Going Anti-Green
I’ve decided that I need to do my part to help combat the global hysteria over “climate change” — something sane human beings used to call “weather” when I was growing up and when Al Gore was a conservative Democrat.
What has prompted me to take action and become “anti-Green” are the comments of yet another wacko environmentalist this week.
Watson’s May 4 editorial asked the question “The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?” Then he left no doubt about the answer. “We are killing our host the planet Earth,” he claimed and called for a population drop to less than 1 billion.
The commentary reminded readers that Watson had called humans a disease before and he wasn’t sorry. “I was once severely criticized for describing human beings as being the ‘AIDS of the Earth.’ I make no apologies for that statement,” the column continued.
He goes on to say…
“No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas. New York, London, Paris, Moscow are all too big. Then again, so are Moose Jaw, Timbuktu and even Annapolis, Md.”
“We need vast areas of the planet where humans do not live at all and where other species are free to evolve without human interference. We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion.”
Isn’t it ironic that those who most loudly preach the science of Darwin (liberals) are the same ones who reject it in practice. This guy wants to commit global genocide, and American liberals want to subsidize those in society who don’t contribute. So much for survival of the fittest in real life, eh? Instead, liberals want to be God.
From this point on, I need to stand up in the spirit of great non-violent protestors to do my part to stop the potential human holocaust by these environmental nutcases.
I will now use and/or soil every piece of linen in my hotel room when I travel.
Take that, Al Gore!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
101 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
And I promise to use as much toilet paper as I need…and I’ll even flush twice, by God!
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 10, 2007 @ 10:16 am - May 10, 2007
Taking Peter’s rebellion to the next level, I am going to use t.p., flush AND wash my hands! Take that, Sheryl Crow! Ha!
- Scott
Comment by Scott — May 10, 2007 @ 10:29 am - May 10, 2007
Robert Bidinotto, the journalist who brought us the Willie Horton story in 1987 – and I mean that in a totally good way, lefties – and also a charming, intelligent man whom I’ve met – has been skewering the eco-nut fringe for their desire to murder human beings for 2 decades now. This blog is worth visiting weekly: http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/
A note on terminology. I’ve started using “Global Warmism” and talking about the Global Warmists. Because they are an “ism”, now.
That the Earth has been warming slightly since 1800 or so, as it pulls out of the Mini Ice Age of the 1500s and 1600s, is beyond doubt. But the Global Warmists have twisted that harmless (or even beneficial) scientific fact into yet another sick, anti-human-life religion.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 10, 2007 @ 10:46 am - May 10, 2007
I’ll do my part to challenge the eco-cultists. Unfortunately, McCain, Giuliani, and Romney all seem to be totally cereal about fighting Manbearpig.
But, at least they’re not pandering to truthers and telling them that as president, they’ll investigate whether controlled demolition brought down the WTC, like the Breck Girl.
Comment by V the K — May 10, 2007 @ 10:52 am - May 10, 2007
Also GP, that is an interesting insight you have toward the end there.
Liberals preach evolution – and there, I’m with them. But many of the same liberals are unwilling to accept, or unable to recognize, the plain results of evolution: that we, human beings, are the brains of the planet, are able to create new food sources for ourselves, and are multiplying rightly (not dysfunctionally).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 10, 2007 @ 10:54 am - May 10, 2007
Bruce, I’d like to see some Global Warmists practice what they preach: Help relieve the stress on Mother Earth by first killing off the Global Warmists… heck, they could even do it collectively at some Earth Day Rally… preferably before the 08 elections.
Nawh, they aren’t THAT committed to the cause.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 10, 2007 @ 11:11 am - May 10, 2007
Didn’t I hear that speech, or one highly similar, in the movie, The Matrix?
Comment by Eric Chen — May 10, 2007 @ 11:22 am - May 10, 2007
I refer you to Tom Clancy’s “Rainbow Six” to see where these eco nuts are going.
Comment by old enough — May 10, 2007 @ 11:36 am - May 10, 2007
I have only recently entered the blogosphere and have been toying with ideas for direction. This Global Warming alarmist nonsense is absolutely ridiculous. I think I will join you in spending more time pointing out hypocrisy and ludicrisnous of it all. I did write a gay man’s perspective on CFLs, for this past Earth Day: “Gay Men Unite this Earth Day and Stop the Evil that is the Compact Fluorescent Light Bulb (CFL)!”
Good Job, Bruce, Keep it up! I’ll do what I can, too…like run my diswasher to clean only my coffee cup and teaspoon.
Comment by R. Scott Leonard — May 10, 2007 @ 11:37 am - May 10, 2007
Hmmm. I believe in Global Warming myself….or Global Climate change. Or Warmism. Whatever the hell we’re calling it now. I think it’s open to debate what causes it – who’s to say it’s not cycle beyond our control?
But this “we’re killing the planet” hysteria is a bit over the top. I’ve got news for some people – the planet will be fine. (I owe that line to George Carlin of all people.) We can’t kill the planet.
Excuse me while I go hop in my SUV to drive 1/2 a mile for lunch.
Comment by Mike — May 10, 2007 @ 12:18 pm - May 10, 2007
Mike, exactly.
Hate quoting myself, but as I said, “That the Earth has been warming slightly since 1800 or so, as it pulls out of the Mini Ice Age of the 1500s and 1600s, is beyond doubt.”
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 10, 2007 @ 12:33 pm - May 10, 2007
Slightly off-topic (but still relevant under the heading of “wackos”), did anyone else see the story from Baltimore about the public works employee who praised the vandalism of a Rush Limbaugh billboard?
Not only did this person get excited over the trashing of his eco-system (in this case, Baltimore), but lovingly referred to the splashes of red paint as “great.”
His immediate supervisor, City PW spokesman Kurt Kocher, called his comments “outrageous” and that they should not have been uttered. You know, kind of like Don Imus or Al Sharpton.
You can let Mr. Kocher know how you feel about this issue. His work e-mail address is Kurt.Kocher@Baltimorecity.gov if you care to opine.
(And NO, I did not breach any security or privacy aspects. This is public information available through the City of Baltimore. Deal with it, libtards.)
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 10, 2007 @ 12:37 pm - May 10, 2007
Slightly off-topic (but still relevant under the heading of “wackos”), did anyone else see the story from Indianapolis about the conservative christians who praised the vandalism of religious-themed pro-gay billboards?
From the article: “The billboard proclaims that Jesus affirmed a gay couple. “Lie, lie, lie,” is scrawled in red paint above the original message on a sign on 10th Street. Twenty-two billboards were placed strategically around the city. The Rev. Jeff Miner, of the church that paid for the billboards, was disappointed by the vandalism.”
Comments included:
“They had that one coming.”
“Satanist always interprets the bible for their own sick and selfish justifications to justify its evil!”
“Burn the billboard… and do it now.”
“The article said the billboard was defaced. Looks more like someone believed in truth in advertising and decided to correct the billboard.”
You can let the commentors know how you feel about the issue by following the above link.
And NO, I did not breach any security or privacy aspects. The link above is on a publicly-available server. Happy reading, my friends!
Comment by torrentprime — May 10, 2007 @ 12:46 pm - May 10, 2007
It is clearly wrong to vandalize.
I’m not sure what planet that church is on, given that the relationship supposedly blessed in that situation is master-servant.
As a Bible-believing Christian, that billboard offends me because it is quite clearly a distortion and lie about that passage of Scripture. As a gay man, that billboard offends me even more, since these leftists are using my sexual orientation as an excuse to pervert and twist Scripture.
But then again, gay-sex obsessed clergymen like “Bishop” Gene Robinson claim that Jesus was gay, the apostles were gay, and that they did nothing but go around having sex with each other. This is hardly surprising.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 10, 2007 @ 1:14 pm - May 10, 2007
Okay, toiletpaper – I mean torrentprime – I’ll bite. What exactly makes the comments made by a paid public official (you know, one who earns his salary from taxpayers like us) the least bit applicable to nameless, faceless cowards on a blog (you know, such as YOURSELF) who spew epithets like vomit?
I await your response, but I’m not holding my breath.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 10, 2007 @ 1:16 pm - May 10, 2007
Actually, if one reads the verses cited on that billboard, the “Reverend” Jeff Miner must have an interesting take on gays — given that he claims that the description of Jesus healing what is clearly the slave of a Roman centurion is affirming a loving, consensual gay relationship.
I can’t decide which is more wrong — vandalism, or allowing a billboard which is not only a complete distortion of Scripture, but a pathetic admittance that gay-sex theologists are incapable of making coherent arguments WITHOUT twisting the Bible.
I say both are wrong.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 10, 2007 @ 1:24 pm - May 10, 2007
What a weird interjection from TP. (relevance?)
Guess he’s one of those commentors with problems GPW talked about the other day.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 10, 2007 @ 2:16 pm - May 10, 2007
Raping Mother Earth is my faith, my spirituality. I do what I can to give ol Gaia a good hard thrust at least once a day. Take that!
Comment by rightwingprof — May 10, 2007 @ 2:17 pm - May 10, 2007
#10
Thank you for making us aware of the unspeakably vile and hateful words of that Baltimore city employee. I used the link you so kindly provided Peter, to let Mr. Kocher know that public reprimand and repudiation are not nearly enough, and that clearly the city worker in question needs to be taken out and shot.
Comment by David — May 10, 2007 @ 2:46 pm - May 10, 2007
Raping is my faith and spirituality. Wow. But not surprised.
Comment by jimmy — May 10, 2007 @ 3:26 pm - May 10, 2007
And flushing twice! That’s fabulous. See you in hell.
Comment by jimmy — May 10, 2007 @ 3:28 pm - May 10, 2007
It would take at least two flushes to get rid of a pest like you, jimmy.
Speaking of which, I see you are still too lazy to change your site name, since Tom DeLay is no longer in Congress. But that’s typical of your mindset.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 10, 2007 @ 4:57 pm - May 10, 2007
I gave the Earth Mother some good, hard, patriarchal thrusts when I started my Explorer and let it run for thirty minutes before I headed out to do my errands, and took the long way around. Then, I gave her a few more when I finished a gallon of milk, thought, “Who needs this damn recycle bin?” and tossed it in the trash can where it belongs.
Hear about those idiot vegans (er, that’s redundant–sorry) who killed their baby raising him on a “vegan” diet?
Comment by rightwingprof — May 10, 2007 @ 5:36 pm - May 10, 2007
Hi Peter,
Happy to connect some of the dots for you.
I note in passing that the “relevance” of my posting was no more grounded in the OP than yours, yet yours received no approbation. Strange, that; almost as if the standard is partisan in nature. But just as partisan politics never enters the performance review process for US attorneys, I’m sure it’s not present here either.
To business: Bruce posted a link from an far-afield eco-activist, a fringe extremist by anyone’s standards, and rightly disposed of the prescription Watson advocates. Yet he goes a step further (actually, several steps), and declaims that all of global warming/climate change, the entire issue, is false. Based on this one green nutball, Bruce is now “anti-green,” and (lest we miss a chance to bring in the right’s favorite bugaboo), this extremist and his proposed solutions can now be lumped in with all liberals! They’re ALL nuts; they all want to exterminate humanity and reject/embrace Darwinism. Each sentence shows the conflation: it starts with “this guy” and ends with “liberals”. Surely, with silly extremist crap like Watson and his ilk, the entire issue of global warming doesn’t exist, and just as surely, the entire liberal movement can be placed on the trash heap as well.
Well, the vast majority of the fine folk at FreeRepublic don’t believe gays exist, that there is no “gay problem,” just sexual deviants and perverts, that gay marriage or adoption will destroy what makes American great, and that all gays really want to do is molest children. Also, FR holds itself out to be a true voice for American conservatism and is quite proud of its conservative stances on issues; they regularly castigate anyone perceived as a RINO, such as any Republican who believe in gay rights (or, you know, that we exist) or even consider that a Iraq is facing a civil war.
Surely, based on the silly, fringe, extremist thinking such as that seen on FR, we can discard the entire conservative movement, that all of right-y thought is as disposable as environmentalism AND liberalism is disposable based on one tree-hugger who’s talked to a few too many whales?
You can let that bated breath out now.
Comment by torrentprime — May 10, 2007 @ 5:40 pm - May 10, 2007
I guess the difference is that someone who opined that gays should be exterminated would be unwelcome in the leadership of any Conservative organization. But the person who wrote the editorial comparing humanity to a virus is the head of a respected left Environmental organization, supported by donations from thousands of like-minded lefty greens.
Anyway, I’d suggest you read some of the comments made when Global Warming is criticized in other blogs. The contingent of unhinged lefty environmentalist whackos is quite large and outspoken. I understand the fellow who revealed Al Gore’s prodigious energy consumption has been the target of numerous death threats.
Comment by V the K — May 10, 2007 @ 6:03 pm - May 10, 2007
“I note in passing that the “relevance” of my posting was no more grounded in the OP than yours, yet yours received no approbation.”
Because maybe, TP, my posting made more sense than yours. Plus, it was more original and informative than your plagiarized version. But I digress.
“FR holds itself out to be a true voice for American conservatism and is quite proud of its conservative stances on issues.”
According to whom? Its readers? That would be a novel idea. Talk about preaching to the choir. Does that mean that GayPatriot.org is a better blog than, say, the HRC’s because of who posts on it? Well, perhaps to those of us who post here – yes. So your argument has no merit.
“Happy to connect some of the dots for you.”
Well, that would be a first for any liberal Dhimmicrat, now wouldn’t it?
Match, set, game. You lose. You can go home now, your cage is clean.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 10, 2007 @ 6:15 pm - May 10, 2007
Peter said: “Because maybe, TP, my posting made more sense than yours. Plus, it was more original and informative than your plagiarized version.”
Sure, why not? Let’s look.
1) Peter #12 came up with his own words.
2) Peter #12 acknowledged he was off-topic – and tried, with however great a strain, to connect with the topic. (There’s a saying – you can get away with anything if you do it with good manners.)
3) Peter #12 did connect slightly with the topic, and with the blog’s stated purpose (conservatism for gays), in describing a further instance of liberal hypocrisy.
Let’s contrast that to TP:
1) TP #13 didn’t think of his own words.
2) TP #13 made no effort to acknowledge being off topic or to connect with the topic – other than repeating Peter’s words in a way that came off as stupid at best; possibly even malicious. (Malice later confirmed.)
3) TP #13 failed completely at connecting with either the topic or with the blog’s stated purpose (conservatism for gays).
To sum it up pithily: TP, suck my balls.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 10, 2007 @ 6:45 pm - May 10, 2007
When I was in high school, we learned about global warming, the hole in the ozone layer, recycling, et al and it was not controversial in those days at all.
Only once certain liberal politicians took up the cause did it become controversial, since there are many people who feel that “if they support it, it must be wrong.”
That said, the geeky hypothesis by the aforementioned scientist is just stupid. But one bad hypothesis doesn’t mean you should go make a ton of garbage you don’t need to. That’s equally stupid and there’s no reason to fight stupidity with stupidity.
Comment by Chase — May 11, 2007 @ 12:11 am - May 11, 2007
>When I was in high school, we learned about global warming, the hole in the ozone layer, recycling, et al and it was not controversial in those days at all.
Well that was probably because the Leftists of the world hadn’t yet figured out to use all that alarmism to drastically undermine their country’s economies.. so in that respect , to the broader population , who cares what some hippy thinks about the latest We’re-All-Gonna-Die hyseria.
And also, the particular concerns were new, so there was little research to rely upon to rebut. Now after years and billions of dollars, scientists can say “Sorry Laurie David… your mouth might be adequete to be doubled teamed but nothing good is coming out of it”
Comment by Vince P — May 11, 2007 @ 12:41 am - May 11, 2007
Leftists of the world hadn’t yet figured out to use all that alarmism to drastically undermine their country’s economies
OK, Mr. Conspiracy Theorist.
Politics will not change the amount of time it takes for plastics to biodegrade or that greenhouse gases can’t get through the atmosphere of the earth. It’s a fact, that without the greenhouse effect, most of the Earth would be too cold. Mars and Venus are two other planets with a greenhouse effect.
To reject global warming, you must reject the existence of the greenhouse effect within the Earth’s atmosphere. And that is basically akin to arguing that the world is flat.
Comment by Chase — May 11, 2007 @ 1:26 am - May 11, 2007
Actually, it’s a misnomer to say they “can’t get through.” If they couldn’t get through at all, that’d lead to a runaway greenhouse effect. But greenhouse gases do get “trapped” for a finite period of time in the Earth’s atmosphere. Otherwise, there would be no greenhouse effect to warm the Earth to habitable (for human) temperatures.
Comment by Chase — May 11, 2007 @ 1:39 am - May 11, 2007
So that’s why libs salivate for infanticide.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 11, 2007 @ 2:04 am - May 11, 2007
i think we should listen to arnold schwarzenegger. we dont need to change our way of life just the technology we use.
Comment by liana — May 11, 2007 @ 2:52 am - May 11, 2007
Chase: CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. So tell me.. what are these greenhouse gasses that we need to restrain?
Comment by Vince P — May 11, 2007 @ 6:00 am - May 11, 2007
Chase and others make a good point in taking an extreme position and countering it with common sense instead. Yes, advocating rolling the world population back to the level of 1830 is nonsensical. On the other hand, we now have about 6.6 billion and projected to double in the latter half of the century. It will probably be okay, but still something to think about.
And yes, anyone who argues that humans are destroying the Earth with greenhouse gases is also wrong. We can increase greenhouse gases tenfold and the Earth will do just fine. What I’m not so sure about is if we’ll do fine. If, for example, the current warming trend continues and causes the sea levels to rise, then some quickie big-time adjustments will need to be made. Whether it’s caused by greenhouse gases or not won’t make much difference, it could very well be a problem that needs to be solved. I don’t know the science of greenhouse gases, and whether it’s effect is significant enough in comparison to climate changes caused by sunspots or other natural cyclical activities. But greenhouse gas emissions is the only one of the things we can control.
Even if you don’t buy any of the global warming arguments, there is still good reason to go green. We depend way too much on foreign oil. That alone is a good enough reason. We do need to explore our own resources in Alaska and in the gulf and see how viable and how much supply there is. In either case, it would make sense to make products that are more energy efficient and explore alternative sources for energy. If we as consumers take the lead, and it wouldn’t hurt if Al Gore also lead by example, it will become profitable for businesses to do so. Eventually, this would significantly boost our economy, technological advances won’t be stifled, and further, we may end up with our most powerful weapon against terrorism. I read an article in which the author claimed a direct correlation between oil prices and repressive policies of mideast and other OPEC countries’ governments. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but it wouldn’t surprise me that reducing our imports of oil to virtually nothing will motivate OPEC country governments to become less repressive, and in turn, reduce terrorism.
Comment by Pat — May 11, 2007 @ 8:20 am - May 11, 2007
Phrases like “Go Green” have no meaning to me. It’s so contentless and ambigious that it could mean anything. And many communists and socialists are using that indefinition to advance their goals.
Humanity has a lot more pressing existenstial concerns than the weather.
Comment by Vince P — May 11, 2007 @ 8:37 am - May 11, 2007
Watson is merely parroting Ehrlich who parroted Malthus.
Environmental issues are probably the only ones upon which I am a conservative, meaning I am a conservationist. I do think it’s a good idea to set aside large (large, but not necessarily vast) tracts of land for the purpose of maintaining nature as it is and for humans to enjoy and appreciate. The national parks system is a public good that I think most of us have enjoyed and I would bet that some of the same arguments in this thread were similarly made upon that system’s creation and against TR in particular.
Where Watson loses his mind is the idea that humans shouldn’t interface with nature, where the human population should not be greater than one billion, and where no community should be larger than 20000. How does he propose to reduce the Earth’s population? Sterilization or perhaps world war (and if war is merely the natural process of our self-destruction, who are we to attempt to prevent it)? How is an appreciation of nature obtained without ‘interface’? How did he write his article — on a computer? How and where was that computer built? How did it arrive at his home? How is it powered? How is his article disseminated and read?
I’m with Pat. It is entirely conservative to conserve and in my daily life, I try not to waste resources and money. I drive an efficient station wagon and not too much, try to buy only what I reasonably need and use, and think that government does have a role in the presence of externalities. And I absolutely agree that our economy and world affairs can be improved if we are more self-sustaining. But then, I’m not a political conservative, so my contribution here is just more pissing in the wind (but in the direction of a water treatment facility).
Comment by HardHobbit — May 11, 2007 @ 9:38 am - May 11, 2007
Chase: “When I was in high school, we learned about global warming, the hole in the ozone layer, recycling, et al and it was not controversial in those days at all.”
Then you must be 19 or fresh out of high school, because only today is it “not controversial”. In the 60s, 70s, 80s, even the 90s to some extent, it was all a very live controversy.
I doubt you’re 19. What you’re revealing here, Chase, is that when you were in high school, you were taught one side of the story – and that you swallowed it without daring to question your teachers.
I’m talking particularly about Global Warmism. (I believe the CFC / ozone human skin cancer connection was largely valid.)
Chase said “It’s a fact, that without the greenhouse effect, most of the Earth would be too cold.”
Indeed it is a fact. And the Earth’s greenhouse effect comes from water vapor.
You know – that stuff involved in the evaporative cycle? The rain cycle? CO2 doesn’t play a role. Or to be more precise, its role is tiny – well under 1%.
There is no way that increasing the role of something (CO2) from a tiny fraction of 1% to another, still tiny fraction of 1% could warm the Earth – especially when the Earth’s warming is, in fact, perfectly consistent with established, natural climate history and cycles.
To argue otherwise as you want to do, Chase (but lack the intellectual equipment or evidence to do), is basically akin to arguing the Earth is flat.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 11, 2007 @ 9:45 am - May 11, 2007
Except for the fact that they are managed by bureaucrats in thrall to environmentalist kooks who would rather sue than have them cleared of old dead timber… which is what gives rise to devastating wildfire.
In contrast, there has never been a major wildfire on land owned and managed by a private timber company.
Comment by V the K — May 11, 2007 @ 9:55 am - May 11, 2007
Pat, I agree with much of what you said. A few questions.
You said “we now have about 6.6 billion and projected to double in the latter half of the century. It will probably be okay, but still something to think about.”
Why? In what respect?
You said “We depend way too much on foreign oil… it would make sense to make products that are more energy efficient [with] consumers tak[ing] the lead, and… Al Gore [] by example… ”
Agree.
It would be great if we could get off oil, not for Green reasons (i.e. self-flagellation / self-extermination), but as a weapon against the Islamists. HOW, is a long discussion – perhaps for another time. Real briefly, (a) I think consumer demand will be far more effective (and morally proper) than government measures, and (b) I notice you said nothing about nuclear – which I don’t adore, but which is probably the best alternative for large-scale power generation at the moment.
“I read an article in which the author claimed a direct correlation between oil prices and repressive policies of mideast and other OPEC countries’ governments. I don’t know if that’s true…”
I’m sure you did, and I’m inclined to think it is true. Iran and Hugo Chavez would be ruined if oil dropped to $30. Conversely, if oil is at $70 they are sitting pretty.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 11, 2007 @ 10:02 am - May 11, 2007
Addendum – Please note the developing world (especially China and India) will suck up any oil we stop consuming. So, any effort to making oil unimportant has to reach them ultimately.
The Bush Administration has been following some good and interesting policies in this area. For example, I believe a year or two ago, they signed a pretty significant agreement with India that helps it develop nuclear. (Responsibly, peacefully, etc.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 11, 2007 @ 10:09 am - May 11, 2007
The problem with politicians getting involved in “breaking our addiction to oil” is we get idiotic policies like the mandate to derive 20% of our fuel consumption form ethanol. Never mind that:
1. If all corn produced in the US were converted to ethanol, it would meet only 12% of our fuel consumption, with none left over for food or export.
2. Ethanol is more polluting and takes more energy to create than petroleum-based fuel.
3. Spikes in corn prices due to the ethanol mandate are already impacting food prices, leading to inflationary pressure in the US and unrest in Mexico where the poor can no longer afford corn tortillas, a basic food stuff.
Maybe it would be better if we held off on the mandates until the technology was ready. Like extracting fuel from sea algae or organic waste.
Comment by V the K — May 11, 2007 @ 10:19 am - May 11, 2007
“Except for the fact that they are managed by bureaucrats in thrall to environmentalist kooks who would rather sue than have them cleared of old dead timber… which is what gives rise to devastating wildfire.”
True, but there are kooks in all government bureaus. Wildfires are also a natural occurence and provide many benefits to the soil and species regeneration. I don’t advocate torching Mt. Rainier, but the main reason we consider wildfires ‘devastating’ is because they often threaten human property. Even when fires are caused by lightning and do not threaten any humans, we’re out there desperately trying to put them out because we think fire is bad (and the clean air and global warming kooks might well agree).
If a private company is allowed to use the resources on public lands, then the company has obvious reasons to prevent destruction of its investment, whether by fire or any other source. If a landowner builds a house near public land that isn’t privately managed, then insurance rates (and insurance availablity) should reflect its proximity to potential problems, providing the law reflects an inability of the government to prevent the occurences of wildfires, floods, etc. such as clearing undergrowth and digging fire trenches. And disclosure of these potentially destructive occurences should mean that agencies such as FEMA (and all its kooks) won’t be required to pick up the tab. Building on the Mississippi flood plain should be considered caveat emptor.
Comment by HardHobbit — May 11, 2007 @ 10:54 am - May 11, 2007
Off-Topic: Now we know why the ACLU always defends NAMBLA
Comment by V the K — May 11, 2007 @ 11:40 am - May 11, 2007
Why can’t THIS also be caused by Global Warming? Because it’s good news (I think)!
Comment by sonicfrog — May 11, 2007 @ 11:52 am - May 11, 2007
#44 OT – “Federal officials have said [that the longtime Virginia ACLU President] purchased the [child torture] pornography with a credit card about 10 times, spending anywhere from $79.95 to $150.”
While only a jury can determine if he was framed, that type of evidence would seem to lessen the chances.
BTW, this would be one part of capitalism I don’t love – or more precisely, that I would never allow to be called “capitalism” to begin with. Capitalism rests on law enforcement – the banning of criminal actions from the marketplace and from civilized society. Which is why I usually balance being pro-civil liberties with being pro-law & order.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 11, 2007 @ 12:23 pm - May 11, 2007
Even besides pollution and environmental causes, there is another more obvious reason oil consumption isn’t so hot. That being, it’s the primary economic vehicle (no pun intended) of our enemies in the Middle East. Without oil, the Arab states would be a vast, barren wastleand, much like the continent of Africa. Simply put, everything the Middle East exports, including terrorism, is funded by oil.
The American Gov’t needs to sponsor a contest: 10 billion dollars for the first company that can design a solar panel that will boost the miles per gallon of a standard automobile by over 50%.
Comment by Chase — May 11, 2007 @ 12:34 pm - May 11, 2007
I think capitalism, or indeed most any system, must work in a social environment with a well-defined moral component. I don’t think civic law is a substitute for morality, because it only shifts the paradigm from “right versus wrong” to “what can I get away with?”
Comment by V the K — May 11, 2007 @ 12:37 pm - May 11, 2007
Yes, Chase, we need to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and the logical way to bridge the gap between now and future technologies that are less hydrocarbon-dependent is to develop domestic supplies, including that remote hellhole known as ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico. (Think about it, all around the edge of the GOMEX, there is oil. There must be a hell of a lot more in the middle).
A big part of the problem is the environmentalists and the politicians are stuck in the ’60s and don’t realize that forty years of technological advancement have made it possible to extract oil with minimal environmental impact.
Comment by V the K — May 11, 2007 @ 12:41 pm - May 11, 2007
… “We need vast areas of the planet where humans do not live at all and where other species are free to evolve without human interference. We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion.” …
Does anyone have the figure for just how much of the Earth’s habitable surface area humans DO inhabit? There ARE vast areas of the planet where humans do not live at all, plus the even MORE vast uninhabitable areas. I’m guessin’ the guy lives in a crowded city and like others of his ilk is unwilling to actually DO something, like move to his recommended small town in the middle of the forest. “Oh, but I … blah-blah-blah.” Yeah, and Algore “buys” his way out of doing anything, and Hollywood celebrities “have to” take private jets etc.
First rule of flakery: Do as I say, not as I do.
Comment by DoorHold — May 11, 2007 @ 12:42 pm - May 11, 2007
OT, but sort of related: UN Chooses Zimbabwe to head commission on ‘Sustainable Development’.
The UN is the institution liberals think should rule the world. What better way to do it than to choose a country that’s starving its own people to death under a brutal dictatorship to lead the way to ‘Sustainable Development?’
Comment by V the K — May 11, 2007 @ 12:46 pm - May 11, 2007
V the K said: “I don’t think civic law is a substitute for morality, because it only shifts the paradigm from “right versus wrong” to “what can I get away with?””
Exactly. That’s why I’m pro-small-government. So much human action today is ridiculously criminalized, that people are driven into an amoral, unprincipled “what am I allowed to get away with?” mentality.
Having said that, certain actions (as you’d agree) are such violations of the principle of people respecting others’ rights – which is the very basis of capitalism, freedom, and civilization – that OK, the government steps in legitimately.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 11, 2007 @ 1:00 pm - May 11, 2007
A big part of the problem is the environmentalists and the politicians are stuck in the ’60s and don’t realize that forty years of technological advancement have made it possible to extract oil with minimal environmental impact.
Which is also why, despite the fact that it gives off no carbon, uses something we have plenty of in the US and enormous capacity to refine, and can generate vast amounts of power, we have a relative zilch in the way of nuclear power.
I mean, really. This country’s biggest energy need is electricity, but the dimbulbs like Manbearpig and Obama don’t want to acknowledge that — mainly because it’s easier to beat up on private companies like Ford/GM/Chrysler than it is to explain why the enviro-whackos to which they’re pandering have blocked this for years without ANY regard to sound science.
For example, the best way of decreasing petroleum use and pollution in the transportation grid is to use the fact that most auto trips are five miles or less in duration and at usual city speeds — something which could easily be handled by plug-in hybrid cars, IF the price of electricity weren’t sky-high and IF there were sufficient generating capacity to fuel them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2007 @ 2:08 pm - May 11, 2007
If one were conspiracy minded, one might begin to suspect that the alliance between the Greens and the Reds is intended to cripple the country’s energy infrastructure until there is “no other option” but for the government to take over.
Just like they screwed up health care.
Comment by V the K — May 11, 2007 @ 2:21 pm - May 11, 2007
And it’s related, V the K; after all, given the liberal wet dreams of population control that started this post in the first place, Zimbabwe, with its excellent track record in terms of implementing them, is a fine choice.
Or they could just dig up and try to reanimate Saddam Hussein — who is the only other person I am sure would get more votes from the UN.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2007 @ 2:22 pm - May 11, 2007
They could do a ‘Weekend at Bernie’s’ thing with Castro’s corpse. I mean, he was the biggest hero the liberal left ever had.
Comment by V the K — May 11, 2007 @ 2:33 pm - May 11, 2007
Meanwhile back at the topic, another great way to embrace ManBearPig, Carbon Credit Killers.
For $5, they’ll shred a living tree and send a note to Al Gore letting him know about it.
They can’t guarantee they’ll kill a tree, but then, TerraPass can’t guarantee they’ll plant one either.
Comment by V the K — May 11, 2007 @ 2:52 pm - May 11, 2007
Ignoring, of course, the batteries that will have to be tossed eventually.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 12, 2007 @ 1:34 am - May 12, 2007
#40
You said “we now have about 6.6 billion and projected to double in the latter half of the century. It will probably be okay, but still something to think about.”
Why? In what respect?
ILC, I’ll try not to get too mathematical, while trying to explain my rationale. Population growth is essentially exponential, which means that if you look back from now into the past, it appears that growth was flat, and skyrockets as you get closer to the present. In fact, it took about 5500 years from the dawn of civilization in addition to another million or so years after humans emerged to reach 1 billion people in 1830. In less than 200 years since then, we added well over 5 billion more people. The problem is that to my understanding, available resources do not increase exponentially. In fact, some remain flat, such as water and space. So there is some limit in terms of these resources alone. Granted in a couple of centuries, our descendants may look back and say that the growth we experience in the past 200 years is relatively flat, because if the current population rate continues (1.4% annual), we’ll have a population of 112 billion in another 200 years, and if it continued at the peak rate we hit in the 20th century (2.1% annual), we would have a population of 440 billion 200 years from now. For all I know we could sustain such growth. But since it does finally appear that the overall growth rate is slowing somewhat, we won’t reach those numbers. The problem though is that the rate is still increasing in underdeveloped countries. Even though there is much famine and hunger, it’s political issues that is causing this as opposed to lack of resources at this point.
To try to explain my concern here, consider this analogy. Suppose one creates a population of bacteria in a cup in which the population of the bacteria doubles every day (i.e., exponential growth). And let’s say the only resource of concern is the space in the cup, and everything is fine as long as there is available space. But now suppose that, in say, 30 days, the population reaches the capacity of the cup. At that point, there are no more resources for the bacteria. At day 29, the cup is half full, (or half empty if you are an optimist). So there is still plenty of room, and everything seems fine. But one day later, it’s not.
Of course, the above is a simplistic model, but I think our current situation is comparable. In other words, I don’t think we’ll know that we have a shortage of resources until it’s too late. Even if my assumption is true, I have no idea when that would be. But if we can get the world population to stabilize, we won’t ever have to find out. And we know that we can sustain more than 1 billion with no problem, and think it would be way more harmful if we reduce back to that level.
It would be great if we could get off oil, not for Green reasons (i.e. self-flagellation / self-extermination), but as a weapon against the Islamists. HOW, is a long discussion – perhaps for another time. Real briefly, (a) I think consumer demand will be far more effective (and morally proper) than government measures, and (b) I notice you said nothing about nuclear – which I don’t adore, but which is probably the best alternative for large-scale power generation at the moment.
I think economic and security reasons for “going green” (or whatever one wants to call it) are the more important reasons now. But since global warming, in my view, is at least somewhat of a legitimate concern, becoming more environmentally prudent may stave off some troubles that may lie ahead.
As for alternative energy sources, nuclear energy may be a good viable option to expand, although I admit it gives me the heebie jeebies for some reason. Also, as V the K said, it makes no sense to use alternative sources, such as ethanol from corn, that require more oil than would otherwise be used. My understanding is they are working on using modified corn crops that would be more efficient. And as NDT stated, electricity is important and we would need to find alternative ways to generate electricity.
#38 As for greenhouse gases, again, I don’t know the science behind the contribution of CO2 to global warming. Yes, a tiny fraction of 1% seems small, and I hope that really is. Are all greenhouse gases equal in terms of how warming is affected? Even if that’s the case, let’s go back to exponential growth. My understanding is that energy consumption has also increased exponentially at a rate higher than population growth. If that’s the case, then continuing at this rate with the current energy resources, we will eventually see the CO2 percentage increase relatively dramatically.
Again, I don’t know if this is really such a bad thing or not. In fact, if in the next 100 years we hit a natural cooling trend or move toward an ice age, more greenhouse gases may be a good thing.
Comment by Pat — May 12, 2007 @ 2:52 am - May 12, 2007
love all this scientific rhetoric. has anyone checked out the Bush idea that rees are bad for the environment. I figure they’ve been killing us for the 6000 years the planet has existed.
Comment by Kevin — May 12, 2007 @ 3:02 am - May 12, 2007
#59
Sounds like a good reason for liberals to commit suicide. We should be better off. Maybe the wholesale slaughter of their children is doing us some good in the long run. No more liberal oxygen thieves running around and therefore more for us.
Survival of the fittest, right? Most species don’t survive by “talking” to or capitulating to their enemies.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 12, 2007 @ 6:26 am - May 12, 2007
BTW, I seem to remember hearing that 70 some-odd percent of the U.S. is unpopulated. Does that sound right?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 12, 2007 @ 6:26 am - May 12, 2007
Pat,
Personally I never worry about population growth, because it tends to limit itself over time (as you hint). Of course, I would prefer it limit itself peacefully. That’s one reason I support political and economic freedom. Freedom => development => fewer kids, as kids become unnecessary and even unhelpful to farm and factory, and a cost to the family.
The bacteria analogy fails because we are not bacteria
First, we make decisions. Especially reproductive decisions. Especially as we have more economic opportunity. Increase people’s opportunities, and after a generation or two, they usually stop having so many kids.
Second – and this gets to the “resources” question – Another difference between us and bacteria is that we develop or practically invent our own resources. Oil is great example. Oil was worthless before human ingenuity invented uses for it. Oil will be worthless once again, after human ingenuity has discovered replacements, and moved beyond certain uses.
You brought up water and space, as resources that are ultimately limited. Even there, I wouldn’t be sure. One day, we’ll terraform Mars – move a stray comet to boost its water supply – etc. Again, human ingenuity. Even staying down-to-Earth: we’ve only tapped a tiny fraction of the Earth’s physically available water and space. Land and water that is “unusable”, is “unusable” only under current technology.
So in general, I reject the whole notion of resource shortage. All those 1970s (Paul Erlich) shortage predictions never came true, because the whole planet is literally made of resources. The question is, human ingenuity. Which rests on human freedom.
You said “As for alternative energy sources, nuclear energy may be a good viable option to expand, although I admit it gives me the heebie jeebies for some reason.”
What gives me the heebie-jeebies about it, is that it is SO easy (technologically) to divert a few of the stray neutrons to immediate production of weapons-grade plutonium. Think terrorism, or Iran.
Also, the wastes in themselves are a terrorist weapon (think dirty bomb) that must be guarded perfectly for thousands of years – an impossible order.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 12, 2007 @ 12:10 pm - May 12, 2007
#60 – Kevin, what exactly are “rees” and Bush’s involvement with them? Please clarify.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 12, 2007 @ 12:28 pm - May 12, 2007
Speaking of planets – looks like Kevin has his own.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 12, 2007 @ 12:45 pm - May 12, 2007
So, Bush wants to exterminate the rees, too? Is there no end to his savagery?
Comment by V the K — May 12, 2007 @ 2:10 pm - May 12, 2007
V the K, lol
– Private aside, check this out, the dude can’t stop digging his hole: http://gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=2265#comment-535921
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 12, 2007 @ 2:26 pm - May 12, 2007
Water vapor vs. CO2, as greenhouse gases – Here is what Reid Bryson, the father of climate science, has to say:
“…In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? …80 percent, okay? …And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2007 @ 2:07 am - May 13, 2007
ILC: that was a great link
I’m sure folks like Ian will discover that back in 1964 the guy got a $1 rebate from a gas company when they ran a marketing promotion and so he’s “biased”
Comment by Vince P — May 13, 2007 @ 7:05 am - May 13, 2007
Flashback to Earth Day 1971, when I was a naive undergrad. What was the hysteria du jour? Overpopulation! “Scientists have proven that half the population of the earth will be starving by 2000!” Of course, it turned out to be horseshit, as every other “green” hysteria has been. DDT. Three Mile Island. Silicone breast implants. “Chemicals.” Global cooling and the coming ice age. And it’s all been bullshit, because science had nothing to do with any of it, only politics.
Someday, liberals, particularly the “green” variety, need to re-read The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf. They don’t deserve to have one syllable from their mouths taken seriously.
Comment by rightwingprof — May 13, 2007 @ 9:08 am - May 13, 2007
ILC, I agree with most of your points in 63. First, I am making no predictions when overpopulation will occur, because I honestly don’t know what the threshhold would be for overpopulation with the current technology, and understand the threshhold could change with technological advances. I will only say that if we continue growing at an exponential, say of at least 1% annual growth, it will be a problem. And again, I don’t know if that would be in ten years, a hundred years, or a thousand years. But since much of the world is slowing down, this is now making overpopulation less likely. And your analysis about political and economic freedom seems true. In fact, the biggest problem is that underdeveloped areas are seeing increasing growth rates and are projected to more than triple by the end of the century.
Yes, my bacteria analogy doesn’t exactly apply to humans, since there is some control of the resources. And I understand that past predictions have clearly shown to be wrong. What we still don’t know is when the point of insufficient resources does occur, what will happen. Will we be able to create the technologies in time to be able to use the currently unusable resources? Or maybe when the time does occur, there will be more than enough time to fix the problem with a combination of new technologies and the population conscientiously slowing itself down. We don’t know the consequences, and if we can slow down to perhaps linear growth, we will probably never have to find out.
Also, regarding the CO2 analysis from Reid Bryson if true, doesn’t mean that CO2 will not affect global warming. It simply means that it will take a lot more CO2 to do it. So that would be good, and may give us a couple more hundred years. And it would also mean that we could rely more on our own resources for energy, such as oil from Alaska and the gulf, while working on viable alternative sources before CO2 becomes a problem and before we deplete our own oil.
Comment by Pat — May 13, 2007 @ 11:12 am - May 13, 2007
Vince, thanks. Here’s another link, if you haven’t already posted it
The alleged phenomenon of “stronger hurricanes due to Global Warming” is basically debunked: http://www.miamiherald.com/884/story/93424.html
The article quotes the Global Warmists as basically pulling long faces and saying responsible stuff like “The science is unsettled”. That means they took a blow.
Pat – you’re right about CO2. It’s still a greenhouse gas. It has increased, I think, from roughly over 200 ppm to roughly over 350 ppm. I don’t guarantee we caused that. In the geologic record, you’ll see it spike to 500-800 ppm – *several hundred years after* the Earth begins a warm climate cycle. In other words, in the past, climate change has always driven CO2 change (due to something called oeanic outgassing) – not the other way around. But if we tried to boost it to 2000 ppm or 10000 ppm – yeah, we’d have to make some impact eventually.
As for insufficient resources – I don’t think it happens like that. You have to remember the role and function of prices.
Say a resource becomes gradually more difficult to produce or obtain under current technology. In other words, demand keeps growing but the low-hanging fruit has been picked. The price rises. That signals people to pick the higher-hanging fruit, for the short run. It also signals people to develop new technology / alternatives for the longer run.
Of course, that assumes progress, which again depends on freedom. Under progress and freedom, it can be a gradual and positive process. Without progress and freedom – OK, then it seems like the resource really is finite, and you get people / countries launching horrible wars over it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2007 @ 12:10 pm - May 13, 2007
Typo – “oCeanic outgassing”
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2007 @ 1:03 pm - May 13, 2007
“Kevin, what exactly are “rees””
I think he meant “trees,” and he’s confusing Ronald Reagan with George W. Bush. Reagan stated back in the 80s–correctly–that the major source of CO2 was trees. Liberal idiots turned that into, “Reagan said 90% of air pollution is caused by trees What an idiot!” Of course, they also said that Reagan’s refusal to lick Soviet butt like the Democrats wanted to do would bring about “nuclear winter!” They were idiots–wrong idiots–about that, too. Very little has changed. Liberals are still morons, and they’re screaming the same things they’ve been screaming since the 60.
I remember it well, since I voted for Reagan–twice.
Comment by rightwingprof — May 14, 2007 @ 2:41 pm - May 14, 2007
#74 – Thanks for the clarification, RWP. And yes, you are correct – I think that 90% of the stuff that the leftist hippies ranted about (or still rant about, as the case may be) never came to fruition because they were so WRONG about it.
Just last weekend I saw a circa-1980s movie with a Cold War theme that basically had us as “not understanding” the Soviets because of our “differences.” The biggest laugh I had was one of the characters saying, “Where will this nuclear proliferation end? There won’t be a winner if either one of us has second-strike capabilities!”
Um, actually, yes. WE won. Deal with it, chicken libtards. That’s what being a superpower is all about. I severely doubt the former Soviet Union had any worries about overpowering US.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 14, 2007 @ 4:01 pm - May 14, 2007
#71:
Actually, Pat, Bryson is simply wrong on the facts. While water vapor is the single most important absorber of thermal radiation, CO2 alone is responsible for between 9% and 26% of the total absorbed. There is also a critical distinction between CO2 and water vapor: the latter is a feedback component while the former is a forcing component. Furthermore, water vapor is a positive feedback component meaning that as temperature rises due to an increase in CO2, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will also rise thereby amplifying the effect of the increase in CO2. There is a technical discussion of this at realclimate.org . Just use search words on that site: water vapor feedback.
#72:
Rubbish. The newspaper article discusses disagreement over the effect of climate change on the number of hurricanes not their strength. There is no doubt though that higher ocean surface temperatures will cause those hurricanes that do form to be more intense. Just look at Katrine which hit the Florida coast as a category 1 hurricane but then later rapidly intensified over the unusually warm Gulf waters to peak at a category 5 storm.
Comment by Ian S — May 14, 2007 @ 7:27 pm - May 14, 2007
Just look at Katrine which hit the Florida coast as a category 1 hurricane but then later rapidly intensified over the unusually warm Gulf waters to peak at a category 5 storm.
Yes, because we know THAT never happened before in all the history of the world.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2007 @ 1:31 pm - May 15, 2007
#77: Even you can’t be so dense as to not understand the relationship between high ocean surface temperature and hurricane strength.
Comment by Ian S — May 15, 2007 @ 4:23 pm - May 15, 2007
Ian: You ignorant slut…. Do you leftists ever do any research on your own or do you repeat everything that is spoonfed to you by whatever mothership it is that control all of you?
…..
Global warming indicates a hotter atmosphere… a hotter atmosphere means more atmosphere disturbance.. like wind sheer.
Wind sheer is a hurricane’s worst enemy.
NOAA published a great summary of the multi-decadal hurricane variability following the catastrophic 2005 hurricane season. In referring to the current era of increased hurricane frequency:
This era has been unfolding in the Atlantic since 1995, and is expected to continue for the next decade or perhaps longer. NOAA attributes this increased activity to natural occurring cycles in tropical climate patterns near the equator. These cycles, called “the tropical multi-decadal signal,” typically last several decades (20 to 30 years or even longer). As a result, the North Atlantic experiences alternating decades long (20 to 30 year periods or even longer) of above normal or below normal hurricane seasons. NOAA research shows that the tropical multi-decadal signal is causing the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995, and is not related to greenhouse warming.
today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-04-17T223135Z_01_N17419452_RTRUKOC_0_US-WEATHER-HURRICANES-SHEAR.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
Global warming may spur wind shear, sap hurricanes
MIAMI (Reuters) – Global warming could increase a climate phenomenon known as wind shear that inhibits Atlantic hurricanes, a potentially positive result of climate change, according to new research released on Tuesday.
The study, to be published on Wednesday in Geophysical Research Letters, found that climate model simulations show a “robust increase” in wind shear in the tropical Atlantic during the 21st century from global warming.
Wind shear, a difference in wind speed or direction at different altitudes, tends to tear apart tropical cyclones, preventing nascent ones from growing and already-formed hurricanes from becoming the monster storms that cause the most damage.
Comment by Vince P — May 15, 2007 @ 5:01 pm - May 15, 2007
Vince, further: Global Warmist theory actually predicts that hurricanes will become *less* intense as the poles gain the most heat, reducing overall world temperature differences. (Temp diffs being the energy reserve that ultimately drives storms.)
The average brain-dead Global Warmist overlooks that or doesn’t know. So strictly speaking, the fact that hurricanes have *NOT* gotten any more intense when you look at a multi-century trendline doesn’t contradict Global Warmism.
But it doesn’t support GW either; it’s argumentatively neutral. Being neutral, it confuses and confounds the many Global Warmism alarmists who are dumb enough to claim “Hurricanes are gettting stronger due to GW!!!!!!”
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 15, 2007 @ 6:18 pm - May 15, 2007
#79: The wind shear hypothesis is still uncertain at this point and rests on some shaky predictions with respect to the Walker circulation but the effect of increased ocean surface temperature is not. Indeed, the empirical evidence is very strong that the increase in hurricane intensity over the last few decades is a result of the increase in ocean surface temperature observed. I would also point out that the scientific paper described in your news report predicts that global warming will actually reduce wind shear in the western Pacific while increasing the water temperature so the results for the far east could be disastrous.
Comment by Ian S — May 15, 2007 @ 7:41 pm - May 15, 2007
Even you can’t be so dense as to not understand the relationship between high ocean surface temperature and hurricane strength.
Read my quote again, Ian.
Yes, because we know THAT never happened before in all the history of the world.
I didn’t deny in the least that it happened.
I simply pointed out that your argument was that it had never happened before in the history of the world.
Leftists like yourself, you see, insist that hurricanes never strengthened moving over the Gulf of Mexico, or other warm-water areas, before you discovered “global warming”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2007 @ 7:41 pm - May 15, 2007
#82:
My argument was no such thing. I used Katrina as an example of what happens to hurricane intensity when it passes over warmer water. In Katrina’s case, it went from cat 1 to cat 5 in very short order. It’s not magic, it’s simply a matter of the thermodynamics involved in hurricanes.
Speaking of hypotheses, I suspect that there’s a direct correlation between the intensity of denial of human-induced climate change and the intensity of belief in a god(s). Odd too, since there’s plenty of scientific evidence for global warming and none for god(s).
Comment by Ian S — May 15, 2007 @ 8:22 pm - May 15, 2007
Um.. what does water tempature (the thing that was warm in the Gulf) have to do with Global Warming (the hypothesis that the air tempature is rising) ?
Comment by Vince P — May 15, 2007 @ 9:16 pm - May 15, 2007
#84: Two words: Heat Transfer. Look it up.
Comment by Ian S — May 15, 2007 @ 9:23 pm - May 15, 2007
If that’s your theory then show us that the water + air temp was unusual. How would a hurricane know that “global warming” was going on .. do they have memory? Dont they just react to the current conditions at the time they exist? So were the conditions unusual?
Comment by Vince P — May 15, 2007 @ 9:37 pm - May 15, 2007
Not so, Ian. You claimed that what happened with Katrina was unusual — which makes the obvious argument that it had never happened before in the history of the world.
As for your claim of “not scientific”, you’re the one making the argument that ocean temperatures have never varied, increased, or decreased in the history of the world before you discovered “global warming”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 16, 2007 @ 12:07 pm - May 16, 2007
Boy, Ian spins more often than Lynda Carter did in four seasons of “Wonder Woman.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 16, 2007 @ 3:32 pm - May 16, 2007
#87: You truly have an active imagination. You just make sh!t up like the “not scientific” quote you attribute to me. Do you have imaginary friends as well? You can’t even present a rational argument; for example, for something to be unusual does not imply that it has never before happened.
Comment by Ian S — May 16, 2007 @ 9:35 pm - May 16, 2007
Ian: we already explained , if anything, the wind sheer will weaken the hurricanes that you say are getting stronger… and you have nothing to back up your view other than the phoney bs of “ITS HOTTER STUPID, OF COURSE TEH STORM WILL BE WORSE”
That might be how you Lefties talk to each other, but we require something more than that.
Comment by Vince P — May 16, 2007 @ 9:47 pm - May 16, 2007
#90: Vince, check out realclimate.org for plenty of info but I warn you the discussion gets a bit technical and anticipates a rudimentary understanding of physics and chemistry especially thermodynamics. The wind shear hypothesis (i.e. that climate change will increase the amount of vertical shear) may very well be true for some regions at some times but it’s still uncertain and I’d remind you that those proposing the hypothesis suggest that expected climate change will actually reduce the wind shear in some parts of the tropics. What we do know is that warmer air temperatures above water will increase the surface temperature of that water. Furthermore we know that higher surface water temperatures provide more thermal energy for the hurricanes passing over them. All other things equal, higher surface water temperatures will yield more powerful storms.
Comment by Ian S — May 17, 2007 @ 12:14 am - May 17, 2007
You can’t even present a rational argument; for example, for something to be unusual does not imply that it has never before happened.
Oh, so you mean the earth’s temperature might have increased or decreased before when there WASN’T what you claim is “human intervention” around?
Do tell.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 17, 2007 @ 1:57 pm - May 17, 2007
#92: More phony quotes. Par for the course.
Comment by Ian S — May 17, 2007 @ 11:39 pm - May 17, 2007
ian: I really dont care enough about this to do more research on it..
Comment by Vince P — May 17, 2007 @ 11:42 pm - May 17, 2007
Oh, Vince Vince Vince… you missed a chance to say, “Ian, I really don’t care enough about YOU to do more of your research and thinking for you.”
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 18, 2007 @ 12:40 am - May 18, 2007
How is saying that only those who are who are “responsible and completely dedicated to the responsibility” should become parents “global genocide”. Has this guy got the right solution? I don’t know but he is at least facing up to the problem.
David
Comment by David B — May 19, 2007 @ 9:23 am - May 19, 2007
Oh, how wonderfully refreshing to read that someone else in this insane world feels the same way as I do about the ecoMENTALists.
On the subject of toilet paper… I certainly use as much as possible at the office where I work. In fact, since they got rid of hand towels and tried to force us to use horrid ‘air’ dryers instead, I have found that extra toilet paper needs to be used to dry my hands…
Plus of course I always leave the light on after I’ve finished.
It’s the little things that give me a warm glow.
Comment by Helena — January 6, 2008 @ 6:28 pm - January 6, 2008
Hey, I like the blog! I really like this post too, because I’m the self-proclaimed leader of the anti-green movement. Take a look at my blog at http://www.GoAntiGreen.com. Keep up the good work!
Comment by Matt — October 19, 2008 @ 6:41 am - October 19, 2008
Modern Movement has organised a demonstration against flight rationing:
Support Airport Expansion: Thursday 19 February, 17.30 -19.30 on Parliament Square, East Footway, London
For more details, see: http://www.modernmovement.org.uk/index.php
“The extension of flying to millions of people has been a liberation. Most of us can now afford to go on holiday and welcome the cheapening of air travel allowing us to fly abroad. The development of aviation infrastructure is crucial to allow ever more people to fly.
Join us in front of Parliament to argue for guilt-free travel, for ever-cheaper flights and for freedom of movement.â€
Spread the word!
Comment by Maria — February 17, 2009 @ 11:48 am - February 17, 2009
[...] just humor blogs… and some, I frankly could not tell how serious they were. Â Just look here, here, here and here for a few examples of these [...]
Pingback by Green Grounded » Blog Archive » Face of Sustainability — March 23, 2009 @ 4:34 pm - March 23, 2009
Paul Watson is a enviromental extremists who runs the radical SEA SHEPARDS he is nothing but a radical that TIME has named as a HERO OF THE PLANET he should be ignored as the crazy insane green nutcase he truly is
Comment by Flu-Bird — November 15, 2009 @ 11:26 pm - November 15, 2009