little criticism of the environmental movement  carried in the  AV Times. Your writers provide to much adulation at the alter of the green church and the paper doesn’t stray much from that one-sided opinion.
You begin with replacement of the Kyoto agreement being stymied, by the Chinese and the US. That is incorrect – it has been stymied by reason. The legitimacy of believing in human generated CO2 induced global warming has been disproven time and again and is now beyond saving. It can only be sold to the disciples, the people who’ve stopped thinking. For the past ten years the atmospheric load of CO2 has been increasing but the temperature has been decreasing. The earth’s temperature tracks solar activity, currently at a historic low point, not atmospheric carbon dioxide.

You mentioned there are some skeptics. Yes there are a few. There is a petition signed by some 31,000 scientists rejecting the view you hold is available for your perusal at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. As well, the Heartland Institute,  held the third annual conference on climate change this spring, attended by 250 scientist who disagree with the UN’s IPCC report. They released a summary report, Climate Change reconsidered, available on line. You can also access a flood of work from Fred Singer, one of the most knowledgeable climate scientist on earth. And you can get a small book, the Skeptics Handbook that summarizes most of the information that Al Gore won’t talk about, here from Joanne Nova.

Because you’ve swallowed all that green goo, you decry our ‘carbon footprint’ and it is your  guilt that makes you support the reduce, reduce, reduce crowd, thinking that we need to end our wasteful lifestyle. It would do well to read ‘No footprint, no life’ from Dr Keith Lockitch, of the Ayn Rand Institute’
The one hundred mile food absurdity tries to negate the transportation revolution that gives us fresh bananas and oranges all year round. When we make our food choices based on freshness or flavour, that shows wisdom. If it is to save the world from climate change it is foolish. Accepting the ‘transitional towns’ social engineering platform will destroy the affluence that years of free market development has given us. It is time to do some thinking rather than mindlessly parroting the Gorical/Suzukite  bible.

Have you considered what a life without energy use would be like? What would you have for clothes, for food, for shelter? How would you travel from place to place? Do you even think there might still be a newspaper or a television, much less cel phones, ipods and an internet? Reduce the available power and there will be no industry and without industry, no life.

I for one, like the tea party protesters to our south, seek a reduction of government in my life, not more rule makers to tell me exactly how much energy I may use, especially when those restrictions are based on a lie. The mistaken belief that the plant food, CO2, is harmful, is the one excuse that supports the interference. Don’t be part of the nonsense your newspaper pushes. Reasonable people need to wake up and fight to stop the foolishness that is robbing us of our ability to survive.

It is the one place where activism is desperately needed, to rid the world of the nonsensical belief that all thing manmade are causing the world to become poisonous to life, that in a short time it will be too late to recover.

Regrettably, the ideas supported by the AVTimes are not part of a solution, rather they contribute to the problem.

Gary Seinen

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s