By L&T Publisher Earl Watt
I don’t buy into the second gunman on the grassy knoll or that the government brought down the World Trade Center. I’m not a conspiracy theorist.
Whether intentional or not, there seems to be a correlation between climate change zealots and support for the health care law, and while perusing some articles on the issue, I believe that one plus one equals two.
I was reading an opinion piece on a science web site, grist.org, and why the person who mediates a forum has decided to ban opinions from what he called “climate deniers.”
In other words, if you do not agree with or admit that human beings are the cause of massive climate change on the planet, your view is invalid and not allowed.
They aren’t alone.
The Los Angeles Times has also made the determination that these views will not be printed. In other words, a media outlet has decided what is the truth for all of its readers based on a theory.
That is their perogative.
But in the comments underneath the scientific opinion, one of the zealots of climate change and the human problem perhaps showed their hand a little too openly.
The respondent said that humans have been harming the environment since our population reached 1 billion, and it now stands at almost 8 billion.
The post also mentioned that wars, disease and starvation generally took care of the human problem, but with advancements in health care and advancements in agriculture techniques, we have overproduced our own existence and have thereby caused catastrophic damage to the planet as a whole.
The environmental problem, then, is there are simply too many of us.
Among those that buy into the climate change theory, this is a common belief. In an effort to reduce the “carbon footprint” of humanity, many have opted to not have children in an effort to do their part in saving the planet.
So how does health care fall into this argument?
You see, those that push this climate change theory have to blame humanity for the change in the climate. They cannot be separated.
How can we limit the human population from growing?
As the blogger pointed out, there have been three historic ways: war, medical advancement and food supply.
War does not coincide with the tree-hugging lifestyle, so that is out.
But America has been the worldwide leader in medical advancements that have extended the life expectancy of the human race.
The American medical system, free from a heavy-handed government, had outpaced the world in these advancements.
The cure for cancer is within our reach, organ growth, something that at one time was the stuff of science fiction, is not far from reality.
But those possibilities will be delayed with the new health care law, starting with additional taxes on medical devices and the development of such items.
Without the revenues flowing through research and development, innovation is about to grind to a halt in the medical field, and while it may not cause a worldwide drop in population overnight, it will slow its growth.
Watch for movement of these people in regulating the food industry next, all in the name of public safety, of course, but in limiting the food supply as a means to controlling world population.
The picture is starting to come clear.
The problem is not coal or smokestacks. That was addressed in the 1970s with 97 percent of all particulants removed from the air.
The problem is there are too many humans, according to climate change believers.
And they have a desire to lower our numbers. By the billions.
If they won’t listen to other views about climate change, what measures will they take to decrease the population, all in the name of their belief of saving the planet?