I'm Changing My Mind
Not to beat a dead horse but maybe I'll change my mind on global warming. It's really warm outside today. I can't remember it being this warm in...how long? Global warming must be true.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 11:47 AM
77 comments
77 Comments:
Hmmm...my beating the dead horse picture isn't working. The guy in the back is supposed to be beating the horse.
There. Now it works. Put the thing on photobucket.
Fred:
I find this image very disturbing. One would think you could use some other example to get your point across.
I guess you could have used Beating a dead Whore. Probably would have caused less ruckus than an animal abuse case..
Yeah, what do thousands of scientists and decades of research show? Dumb eggheads!
Those idiots were wrong about the whole earth revolving around the sun thing. And don't get me started about the world being spherical in nature. To hell with them and their science conspiracy. We don't need their learning and math and science and stuff. I have my air conditioning and a stockpile of Spam to last me until I die.
Fred, it's called global climate change rather than global warming specifically because of people like you.
Naysayers point to a harsh winter in some part of the world as if that's evidence against global warming. In fact, it's the opposite. Both summer and winter will be more extreme in many parts of the world, but it's not a uniform thing and there will be exceptions in places due to geography, etc. So global climate change is a more apt term, although warming is overall the major effect on the planet.
One thing you can count on is not to buy beach front property anywhere around the globe, not if you're interested in a grandchild or great grandchild inheriting it...
Yes, and the cow jumped over the moon.
Fred you are dumber than shit.
Trying to persuade a climate change denier is about as worthwhile as debating a creationist. No amount of evidence, measurement and research will sway them. Faith is faith.
The rest of the world understands the issue and will bring the U.S. around sooner or later. The real question is whether the U.S. will have to pay reparations in 50 years for being a major contributor and denier of the crisis. I'm sure that idea will be seriously considered, but it won't happen because our empire will have probably experienced economic collapse by that time. The only thing we're leading in these days is military hardware exports. That simply cannot sustain our economy. We've let our most precious industries get exported to countries where people get paid pennies per hour, and we (our politicians) justify it as raising those poor countries' standard of living while providing us inexpensive good. Yep, we are living high on the hog right now. Not for much longer. Enjoy the party while it lasts.
I'm glad you're changing your mind but I'm afraid its for the wrong reason. If it get unusually cold in few weeks its likely you'll flipflop again.
In reality the climate predictions allow that some locales may get colder, on average, even though the overall global trend is warmer. Not understanding the nature of the predictions, you're just shotgunning a reaction.
Since you don't have the intellectual ability to critically examine the whole record of evidence for global warming, you're left with either trusting an "expert" you have faith in or reacting simplemindedly to whatever you happen to come across in your personal life.
Like a brute animal in the forest, you haven't the capability to do anything but react to your immediate envoronment. Perhaps you'll decide to move North with the other migrating animals, and fauna if the local climate warms.
Like 3:07 PM says: "Trying to [dis]suade a [warmista] is about as worthwhile as debating [Pope Innocent VI]. No amount of evidence, measurement and research will sway them. Faith is faith."
"That environmentalism is in fact a pseudo-religion goes without saying. Like all such, it possesses every element of contemporary legitimate(?) belief. It has a deity, in this case the goddess Gaia, the personification of the living Earth, (first envisioned by James Lovelock, whom we can slot in as high priest). It has its holy books,(the IPCC politicians summary) most changing with the seasons, and most, as is true of the Bible with many convinced Christians, utterly unread. It has its saints and prophets (Al Gore), its commandments, religious rituals (be sure to recycle that bottle), a large gallery of sins, mortal and otherwise, and an even larger horde of devils and heretics (skeptics).
Two other items that a pseudo-religion must have is an apocalypse - and that's what global warming (er climate change)is and tithing, the proposed "carbon tax".
"he's a real nowhere man, sitting in his nowhere land, making all his nowhere plans for nobody..."
Fred, your graphic makes me think of Eureka and Rob Arkley 20 years from now.
That 3:51 is a full blown kook goes without saying. I'm going to go do a religious ritual and take this beer bottle to the recycling bin, and go enjoy my large gallery of sins...
I think Fred was trying to make a joke re global warming with the warm weather today. That being said some of you couldn't get your mind around that one.
I don't know if global warming is real or not if it is I will own ocean front property but I probably won't live that long to get that valuation.
I don't think I harm the environment so I do my part. Everyone else - I can't control them, therefore if it is real I can't control that either.
I am no longer going to throw the wrong kind of light bulbs in the trash and will recycle responsibly.
I don't know why people jump on Rob Arkley so much as he does a lot of things that a lot of you are not aware of. He pays for his part time employees health insurance - can you get that anywhere else? He sends and pays for youngsters to go to college that work for him. Can you get that anywhere else?
Some people always resent wealthy people and don't seem to realize that some of the wealthy people really want to be involved and do something good for the community they live in.
No I don't work for Rob Arkley or any of his businesses - just think he gets bashed a little too much for what he does here.
Ohhhhh...spring is BUSTing out all OOOvver.
"That environmentalism is in fact a pseudo-religion goes without saying."
We don't say it, and it doesn't "go."
Fred, this post was very good. Liked the graphic, and it made me LOL. It was a great day. Hope everyone enjoyed the warm weather!
3:07 wrote, "Trying to persuade a climate change denier is about as worthwhile as debating a creationist. No amount of evidence, measurement and research will sway them. Faith is faith.".
I feel confident in suggesting the opposite is also true. All one needs to do is look at the zeal, and sometimes vitriol, that global warming worshipers throw at those who don't tow the line on the politically correct version of events.
What I wrote earlier on about global warming enthusiasts becomes even more valid by the comments made in response, imo.
I find it frightening that so many people- many apparently young people- are so closed minded on the issue that they accept the government sponsored version of global warming and toss aside any discussion that might lead them to think otherwise.
Groupthink at its worst,as far as I'm concerned.
Again: I would hope such a lynch mob mentality would give even environmentalists pause. Apparently not.
12pm wrote, "I find this image very disturbing. One would think you could use some other example to get your point across.".
Barbara: For one thing, I thought it was funny. Besides, why get upset about the picture? After all; The horse is supposedly dead.
Why get upset over a dead horse being beaten?
I'm pleased that the guy beating the dead horse is wearing a tie.
Yeah, that's the only appropriate thing about it. Otherwise it's sick.
Jesus Fred, get a grip. Who is "worshipping" global warming? You are not making any sense.
"Politically Correct"?
Talk about beating dead horses, right-wingers have gotten years of use out of that hackneyed, unoriginal term.
"...government sponsored version of global warming..."
I guess that you haven't noticed that the President is an oil man, and global warming doesn't come up often in his conversations with Jesus.
"...lynch mob mentality..."
Now you are sounding shrill and hysterical like Clarence Thomas.
I agree with you on the dead horse though. If they can't take a joke, fuck 'em.
Fred, please just stick to lawn maintenance issues. For example, I have a patch of crab grass. Would some sort of fertilizer work, or should I dig it up and reseed it? See, I bet you're more informed than anyone to tackle this kind of deep issue.
As for global warming, do you perhaps see how you're out of your element? Saying it is a matter of faith is ignorance on your part. There is a tremendous and growing volume of evidence supporting it. If anything the amount of evidence against it has declined over the last decade.
I understand you like talk radio, but maybe you should go back to school. CR is not as expensive as you may think. And I think a more thoughtful Fred, one based in reason, would actually contribute to blogdom knowledge. Until then, all you're doing is blowing hot air and then crying foul when others call you on it.
It was indeed a beautiful day. Glorious.
Carson Park Ranger:
I agree with you on the dead horse though. If they can't take a joke, fuck 'em.
Wow CPR, and I thought you were civilized.
All I can say is, thank god you didn't breed Fred. Thank god people here have seen through you for what you are. A hermit who stays in touch with the world through talk radio, uneducated, hypocritical (Former gov. worker turned Lib), nasty towards children, self righteous and above all else an ultra neoconservative unsophisticatedly masked as a Libertarian.
7:57 - I don't know if its true or false that Rob Arkley does all those nice things you say but I do know he has hurt alot of people who were once close to him. I also know that he has caused a nasty breach in his wifes family that has hurt every one involved. I dont think he is all bad so stop acting like he is all good.
Is Heraldo also pleased that the guy beating the dead horse is white?
Some people will just never get it. Until it effects them personally or financially, people like Fred will continue to stick their heads in the sand and pretend they have no responsibility outside of themselves. It is just a sad fact of life in America.
Fred, see Carson Park Ranger's last post- he pretty much nails it.
Irony:
Conservative Orange County burning in the beginning of march, while denying any type of climate change.
Yep. And it's probably burned in March in the past as well.
If you have the time, you might check some of the local Orange County papers. They might mention the last time wildfires were recorded in March, assuming they happened when people were around to record them.
I thouht the guy pounding on the houre looked like a "park cop". The kind you see in Golden Gate or Central Park. Must be the tie.
It is climate change Fred, not global warming. The temperature may initially go up, but increased temperatures can lead to more clouds, and quickly to cooling. No matter what you would like to think, and whether or not environmentalism is a religion or not does not alter reality. Humans are impacting the change in climate at an unprecedented rate in the last million years. There will probably be repercussions.
Fred's too narcissistic to understand.
Were any animals harmed in the making of that animation?
So did Nick off himself?
He hasn't been heard from in days. A body was found down by the Mad River. The Coroner deemed it an animal so it was buried on site. Curious though, I wasn't aware many animals that size walk on two legs.
One time way back in elementary school, a horse had broken its leg in the cattle guard at our bus stop, and as such was euthanized. Well the carcass lay there on the side of the road{our bus stop} for weeks. Naturally the first thing to go was the eyes that were pecked out by vultures, then infested with ants. Anyhow, I'll never forget seeing who could throw a rock in the horses missing eyes from the farthest away.
Hayduke - stay away from tomorrow's New York Times cause you won't like the piece that chides Al Gore for his "alarmism" and "exagerated claims."
I think what we are seeing here with this is a natural consequence of the weakening of traditional religion; something must follow to fill the vacuum. Most people have a deep need to be told what to think, what to do, and most of all, how to belong. This movement satisfies all needs. Ever notice how the dire predictions sound like something out of the old testament? Heh.
You've got every ingredient in there to make a church ladies' busybody committee happy. Apocalyptic visions. Fear. Guilt. Self sacrifice to atone for your own unworthiness that will give you a feeling of membership with the group. A comforting absolute conviction in knowing the Real Truth. A tasty slice of making people behave the way they ought to. A delicious helping of plundering those you are envious of. Relief from the responsibility to know anything or to think for yourself. Psychic and monetary rewards for those willing to demonstrate ever deeper faith in the cause, against all external circumstances. Castigation of anyone who relies on reason and logic instead of consensus to form conclusions. A steady stream of drivel promoting and reinforcing the group-think. And the final piece of the puzzle, converting enough people to the Real Truth so that only venal politicians who play along will succeed, all others will be forced out of the game. Once it becomes a state sponsored religion, voluntary contributions are not required. The coffers will be filled at the point of the tax man's gun. It then becomes a vehicle to be used by the lowest form of politicians to ride to power and influence, always in an effort to expand it. The new doctrine suffuses all levels of society, reinforced from the university level to kindergarten, from scientific papers to the cartoon page of the daily rag. There will be no escaping it.
It's a very old formula, preying on a fundamental human weakness, and it appears to be as effective as ever.
Are we at the eve of a new dark age?
Here we see an effort to seize absolute control over the most fundamental aspects of human existence on a global scale, handily destroying capitalism and any national sovereignty in the process. Even limited success along their path will cause monetary and economic convulsions large enough to bring calls for tightening control yet further; history shows that if a spoonful of poison makes the economy sick, we must pour it in by the gallon.
Real lessons learned from history at such great cost have already been forgotten, as we sacrifice a bright future for the comfort of letting authorities tell us what to think.
And so might end a brief spark of human freedom and material wealth in the long history of human enslavement; an experiment in granting the rabble inalienable rights, intellectual freedom, property ownership, the right to keep what one earns. It has been squandered -- the responsibility is too great, whatever the potential rewards are. We shall turn our society into a great Hospital where we are fed and diapered by our keepers. Ever so much more comfortable than going out into the cold, cruel world and mastering it ourselves.
--JD visiting from Ilana's page--
Gee whiz JD: It takes talent to condescend from such a low altitude.
JD I hope you plagiarized that and didn't waste your time actually coming up with that BS.
Beautiful prose, JD.
Pretty heavy going, JD, and I actually agree with some of what you pontificated. But just because you are correct about any of this does not mean climate change is not really occurring. Plus climate change is not the only mischief humans are layering on to our poor planet. We also have excessive population growth, species eradication, and the impending depletion of fossil fuels. Over time this will probably be self-correcting and solve most of our problems, because civilization as we know it will probably collapse. This could lead to a major reduction In population, a descent into bio-regionalism, and the major Dark Age you made reference to. However, depending on how much we have unbalanced nature this Dark Age might take a thousand of years to recover from, instead of a mere 500 like the last one. Finally your pitch for unbridled capitalism as the way into a utopian future is way off the mark. It looks so far to be a sure path into chaos and darkness. The free market system will only continue to work successfully when we realize we live on a finite planet, with finite resources, and we best not foul our own nest.
Were any animals harmed in the making of that animation?
Suppose, Eric, that somebody made an animation of a Klansman beating a Black person? Were any Blacks harmed in the making of that animation?
Hayduke,
The climate changes all by itself without any help from mankind.
Humans are not aliens or a virus on nature. Our presence on this earth is not 'mischief'. Species adapt or die whether humans are around or not (as humans must). And the depletion of fuel has been predicted ever since mankind began using it for survival, in the face of continually expanding proven reserves.
If we didn't 'unbalance' nature, we would die of exposure pretty quickly. Humans must alter their environment to survive, not having the teeth, speed, and fur to survive otherwise. Usually the prescription is for us to regress only halfway; we are supposed to imagine an idyllic grass hut existence -- 'man at one with nature'. A visit to any place where humans must live that way quickly informs one that such an existence is quite miserable. In fact, you pretty much have to see it firsthand in order to fully appreciate it. Catching a nice local bug really helps to set priorities in your mind. Priorities like sewerage, water treatment, hygiene, refrigeration, etc.
The view of nature only being natural where humans haven't touched it is nihilistic at its core. The basic premise is that humans are not fit for existence, that the earth would only be natural if humans didn't alter it. Nobody is expected to accept it fully, but it nicely lays the base for accepting that somehow, it will be all right to use force to deny other humans the energy they use to survive.
All evidence points to the conclusion that the best places to live are those where humans have the right to keep what they earn, limited as it may be. The alternative to 'unbridled capitalism' is, one way or another, to use the point of a gun to confiscate another's property or to prevent them from acting in their own best interests. Blend them any way you want and put a name to it -- fascism, communism, whatever. The result ends up being the few lording it over the many, with the many living in miserable conditions.
Vilifying and criminalizing the activities that power our very survival is a luxury that our semi-capitalist system made possible. Those who are poorest in the world, however, will be the first to suffer dire consequences of putting the anti-human, anti-energy agenda into effect. Living so close to the edge of starvation, and suffering debilitating maladies from lack of basic amenities, they won't do it to themselves. Somebody must do it to them, or finance despots who will do it to them. The ultimate perversion is that the supposedly enlightened West will do it to them. And it will be done with religious zeal.
Civilizations collapse through suicide. Unfortunately it seems that success breeds complacency, easy living lets people forget the basic premises that gave rise to the success, and people use their freedom and wealth to destroy both.
Time for me to go punch in and do my duty at the Ministry Of Leisure.
--JD--
8:20 wrote, "JD I hope you plagiarized that and didn't waste your time actually coming up with that BS.".
I think JD's comments were brilliant. Very well done, JD. Wish I would of written that. :-)
Oh. Since some folks found my beating a dead horse picture offensive, I've replaced it.
Everyone happy now? Let's all kiss and make up.
J.D. You do seem to have a much more anthropocentric view than I do, but we can choose to have different beliefs in that regard and still agree much more than we disagree. Again, we have much to agree on.
However it is clear we have drastically different viewpoints on the impact of globalization and capitalism. You say “Blend them any way you want and put a name to it -- fascism, communism, whatever. The result ends up being the few lording it over the many, with the many living in miserable conditions." I will argue that you need to replace the word “whatever” above, with “capitalism” because it is what is leading our word into disaster, causing a disproportionate consolidation of wealth, and is increasing the number of people “living in miserable conditions” as you said. And I am afraid when the population reaches 10 billion, the oceans no longer produce food, fossil fuel is depleted, dramatic climate change has occurred, etc, we will learn what "miserable" really looks like. Do I have the answer? I wish I did, but the consolidation of power into a few global elite is not working, and we had better recognize that.
And finally your statement “Civilizations collapse through suicide.” I couldn’t agree more.
Nice "picture" Fred. Much more classy/
Fred: I am glad that found JD's comments brilliant. That may be a bit of an exaggeration but you are right...you couldn’t have written it.
Well, I guess it is a better picture, Fred.
JD seems very thoughtful; however here is the real definition of "unbridled capitalism": To use the point of a gun to confiscate another's property or to prevent them from acting in their own best interests.
You have lost points Fred. Your head has really become inflated.
OK, so he's beating the dead horse with a stick in one hand... but what is the other hand doing???
JD sets up a straw man and boldly knocks him down:
"The view of nature only being natural where humans haven't touched it is nihilistic at its core."
His dreary, protracted style reminds one of Steve Lewis' lengthy, self-important screed.
You are right about the dreary, protracted style. JD writes like a classic academic. I tried to wade through all of this to dig out the real points being made. Good heads up though, and I need to try to avoid this in my own writing.
Hayduke,
Capitalism isn't keeping anybody down. Businesses buying government policies for advantage over competitors and control over markets isn't capitalism; technically it's fascism. I think that's what you were referring to, as opposed to free trade among willing participants.
Carson Park Ranger,
Straw man, or emporer's clothes? I didn't think I'd have to point out examples of the anti-human premise that suffuses almost any 'science' or 'nature' piece. Would you like a few? I notice you don't address any points, just attempt a flat negation and a mild insult in the form of a complaint.
If I choose to contribute, I won't dumb down the style. It's as compact as I can make it in the short time I have available. You'll just have to keep up or not read it.
To those who said nice things, thank you!
--JD--
JD- thank you for calling fascism what it is.The way people use the word shows a general lack of understanding-it just becomes a cheap filler to an argument. My questions are these: What system of government do we operate under?What's wrong with an anti-human premise? Would you list "a few"? I think a lot of us appreciate an intelligent mind, even if we disagree.
Oh, where to start. How about the first point (I've trimmed some of the abundant verbal fat):
"...what we are seeing here... is a natural consequence of the weakening of traditional religion; something must...fill the vacuum."
That sounds profound. JD must wow them at the barbeques, but it is unlikely that he can support this nutty assertion with data.
Global warming is a phenomenon, it isn't a religion or a philosophy.
I could address his posts point by point, but why bother? The fuzziness of his thinking follows the same pattern.
Carson Park Ranger,
The nutty assertion was backed by another nutty assertion -- "Most people have a deep need to be told what to think, what to do, and most of all, how to belong." For data, go to church, read the style section, go get pierced, study the history of war, etc.
Global warming is a phenomenon. The assertion that it is caused by the developments that raised humanity out of bare survival mode is a religion. Made possible by taking these gifts for granted.
Anon,
What system of government do we operate under? Without going into what it was intended to be and what happened since its inception, it looks like fascism to me, with elements of welfare state socialism mixed in.
What's wrong with an anti-human premise? Nothing, if you believe the world would be better off with no humans on it. Naturally, the next step is to decide how to get rid of them. Can you explain what isn't wrong with an anti-human premise?
As far as "a few" examples, I'll dig up a few amusing ones later on today, when I get time.
Thanks for asking polite questions, the appreciation is mutual.
--JD--
And I thank JD, for his refreshing brevity.
"What system of government do we operate under?"
This is a fair question, though it is not germane to the discussion. I suppose that it is a post-republican form of government. His specter of socialism must require special lenses. I don't see it, I'm too busy trying to pay insurance companies for services which I may, or may not receive should I fall ill and become a medical "consumer."
"Can you explain what isn't wrong with an anti-human premise?"
It is not incumbent upon me to explain a notion which I find to be, at best, dubious.
From what I can gather here, JD is trying to establish the idea that industrial pollution is natural, because human beings are products of nature.
The human population reached one billion globally around 1830. Until we started using coal and before the wholesale cutting of forests that the use of coal allowed, the human population stood at around 500 million. Industrial growth and the growth of human population parallel our growing dependence of fossil fuels. The gradual rise in average temperature tracks exactly with the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We are altering the carbon cycle on a massive scale. The mass of the earth reacts slowly to change, but it is warming beyond what has been measured and graphed for many cycles of warming and cooling periods. We have entered a stage of warming that is unleashing trapped carbon dioxide and methane in the thawing arctic tundra. Average temperature rise in the arctic is eight degrees. The summer season has expanded to include an extra month on either end.
The human race is way out of balance with the natural carrying capacity of the earth. I think there is cause for concern.
JD, that's what I think about our system of government as well, dominantly fascist, with a pinch of socialism.It's nearly impossible to get anyone to admit we're fascistor fascist-like. With regard to explaining what's not wrong with the anti-human premise, I cannot-I don't feel strongly enough about human longevity on Earth to care either way. Keep contributing, you stir it up well.
carson park ranger,
I was asking anonymous to explain what isn't wrong with it, not you.
And, I don't remember saying that industrial pollution is natural, because human beings are natural. But I will give you something to argue with on that point by asserting that industrial pollution is a necessary condition of your mode of survival. If you want to imply that means I am in favor of wanton pollution without responsibility for it, then I will suggest you spend a few months in an old growth forest with no metal or plastic or any other artificially produced goods.
From now on I will separate my messages instead of lumping them together.
--JD--
anon 3:12,
About that anti-human premise. If you don't care either way, I guess I'll leave it up to you to decide which ones we should eliminate first. :)
Here are a few examples as promised. Please excuse me if I do not have time to find more amusing ones than this:
Google "habitat destruction".
Second link down -- Birdlife.org
Some samples lifted out of context:
"unchecked agricultural development"
As opposed to "checked" agricultural development? Can I have the job as controller, please? Bribes happily accepted, of course. Wait behind the line until it's your turn.
"World-wide, agricultural policies have intensified farming in many countries, turning farmland into poor-quality habitat for birds and other wildlife."
Let them all starve.
"In addition to its direct impacts, logging can also open up forest to encroachment and settlement, and other damaging disturbance, such as hunting and fire."
Settlement!? Hunting!? Drive them out, push them into the sea! The forests belong to the king, and trespassing will be punished by hanging!
"The development of infrastructure threatens biodiversity world-wide." "Ramifying networks of housing, transport, energy and telecommunications infrastructure facilitate the spread and intensification of many human activities that threaten biodiversity, such as deforestation, agriculture and over-exploitation."
Infrastructure, the lifeblood of any civilized society. Outlaw it! Especially energy, transportation, and agriculture. Who needs it?
"The demand for clean water is increasing rapidly in our densely populated world. Careful development of hydrological infrastructure is ever more important. However, dams, barrages, embankments and other major hydro-engineering schemes often have serious impacts on river-basin ecosystems. Large dams in particular have had widespread negative impacts on biodiversity, and have disrupted many existing ecosystem services."
Clean drinking water is bad for the earth. Never mind that big dams create nice lakes that support all kinds of fish and wildlife.
"The Earth is undergoing profound changes to its climate. There is now little doubt that this results from human activities, mainly the burning of fossil fuels."
Little doubt in their minds, that is. They are triumphantly declaring the success of their propaganda campaign. As propaganda campaigns always do.
"One recent global study estimated that 15–37% of species could be committed to extinction by 2050 as a consequence of climate change."
In total defiance of history. Gee, a thousand years ago, there must have been a billion species around.
"There is still a widespread lack of recognition, whether political, corporate or individual, of the high value of wild nature in the longer term. Government policies, markets and societal institutions often make matters worse, by subsidising and funding activities, such as intensive farming or wide-scale deforestation, that create private wealth in the short term, but accelerate the loss of natural systems."
Here's the payoff -- government policies to squash private wealth.
The only way for them to get what they want is to deny human beings what they need to survive. There's no point in bringing up more examples, practically all media is shot through with it.
Somehow, I guess they figure to be the boss of the world. I wonder, once someone establishes themselves as boss of the world, and does what it takes to keep the job for awhile, what will happen when someone else comes along and topples them? What if it's someone much worse?
--JD--
anon 2:36,
You need to expand your time scale back more than a few hundred years. You must know by now that humans have endured warmer periods than now in the past, and that these were better times for all life.
Also, check out the information about cosmic rays and clouds. Carbon dioxide is infinitesimal in its contribution compared to varying solar output and clouds.
But a carbon tax -- now that's something everyone will pay. The politicians figured out that if they can heavily tax or better yet control the sources of energy, nobody will be able to avoid it. Never mind that the poorest people will suffer privation, disease, and death from it.
--JD--
I guess I am going to have to retract the nice things I said about JD. Taking quotes out of context and distorting their meaning does not make for intelligent dialog. Maybe you upset some others, but when you had to string two sentences together you made more sense and were more credible.
JD copies and pastes a load of text from a Googled site as a straw-man, and then attacks him with, "Somehow, I guess they figure to be the boss of the world."
What a dork.
JD, I can indure a warmer period by moving south for a period. Until 10 or 12 thousand years ago we lived in an ice age for several tens of thousands of years. We started growing are own food about ten thousand years ago. I agree that there are a lot of things that effect weather and climates. But, every decade since 1950 has been warmer than the last. The average temperature rise is tracking with the rise of co2 from carbon that is released from fossil fuel. The uncertainty for me is not whether average temps. are rising due to natural cycles or by man making adjustments to the carbon cycle, the evidence is conclusive, but, whether resulting changes in the ocean currents, due to melt water will swing us back into an ice age. That can happen in a period of a decade. Or wether the higher levels of co2 along with self reinforcing mechanisms such as higher methane levels, less reflection from melted ice pack, and more water vapor-itself a greenhouse gas- will over come even the significance of the gulf stream-already slowed by 60% over the past few years-stopped dead in it's tracks.
Uh oh. JD's going to slap you down with some intelligent-sounding nonsense like, "I didn't think I'd have to point out examples of the anti-human premise that suffuses almost any 'science' or 'nature' piece."
Your prose, Anonymous may be accused of being "suffused."
Right you are, Carson Park Ranger!
I understand that some sorts have to go through a twelve step program to identify the source of the problem.
"Hello, my name is JD, I am an..."
Hello, my name is JD. I am an engineer and a capitalist.
I see nobody liked it too well when I changed my writing style. I suppose I could take a page from park ranger and just criticize what others do, without actually saying anything myself, not even attacking a viewpoint or pointing out factual errors, just sniping about style or making lame attempts at ridicule.
Hayduke, it's all right if you take back whatever you want. Capitalism requires freedom, and your statement that it will not work when there are finite resources indicates that your basic premise is anti-freedom. I'd recommend you work to outlaw my weapons first, though. But hey, thanks for at least saying something.
Did Google really pick up my post on that other forum?
--JD--
Christ, I thought Hayduke's premise was that limited resources would ultimately put a cap on capitalism. As an engineer you shouldn't have difficulty coping with that natural physical law. I suppose your childish willingness to start a shooting war over something you can't change stems from your self-aggrandized view of yourself as a capitalist.
I just get a sore ass every time I come across another free-market capitalist who worhips at the alter of money and power.
There are no more large inventories of oil left to be found. Demand will outstrip production this year or next. The gap will widen tremendously over the next twenty years. We can fight the world for the rest of what remains. We will lose if that is the choice that is made.
China's economy has been growing at an average of nine percent for nearly twenty years. The U.S. economy will grow 1.5 to 2.5 percent this year. China will out compete us in a race for the worlds resources on the strength of their trillion dollar surplus. Compare that to our 9 trillion dollar deficit and our daily 3 billion dollar cost of sevicing that debt.
Unless you are so heavily vested in Haliburton or some other war profiteering corporation's stock that you can weather a sudden market catastrophe, you may soon be forced to ask yourself this question: How do I know I know what I think I know.
I really hope it doesn't have to come to that. So hedge your bet by asking yourself that question now.
Post a Comment
<< Home