Gut Rumbles

August 26, 2004

just politics?

I don't know, but if George Bush caves to the greens on this subject, I am done with him. The bullshit "science" out there has not proved global warming is occurring and it damn sure hasn't proved that "greenhoue gases" are going to cook the planet.

If Bush hops on this scare-mongering bandwagon and embraces that crap the way he did the Farm Bill, Steel Tariffs, the McCain-Feingold Bill and free prescription drugs, he's lost my vote. I've said before that I thought the man had balls. I'm beginning to wonder now.

I won't vote for Kerry. I just won't vote at all. And George, I ain't one of those "undecided" voters that you're courting now. I am the backbone of your political base.

And if you start losing people such as I, you may damn well lose the election, too.


Try not to be a dumb Southerner if you can help it. Global warming IS happening. The question is whether or not it has a human component to it. The ice cap sourrounding the North Pole is shrinking,,,and has been for years. The glaicers in South America and Europe are receding, as well. If you think the 6 Billion human world population (and growing) have no effect on the environment with all the human activity we engage in, then you're a fool.

Posted by: A on August 26, 2004 02:30 PM

Guess what ninety something percent of the "green house" gas is. WATER!! H2O. That's right. Maybe we should find a way to get rid of all that pesky water. And who ever would have thought that climates could change? Do these watermelons ( green on the outside, red on the inside ) think maybe the fact that ice ages have come and gone might be proof that climates may just change on their own? How about the fact that the ice in Antartica is getting thicker? Maybe not as thick as these peoples skulls, though.

Posted by: matterson on August 26, 2004 03:10 PM

Water is a liquid, moron...not a gas.

Posted by: Raging__fag on August 26, 2004 03:23 PM

Raging Fag--- water VAPOR is not a liquid. What do you think a CLOUD is?

Goddam public schools...

Posted by: Acidman on August 26, 2004 03:41 PM

And "A" if you want to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, it's not good to start out calling me a "dumb Southerner." I notice that you didn't provide any links to back up your French-like assertion that you are wise and I am dumb.

You, sir, are full of shit.

Posted by: Acidman on August 26, 2004 03:45 PM

Okay Raging_ Fag, or is it Raging_Moron? How many different forms does water take? Just where do you think rain comes from? Pull your head out of your ass before you start calling someone a moron.

Posted by: matterson on August 26, 2004 03:52 PM

Bless his heart. I still love him. He can't please everyone can he? ;-)

Posted by: Donna on August 26, 2004 04:01 PM

It's from the Times. Expect a degree of bullshititude. A random Bush Admin. person giving the subject lip service doesn't mean HE is.

I'm far from a Bush apologist, I'll rant about his spending and other issues until the cows come home, but one really needs to focus here. What's more important, the War on Terror, or yet another let's-blow-millions-on-a-pointless-study study?

Bush sticks to his guns where it counts. That's why he deserves your vote.

Posted by: Mr. Lion on August 26, 2004 05:13 PM

If you don't vote for Bush, you should vote for the Constitutionalist guy or Badnarik, like I would if my state were going for Bush anyway. Vox Day would know the Constitution Party guy's name, his URL is just like mine, only it's Vox Day instead of Dave Munger. The one thing we can count on from Bush is that he WILL NOT VETO ANYTHING.

CO2 just does not have significant greenhouse properties, like methane or water vapor. It's more like nitrogen or oxygen, everything's got some greenhouse effect to it. What makes CO2 the thing everyone want's to talk about is that it's easier to blame on the capitalists.

When the home planet of an intelligent speicies gets too warm, do you seriously think that they respond by criminalizing combustion? Or would they do something that might actually have an effect, like increasing the planet's albedo?

Posted by: Dave Munger on August 26, 2004 05:17 PM

How 'bout Libertarian? It would at least make a statement.

Posted by: ChrisG on August 26, 2004 05:38 PM

Hey Acidman. I appreciate the response. I suppose I could go to the trouble of supplying links etc for contentions I make. But this is not some college paper in Earth Science. I've seen the satellite photos of the polar ice caps---both of them. They're melting! What can I tell you. As far as the (what I thought was a) humorous dig at you being a Southerner is concerned?? I saw a few good-natured swipes at Northerners in your previous posts. As far as I'm concerned, we are ALL Americans. And IMO, that's where our true strength comes from. As far as wise and dumb are concerned, let me share a movie quote with you. In the movie, "Bull Durham", when the pitcher was concerned that his father was in the stands, the catcher gave him some sage wisdom. He told him that his father was just as full of shit as anyone. I think you learned that a long time ago. Pretty much everyone's full of shit, Acidman. And anyone who thinks he isn't, is more full of shit than everyone else!

Posted by: A on August 26, 2004 06:02 PM

Hey A: FOAD for your little swipe at Southerners! We've got better accents and better food and better manners (except when we're slinging shit at someone like you) than any people from any other region of the country. You're just jealous cuz you're not one of us and you never would be, no matter how long you lived here.

Hey Acidman: A's lame and uncalled-for attempt to impugn the intellectual abilities of people of our region and ethnicity aside, I gotta part ways with you and say he's right. There's too many humans on the planet and we're negatively impacting the environment. If you DON'T believe human industry negatively impacts the environment, then go drink some water from a lake or a river near a factory spill chute sometime. Betcha can't do it, can you? You've gotta have your head up your bohunkus not to see the effect we and our industries are having on the planet. Even if we're not the sole cause of global warming (I don't happen to think we are, I think some of it is due to natural planetary cycles and maybe even shifting of the magnetic poles) we are still numerous enough to have an overwhelming impact. That's not to say I think all is lost, because I believe that new clean technologies and the technology to make existing industry cleaner is the growth industry of the future, and that there's A LOT of money to be made by people willing to jump on that wagon, but the shift needs to start happening NOW because it will and should be gradual. It may be painful for a little while, and the industries are going to whine and moan that they have to pay out a little more for "green technology" upgrades and other incidental expenses. Shifts that upset the economic status quo are always painful (remember that little war between the states 150 years ago? Yes I know about "State's Rights by God" but it was also about keeping Southern agriculture CHEAP and you're deluded if you think otherwise), but they are often also extremely beneficial. And boo-friggin'-hoo, excuse me if I don't cry any tears for large corps that don't want to go to the expense and trouble of "green" upgrades when their CEO's make $10 mill+ per year. But I digress.

My point here is that A is right, at least in some measure, and you and others like you are being wilfully disingenous by not admitting it. I sure do wish you hard-core conservatives would quit putting the "status quo" economy ahead of almost everything else. A green future doesn't have to be the threatening scenario that the eco-terrorists-cum-fascists want it to be, and there's plenty of money to be made off a greener future. If you only had the wit to see it.

Posted by: Amy on August 26, 2004 10:38 PM

A is absolutely unequivocally dead wrong about everything, and if you could be bothered to click your little browsers over to TechCentralStation and do some research, you'd realize just exactly why. But since he can't be bothered to back up his assertions to the level expected of, say, a fourth grader in a government school, then I won't bother either.


Posted by: Mr. Bowen on August 26, 2004 11:38 PM

About Amy's remarks,you've already posted about the rivers near your old home town.And you're right,things are getting cleaner and better,at least in places where civilization is got a good hold on..............Now about the shrinking Polar caps and man's effect on them. I do believe I read a few months ago about underwater volcanic vents(hot water for you public school graduates) and their effect on the water tempretures on and near the Poles. Not being Greenpeace or U.N. funded the study didn't make a big splash.

Posted by: big al on August 26, 2004 11:42 PM

Was it not Professor Odum, at UGA, where you went to school, who was one of the first people to put ecology on a sound scientific basis, as in MATHEMATICAL? Most of these latter-day greeny doodahs can't count past ten without taking their shoes off. The relations between living critters and their environment are COMPLICATED! A degree in political science, or English Lit. (sorry, Rob, but you do have other parts) doesn't necessarily qualify you to talk about such things!

This is serious business! Learn the necessary math or shut your mouth!

(No, I don't have the math either, but I'll listen to those who do,as long as they also pay attention to actual data.)

Posted by: Justthisguy on August 27, 2004 12:54 AM

Mr. Bowen--Nothing like "one stop shopping" for all your facts. I checked out TechCentralStation. Congrats on your open-mindedness and your ability to find and cite multiple sources to support your ad hominem abusive attack on A (and, I inferred, me, too).

Anyway, like I said, I checked out TCS, and I actually liked it. I bookmarked it, anyway. It basically backed up what I said (and what I couldn't say in the interest of keeping a comment relatively short). For instance, in Joel Schwartz's article "Desperately Seeking Climate Change Impacts", he talks about recent EPA regulations requiring various nitrogen-oxygen emissions from coal-fired industry to be reduced by 60%. But where does the reduction come from? From the growth industry of the future, "green technology." Gotta find some way to filter that shit before it leaves the stacks, and new technology is the way to do it.

And the reduction in auto emissions as the American "fleet" weeds out the old cars and puts more new ones on the road...where does that reduction come from? You guessed it! From the growth industry of the technology.

I could go on, but I won't. I expect you get the picture. Or, if you don't by now...oh well.

Just a couple of more observations and I'll leave this topic be.

Joel Schwartz's article is all well and good, but what you have to remember while you're patting yourself on your "establishment" back about global warming being whack is that these new green technologies weren't adopted out of the goodness of industry's heart. They were adopted because a normal thinking person had only to look at the sky above Los Angeles on a normal August day to know something was wrong. And people (unfortunately, mostly liberal fascists) began to complain loudly. But industry bitched and moaned and whined the whole way about economic impact and gloom and doom and everyone was gonna be run out of business. But it didn't happen, and it won't. Yes, things have gotten incrementally more expensive, but that's the rise and fall of the economy, and as the economy adjusts to the influx of green technology into the GDP, it will stabilize and/or come down. Like the price of computers.

Anyway, did you ever think about the fact that the existence of these regulations and the voluntary adoption of some of these green technologies (automakers are getting greener without government mandates, for example) amounts to a de facto admission that there is now or will in the future be a problem that owes its genesis to the human race? Huh? Didja think about that? Sometimes common sense is common sense, and doesn't have to be proven. John Kerry is a pompous gasbag, for example. That can't be proven by science, but it's verifiable simply by using your common sense.

I also checked out your "Titanium Moonbat" blog or whatever the hell it's called, because I wanted to email you this reply instead of clogging up Acidman's comment forum arguing with you. Funny I should be called a fuckwit by someone who I agree with on most issues. If your last post of June 18th is any indication, that is. For instance, I know that W didn't invade Iraq to "get revenge" for the bungled assassination attempt against H.W, for example, and I think W's been playing an excellent game of poker. I also agree with you on Halliburton and Clinton, and I love reading Norman Podhoretz and know exactly what kind of slur the term "neoconservative" is. So please keep your nasty f-worded insults to yourself until you have at your disposal at least half the facts about those you propose to insult.

Vile-tempered self-righteous troglodyte douchebag.

Posted by: Amy on August 27, 2004 01:14 AM

"I've seen the satellite photos of the polar ice caps---both of them. They're melting!"

One of the polar caps--I forget which, probably the Antarctic--floats, and therefore displaces all of the ocean water it ever will, even should it melt. So there's half your problem solved.

In the 70s the Chicken Little crisis was global cooling. Now global warming is the hoax du jour, and if it's not, there's nothing significant we can do about it.

Posted by: horse with no-- on August 27, 2004 05:37 AM

Acidman, I know i'm joining the chorus here, but how about voting for Badnarik for President? I'm gonna.

Posted by: Terry on August 27, 2004 02:05 PM

good post, i forwarded it to my friends

Posted by: rent games on November 29, 2004 11:44 AM
Post a comment

*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.