Your Beliefs About Global Warming Are Irrelevent

Posted by Michael Peacock on Monday, January 29, 2007 at 06:59 PM. Read 3034 times. Tags:
{name} pic

This letter appeared in today’s Mobile Press-Register, and it raises a few questions about the science and politics behind the so-called global warming “debate”.  I’ll present it in it’s entirety, and will then address some specific issues.

Global warming claim a ‘hoodwink’

Nancy Pelosi, in addition to being speaker of the House, has apparently become a climate change expert. Her proclamation that global warming is an undeniable fact is bold, authoritative and for the most part correct, except that human activity cannot be proven to be its cause.

Blaming a warming Earth on humankind has become the mantra of liberal, left-leaning politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington. A Jan. 21 letter to the Press-Register ("Environmental battle is about control") by Kenneth D. Slade of Theodore hit the nail squarely on the head when he said it’s about seeking political control over our lives and livelihoods.

I believe that global warming is the biggest hoodwink in our present time, and I have expressed this view to the Press-Register in recent months. I’ve said that warming on a global scale is part of a natural cycle that has happened over and over again, and that it must be respected and planned for. It should not become a scare tactic used by politicians and environmentalists to gain control of our lives.

The “climate experts” that have been cited by syndicated columnist Tom Teepen and politician Al Gore in this newspaper are always anonymous and never brought into debate with climate experts who see things differently. Mr. Slade is correct when he says that the eco-left is trying to make a power grab. What’s going on now is beginning to smell like the McCarthy era in the 1950s, and it scares me.

Look for many more global warming declarations and propaganda from the Democrats and the eco-left as we progress toward the 2008 elections. We’re going to be buried under an avalanche of it. Tell a big lie often enough and it stands a chance of being believed.

In the meantime, look for liberal Democrats, with Nancy Pelosi leading the way, to begin sponsoring anti-global warming bills, with each in turn increasing regulations on “greenhouse gases” and auto and manufacturing emissions, which go to the very heart and soul of our nation’s manufacturing economy.

I believe Democrats are willing to play a high-risk game with global climate change in their quest to control the things we produce and what we, as a “free people,” can do in America.

And I do believe that liberal Democrats would sell out our country to a higher world authority if they thought it would give them the power they truly desire to have. In doing so, they are playing a dangerous game with our democracy and our lives.

THOMAS L. M.

Fairhope, AL

Now, Let’s look at some of the specific claims in this letter, and I’ll demonstrate why they are either misleading or just plain false.

Nancy Pelosi, in addition to being speaker of the House, has apparently become a climate change expert. Her proclamation that global warming is an undeniable fact is bold, authoritative and for the most part correct, except that human activity cannot be proven to be its cause.

Here the claim is that human activity cannot be proven to be the cause of Global Warming.  That is entirely true, since science is an inductive process of discovering truth via discrete observations and hypothesis testing.  In fact - science can never prove anything, although science is particularly good at disproving false claims. 

The author implies that human activity is not the cause of global warming, and through this, makes two assumptions: that Global Warming is real (which I personally agree with, though it’s generally poor form to contradict the thesis of your essay in its opening paragraph), and that there is just a single cause or Global Warming.  This is misleading, and paints an overly simplistic picture of the available data. 

It is more accurate to claim that, on average, surface temperatures are indeed rising around the world, and that human activity, specifically the emissions of so-called “green house gases” are playing an increasing role in this temperature increase.

Blaming a warming Earth on humankind has become the mantra of liberal, left-leaning politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington. A Jan. 21 letter to the Press-Register ("Environmental battle is about control") by K. D. S. of Theodore hit the nail squarely on the head when he said it’s about seeking political control over our lives and livelihoods.

Here there are several misleading claims.  First, the author claims there are, “left-leaning politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington”, which is only 51% accurate since the November elections.  Second, the author claims that these politicians have a mantra, and that mantra is “blame warming on humankind.” Finally, the author claims that another letter writer, K.D.S. of Theodore, Alabama was correct is his assertion that those who intone this mantra have a desire to seek control over our lives and livelihoods.  Since we have already clearly demonstrated that the first claim is, at best, barely more than half-true, then my guess is that the other two claims that flow from it are somewhat less true.  In the absence of any corroborating evidence, we would be best served by assuming these claims are simply false, and ignore them altogether.

I believe that global warming is the biggest hoodwink in our present time, and I have expressed this view to the Press-Register in recent months. I’ve said that warming on a global scale is part of a natural cycle that has happened over and over again, and that it must be respected and planned for. It should not become a scare tactic used by politicians and environmentalists to gain control of our lives.

The misleading claim here us that global warming is actually part of a natural cycle.  The basis of this claim is the authors belief that politicians (presumably the left-leaning, ones chanting the mantra above) are trying to “hoodwink” us.  The claim is misleading because warming and cooling periods are indeed seen throughout history.  Recent evidence, however, indicates that, natural fluctuations were responsible for most temperature changes through the first half of the 20th century, but since the latter half of the 20th century, we have moved outside the bounds of normal, natural temperature fluctuations.

As to Thomas’ belief that, “global warming is the biggest hoodwink in our present time”, I would humbly submit that the original case for war in Iraq might be a hoodwink on par with any in history.

The “climate experts” that have been cited by syndicated columnist Tom Teepen and politician Al Gore in this newspaper are always anonymous and never brought into debate with climate experts who see things differently. Mr. S. is correct when he says that the eco-left is trying to make a power grab. What’s going on now is beginning to smell like the McCarthy era in the 1950s, and it scares me.

Here’s the crux of Thomas L. M.’s argument - he disagrees with the position taken by syndicated columnist Tom Teepen, and former US Vice President Al Gore, and claims that they cite “climate experts” but do not reveal their identities, nor have them debate climate experts (sans quotations, signifying greater credibility) who see things differently.
This is not entirely true.  First, neither Teepen nor Gore are scientists, so they’re not actually required to outline their sources.  Their central claim, that the vast majority of environmental scientists have concluded that the data for Global Warming is compelling, and that human activity is, at least in part, responsible for this trend is well documented - even within various agencies of the US government.  For example, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies has several recent, informative articles on global warming (here).  In addition, the National Climate Data Center Has a Global Warming FAQ that refutes Thomas’ arguments, as does the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  Further, a recent article by Science Magazine reviewed 928 peer reviewed articles on global climate change, and concluded that 75% agreed with the consensus view that human activity is responsible for most of the warming seen in the past 50 years.  The remaining 25% did not take any stance on the issue, and the article stated, “Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”

Now, this is also where the author takes a cheap shot at the “eco-left” by conflating and equating their goals and methods with those of Joseph McCarthy.  While the eco-left most likely has its own agenda, it’s not likely that it’s anything like that of the infamous Republican Senator from the great State of Wisconsin.

Look for many more global warming declarations and propaganda from the Democrats and the eco-left as we progress toward the 2008 elections. We’re going to be buried under an avalanche of it. Tell a big lie often enough and it stands a chance of being believed.

Here’s where the author tugs at your heart strings.  Be afraid of the scary, tree hugging Democrats.  They want to take your job away and bury you under an avalanche of propaganda.

Ironically, the part where he says, “Tell a big lie often enough and it stands a chance of being believed”, is actually true.

In the meantime, look for liberal Democrats, with Nancy Pelosi leading the way, to begin sponsoring anti-global warming bills, with each in turn increasing regulations on “greenhouse gases” and auto and manufacturing emissions, which go to the very heart and soul of our nation’s manufacturing economy.

Again, the suspenseful theme music plays in the background as liberals start to rise from the political netherworld of near complete powerlessness, and Nancy Pelosi leads the way toward the utter destruction of Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet.

I believe Democrats are willing to play a high-risk game with global climate change in their quest to control the things we produce and what we, as a “free people,” can do in America.

Thomas, I appreciate your fear.  Your government has been telling you for years to fear change, and to fear your Democratic neighbors.  You’ve been played, however, since Democratic Americans are at least equal to Republican Americans in all things.

And I do believe that liberal Democrats would sell out our country to a higher world authority if they thought it would give them the power they truly desire to have. In doing so, they are playing a dangerous game with our democracy and our lives.

THOMAS L. M.

Fairhope, AL

OK - here’s where Thomas goes for the big finish.  Not only are evil Democratic Americans out to “hoodwink” the good Republican Americans, but they’re actually trying to subvert the very core of our democracy.  Up until the last couple paragraph, this actually seemed like a reasonable, though naive and poorly executed, argument that global warming is a myth.  Instead, as we see Thomas’ scientific argument collapse, he relies more and more heavily on the Democratic bogeyman, claiming that the Democratic Party is somehow un-American and against workers.

More importantly, about one half of Thomas’ arguments are based on his belief, and his agreement with someone else’s beliefs.  If we were discussing a religious point, then this might add strength and credibility to his case.  Since, however, he’s arguing what is essentially a scientific point - about the existence of global warming and the role human activity plays in it - his beliefs are beside the point.  They’re irrelevant, and simply cloud the issue at hand.  Science, my friends, isn’t a democracy.  There are certainly debates among experts, often about subtle nuances of various theories.  In many cases, there isn’t any such thing as a “fair and balanced” view.  Beliefs aren’t particularly valuable.  Science is about evidence, and global warming is one of those cases in which the vast majority of the evidence is irrefutable - it exists, and we are playing an increasing role in it. 

Please, don’t simply take my word - I’m no climate expert. Instead, look at the evidence yourself. It’s all over the place for anyone who cares to read it.

Comments:

Page 2 of 5 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »

Psychromorbidus Canada Posted on 01/30/2007 at 11:38 PM

Psychromorbidus pic

what, like lime raining down from the sky?  That there is a base.

 Signature 

The protein prospector!

Bahamat Great Britain (UK) Posted on 01/31/2007 at 05:20 AM

Bahamat pic

I mean to make the carbonate from carbonic acid, which forms in the ocean when CO2 reacts with water
CO2+H20-->H2CO2 (carbonic acid)
Then you need deprotonation
H2CO2 +2base --> CO22- + 2HBase+
So in order for plankton to make carbonate from carbonic acid as they do now, they need a source of base entering into the ocean. It’s possible that this is by oxidising Ca to CaO (+2 ox state) and using O- to do the deprotonation, but that depends on having Ca metal around, and note that the metal won’t disolve in a 0 oxidation state

The pure Ca metal +CO2 doesn’t directly require base because protons aren’t involved but you still need Ca(0). The Ca(0) would be a nucleophile, nucleophiles are also basic to some extent themselves.

 Signature 

You don’t need to end all existence to end all suffering

Benior United States Posted on 01/31/2007 at 05:29 AM

Benior pic

Webs: I think some of them look as though the auto manufacturers thought, “Hey, we got a new idea with a car.  So lets give it a futuristic look.” Some of them look like a spaceship to me.

Just design me a hybrid that looks like a normal car like Toyota did with the hybrid camary.  Or Honda with the Accord hybrid.  I don’t need nothing fancy.

Actually, the Prius likely is the best selling, highest demand hybrid because it looks futuristic.  There’s been hybrid Civics, Accords, and Escapes for years, but none have generated the hype and demand of the Prius.

Until gas becomes even more expensive, nobody will be buying hybrids because they make economic sense.  A Honda Civic Hybrid sells for about $4000 more than a Civic LX, and $4000 would buy a lot of gas.  The Hybrid gets 49mpg city, the LX 30mpg city.  Driving 15000 strictly city miles a year (more than most people do) at $3/gal would cost $1500 in the LX, and $918 in the Hybrid, so it’d take close to 7 years to recoup the cost of the Hybrid, and most people sell their newly purchased cars by then.

Neither concern for the environment or economics are currently the main factor in buying a Prius, or any hybrid for that matter.  It’s environmental bragging rights through buying a car.  Given how much energy it takes to manufacture a new car, it would be considerably more environmentally friendly to purchase a used compact car like a Corolla or Civic.

Bahamat Europe Posted on 01/31/2007 at 06:58 AM

Bahamat pic

I should rephrase my comment
Using Carbonate as a base to deprotonate Carbonic acid (protonated carbonate) only transfers protons from one carbonate to another, that’s all you’re doing. Adding carbonate will buffer the solution and push up pH but carbonate raining from the sky isn’t our current source of base. The Ca(0) + CO2 you suggested to make the carbonate ultimately needs a source of Ca(0). While no bronsted bases are used as no protons are transferred, Ca(0) qualifies as a lewis base because it’s a nucleophile in this reaction, and it’s the source of that which is of concern. Either way we are essentially adding a lewis base to the ocean to counter the CO2 dissolving in it (a lewis acid).

p.s. bronsted acids/bases also qualify as lewis acid/bases, its just a more specific grouping which only looks at proton transfer and is hence incomplete

 Signature 

You don’t need to end all existence to end all suffering

MisterMook United States Posted on 01/31/2007 at 09:01 AM

MisterMook pic

I mean, if it’s all of our gasoline engines out there then that’s great, because in a hundred years we’ll all be out of gas and things will get cold again ...

From what I’ve been reading, this is a common misconception.  Simply halting emissions of greenhouse gases won’t necessarily reverse the warming trend - especially if we wait too long.

Which is why I said “if”, which probably should have been emboldened somehow for lazy readers determined to find offense at something I said I suppose.

The fact remains, whatever the cause, the solution is the key. Hell, even if it were all a clever ruse as the man in the article claims solving the problem would still be the key - even if it were only addressing “those things which lead people to erroneously conclude that there is global warming occurring.”

I would probably agree with that if I believed that climate scientists were really looking to assign blame rather than to uncover the causes as a means toward finding solutions that have a reasonable likelihood of actually working.

It doesn’t matter if scientists don’t wag fingers, once non-scientists start making it into political platforms and stomps someone’s assigning blame. That’s how politics work, because nothing spontaneously happens in the world of politics without liability occurring. Personally I think it’s something of from the laziness of people confusing the legal theories behind liability with political science, and the creepy inbreeding of law and political science majors.

And it’s really the issue that I’m talking about too: It’s cheaper politically to assign blame than to propose solutions, because blame is hardly ever so incredibly low that you can’t assign some to someone for something, while a solution to a problem that doesn’t work very easily comes back and bites you on your ass.

zilch Austria Posted on 01/31/2007 at 09:56 AM

zilch pic

Until gas becomes even more expensive, nobody will be buying hybrids because they make economic sense.

This is indeed the problem, Benior.  As long as gas is not paying for the damage it does to the environment, through a CO2 tax or whatever, it will be cheaper to pollute, until we get cheaper hybrids- or cheaper hydrogen, fuel cell, or electric cars.  But if people were forced to pay what it costs to have the CO2 they emit removed from the atmosphere, hybrids would suddenly look a lot better.

Neither concern for the environment or economics are currently the main factor in buying a Prius, or any hybrid for that matter.  It’s environmental bragging rights through buying a car.

I personally don’t give a fig why people buy hybrids.  If they want to brag, it’s no skin off my nose, although bragging rights should be reserved, imho, for those whose net CO2 balance is nil or lower- none of us qualify.  What matters is that the CO2 emissions are reduced, and hybrids, while not the summum bonum, are a step along the way.

Given how much energy it takes to manufacture a new car, it would be considerably more environmentally friendly to purchase a used compact car like a Corolla or Civic.

While I don’t know the figures (anyone have a source for how much CO2 it costs to make a car?) I suspect you’re right, if the choice is between buying a new car or buying a used car.  However, this is comparing apples and onions.  Of course, it’s most likely eco-friendlier, ceteris paribus, to buy a used car than a new one.  But it’s friendlier still to buy a motorcycle, or a bicycle, or take public transportation.  The fact is, if someone must buy a new car, a hybrid will produce less CO2 than a conventional car.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Michael Peacock United States Posted on 01/31/2007 at 04:35 PM

Michael Peacock pic

MisterMook: Which is why I said “if”, which probably should have been emboldened somehow for lazy readers determined to find offense at something I said I suppose.

I certainly didn’t take offense to your first statement, I just pointed out (and you apparently agreed) that it’s probably false.  On the other hand, calling me a lazy reader determined to find offense in something you said has me thinking I should read more of what you say so I can become properly offended.  Of course, that would entail reading, and that’s hard.  zzzz

The fact remains, whatever the cause, the solution is the key.

Agreed - finding solution(s) is more valuable than finding the cause(s).  My additional claim is that without knowing the causes, no solution is really possible.  You said earlier that the “causes are irrelevant,” and that “causes are for scientists”, and you then argue about the realities of politics and assignment of blame versus proposing unworkable solutions.  I’m not disputing your take on politics, and I think the direct implication of your statement is that we could potentially find both a scientific and political solution to this in the absence of verified knowledge about the causes.  That’s the part I disagree with. 

If we allow politicos or pundits to throw out the science that links human behavior to global warming, then there’s no political necessity to change any of those behaviors.  In my mind - any real solution has to be couched within the context of - or at least have some relation to - the causal factors that give rise to the original problem.  Since the best science available points to human activity as one of the causes, then human activity needs to factor in any proposed solution, assuming we want to resolve the situation.

Much of this would normally be moot, if we lived in a rational world where the weight of scientific evidence had a timely impact over policy - especially here in the US.  Since that isn’t the world in which we live, and people - mainly in political and media arenas - still actively deny the causal agents involved in global warming, scientists still find themselves fighting to be heard regarding how this mess came about.  While that’s going on, I wouldn’t expect any solutions.

 Signature 

“When the government fears the people, it is liberty. When the people fear the government, it is tyranny.”
-- Thomas Payne

My Name is Michael - Brother Neutron Bomb of Uncanny Honesty - Peacock, and I write at The Smug Baldy Speaks

MisterMook United States Posted on 01/31/2007 at 08:10 PM

MisterMook pic

The thing is, the idea that you have to know the cause to come up with a solution is false. I don’t have to know why it’s raining to get under a roof. Finding causes sometimes leads to solutions, but in general that’s only if it’s something that you really can fix by stopping something you’re already doing. But if the sea levels are rising and it’s getting hotter then really you don’t even need to know the words global warming to start coming up with possible fixes for the issue, at least as far as human beings are concerned. That’s ignoring the impact to the planet as a whole to some extent, but I think that focusing people’s attention to their prime real estate (their asses)generally works better than talking about numbers and generalities or even things outside their normal experience that may happen in the future.

I like the hybrid solutions, because they’ve got all the good outcomes once they can be made a little cheaper. They don’t feel to tech progressives as if anyone’s asking them to “give up” anything, they’re not so foreign a concept that they require an enormous investment of learning or infrastructure, and they’re an incremental change (which I think is probably the best sort of change for anything but stopping a drug dependency).

In my mind - any real solution has to be couched within the context of - or at least have some relation to - the causal factors that give rise to the original problem.

And I think that the best solutions usually come by addressing problems that people see right now with the best opportunity for flowering into future resolutions. Part of the problem here in America is that our energy economy is still so cheap that almost any costs incurred are more expensive than the status quo. It’s hard for people to come up with solutions to problems that they don’t really see as problems except in the future abstract. On the other hand, we’re all pretty damned inventive and accommodating once there’s a crisis of some sort. So in the net result, I’m not enormously worried that we’re all going to drown and burn up into cinders. I’m not even going to bankrupt myself getting a new hybrid car right now. I’m going to support those sorts of gradual solutions and keep ignoring both the sky is falling and the it’s all your fault camps though, because either the problem will be gradual and we’ll all figure it out or it will be sudden and we won’t be around to worry about it much.

Michael Peacock United States Posted on 02/01/2007 at 11:38 AM

Michael Peacock pic

The thing is, the idea that you have to know the cause to come up with a solution is false.

Agreed.

I don’t have to know why it’s raining to get under a roof.

Also agreed - to the extent that this is a solution for the problem of getting wet.  If the problem is that it’s raining, then this isn’t really a solution, is it?

And I think that the best solutions usually come by addressing problems that people see right now with the best opportunity for flowering into future resolutions.

Best?  Maybe not.  It might be more accurate to say these are most likely to garner enough political support to actually be attempted on a large scale.  I agree that any “perfect” solution that’s never implemented isn’t as good as a band-aid that’s actually applied. 

As someone that makes a living solving software problems, I find that it’s usually cheaper in the long run to spend the extra effort to identify root causes and eliminate them, rather than to patch the system and hope for the best.  On the other hand, I also have enough experience to know that your take on “flowering into future resolutions” is spot on with my preference of incremental refinement over “Big Bang” sorts of solutions.  Whether any of this even applies to the problems related to the climate is, obviously, open to debate.

Interesting discussion though - thanks for making me think.

 Signature 

“When the government fears the people, it is liberty. When the people fear the government, it is tyranny.”
-- Thomas Payne

My Name is Michael - Brother Neutron Bomb of Uncanny Honesty - Peacock, and I write at The Smug Baldy Speaks

MisterMook United States Posted on 02/01/2007 at 04:06 PM

MisterMook pic

If the problem is that it’s raining, then this isn’t really a solution, is it?

Then I’d question what exactly it is about the rain that’s a problem if you don’t have to deal with it. I think an awful lot of the “problems” we invent in politics are a lot like “It’s raining, so it’s a problem” things, but whenever I hear one I’m always going “Sure, it’s unpleasant but can you really do anything about the rain?”

Rephrasing the question into dealing with the consequences of rain though, and you get solutions. Sometimes that’s just the most effective way of dealing with the problem, especially on the short term. They might not be the best solutions, but I often find that once you get people addressing the things that they can deal with often means that eventually the larger, overall problem that’s been causing the issues in the first place is either dealt with or is irrelevant.

Now I don’t know if that’s a proper way to deal with something as far-reaching as climate change, but obviously we’ve dealt with radical climate change in the past as a species and we all figured it out one way or the other enough that we generally wouldn’t expect it to be any other way. Maybe once we’ve gotten used to higher sea levels, gotten some new skin cancer treatments, and figured out that rain isn’t something to panic about unless it’s actually flooding your basement we’ll be better placed to understand how to incrementally change the weather back. Or maybe we won’t want to, or won’t need to, or people will be bitching about the entire notion because they’ve gotten used to deeper harbors and changed coast lines.

I guess part of what I’m saying is that looking on change, even a radical, unexpected, and troublesome change as catastrophic mostly isn’t the sort of thing that gets things done. If the sky is falling and we’re all going to die then grab your ankles and take it like a man. On the other hand though, usually you can do something, even if you can’t stop what’s happening from occurring.

LuckyJohn19 Australia Posted on 02/02/2007 at 05:52 AM

LuckyJohn19 pic

Something that hasn’t had a mention here yet is the Permafrost.
Here’s what Ian Sample, science correspondent, said August 11, 2005

Siberia feels the heat. It’s a frozen peat bog the size of France and Germany combined, contains billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas and, for the first time since the ice age, it is melting.


The permafrost is likely to take many decades at least to thaw, so the methane locked within it will not be released into the atmosphere in one burst, said Stephen Sitch, a climate scientist at the Met Office’s Hadley Centre in Exeter.

But calculations by Dr Sitch and his colleagues show that even if methane seeped from the permafrost over the next 100 years, it would add around 700m tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year, roughly the same amount that is released annually from the world’s wetlands and agriculture.

It would effectively double atmospheric levels of the gas, leading to a 10% to 25% increase in global warming, he said.

 Signature 

I’ve discovered that it all boils down to brain wiring: your brain is wired to worship magic or it isn’t, either it’s wired to utilize logic or it isn’t, either it’s analytical of myths or it isn’t.

Brian United States Posted on 02/04/2007 at 11:37 PM

Brian pic

Great post. I might have to cite you in a post I’m doing on the Global Warming Hoax blog tomorrow! =)

KPatrickGlover United States Posted on 02/04/2007 at 11:54 PM

KPatrickGlover pic

I’d like to take a moment here to thank Mr. Peacock for his post, and more importantly, for all the links he provided that led me to a great deal of source material and several days worth of reading.

I’m on record here at SEB as being a global warming skeptic.

I’d like to denounce that position now.

The reading that Mr. Peacock has led me to has convinced me that climate change is indeed influenced greatly by man.

However, I still think Al Gore is a bit of a wanker.

 Signature 

(Parenthetically Speaking)

MySpace

zilch Austria Posted on 02/05/2007 at 03:44 AM

zilch pic

I’m on record here at SEB as being a global warming skeptic.
I’d like to denounce that position now.

Bravo, KPG.  I’d like to think that I am just as willing to admit changing my mind, but I’m not so sure I can.  Takes guts.

However, I still think Al Gore is a bit of a wanker.

LOL Me too.  It lost him the election.  Given the choice between wanker and slimeball, Americans chose Bush.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

MisterMook United States Posted on 02/05/2007 at 09:53 AM

MisterMook pic

Yeah, well Clinton was a slimeball too but he seemed to do alright. Maybe if Bush had kept his slimeballness to snorting coke and driving drunk we’d all be doing fine still, just like we’d survive Cheney if the only people he we a danger to were hunting partners?

Webs United States Posted on 02/05/2007 at 10:06 AM

Webs pic

Sorry about being off topic… hey KPG did you get those emails I sent you about your site?  And I am glad to hear you converted!

 Signature 

Brother Spikey Mace of Patience

Unitarian Jihad Name: Get Yours
Unitarian Jihad Background

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 02/05/2007 at 10:17 AM

decrepitoldfool pic

However, I still think Al Gore is a bit of a wanker.

Oh, we all are, but who wants to admit to it?  cool smirk

Michael Peacock United States Posted on 02/05/2007 at 12:59 PM

Michael Peacock pic

KPG: I’d like to take a moment here to thank Mr. Peacock ...

Aw, come on, leave my dad out of this.  Seriously, though, thanks for the kind words.

In all truth, Webs, and surprisingly, moloch, both deserve some credit as well.  Webs had recently posted about global warming, saying essentially that the deniers were essentially ass hats.  Of course, Moloch chimed in with his defense of his preferred head wear.  I didn’t want to simply engage him without some data, so I decided to start reading a bit about the issue.  I’m certainly no expert about this issue, but I know how to dig for information.  That’s some of what I found that I considered reliable.

KPG: However, I still think Al Gore is a bit of a wanker.

You think?  Al Gore is so boring that he could stand next to drying paint, and people would ask him to move so they could get a better view.  Funny thing is - more people voted for him in 2000 than W.

Brian: I might have to cite you in a post I’m doing on the Global Warming Hoax blog tomorrow! =)

That would be great - though I’d appreciate it if you’d cite the original post, and then read this in light of your post about the being no scientific consensus about this stuff.  There was a consensus in 2004, and with the latest IPCC report, it’s apparently still the case now.

I’m going to be writing this week about the myth that science is supposed to somehow be fair and democratic.  It isn’t. Fair and balanced is for talking heads.  Science ought to go where the data takes us, and if you’re intellectually honest and capable of reading and comprehending the dry, sciency stuff, you’ll likely end up in the same general area.

 Signature 

“When the government fears the people, it is liberty. When the people fear the government, it is tyranny.”
-- Thomas Payne

My Name is Michael - Brother Neutron Bomb of Uncanny Honesty - Peacock, and I write at The Smug Baldy Speaks

KPatrickGlover United States Posted on 02/05/2007 at 01:08 PM

KPatrickGlover pic

Zilch, thank you.

Webs, No, I didn’t get your emails, what address did you send them to?

It should be kpatrickglover at yahoo.com

 Signature 

(Parenthetically Speaking)

MySpace

Bahamat Great Britain (UK) Posted on 02/05/2007 at 01:13 PM

Bahamat pic

DoF: Oh, we all are, but who wants to admit to it?

I’ll admit to the literal meaning at least grin
If only I didn’t have to go to work…
(actually I heard once there is such a job involving it - call it a kind of QA tester)

For the non-literal meaning - people only see themselves and others within the limits of the maximum nice-ness they have been themselves, hence why asshats consider everyone else asshats, and why people who are near that maximum (even if it is a low one) consider themselves in a good light. Seems to be that if you’re beyond their maximum your motives could be wrongly explained using concepts that are below their maximum, hence when people try to judge what they shouldn’t be in the position to judge

I think this idea of only seeing what’s below your maximum might be why people, including myself, look back on the past and consider myself an major asshat back then compared to the lesser asshat I am now. I think there is a general feeling though to always think that everything about their frame of mind in the past was worse than now, and that is not 100% true for anyone, negative events seem more memorable, and the years seem to fly because you forget the mundane.

 Signature 

You don’t need to end all existence to end all suffering

Webs United States Posted on 02/05/2007 at 01:14 PM

Webs pic

KPG: my email is .  I am pretty sure I just replied to your email address.  I sent you another one just now with the subject:Your Website.  I would check the spam folder, I suspect I went there.

 Signature 

Brother Spikey Mace of Patience

Unitarian Jihad Name: Get Yours
Unitarian Jihad Background

KPatrickGlover United States Posted on 02/05/2007 at 01:38 PM

KPatrickGlover pic

Webs, that one can through fine.

 Signature 

(Parenthetically Speaking)

MySpace

Last_Hussar Great Britain (UK) Posted on 02/05/2007 at 02:30 PM

Last_Hussar pic

In case there is any doubt amoung the petulent teenagers posting here (*cough* Moloch). I would refer you to the Inter-Governmental Conference on Climate Change.  Now, if you wish to prove them wrong, if you can prove them wrong, if you have the evidence to prove it wrong…

DO NOT PUBLISH IT HERE

Publish it as a peer reviewed article.  You’ll be rich and famous.

 Signature 

I’d rather be liberal than illiberal.
I’d rather be progressive than conservative.

MisterMook United States Posted on 02/05/2007 at 03:56 PM

MisterMook pic

To be fair, all one has to do to refute the IGC on Climate Change is pronounce politics. Which is what I was going on about in my vein of discussion on solutions: It doesn’t matter if people are causing global warming. It doesn’t even matter if there is global warming occurring. The idea that global warming might be occurring, and a great many people believe it to be occurring, is enough economic justification for acting as if it were occurring regardless of the details or facts on the matter.

You can dispute the science all you want, but ignoring the economic pull of large scale consensus behavior among your fellow man is stupid behavior even if it’s only everyone else enamored of something you don’t believe yourself in. Furthermore, regardless of the causes for their decision, people are using global warming to push for the embrace of significant technological adoption and infrastructure reorientation. That kind of money should make even the most cynical Capitalist green with warm fuzzy feeling of government money to be lobbied for. And if 20 years down the line it turns out that the Global Warming folks were incorrect or even exaggerated, everyone would still benefit both in the long and short term from that sort of adoption and realignment.

The strange thing about economics is that, as long as people have excess money to spend, spending money on anything is rarely a bad idea for the economy. Spending on revamping infrastructure though, that’s almost always a golden idea; and what we’re talking about when we say “Doing something about Global Warming” is revamping the power and transportation infrastructure of all the world’s industrialized economies.

If we can do that without bankrupting ourselves, just the detail of re-examining and modernization would be beneficial regardless of any actual improvements designed or unintentionally beneficial to countering climate change.

Bahamat Great Britain (UK) Posted on 02/05/2007 at 04:26 PM

Bahamat pic

As long people who don’t know better or have a financial/convenience motive can cast the slightest shadow of a doubt on the thing they don’t want to hear, they will generally ignore it as long as it isn’t going to inconvienience them.

Polititions might take notice if it affected their chances for election or threatening their livelihood or economy (ie crops), but because it’s effects will be years doen the line they won’t be in office then so they have no personal motive to really care much. The only real sway we have is to vote environment over economy to give them a motive

Besides, a lot of the people who will be worst affected by global warming won’t be living in the contries contributing most to it, so they’re not really voters on this issue

I wonder what the point will be when we know long-term survival of the species is unviable, when we get there, we might as well give up trying to slow the warming. Perhaps the running out of oil will prevent this, perhaps people will die off until equilibrium is reached and temperatures stabalise (too slow responding for that I think), no doubt when we do run out of oil, the choice between coal and nuclear for electricity becomes important.

 Signature 

You don’t need to end all existence to end all suffering

Page 2 of 5 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main