Thanks, Jac.
I wonder who will be the last person to think this wisecrack is an original observation? And yet, I think it should persist.
But then I've always thought the remark "Hot enough for you?" is funny. Now, I've never said it or heard anyone else say "Hot enough for you?" The first time I ever read it was in the 1960s in Mad Magazine. It was a Dave Berg comic strip showing one person after another say "Hot enough for you?" to a guy until he freaked out. (Would it kill Mad Magazine to have a website that let us search for old crap we remember from the 60s?)
Back then, I got the point the way a kid gets a point: So that must mean there are a lot of adults out there who keep saying "Hot enough for you?" and I need to know that's been said way too much before I ever say it or hear it. I was keen on figuring out in advance how not to embarrass myself.
And it seems everyone got the memo — if not from Dave Berg, then from somewhere. Whenever it was really hot, I thought about Dave Berg and how no one ever says "Hot enough for you?" and I got to thinking it really is pretty funny in the way that later generations might think it is funny to say "Could it be any hotter?" But I had to laugh to myself because no one ever said it.
So if you see me on the street some very hot day, feel free to say it to me: "Hot enough for you?" You don't even have to wait, you can say "Cold enough for you?" if you see me today. I'll be especially amused if you look like this:
Now, has it become clear why you should go ahead and keep up with the if-global-warming-is-real-then-why-is-it-cold jokes? They haven't gone away yet. They are at the stage in the life span of a joke where "Hot enough for you?" was when Dave Berg drew his comic strip. But, you may ask, doesn't that mean that people who don't want to be embarrassed should be getting the memo that these jokes cannot be told anymore?
No, I think we're at the stage where we keep up with the joke out of pure sadism to irk the folks who can't take it anymore. They are the earnest folk who want everyone to accede to scientific consensus and meekly swallow whatever remedies are prescribed. Taunt them!
Posts
214 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 214 of 214You certainly have a lot to say, and I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from on much of it.
Hypocrisy in itself does not make someone's beliefs incorrect. I don't propose (and haven't found a right-winger who thinks) that homosexuality is fine simply because Ted Haggard had a male escort/massage partner.
Of course, I have more respect for the views of people who live sustainable lives or who otherwise live up to their ideals than I do for an actor who pays such ideas lip service. I do not know why the right-wing feels so threatened by Hollywood other than as an admission that they view them as being in some position of authority. But that's their problem.
I've got nothing against using exorbitant if sustainable amounts of energy in the abstract. But there is virtue in recognizing the obvious market for conservation. And conservation coupled with increased efficiency does not equal less use, as you're aware. I don't understand why such canards as those which imply the opposite are so thoroughly perpetuated. Indeed, who would object to letting consumers run off a deregulated energy grid or running a meter backward by selling the excess energy they produce to the utility company? I simply do not see the reason for all the political paranoia.
As for "lifestyle" I really don't understand, given the degree of existing regulation of consumer products from paints to refrigerators, how one is making some kind of valuable statement intrinsic to their sense of rights and human dignity by using a less efficient light bulb. But whatever. I'm sure there's bound to be much more leeway for "lifestyle" choices in whatever regulatory changes may take place when it comes to utilities and consumer products (as my last paragraph indicates) than there is when it comes to legislating morality. Again, this sounds like a massive case of projection. And I think that what the right wing is so busted up about is that consumers are demanding it, and that fact really fucks up their whole philosophy.
Fourth paragraph:
Meant to say "decentralized energy grid"...
The reason liberals believe that CO2 causes global warming is that it's a massive new thing to tax. Furthermore (liberals believe) no tax on CO2 is too much to pay since you're literally saving the planet.
Well, phooey on that. If you absolutely positively need to tax something, find something that's a real problem and then tax that. But CO2 ain't it.
Keep in mind, though, that most data are produced in grants and that Universities have a financial interest in it. That is to say, they recognize it has value (even if the data are the result of Federal Grants, my recollection is that the PI gets to control it).
Madison, don't you find it unsettling that, in the information age, a university can claim to own a set of info, even if that info was gathered at the taxpayers expense. When you're dealing with science, you should not be able to lock down info so that only those you select (those who already agree with you) are privy to the info. Up until the sixteenth century, Christianity used to follow the same tenant. They restricted who was allowed to read and interpret the bible, thereby censoring religious thought and practices.
Got to go. Have guests. Will come back tomorrow.
Who cares what ground, satellite, and radiosonde measurements say? The northern hemisphere tilted away from the sun and that proves that mountains upon mountains of data were fabricated!
Who cares what ground, satellite, and radiosonde measurements say?
Not sure what your point is since all of these point to global cooling. More importantly the AGW/CO2 global warming models predict atmospheric temperature increases that haven't happened.
Second point is that the predictions were that winters would get warmer. They've gotten colder in both hemispheres.
In fact, almost all predictions of global warming theorists have proven wrong--this shows that their models and theories of CO2 as a causative effect of global warming to be completely wrong. Ironically, the theories of cosmic radiation and the earth's magnetic field being a large driver of climate are holding up in experiment after experiment as well as observational and geologic studies. Yet, the former is being trumpeted and the latter trashed.
Oh, we are on the next pg. Sry! This 200/pg limit makes checking back harder, too...
I don't think I'm the only one with a"a lot to say." What don't you understand about where I'm coming from, and why? Does it matter? Can you deal with the facts or opinions I present on their face, or is it necessary for you to know my motivations, origins, etc., in order to argue ad hominem? In fact this seems to be your very point below...
...Hypocrisy: Not knowing or caring about Ted Haggard I will ignore that bit, but I agree with La Rochefoucald that "hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue," even if I think you are taking this side of the arg. as rather a matter of convenience. I should therefore weigh Al Gore's arguments on their merits whether or not he is a phony.
And yet - quod licet Jovi non licet bovi (what is allowed for Jove is not allowed for cattle) will not wash. Gore is not any sort of deity, and I am not cattle.
If AGW were proven, then I should presumably eat grass and walk ten miles each way to work, even if others like Gore are living it up. Just as I should obey the Commandments, if I believe, even if others are idolaters, coveters, false witnesses, etc. Depending on my creed I may or may not have a duty to rebuke the Sabbath travelers, thieves, etc.
But first I have to believe. First I have to have proof. If Gore is the missionary teaching the natives not to fornicate and cannibalize, should he himself not rape, kill and eat the native girls? When all he does is evangelize, is there no point to his setting a good example? I suppose this Haggard is/was a minister of some sort - surely his fitness as a vessel of revelation is diminished by these tidings you proclaim? Should Haggard lose his ministry, and likewise would there be justice in Gore losing his?
But yes, someone who says "Thou shalt not kill" and then kills, may in some ways have the edge over someone who just kills, or who says "Killing is jolly" and then kills. At least he is saying the right thing, even if he does not heed his own good advice.
Not sure where you're going with the Hollywood thing. I would say that with the quite apparent power of mass media, that celebrities have influence (formal authority being quite irrelevant) all out of proportion to their merit or the merit of their arguments. Why else are celebrity endorsements of, say, Lucky Strike objected to?
...Watching The Prisoner on amctv.com. Will continue shortly.
Why do you say "exorbitant?" Nobody has incentive to use more energy than needed. Energy is not free.
Recognize the market? I think that I mentioned my business is energy conservation. Watts and joules aren't Democratic or Republican or even moderate.Nor good or evil. They just are (or are not). I don't have to believe in "saving the planet" to help you save a buck, a BTU, a repair cycle, a bit of wear and tear on your equipment.
As for "who would object," there are practical issues with what you describe, the most apparent of which will be dead Con Ed guys. TANSTAAFL. There are things which have to be worked out.
...Look, more later. I have women to juggle tomorrow. TTFN.
Joe, I don't know if you've been misinformed or are simply making things up, but that is factually incorrect. Ground, satellite, and weather balloon measurements show an average increase in global temperature. The troposphere is warming exactly as models have predicted. The rate of the increase is anomalous and makes no sense without the contribution of human GHG emissions. That doesn't even get into a mountain of other indicators, including ocean temperatures, global glacier retreat, current speeds, etc. There is a reason that the vast majority of scientists, publishing peer reviewed studies in scientific journals, have confirmed that anthropogenic warming is happening. Do you seriously think that the world's climate scientists are unaware that winter happens in the northern hemisphere once a year? That has nothing to do with the average increase in temperature.
Are you talking about the apparent cooling between 1940 and 1970? That was caused by the masking effect of aerosol pollution. Or are you referring to the old discrepancy between satellite and ground measurements? Orbital errors were fixed and the satellites now confirm ground readings. Seriously: what are you talking about?
Also, scientists have exhaustively examined other factors, none of which can explain the rate of temperature increase.
Do you honestly think that none of the scientists working for the IPCC have considered that solar activity may affect the Earth's climate? Do you really think that you thought of the magic bullet that will undo a mind-boggling number of studies showing that CO2 emissions are the primary driver of current climate change and that no scientist had previously considered it?
Stop obsessing about Al Gore, and pick up a journal. Climate scientists have looked at things like solar activity and none of them can explain evidence of temperature increase:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html
http://www.realclimate.org/images/BardDelaygue.pdf
"In summary, as specifically discussed in an abundant literature (Stott et al. (2000); Meehl et al.(2004) to list just two), the climate evolution over the last century can readily be explained by a combination of natural (Sun and volcanoes) and anthropogenic forcings that became significant during the second half of the century. Courtillot et al. (2007) invoked an additional forcing due to a hypothetical link between geomagnetism, cosmic rays and cloud cover. As discussed above, we find no convincing support for such a link in the data and analysis presented by the authors. Indeed, instrumental data on cosmic rays and heliomagnetic modulation do not show a long term trend that could contribute to the global warming observed over the last half-century. Thus, there is still no reason to invoke this speculative forcing."
What's kind of fun is watching the die-hard AGW crowd continue to act as if there's no dissent, even as the evidence mounts against them.
SETTLED SCIENCE!
Which dissent are you referring to? Please tell me it's not Sen. Inhofe's list of dissenters, many of whom were surprised to learn that they were climate change deniers.
There are scientists who think that HIV doesn't cause AIDS and that evolution is false, but that doesn't address the fact that a clear, reasoned consensus opposes those positions.
@MadisonMan, thank you. I'm glad you said “[t]here were two Dave Berg cartoons about heat.”
After Althouse’s 11:27AM comment, that likelihood struck me as painfully obvious.
So I do confess it, there was an instant back there where I thought I knew Althouse’s remembrance better than she.
That's kind of obnoxious and I felt embarrassed. I didn't know what to say but now I do.
@Professor Althouse, please accept my humble apology for shooting my mouth off and causing you needless upset.
P.S. Thanks also to @sean and @anyone @I might have missed in trying frantically to @catch up on the @comments!
P.P.S. Why the @heck am I @appending these @ampersand things, @anyway?
@Beats me, but it’s @kind of @fun!!!1!!!1!
@Wee@ee@@@eee@eeee@eee@@eee@@@eeee!!!
(@!)
*psst*
This website is mocking that view. Trust me. And if you don't, take a look at where it came from.
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3044829&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1
Post a Comment