You have to hand it to CNN.
They’ve managed to find the “silver lining” in the Wuhan coronavirus.
According to CNN’s Bill Weir, there’s the perception that the pandemic “has helped humanity buy some time when it comes to global warming.”
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) April 23, 2020
Yeah, you just had to have a world pandemic with 2,661,518 cases and 185,504 deaths officially reported according to Worldometers (which doesn’t include the undercounts of places like China, Iran, and North Korea), millions thrown out of work around the world and everything in chaos. But yeah, you go there.
But hey, as CNN’s expert says, if we do more and keep this up for the next thirty years, it might begin to change the curve on the greenhouse gases.
You just have to have people keep dying and destroying the economy — but priorities, right?
Now, the “bad” thing in this scenario, according to CNN, is people being freed from confinement and being able to go back to the daily activities, i.e. driving and buying cheap gas, spiking pollution. Silly people, if they would just stop driving around, we could stop all this.
Now this, of course, is nonsense. There would be no greater pollution than there was before the pandemic if people resumed their normal activities. And no, fifty years ago the air and water were not “too foul” for Americans to ignore. Earth Day was created by a leftist maniac who killed his girlfriend and shoved her body in a closet and didn’t do jack about pollution. Clean Air and pollution acts preceded and came after the creation of Earth Day.
But what does a bat virus have to do with deforestation? Seems like that’s just another way to shoehorn the virus into the global warming narrative while avoiding blaming China. A two-for-one deflection from sense and reality.
This is like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) celebrating oil prices crashing, which could result in thousands being thrown out of work. What are people like this thinking?
Seriously, in the middle of a pandemic, this is insanity. Isn’t the point of fighting “global warming” supposed to be about saving humanity? If you have to kill/destroy humanity, how does that achieve your goal?
Unless the point isn’t about saving humanity, but simply about controlling humanity.
Author: Nick Arama