Pat Sajak's Solution to Global Warming

A Solution to Man-Made Global Warming
by Pat Sajak

"There are apparently tens of millions of people around the world who are convinced global warming is real, and mankind (particularly American mankind) is responsible. Further, they believe utterly catastrophic results are imminent unless we drastically alter our lifestyles -- and soon. These alterations include the things we eat, our transportation, our daily work and leisure habits, and even the number of children we should have. The problem is there are also tens of millions of people around the world who are skeptical of this theory, and, despite one side’s claims the debate is settled, a significant and growing number of climate experts keep challenging their conclusions.

So, those who believe disaster is around the corner face a dilemma: while they’re educating their fellow citizens and demanding governments regulate believers and non-believers alike, the problem continues, and the date of the world’s doom draws ever closer. But there is a solution. It’s relatively simple, can begin immediately, and will change the dynamics of global warming overnight. Instead of continuing to preach to the rest of us, the true believers need to step forward and set an example. I’m not talking about recycling Evian bottles; I’m talking about giving up cars and moving into smaller houses or apartments, or even forming communes where people can live simpler, more Earth-friendly lives. Yes, I’m talking about living the kinds of lives they want all of us to live..."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24333&s=rcmp
****************************

Finally! Someone puts into words what I have felt for a long time.

 

Pat Sajak rules the world after saying something so awesome.

I completely agree - simple, yet common sense point made. Live it, don't just preach it.

Hippies give me gas.

 

You need to eat some Bean-O with your hippies.

 

Love it! Or, as Edith Ann (Lilly Tomlin) would say - "And that's the truth! Pffft!"

 

Lets see, you deniers have got a game show host, a loony senator and Exxon's bought and paid for "scientists" on your side. Impressive.

Meanwhile, the conclusion that the greenhouse effect is having an influence on climate change is endorsed by all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.

Game show host, a nut, and Exxon, on one side. The consensus of the scientific community on the other.

Guess which side I believe?

 

My favorite part is when they're like "the polar ice caps are melting normally!"

..right. And me getting a sunburn after five minutes in april is a totally normal occurance.

 

No need to get all testy and touchy

Nowhere did Mr. Sajak say he is a denier, and the same goes for myself. Do you have an H/O for Exxon? How many of the "scientists" on the other side of the argument are paid by left-wing, anti-capitalist ".org"s? Personally, I claim the right to look at all the evidence that is available, and then come to my own conclusions, thank you.

I don't believe anyone is denying the effect of greenhouse gasses. What I am skeptical about is the notion that the world is in imminent danger of dying unless we all immediately form into vegetarian communes, and switch back to horse and buggy.

I put a lot more credence in the tongue-in-cheek logic of Mr. Sajak than the self-righteous rantings of left-wing Hollywood hypocrites like Leonardo Di Crappio.

 

Come to your own conclusions all you want, but don't slip on the oily money Exxon has given climate change skeptic organizations, in it's efforts to spread disinformation. Here's 4 of them, amounts and all:

Frontiers of Freedom Institute $1,002,000

American Council for Capital Formation, Center for Policy Research $1,604,523

American Legislative Exchange Council $1,111,700

American Enterprise Institute $1,625,000

Using extremes, in an attempt to further an argument, is seldom successful.

You put that credence in Pat Sajak, fact remains he's a game show host.

Btw, altering names is rather childish, don't you think?

 

Where did you pull the polar ice caps quote from?

 

This is true, to a point. Since 2005 Exxon has been moving toward a more 'energy diverse' position, or at least attitude. I'm not assigning any altruistic motives, but Exxon is all over the board in 'causes' it supports. Obviously, any that help secure their oil/energy markets would be especially helpful to them. But even a huge industry can respond to smarter markets.

Using extremes in some cases is only fighting fire with fire. Is this not what global warming alarmists do? In the U.S. a 1.2 F degree change in 112 years is enough to send us into panic. And rule by panic is the modus operandi of enviro-wackos.

Again, I'm certainly not saying that there aren't issues with the environment in general that our past naiveté and misplaced positions or understandings cannot be improved on. Present and threatening problems that need to be corrected. Alternative energy sources, cleaner technology and improved efficiency and use of natural resources are all goals we should all share.

Yes, Pat Sajak is a game show host. But that doesn't disqualify him from having a valid point. The ability to use 'tongue-in-cheek' humor to communicate his observations and opinions may be his method, but if the truth is in what he says, refute that rather than disqualify what he has to say by your condescending attitude of his career.

Personally, I put credence in his facts, agree with his opinion and appreciate his humor. And I respect his success as a game show host. But one has nothing to do with the other.

 

...

Taking issue with a dab of tongue-in-cheek humor is rather anal, don't you think?

It shows that you feel the weakness in your own argument.

Childish? At age 68, I don't try to analyze the child in me. I live, love it, and revel in it! You could try the same. You might like it.

 

What argument? This thread is actually about a game show host, and his attempt at global warming humor. Obviously, he is wholly unqualified to publically comment on the science of climate change.

As you describe yourself as a "Full-time RVer", I already had assumed you were of retirement age.

I've wondered about that lifestyle, don't you fell the need for an anchor, or the stability of a permanent home?

 

Edith Ann's response would have about as intelligent and about as responsible as Sajak's.

If anyone wants to follow a discussion about if global warming is real, you may want to read the thread "Global Warming is Very Real." It's best to begin at the beginning since the last three or four pages pretty much devolved into insults--although at about page 9 it starts getting pretty funny.

 

...

After selling our house in New Hampshire, we established residency in a county in east Texas, where we have our licenses, registations, and voter cards. Also, we are members of a major RV club with about 100,000 other member/families who are doing the same thing. The club holds scheduled "get-togethers" throughout the country, where lifelong friendships are formed and renewed at these meetings. The club also provides services such as mail forwarding, and group insurance plans, to name a couple. That is our "anchor" until such time as we get tired of traveling. Until then, home is where we park it. Right now, Del Rio, Texas is our winter spot.