December 11, 2003

My father taught me the same thing about the motivations of people (in a different way, but the message was the same). I agree with you that radical "environmentalists" are not advocates for altruistic reasons if you dig deeply enough, but you can say that about any "cause" (both sides of the abortion controversy, for example).

You, Acidman, are an asshat. It has been almost beyond caricature to watch your ignorance so proudly displayed in your "debate" on global warming. Does your common sense bullshit detector really help you figure out the intricate interactions of the Earth's ecosystem? As someone who finds your site entertaining from time to time, I would say stick with the stuff that you truly know--not offering insulting commentary on things that are well out of your league.

Money, Sex and Power? Okay, MY main motivators are chocolate and The Quest for Thin Thighs. I'm having problems assigning those motivators to the main three. I suppose it COULD be sex (the thin thigh thing) but it is actually more of a competition that I am LOSING during the baking season. Those Godiva chocolates cost plenty money and the craving for Godivas is diametrically opposed to thin thighs. I am one conflicted individual.

OTOH, when I try to tie it into global warming, I HATE the cold, and I suppose heavy thighs generate more friction and therefore more heat. I gotta eat more, and therefore use up more of the earth's resources to maintain them heavy pups. Screw it, I ain't exercising no more. I WANT global warming.

Nope, that's wrong too. I would be presumably losing money, sex and power. Crap. Wait a minute, I don't have money (thank you, expensive chocolates) or power to begin with. Guess I'm devoting too much time to sex.

Swampwoman, LMAO. I wish. Thanks for the levity.

Thank you Walt, for your "insulting commentary on things that are well out of your league." I noticed you didn't actually offer any information to the discussion.

*shrug* I don't completely disagree with you on your concept that human impact on the planet is an area of concern. However, a major thing that's missing from virtually all "proposals" on environmental issues is anything resembling means testing:

* Valid, verifiable and falsifiable data that the predictions/theories/concerns are based up.

* Incremental proposals based upon the [missing] hard data that include provisions for testing for efficient results.

and...

* Proposals that take into account that, like it or not, humans and human needs are a part of "The Environment", and impacts upon industry, human needs, human growth, and society also have to be measured along with potential damage to the environment.

That's the biggest problem with the Environmental Movement today: it bears little or no resemblance to Conservationism, which is something that Rob, Kim, and I probably all three grew up with. Conservationism is an art of providing for responsible management of finite and renewable resources, with an eye towards maximizing both the resource, and the sustainable useage.

That's why conservationist based programs such as wildlife management tend to result in healthy sustainable game propulations, where as ill considered hunting bans result in massive game overpopulations in areas with no natural predators, and game die offs. [New york, and other states: google]

As long as environmental proposals are based on psedoscience and hysteria, people who actually have some knowledge on conservation issues and premises are going to continue to view them with skepticism, and lable a number of the wilder proponents as "Barking Moonbats".

Grrr. The bulk of the actual commentary was for Jack. Meant to include his name, but I didn't preview. That's what I get for typing after being up 20 hours. ;]

Ironbear, I agree with what you say. I was so busy addressing the science issues (see my trackback to this post) that I didn't discuss the policy or people issues. Modern "environmentalists" are not true conservationists.

I have always found that "environmentalism movement" = property grab.

Your daddy was wrong. It seems like there are plenty of people willing to give you something for nothing: a hard time.

Lamont

You are SO right, Lamont!

Now I need to kick my ass outta this chair and start earning money before the bill collectors send somebody named Guido to have a lil' chat with me.

I blame Acidman for my procrastination (hey, couldn't be MY fault, right?)

Dammit, I posted all you need to know about this global warming crap on my blog.

http://donttreadonme.typepad.com

Go there, get educated.

Lamont Cranston v. Acidman's Daddy

Damn. Just Damn.

Life is a pardox.

If you carefully think about both of thos positions you will probably get through life with fewer scars.

Here's an excellent petition signed by just a few figures with scientific credentials debunking "Global Warming". The abstract:

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Right on again, Acidman. Liberals are liberals for the very reason that they don't understand human nature. Marx had that problem in spades. As for Walt, I can imagine he's sitting in his little liberal world with blinders on blissfully unaware that man's effect on the environment is a hotly debated question among scientists. It ain't a settle question. But then, liberals never wait for facts when emotion and Chicken Little proclamations can aid in their assault on private property.

Once again, the world's sharpest theoretical minds gather to muse over the meaning of liberalism, environmentalism, and what how wide they can stretch political generalizations. I never said I subscribed to any one view Rivlax, et al. Instead what I called attention to was how ridiculous it was for Acidman to spout off incoherently without actually engaging the merits of the other side's case. The global-warming proponents could be wrong, but calling someone full of shit is just ignorant.

What is ignorant is assuming we can have more of an impact on the planet as it does to itself. Ever visit the site of an earthquake? a volcanic eruption? a tidal wave? a fire? A single asteriod the size of a buick can do more damage to the "ecosystem" than all the R12 refrigerant we can manufacture. The global-warming proponents are full of shit.

Mark's last post is spot-on. Until the "science" includes all of the atmosphere's modifiers, no scientific test of the theories of global warming can be made. All we have now are untested theories and postulates, and the Marxists of the world have jumped on them and moved straight to prohibitive and confiscative laws as a solution to the "problem" that hasn't been proven.

As intellectuals, we have a duty to raise the bullshit flag often enough and high enough so that the rest of the world can see it.

It's simple, it's called the Scientific Method. It is the basis for all true science, and variations from it are not true science, but simply theories at best.

I trolled a liberal blog yesterday, and when I pointed out to the blog host that the scientists that he, himself quoted had stated that their science was unproven, he pouted and wouldn't answer.

A closed mind is a good thing to waste.

Truly, then, I am in the presence of some great intellectuals. I humbly bow down before your superior logic and magnificent ability to raise the bullshit flag higher than any other. Bravo.

Rob, I agree with you on the motivations of the leftists and victicrats re: global warming. While there are plenty of Chicken Littles (on the funding side) in denial, most of today's top scientists will admit that global warming is still but a THEORY (including those that believe the THEORY accurate). To add to your human nature arguments, for 1000s of years, witch doctors and priests have used fear & superstition to steer the masses. Although we'd like to believe all scientists are working for the benefit of all, there is absolutely no reason to think that this same fear/superstition isn't being used under the guise of 'science.' As my paw warned, "They (gummint) are going to try to steal freedoms by citing health and safety reasons." No one may remember this but when the stamp honoring FDR came out a few years back, they airbrushed the pipe out of his mouth. Health-nanny-nazism is real and it's happening. I loved your Dennis Miller quote about the thermostat. Also, let's say the earth's temperature DOES rise a little. Most people WANT to live in warmer climates. Crops GROW in warm weather. Earth Day, indeed.

I think remaining skeptical about global warming is a natural reaction, at least for those of us over 40. I sat in junior high and high school social studies/government/civics classes in the mid-seventies and we studied global cooling - less than 30 years ago. Government agencies and scientists then were warning us of global cooling and future ice ages, then it suddenly switched to global warming. And I'm not supposed to be skeptical??

I'm only 44 and I've lived through periods when scientists warned us both of the coming disasterous effects of global cooling, and now global warming. Throw in the other warnings about the upcoming food and oil shortages that we also heard about in the 70's, and that never happened, and it seems more foolish NOT to be skeptical.

I've yet to read anything that explains how we (scientists actually) went from global cooling to warming. Maybe if some of them could explain why they were wrong then and right now it would help, but one thing that will not convince me is computer models.

I'm not a scientist so I can't debate all the details, but I've been in the computer industry too long to completely accept anything that uses computer models as a large part of its argument.

Yo, Walt . . .

Having spent many hours last year arguing at great length with GutDude, I feel fairly free to speak my mind here . . .

First of all--your first comment was pure ad hominem, and as such, said literally nothing except you don't agree with Gut's assessment regarding global warming.

That's cool . . . everyone is entitled to their opinion.

The problem most have, and you then further exemplifed, is that folks get to to thinking their opinions are in fact, fact.

Your second message did the very same thing you accused Gut of doing--you presupposed the "sharpest theoretical minds" were actively working on the global warming bit.

Really. By what yardstick are they the sharpest theoretical minds?

Then, lacking the first bit of any proof for your point, you reverted in your last post here to ad hominem a second time.

Clear proof--but of what, you haven't a clue, and the rest of us know beer has those delightful bubbles that make more sense that what you wrote.

Yeah--that was ad hominem, too.

You chose the playing field, dude. :-)

There is global cooling or global warming going on. It's always been going on. Take a trip to Yosemite and see where the glaciers carved mountains apart. Take a trip to the west Texas desert and dig up seashells from when it was under the ocean.
The world has undergone several ice ages and warm periods in it's history. Most before the dawn of humanity although the last ice age got Man's brain working a little better to keep up with the changing conditions.
What is fatuous is the idea that Man is causing global warming or ice ages.
To believe that we have to believe that the effing dinosaurs caused the ice age that killed them off with all the effing freon they were spraying around in their airconditioned dinosaur-mobiles and huge dinosaur apartment buildings and factories.
If we are causing climate change, what caused the climate changes that occurred before humans lived on this Earth?
Global warming my tired gray ass.

Hey, Peter! I think maybe it was the methanous dinosaur farts. DAMN them vegetarian behomeths, anyway.

Thanks. I read yours Jack... that's a reason I tackled it from the human impact direction: a lot of people have been looking at the scientific, no need to duplicate their thoughts. ;]

I've toyed with the idea of delving into this at Who Tends the fires on occassion, but there's so many people all over the blogosphere doing an excellent job of dissecting environmental issues, I don't see me breaking any new ground there.

Humans do have an effect on the environment, but on the evidence, Global Warming isn't one of them. Neither will the next Ice Age, wether it's 100 years or 10,000 years from now: a lot of this is part of an ongoing proces that was in effect a long time before we got here, as Peter stated.

As a computer tech, I share Rusty's view: computer models aren't a good measure of anything... they're too dependant on the infallibility of programmers to be completely accurate. All they give is a *possible* picture that may or may not bear a resemblance to reality.

Until these supposed scientific minds can explain to me why the Mississippi River floods every 21 years (damn near on the dot), I feel no need to listen to any bullshit they spew. They can't even figure out a relatively small weather pattern, and yet they expect me to take them at their word when they say they have it all figured out when it comes to global warming?

Bullshit.

Dreams are made to be destroyed. Nightmares are forever.