"Global warming" (the political movement, not the physical fact) is quickly becoming the best possible illustration of everything that is going wrong with modern society. In a single topic, it encapsulates:

• 1. The "respect gap" between doers and talkers, best illustrated by the fact that the global warming talker-in-chief, Al Gore, is lionized in the media and Hollywood for his talk while in his personal life, he produces more carbon gas the a fire in a coal mine.

This post examines two predictions of future catastrophes. The first is Global Warming. The second is the collapse of Social Security. One of these catastrophes is completely predictable and avoidable and yet largely ignored by the media and government, which refuses to take action to avoid it. The other is completely unpredictable and, if true, just as completely unavoidable, and yet it is discussed everyday in the media any by members of the government who insist that actions must be taken. This post examines why one is predictable, that other not, why they are treated so differently, and why understanding what is predictable and controllable and what is not is so important to your personal success.

Here is the second part of Christopher Monckton article on the dishonesty of those who support statist solutions for "human caused" global warming. Here he focuses on the impossibilities of any governmental solution improving our creation of greenhouse gasses.

Continuing the theme that there is no such thing as the "common good," let us look again at the organizations that claim to embody the common good, in this case, the selfless environmentalist groups. If our analysis is correct, these organizations will defend their positions, even when those positions clearly hurt large numbers of innocent people without providing any environmental benefit. Stategy teaches that when a group wins a victory, it is likely to selfishly defend the position it has won until it advances to a new, better position. Because they are self-centered, organization can only abandon a position, even a bad one, when they win new victories that allow them to move on. Perhaps there is no more tragic example of the long defense of a destructive position than the environmental movement’s battle to continue of the ban on DDT. Only the movement’s recent victories on the “global warming” front have allowed it to abandon its stubborn defense of this deadly ban. The ban has killed tens millions of innocent people, mostly children, mostly in Africa. By defending it, the environmental movement gave up many of its pretenses of defending human life. It would have continued defending the continued slaughter of innocents if the movement wasn't now focused on consolidating its power through its new "global warming" agenda. (If you want to know why I put "global warming" in quotes, read this post.) So, in a very backward sense, you can say that the fight against "global warming" is already saving lives by redirecting the efforts of environmentalists to where they are doing less immediate damage.