२३ सप्टेंबर, २०१४
"Hey, hey, ho, ho, fossil fuels have got to go."
Fossil fuels have got to go? I'm reading there were 3 or 4 hundred thousand people at the People’s Climate March. How did they all get there? It's a puzzle! A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१७८ टिप्पण्या:
Star Trek transporters.
Burning their drivers licenses would be more effective
It's the new abolition.
Time to give it up, folks,...
Is that Pajama Boy?
Didn't I read that many of those oh-so-climate-sensitive dears arrived to warble for the cameras by the BUSLOAD?
Usually in the spring, we have general litter pickups by volunteers in the community.
Rather then a climate-change march, they should of had organized litter pick ups in their streets/ponds/rivers wherever there was a sore spot in the neighborhood.
Obviously they all either rode bicycles, solar powered cars, or low impact rainbows generated by the farts of free range unicorns and leprechaun gold pots.
They'll be gone....when we finish using them. Be patient!
Volvo station wagons with "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" bumper stickers.
People are so ungratefully stupid.
We have a problem with this stuff? Lets finish it up
The warmer it gets the more sorority girls are going to stick to newspapers just from ordinary sweat. Too many false positives and the sororities won't be able to fill their ranks.
Let me be first to call for a national initiative to develop a new, more accurate sexual orientation test.
Adapt or perish ladies!
You want to cut back on fossil fuels? Lead by example, and encourage your fellow travelers to do the same--avoid driving, carpool when possible, eat less, turn your heat down. Encourage others, don't cajole them. Invest your money into wind and solar energy startups.
You want to make a big show of how virtuous you are, without accomplishing anything? Keep going to these rallies.
Its about empowering government and taking away individual freedom. Once we elect the right people, we won't need options.
They either rode a wave or sailed there on the wind.
I went to a bar mitzvah last year for a boy from New York City.
The event, however, took place at the family's very large summer home in the Hamptons (off season) - about a 2 1/2 hour drive for locals and much longer for those from out of town. The boy gave a speech during the ceremony - essentially berating the guests for causing global warming through their wasteful lifestyles - going so far as to complain about suburbs and living in "non-walkable" communities.
Some of the other guests commented to me during the party afterwards how great the speech was and how it showed a lot of "wisdom." Out of earshot of the kid (because I had no interest in ruining his day) I couldn't help but respond that I thought the speech was ridiculous and, rather than wise, revealed an appalling lack of self-awareness. If he felt that strongly about it, why not hold it NYC to curb all those dastardly emissions.
DiCaprio gave them all free rides on his airplane, then they rode on the back of Sherpas.
Since they insist on building everyone's lives on false data, it figures that the true 120K marchers morphed into a "scientific 400K."
The science of mob action is the only science permitted. It must be another Saul Alinski tactic.
The crowd was big—three hundred and ten thousand, according to a scientific count conducted by a complex-systems mathematician from Carnegie Mellon University using data supplied by thirty-five spotters.
I like how the press reports the 3 to 4 hundred thousand number of marchers that comes from ....wait for it... the march organizers as if they were verified facts. So, some "complex-systems mathematician", whatever the hell that is, decides to get into the crowd counting business, and we're supposed to believe him? Where's the proof that his system works? Crowd counting is difficult to do even for the National Park Service, who has lots of practice. And, let me guess, this complex systems mathematician votes straight ticket Republican, right?
Of course, no march organizers ever have cause to inflate their numbers (cough-cough, million man march).
You first GreenieWeenie.
I think the little shits should be required to dispense with all goods created by the modern process industries and see if they can get through a single fucking day. Morons.
Lem said...
Star Trek transporters.
Physicists teleport quantum state of photon to crystal over 25 kilometers
A mighty Federal Agency has gotten control over health care and its first goal of cutting off old people's health care...which can happen to you unlesss you are wealthy.
Now a false science that is nothing but a cartoon delusion wants a new Federal Agency to control energy supplies and its first goal is cutting off electricity you can afford...which can happen to you unless you are wealthy.
No wonder the wealthy young folks all go along with destructive policies. It makes their money valuable which is wasn't when everybody could afford it.
The only person who has the moral authority to lecture anybody about climate change is Ed Begley Jr.
I don't think he's correct, but at least he walks the talk.
Buses and Gulfstreams.
El Crack, si esta es la nueva abolición, ¿significa que podemos dejar viejas mujeres negras que se en la calle como desgastado pancartas?
woe is us. We really ought to end the march as Clancy's "Rainbow 6" ends, by transporting all the demonstrators to the Amazon forest where they can live without fossil fuels, for up to three days...
These are the people who will be leading our country soon. They are a generation what believes John Stewart provides real news. There is nothing the left-liberal media produces that they don't buy.
Unfortunately my kids are among them. The fruit of all those Ivy League educations I paid for.
Say goodbye to western civilization.
No oil.
No LNG.
No coal.
No nukes.
No dams.
No wind turbines.
These people must be really happy sleeping in their caves and pooping out in the forest.
If they want to abolish fossil fuels (and I'm sure they want to abolish nuclear power too) then they should consent to reduce their energy "footprint" by 99 percent: They should not use cars, planes or trains. No TV's, smart phones, personal computers or other electronic devices. And above all, no advanced medical care.
No antibiotics. No vaccines. No x-machines. No MRI's. No birth control pills.
"Hey, hey, ho, ho"
They're one ho short of riding a sleigh pulled by reindeer.
So, 300,000 people spending, let's say, $100 for the march = $30 million, not including their carbon footprint
That's enough to scrub about 450,000 tons of C02 from the atmosphere.
Or you could plant Silver Maple, which over 55 years would be expected to absorb 25,000 pounds of CO2. Those cost about $7 a piece, so for the cost of that March probably could have planted over 4 million silver maples....which would scrub 107 billion pounds of CO2 from the environment over their lifespan.
If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting something different, isn't today's climate movement pretty much meeting that criteria?
Always put your energy where it will do the most good. Seems to me like planting trees, as of right now, would be alot closer to that than having these marches.
In the late 90s many environmentalists, took to Natural Family Planning.... Not sure what happened... And why it didn't get momentum?
People want a clean planet, but don't inconvenience them by monitoring one's fertility and abstaining.
Remember if contraception is going to fail, it only fails in the fertile phase of the cycle.
Maybe they all car-pooled with Al Gore:
AL GORE LEAVES PEOPLE'S CLIMATE MARCH IN CHEVY SUBURBAN SUV- which appears to be a Suburban LT model, as seen in a logo behind the passenger door Gore entered. It is unknown if the large Chevy SUV was a flex fuel vehicle. Oh, "flex fuel" - so it's all good.
We really ought to end the march as Clancy's "Rainbow 6" ends
I'm scared someone like Robert kennedy would try to pull the stunt they tried to pull off in Rainbow Six.
But I am even more scared that some Islamic fundalmentalist is going to get control of some of those African Ebola victims and deliberately spread the disease.
Things are going to get much worse even without terrorist help.
Was three boob girl there?
We do know that none of them are from UW-Madison because it has been proven by certain people they can't figure out how to travel 4 miles by bus to a DMV office. Figuring out how to get to NYC would be like finding the last digit of Pi.
Sanctimony has many coats and the environmental one is among, sorry to say, the warmest. Cozy. Requires nothing more than ardor and zeal.
Put another way, environmentalists typified by the third of a million marching in NY want only for the capitalist system to be dismantled and for them to be installed in some do-nothing corner of the vast bureaucracy that will replace it.
But then, Robert Kennedy, who is really spectacularly dumb, tells us that we do not need to modify our own personal behavior just leave it to the government to fix it.
Pi? ends at 92 doesn't it?
that's as far as engineers ever bothered memorizing. math majors? They were smarter, but nothing they did required precision anyway. Just good logic.
reminds me of the story about the naked coeds on the gym floor and being stared at by the engineers and math majors, but i digress...
According to reports I've read the marchers also left behind tons of trash strewn on the streets and parks.
I suppose it's possible I could feel more contempt for the marchers, just I'm not quite sure how.
They left a bunch of trash behind also. What hypocrites they are. Especially Leonardo and Al, who fly private planes to lecture us.
Tell RFK and Leo to fly coach and Al Gore and Thomas "Carbon Tax" Friedman downsize their respective Sasquatch housing footprint. Then the hey-hey-ho-ho crowd might get taken seriously.
I would like to see these hippie fucks take their "Climate Justice" to any of the hell holes I have had the pleasure of visiting these last forty years. Every single country in Central America has a city center that is a fog of black diesel fumes, you cannot see the mountains from Peking whose "air" is thicker than that of Dickens' London, ditto every other major city in China including those that did not exist twenty years ago.
@Drill SGT, my favorite story about engineering majors and naked co-eds starts with an engineering student pedaling up to his engineering class on a girls bike.
His buddy sees him and asks how he came by the bike.
"Well, a co-ed came pedaling up to me in the quad and she stopped and took off all her clothes. Then she stood there with her arms spread open and said 'I'll give you anything you want.'"
"Good choice, man, I'll bet you couldn't have fit any of her clothes."
"No antibiotics. No vaccines. No x-machines. No MRI's. No birth control pills."
I believe they really don't understand that.
You would think that there would be at least on decent areal shot of the whole march, in NYC and all, with choppers everywhere.
Mabye a zoom shot up the length of the march?
I absolutely LOVE how these morons have a problem with "destroying" the climate and it's effects on future generations but they are absolutely devoid of concern with strapping their children with trillions in debt to pay for the social programs they vote for.
Remember if contraception is going to fail, it only fails in the fertile phase of the cycle.
That's the only time you can tell it has failed.
It's more than that: how did the food they eat arrive? What are their clothes made out of? How did those clothes get to the store? And those signs....
I'm not wedded to fossil fuels because I love the smell of fossil fuels. I'm wedded to it because, unlike the other energy sources, it works enough to power our society. Sure Daryl Hannah can get her car to run on bacon grease, but how are you going to get ALL cars to run on bacon grease? If you can't, then it's a pipe dream as a vehicle to fuel society's needs.
Imagine the amount of solar paneling that would be required, for example, to power a skyscraper? And what if it's overcast? It's simply not viable right now. So, the real solution is to stop doing things that require the use of fossil fuels.
Like driving to a protest. Or heating your house.
If these greenies wind up in caves and forgo electricity I'll know they're serious, otherwise it's just standard lefty sloganeering from people, I'm sure are extremely rich, or come from rich families. When you're that rich, then you bitch about things like Apple giving away the U2 album for free and forcing you to take up 80MB of space on your device. Poor people aren't going to waste their time worrying about crap.
India and China are looking at these saps and shaking their heads. Africa is looking at these saps and saying "what a bunch of selfish pricks these white rich people are". They'd kill for some low cost energy that would run something like a hospital 24 hours a day. I hope these kids all get stranded in the woods and have no fossil fuels to fall back on and see how long it takes them to revert to the Lord Of the Flies.
Couldn't the left come up with a rhyming scheme that doesnt' involve the use the phrase "hey hey, ho ho"? That was old in the 60's when they used it to protest Vietnam.
Hey hey, ho ho
Left sloganeering has got to go.
Hey hey, ho ho,
How are you going to heat your house when it starts to snow?
"Hey hey, ho ho, we haven't had an original idea since 1965!"
Ho Ho Hey Hey
Fossil Fuels aren't going away
Ho Ho, Hey Hey
Fossil fuels are here to stay
Megan McArdle's been on a tear w.r.t. this sort of stuff lately. Link dump:
College students can't defeat big oil
Big oil versus college kids part 2
Are tree huggers hypocrites?
Fixing climate change will never be free
Divestment's easy, dumping big oil isn't
Even assuming that they're all New Yorkers who ride the subway or bicycle, you still have to ask "Where does the food that they eat come from? What about the products that they buy in the stores?" And the answer, of course, is that they are all shipped into the city on trucks or trains that run on fossil fuels. It's not just about using them to transport YOU, but about using them to transport the things that allow you to live in an urban setting.
None of their alternative energy fantasies have any foundation in reality UNTIL the problems of mass energy storage and loss free power transmission are resolved. e.g. Doesn't matter if you have a bazillion wind farms and solar collectors if you can't store the power till you need it. And the answer isn't, it's always shining on some solar panel, until you reduce transmission loss.
Unless of course you're talking about space based solar panels and you ignore the GHG issues caused by lifting a few bazillion tons of hydrocarbon based plastics into orbit.
"Where does the food that they eat come from?"
Community gardens of course... Man, we could grow some honkin good Kale in Battery Park...
They are marching in Manhattan, aren't they? And how well, exactly, would Manhattan work without fossil fuels?
A cloudy day with no wind and the lights flicker and dim, subways and elevators stop, refrigerators and freezers start to warm?
It's just hard to see where this leads, other than abandonment of the City. What's left without fossil fuels and nukes, other than a costly but meager supply of intermittent electricity?
Perhaps hospitals could have priority for electric power, but how are you going to schlepp your rotting groceries up to your 29th story apt.? How are those groceries even going to get into the city, on donkeys?
It might make a glimmer of sense if at least these greenies could accept nuclear power, but they won't. Indeed, they'd probably reject even animal power (cruel to the animals), so you wouldn't even be able to get ice for your icebox.
Is there anyplace in the world quite as dependent on dependable energy as Manhattan?
Its the ultimate irony - these "concerned" socialists are repeating outdated talking points. The actual science says we are heading into a cooling phase. Germany is scrambling to get coal back on line so their people don't freeze to death this winter.
The differences between Tea Party marches and any of the left wing marches are the amount of trash left behind. Unlike the leftists, Tea Party members respect property, theirs and others. They wouldn't want anyone else trash their property, and they acted accordingly.
The leftists believes in nothing, thus are morally freed to do as they please.
RFK, Jr. said that he was leading by example. He said you had to bus all those people in to march to save the environment.
He also said he's not going to give up his cell phone or car.
He thinks we should reward efficient fuels and punish the bad ones. Although, the internal combustion engine is the most efficient.
Oh, and EVIL KOCH BROTHERS ™
I've transcribed an interview with RFK, Jr. and Michelle Fields here.
I wonder how badly they trashed their parade route.
To paraphrase Instapundit: I'll buy that it is a crisis when they act like it is a crisis.
The Drill SGT: Dude! We'll just put half the solar collectors on the night shift! Problem solved! /sarc
JR565
Hey! Hey! O-Bah-May!
How Many Kids Did You Kill Today?!
Ah, the classics still work...
One of the things the Left seems trying to do is cast many universities in their own image over time, given their further entrenchment: no 'corporations,' no ROTC, people with the right emotions and ideas, humanists working for peace and spreading secular liberal democracy and 'rights.'
The culture in such institutions shifts over time and other points of view are marginalized.
As for the motley assortment of red and green protest clowns filling the city canyons: Scientology has Tom Cruise to pipe the way, Gaia has Leo DiCaprio.
"...reminds me of the story about the naked coeds on the gym floor and being stared at by the engineers and math majors, but i digress..." The Drill Sgt
Is that the Xeno's Arrow paradox?
Mabye a zoom shot up the length of the march?
What length?
And Zucotti was way cooler, bro. Sweet drum circles.
Where did all of the faux homemade signs comes from?
The Environmentalist's Prayer:
Dear Gaia,
No Frack.
No Drill.
No Nukes. Never.
No dirty coal.
No clean coal, either.
No foreign oil.
No offshore oil.
No onshore oil.
No Alaskan oil.
No carbon dioxide. No carbon. No chemicals. No artificial fertilizer.
No preservatives. No additives. No antibiotics. No hormones. No trans-fats.
No burning. No smoking. No toilet paper. No paper. No landfills.
No SUVs. No incandescent lightbulbs.
Gaia, cover the hills with windmills and coat the valleys with solarpanels.
No people.
Save the planet.
Clyde wrote:
Even assuming that they're all New Yorkers who ride the subway or bicycle, you still have to ask "Where does the food that they eat come from?
How does the NYC subway power itself? Its not as if using the Subway doesn't involve electricity. All the cars are supposed to be air conditioned and the platforms are supposed to have lighting. I don't see any windmills set up.
Also with bikes. how are the bikes made? Are the factories that create the bikes powered by solar power? Probably not? How do the bikes get to the bikes stores? Trains, railroads and planes.
In fact, when Leo decides to do his pro environmental documentary how are people going to watch it? Are there TV's powered with windmills? Even the act of promoting green requires fossil fuels and not green energy.
This protest, brought to you by fossil fuels and capitalism.
jr565
I noticed something like that in San Francisco. They have electric busses. So they think they're doing the environment a favor. They are a bit, there's no exhaust to add to the pollution, but the electricity has to come from somewhere. I think they think it's magic or something.
Me and Starchild have joined a band of eco-eco terrorists. We terrorize the terrorists, save the scientists and put the animals back in their cages.
Take back Humanism and property rights!
***We've also started a local chicken coop Co-op with corporate funding. We're getting some sweet cheap migrant labor.
Apply now at Human Farms Valley. Llamenos ahora al 800-222-4354
What is fueling our use of fossil fuels more than anything? The information age. Computers, phones, and information distributed through said devices.
So, anyone working for any company, like say The New Yorker, who disseminates information to people on the Web is complicit in our over reliance on fossil fuels. And taking money to destroy the environment.
That also goes for Hollywood. iTunes, Netflix, movie theaters, distribution of DVD's. How much environmental wreckage occurs so that Leo can be in Wolf Of Wall Street and we can watch it?
Don't want to be lectured by people who are part of the machine raping the world for their profit.
If you're a multimillionaire with 5 to 9 houses, you shouldn't be lecturing people on the ills of capitalism or how we need to be environmentally responsible. He may have a 20 bedroom mansion, but he turns off the lights when he leaves the rooms he's not using. Because he's environmentally responsible. F off.
Gaia has Leo DiCaprio
Then Leo should start listening to her. Snow in Denver in mid-September? Record low temperatures all over the United States in August and September? Gaia is trying desperately to tell us something but the chowder heads in the march have their ears stuffed with wax and their minds shut tight.
Whoa there Big Mike...Gaia smiles, but do not anger her.
You may end up next on the altar, my friend.
Yes, it's a conundrum how they got there because unless they live like the Amish, liberals are hypocrites.
Conservatives actually believe this. They're that binary-mindedly dumb. Exhibit A: Althouse's rhetorical question up top. Exhibit B: the comments underneath. Exhibit C: the complete absence of a conservative exhibiting a corrective, contrary mentality anywhere.
Meanwhile, it's a safe bet that liberals bicycle 10x as many miles as conservatives do. But oh, that doesn't count as cutting down on fossil fuel use in the conservative pea brain. Liberals can still be seen using electricity and cars, so we're hypocrites. The stupid, it hurts.
As to the larger, crucial issue: NOTHING can convince conservatives that AGW is a real problem -- nothing, that is, short of their leaders Limbaugh, Palin, Beck, Hannity, etc. telling them. This is an entrenched, insoluble problem. Conservatives are religiously-minded/dogmatic and are retardedly proud of it. It doesn't get worse than that.
"As to the larger, crucial issue: NOTHING can convince conservatives that AGW is a real problem -- nothing, that is, short of their leaders Limbaugh, Palin, Beck, Hannity, etc. telling them. This is an entrenched, insoluble problem. Conservatives are religiously-minded/dogmatic and are retardedly proud of it. It doesn't get worse than that."
You are a moby, correct?
"What is fueling our use of fossil fuels more than anything? The information age. Computers, phones, and information distributed through said devices."
More than that--it's the developing world. China produces more emissions than any other country, and India's not far behind. I wonder if these climate activists would rather the already poor people in those countries be a lot poorer so that this reduces emissions?
I don't mind those who want to find ways to reduce our emissions with reasonable tradeoffs--encouraging the development of more efficient cars and more efficient use of our resources are good ideas not just for reducing pollution but also reducing our dependency on foreign oil and price shocks down the road. But climate activists tend to be the sort of nuts who leave regular folks thinking "forget it, I'd rather drive my El Dorado than associate with these freaks!" not because the activists are kooky, but because their ideas are so poorly thought out.
The only real hypocrisy that needs to be called out is that those who demand that everyone else sacrifice what they like, enjoy or do are the last to do so.
You don't have to be Amish, but you should give up your private jet or 3rd home before you lobby for laws that make it unaffordable to heat my 1500 square foot home to 65 degrees in the winter.
"Meanwhile, it's a safe bet that liberals ARE SEEN TO bicycle 10x as many miles as conservatives do."
FIFY
You are a moby, correct?
The weakest, most common response to a liberal argument at Althouse I've noticed. Of course, because debunking can't be done if there is no bunk to be found. Thus, that insipid reply.
"Meanwhile, it's a safe bet that liberals bicycle 10x as many miles as conservatives do. But oh, that doesn't count as cutting down on fossil fuel use in the conservative pea brain. Liberals can still be seen using electricity and cars, so we're hypocrites. The stupid, it hurts.
As to the larger, crucial issue: NOTHING can convince conservatives that AGW is a real problem -- nothing, that is, short of their leaders Limbaugh, Palin, Beck, Hannity, etc. telling them. This is an entrenched, insoluble problem. Conservatives are religiously-minded/dogmatic and are retardedly proud of it. It doesn't get worse than that."
There's a lot wrong with this post, so I'll take it in turns:
1) Even if liberals bicycle more than conservatives do--which I'm not taking as a given--this doesn't mean that liberals have a lower carbon footprint. Do liberals travel by plane less? Are they buying used bikes rather than new ones, compared to conservatives? New cars instead of used ones? Consuming less food? Using less electricity?
2) Even if your average liberal has a better carbon footprint than the average conservative--again, not a given, as I believe this has more to do with income, age, and geographic location than political beliefs--one can still acknowledge that the lifestyle choices of Americans in the margin may have SOME small effect on the environment, but will be a drop in the ocean compared to development in the developing world. That's where the bulk of emissions are coming from and will be coming from in the future.
3) "Conservatives" as you describe them don't necessarily deny AGW--some do deny that it is happening, some acknowledge that it is happening but question whether it can be proven to be caused by human activity (rather than something else), and some believe it is caused by human activity but that the Left's prescriptions for dealing with it are likely to have no positive effect and significant costs that the Left is unwilling to acknowledge. Lumping them together like a bunch of know-nothings only lets you feel smug and avoid some of the better arguments they may be making.
A friend of my wife's from Brooklyn took the bus to the Washington protest, even though there was one in Manhattan. Because she cares that much.
What's with all the ho's?
Isn't that violence against women? Or at least disrespectful and we all know that disrespect and violence are the same thing thse days.
John Henry
TosaGuy "Meanwhile, it's a safe bet that liberals ARE SEEN TO bicycle 10x as many miles as conservatives do." FIFY
Brando 1) Even if liberals bicycle more than conservatives do--which I'm not taking as a given
Here's [a partial] list of the top 50 cities for biking:
1. New York (#7 in 2012)
2. Chicago (#5 in 2012)
3. Minneapolis (#2 in 2012)
4. Portland (#1 in 2012)
5. Washington, D.C. (#4 in 2012)
6. Boulder, Colo. (#3 in '12)
7. San Francisco (#8 in '12):
8. Seattle (#10 in '12)
9. Fort Collins, Colo. (#11 in '12)
10. Cambridge, Mass. (NR in '12)
Yes, look at all those conservative bastions. Your all's ankle-biting tickles.
Meanwhile, it's a safe bet that liberals bicycle 10x as many miles as conservatives do
Evidence is lacking.
I could say liberals also fly far more often than conservatives.
MY carbon footprint is magnitudes lower than DiCaprio's or Gore's.
But oh, that doesn't count as cutting down on fossil fuel use in the conservative pea brain.
They're using MORE than I do. When they use considerably LESS, then they can try and lecture.
I wouldn't respect an abstinence specialist lecturing people when having 10 kids out of wedlock because others have had 20, either.
As to the larger, crucial issue: NOTHING can convince conservatives that AGW is a real problem -- nothing, that is, short of their leaders Limbaugh, Palin, Beck, Hannity, etc. telling them
...or science. If, you know, temperatures were increasing, it might work as more plausible.
Conservatives are religiously-minded/dogmatic and are retardedly proud of it. It doesn't get worse than that.
Irony is lost on some.
I'm not asking others to sacrifice for my asinine beliefs. Why can't fundie enviros do the same?
1. New York (#7 in 2012)
2. Chicago (#5 in 2012)
3. Minneapolis (#2 in 2012)
4. Portland (#1 in 2012)
5. Washington, D.C. (#4 in 2012)
6. Boulder, Colo. (#3 in '12)
7. San Francisco (#8 in '12):
8. Seattle (#10 in '12)
9. Fort Collins, Colo. (#11 in '12)
10. Cambridge, Mass. (NR in '12)
None are traffic-congested shitholes. Really, NONE of them.
As to the larger, crucial issue: NOTHING can convince conservatives that AGW is a real problem
Want to convince me that AGW is a real problem? Act like it is. Debate solutions, realizing that some solutions are either politically, technically or financially unfeasible, and that opposition to those solutions is based in good faith. Be open about the science; let everyone look at the numbers. Recognize when you are being hypocritical, then realize that if you aren't really willing to sacrifice some of your sacred cows, no one else will be either. An honest debater can also look at the issue and say, yes, there are a lot of unknowns here.
From looking at the politics coming from the green crowd, fixing global warming is less important than stopping nuclear power or stopping adoption of GMOs. As long as those priorities are in place, questioning the logic of the proposed solutions is sound.
Mikio:
Even if a city is great for biking it doesn't mean that everyone there is in fact biking. It just means the city put up a lot of biking lanes. China is really big on biking. China is also going crazy for the fossil fuels right now and if humans are drivers of climate change they are the biggest sinners. How is their bike riding impacting on climate change? Oh, not at all?
Drill SGT: "that's as far as engineers ever bothered memorizing. math majors? They were smarter, but nothing they did required precision anyway. Just good logic."
I know when I've been insulted!
It's a good thing I have an engineering degree as well or I would demand satisfaction!
Mikio: "Exhibit C: the complete absence of a conservative exhibiting a corrective, contrary mentality anywhere."
LOL
Yes, a lefty actually wrote that!
Timely article in the WSJ titled "Climate science not settled" . Some actual analysis from a former member of the Obama administration.
Simply because a city dominated by liberals is a "top city for biking" doesn't mean that it's the liberals of that city that are doing the biking. Many of those cities are top cities for finance--does that mean that liberals tend to be dominating finance? If so then someone should warn Elizabeth Warren.
But even if liberals tend to bike more than conservatives, as I mentioned it doesn't show that they are better about their carbon footprints. Some people may bike all year round, using a bike that was bought brand new and itself caused a big carbon footprint in its own construction, and then compounds their carbon use by doing some international traveling, where their share of the fuel use of the airplanes (and taxi rides to airports) more than makes up for not driving all year.
If you want to curb your own use, great--if you want to encourage others to do the same, also great. Those aren't bad things. But try and show a bit of awareness about total carbon use, and also the consequences of some of these programs you advocate. Screaming down Fifth Avenue and buddying up with Di Caprio may look cool but it accomplishes as much as pissing in the wind.
bike riding is a feel good measure for people like Mikio who want to act all superior and lecture people on how they're acting. And then say "Oh look, I'm good because I ride a bike more".
Yep, my response was insipid because engaging with hate-filled, ideological bigotry from a random new commenter does not require a vigorous response.
jr565 said...
Mikio: Even if a city is great for biking it doesn't mean that everyone there is in fact biking.
This.
How about some actual biker stats?
Or is that a "retarded" or "religiously close minded" or "conservative" question?
BTW, who do you have to know to get to use 1 of DiCaprio's 5 mansions or the massive yacht he is known to rent or 1 of his private jets?
Time it will take mikio to criticize this mandarin of ecological purity?
For-ev-ah.
Mikio, how big is your house. how much electricity do you consume? What appliances do you use? Do you have heating in winter and AC in the summer? Do your kids have iphones/ipads/Xboxes or big screen TV's. Do you travel.
IF you bike ride more, it says nothing about your impact on the environment if you are consuming more elsewhere.
Its like saying you are health conscious because you drink diet soda.
@Brando
All of that falls under what I said if only you'd paid attention. Here, I'll boldface the most relevant two words shooting down your entire argument: "NOTHING can convince conservatives that AGW is a real problem..."
In other words, conservatives don't consider AGW a real problem, certainly not real enough to be worth spending taxpayer money on to try to alleviate, to address the least conservative example in your progression.
This is why the word denial, despite conservatives' ubiquitous complaint to the contrary, is accurate. There's an aspect of denial about AGW with them no matter where on that spectrum you're talking about, as I just pointed out, but at its most fundamental it comes down to conservatives'/conservatism's denial that AGW is a real problem.
Thus, the rest of your argument where you're doubting liberals in general even have a smaller carbon footprint is easily countered and destroyed by the fact that conservatives in general see no reason to have a smaller carbon footprint themselves when they don't believe carbon emissions are even a real problem.
Clarification (put the colon in a bad spot. I need editing ability)...
All of that falls under what I said if only you'd paid attention. Here, to shoot down your entire argument, I'll boldface the two most relevant words in what I said: "NOTHING can convince conservatives that AGW is a real problem..."
Good lord... I messed up again. Ugh, nevermind.
Mikio
"Thus, the rest of your argument where you're doubting liberals in general even have a smaller carbon footprint is easily countered and destroyed by the fact that conservatives in general see no reason to have a smaller carbon footprint themselves when they don't believe carbon emissions are even a real problem."
The argument is not "easily countered" and certainly not "destroyed" by your reasoning. To say that carbon emissions are not a real problem is not the same thing as saying that people do not behave as though they do. In other words, I do not think believe that trash is destroying the planet but I do not litter and I am certain to put my trash out to be collected. I do not think that my efforts to keep my own bit of the planet clean make any difference but I do like my own bit of the planet to be clean. I believe that driving an old car with bad mileage is better for the planet than the environmental cost of constructing a new one even if the new one is electric. So even though I am certain that most of the global warming riff is bullshit on stilts I am nonetheless mindful of how I behave. Sanctimony does not cut it.
None of the liberals I know are under any sort of obligation to live like Amish. But then, none of the liberals I know are out there chanting "Fossil fuels have got to go", as were the people Althouse were actually talking about.
Overwhelmingly white.
Again.
I deny Anthropogenic Global Warming for one simple reason.
The globe isn't warming.
"NOTHING can convince conservatives that AGW is a real problem..."
In other words, conservatives don't consider AGW a real problem, certainly not real enough to be worth spending taxpayer money on to try to alleviate, to address the least conservative example in your progression.
Curse that demand of evidence. All your side has are models that are terrible and have never actually predicted anything. Your side has a near total dearth of any predictive value in its observations. The ice caps aren't melting. Ocean levels aren't rising. Temperatures aren't rising.
If you're going to ask for billions to be spent for a problem, you'd best be able to prove the problem exists.
The science is junk. The models are junk.
This is why the word denial, despite conservatives' ubiquitous complaint to the contrary, is accurate.
Declining to spend billions for an undefined problem with an undefined expectation of success or any real definition of success is denial?
Nobody denies that climate changes. Always has. Ice Ages start and end for a reason. The question was "How different is it now?" and "How bad would it be?"
It's now morphed into "Why are the scientists refusing to release raw data required to replicate their findings?" and "Why are they trying to silence critics?"
Thus, the rest of your argument where you're doubting liberals in general even have a smaller carbon footprint is easily countered and destroyed by the fact that conservatives in general see no reason to have a smaller carbon footprint themselves when they don't believe carbon emissions are even a real problem.
You're...serious? Holy cow, this is some intriguing logic.
People who DO believe that this is a huge problem shouldn't be expected to live up to their standards because who don't buy it won't do the same?
YOU are SAYING this is a problem but your ACTIONS show that your words are utter bullshit.
I ignore WORDS. They are meaningless. ACTION is what matters. Until your money goes where your mouth is, then your mouth doesn't matter.
If it REALLY is a crisis, your side would act like it was one. Your side isn't.
Airports are jammed with planes for environmental conferences (because teleconferencing is, apparently, more wasteful than ample amounts of air travel).
Environmentalists still buy beachfront property while claiming that the ocean will rise and destroy said property.
Environmentalists criticize wastefulness while wasting multiple times more carbon a year than I have in my life.
I am a Christian. I am not expecting YOU to take Communion or do good works on behalf of the public with a church. It doesn't excuse me from acting like a hypocrite because a non-believer won't do what I think they should do.
The behavior of environmentalists and environmental scientists are the biggest examples of why this whole theory is utter bullshit.
Because YOU don't buy it, either. You don't buy this crap either. You're mouthing (or writing) platitudes but you don't mean any of it.
Paul Zrimsek None of the liberals I know are under any sort of obligation to live like Amish. But then, none of the liberals I know are out there chanting "Fossil fuels have got to go", as were the people Althouse were actually talking about.
Yes, let's accuse the protesting liberals of being so stupid as to mean no transition period whatsoever. Yes, let's make that pathetic straw man. Let's.
Yes, let's accuse the protesting liberals of being so stupid as to mean no transition period whatsoever.
...while they actively fight the only actual alternative we have found that remotely works...
Can't read comments until later, so apologies if this was noted upthread: in the few seconds of that clip, how many things made of plastic (or organic materials, in the chemistry sense) do you see them using? See, what's destroying the climate isn't fossil fuels, it's the crude oil from which they're made (according to the theory). And crude oil ends up as many different products. People who happily swear off of cars may find that crude oil pervades their lives way beyond that. Anybody reading this (i.e., the 4 of you who don't automatically ignore anything I write on here) MUST be using things made from crude oil.
I rode my bike(s) 875 miles this summer (I love mapmyride)!
Of course, lots of those miles were on Cape Cod, to which I needed to drive ~120 miles round trip each weekend.
But, boy do I feel virtuous because of all of that bike riding.
(ICYMI - same logical fallacy as the one promulgated by Mikio).
The lefties are not particularly aware of the current status of alternative energies and their ability to support what we have much less any growth. I would bet half believe that what we have is too much and clothe their desire to dismantle in environmental desires that would have that effect.
Nuclear power is off their table. They are of the opinion that wind and solar will answer our needs.
I went out to the Texas panhandle last week and drove northeast for a few hours and then down to Oklahoma City. Thousands of oil wells and thousands of windmills with many more ready to be erected. The area is alive with engineers and roustabouts, people that know how this stuff works and people who can make it work.
Of the 300,000 people marching in Manhattan I would doubt a single one of them could repair a wind turbine, would know how to erect one, would know how to turn one off, could rely on the power of one for a week much less a lifetime.
Of the 300,000 people marching in Manhattan I would doubt a single one of them would not feel superior to the engineers and roustabouts working in Texas and Oklahoma. Not one would be in awe of the men who make shit work.
Big Mike said...
I deny Anthropogenic Global Warming for one simple reason.
The globe isn't warming.
I'm pretty sure anthro isn't causing it.
@Michael
Way to contradict yourself.
I do not think that my efforts to keep my own bit of the planet clean make any difference...
I believe that driving an old car with bad mileage is better for the planet
So you believe your individual behavior makes no difference to the planet, and yet it's better for the planet.
So you believe your individual behavior makes no difference to the planet, and yet it's better for the planet
The majority of pollution involving cars comes from the manufacturing of the car, not usage.
Meanwhile, it's a safe bet that liberals bicycle 10x as many miles as conservatives do.
No it's not.
care to try again?
Mikio
You appear to be a young person with some passion which has outrun your ability to think critically.
It is no contradiction to behave well even though your own behavior has no discernible impact on the world.
And doing something that you think is better for the planet does not mean that you believe that "the science is settled" as fools are wont to say in the matter of Climate Change nee AGW
Roger Zimmerman I rode my bike(s) 875 miles this summer (I love mapmyride)!
Of course, lots of those miles were on Cape Cod, to which I needed to drive ~120 miles round trip each weekend.
But, boy do I feel virtuous because of all of that bike riding.
(ICYMI - same logical fallacy as the one promulgated by Mikio).
What logical fallacy? That just because concern for the environment plays no part in your enjoyment of riding a bike that therefore the growing popularity of bicycling and bike-riding liberals in general must have that same don't-give-a-fuck-about-carbon-emissions attitude as you? Could you be more of a projecting hypocrite?
Yes, let's accuse the protesting liberals of being so stupid as to mean no transition period whatsoever.
(shrug) Interpretive charity is one of those things you gotta give to get.
Mikio,
How much CO2 was emitted to create bike paths in those cities?
@Michael
You absolutely contradicted yourself. I couldn't point it out any simpler. Your inability to grok it is too tedious to be bothered with.
Furthermore, you and every other conservative respondent has only BOLSTERED my initial claim that NOTHING can convince conservatives that AGW is a real problem.
A few of you have tried, saying something along the lines of Well, we'll be convinced when we see liberals cutting down.
It's a common conservative refrain. It's implicit in our blogstress's post up top and explicit in Civilis's comment:
Want to convince me that AGW is a real problem? Act like it is.
I've ignored that return "point" up 'til now because it's so stupid for two reasons:
1) Nothing could convince you that liberals ARE cutting down (as demonstrated by your dismissal of the Top Biking Cities evidence for starters).
And even dumber...
2) AS IF seeing liberals cutting down would convince you AGW is a real problem! haha Oh, I see Al Gore is living with the Amish now. Guess AGW is real after all.
Yeah, no. Oy.
That just because concern for the environment plays no part in your enjoyment of riding a bike that therefore the growing popularity of bicycling and bike-riding liberals in general must have that same don't-give-a-fuck-about-carbon-emissions attitude as you? Could you be more of a projecting hypocrite?
No. Their other actions show that they don't give a shit.
No one takes AGW seriously because nothing can be done about it. No one in the developed world is going to alter their standard of living and no country is going to ruin their economy. Whether AGW is horrible or science fiction, nothing will change.
do they not know what plastics are made from? do they not know that all eye glasses have plastic lenses? even sun glasses? how about the magic markers used to make those snazzy signs?
Fossil fuels have got to go? Dumber than a sack of hammers
What would prove to me AGW is real is a set of predictions that had proven accurate. Which we don't have.
Even if AGW was proven real, before I could agree to support the proposed solutions would both stop AGW and be less expensive, both of which are almost certainly not true.
Mikio
You should have taken logic or an introductory course in Rhetoric instead of romantic thinking or whatever "studies" program you might have enrolled in. You believe that if I pick up after myself or believe that driving an old car is better for the environment makes me believe in AGW? Or that if I believe in one I must do the other? You are an idiot. I am sorry I gave you the courtesy of engaging you in a discussion.
I cannot help it if your education failed you, if indeed you have one or what passes for one.
There are a number of scientists who frequent this blog who can tear your nuts off in a discussion of the atmosphere, carbon, the tinkering that has been done with the models. For your sake I hope they don't show up.
Mikio -
Here is a paper from the Seattle Times (!): “It’s a simple story, but the results are very surprising: We do not see a human hand in the warming of the West Coast,” said co-author Nate Mantua, with NOAA Fisheries Southwest Fisheries Science Center. “That is taking people by surprise, and may generate some blowback.”
As well as the abstract
While we are at it, here is Dr. Steven Koonin former Obama undersecretary for Science in the Energy Department.
Here is the crux of the matter from Dr. Koonin's article: " For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%." And: "The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself."
Here is a serious question, how is it that during the scare about another ice age (in the '70s) the solutions were reduction in fossil fuel use, the end of capitalism, forced reduction in living standards, and higher taxes. These are the same solutions touted by global warming true believers today. How can the same solutions work for both scenarios?
I'll help, it's not really about science.
whoops here is the link to the Seattle Times article: Study says natural factors, not humans, behind West Coast warming
The paper is from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Money quote from the Seattle Times article: “It’s a simple story, but the results are very surprising: We do not see a human hand in the warming of the West Coast,” said co-author Nate Mantua, with NOAA Fisheries Southwest Fisheries Science Center. “That is taking people by surprise, and may generate some blowback.”
"Since the ocean is the biggest driver of temperature changes along the coast, the authors tracked land and sea surface temperatures there going back 113 years. They found that virtually all of the roughly 1 degree Celsius average temperature increase could be explained by changes in air circulation." - Anthony Watts
So, are you swayed by actual scientists and science or not?
Fossil fuels is such a misnomer. Science was irreversibly corrupted when it shifted to a universal frame and inductive reasoning.
CO2 is plant food, the bedrock of photosynthesis and a necessity for life to exist on Earth.
The increase in CO2 has lengthened the growing season and encouraged plant life to move both higher in altitude and further towards the Poles. Higher CO2 means plants need less water/irrigation, so deserts get smaller. CO2 is also plankton food.
The Earth is greener than it was 20 years ago. Great news for the entire food chain!
How did they all get there?
Carried by Captain Planet.
Or perhaps Ted Turner lent them a few million buffalo to ride.
Has anyone seen Ted Turner and Captain Planet in the same place at the same time?
Althouse called them Reds and no one got it.
A mob of white people who want to keep brown, black and yellow people from living like the white people do.
@RecChief
First of all, I saw the flaw in your argument the second I read it -- namely, that the West Coast is hardly the globe.
In fact, trivia question time. Actually, not so trivial since conservatives need this piece of info. What percentage of the surface of our planet do you think the U.S. covers? Twelve percent? Ten percent? Answer: 1.9 percent.
And the West Coast is obviously only a sliver of that 1.9 percent.
But you failed to see that. Of course. And even my telling you now right to your eyeballs it still won't register. I guarantee it. Prove me wrong by acknowledging you understand why it destroys your argument.
So that debunks your "money quote," which it took me all of about 15 seconds to scan the Seattle Times article to get to the actual money quote in the concluding paragraph...
“Global warming is still proceeding,” Mantua said. “And it’s still a really huge deal that’s going to shape the future and be a bigger and bigger part of our story.”
...which illustrates for the obscenetillionth time that conservatives have low reading comprehension OR are the lyingest liars on the face of the earth which includes, obviously, lying by omission.
And lastly, but no less important, that's only one study -- not enough to debunk anything. But conservatives don't understand this either. And even if its results are corroborated, as I already showed, even the AUTHOR OF THE STUDY SAID it doesn't refute anthropogenic GLOBAL warming. Sheezus.
Mikio said...
Yes, it's a conundrum how they got there because unless they live like the Amish, liberals are hypocrites."
If you stopped there you would pass for someone who is sane and intelligent. As for the rest of your nonsense, just because the voices in your head are very real to you doesn't mean they are real to anyone else.
Mikio:
Can you tell me about the warming on Venus and Mars? Also, can you tell me caused it? Thanks in advance.
Mikio, I'll believe in MAN-MADE Global Warming when someone can answer a few questions:
- What has been the average temperature of the Earth in the last 4 billion years? The mean temperature?
- What was the average temperature when life began on Earth? The mean?
- What was the average temperature of the Earth in the last 5 million years when theory says Man began his ascent? The mean?
- What was the average temperature about 200,000 years ago when the Neanderthal evolved? The mean?
- What was the average temperature of the earth when Homo Sapiens evolved about 120,000 years ago? The mean?
- What was the average temperature of the Earth 200 years ago? The mean?
- What is the average temperature of the earth today? The mean?
- What will be the average temperature of the earth 5 years from now? The mean?
When you or anyone can answer these questions WITH FACTS and not with bullshit models then I'll be able to figure out if there is Man-Made global warming. AND NOT BEFORE.
mikio is still pissed off that there is snow in Britain and the ice caps haven't melted.
So, naturally, when all your lies have been exposed what do you do?
You do what lawyers do with no facts at their disposal: pound the table.
Sorry mikio, capitalism is not going away (which is really what you are about).
Thanks for playing.
Now go get your AGW shinebox.....
"Furthermore, you and every other conservative respondent has only BOLSTERED my initial claim that NOTHING can convince conservatives that AGW is a real problem."
Absolutely NOT TRUE. I could be convinced by evidence. I haven't seen anything any more compelling for the AGW side than for those who oppose it. What that means is that pro-AGW people have not met the burden of proof (which is to say they haven't met me; a pun for those who know a certain thing about me). I have seen commenters far too many times insist that I must prove the AGW people wrong. That is not at all how science works. Of course, I have had commenters on this very site say that I was "ignorant of science" when we were previously having this same discussion.
And while I don't consider myself conservative, my views on AGW would probably cause you to assume I am (and to perhaps insist I am even when I can give you evidence I am not).
Someone who's actually less rational and articulate than Crack. Wouldn't have thought it possible.
i see no hypocrisy in the fact that people may have driven to the protest or consumed fossil fuels or products made with fossil fuels.
To date, there is no better or efficient way of chemically storing higher energy electrons than hydrocarbons. They are easily transportable, versatile, and an irreplaceable wealth of know-how is invested in their manipulation.
To blithely say that "fossil fuels must go" betrays a fundamental ignorance of the underlying chemical sciences which power life.
Thinkers like mikio are pushing a "War On Carbon" agenda.
@Birkel
@Jack Wayne
@Drago
@Crimso
@ all other AGW-denying conservatives (which is 99.99% redundant, I know. See 4:07pm explanation if you disagree.)
Since even the most prestigious science journals won't suffice as sources to answer your questions because you conservatives believe they're part of the "hoax," why don't you ask sources you consider more trustworthy?
Here, why don't you ask ExxonMobile?
Or Chevron?
Or BP?
Or ConocoPhillips?
Oh, look at that. Even Big Oil acknowledges AGW is a real problem. So you conservatives have to figure out how to make sense of their being part of the conspiracy too behind the claim their product is changing the climate for the worse. Or not. Your pea brains can just as easily slough that off and remain blithely undisturbed by such conspicuous contradictions in your worldview.
But I've been making this checkmating move against conservatives for seven or eight years now. It's old news. We're so past you idiots. It makes me sick. You all make me sick. I try to hold my temper, but your same old dumbass responses eventually make me lose it. And now is that time. You conservatives are a horrible drag on society and the barrier to progress. Equating conservatives to Holocaust deniers is being unfair to Holocaust deniers. You're worse, because this is a hugely more relevant problem that needs to be solved and you dumb-half-of-America idiots won't even begin by acknowledging the problem exists.
@mikio: It doesn't matter if we unilaterally divest and decouple from hydrocarbons and coal -- the rest of the world won't and we can't make them do so. Not without expending a hell of a lot of hydrocarbons.
We can only hurt ourselves.
Chill and learn to love element six.
@mikio: And why the gratuitous swipe a Palin above? Why do you tip your hand so easily?
Or, as Bizarro World Reasonable Mikio puts it: "Even Big Oil acknowledges AGW is a real problem. Evidently I've been mistaken in assuming that conservatives are relying on Big Oil as a source of scientific truth. Sorry about that."
P.S. Apologies to those who've seen it before, but I can't say it often enough:
Q: What do you call someone whose behavior would be considered assholish if it weren't motivated by the importance of his political cause?
A: An asshole.
Mikio: But I've been making this checkmating move against conservatives for seven or eight years now
I doubt it, because you sound like an idiot parroting outdated talking points.
There has been no warming for 18 years now. Real world data does not match what the models predicted. Climate scientists are scrambling to explain where all the expected warming went. There are now 52 different papers giving 52 different excuses for that. Doesn't sound like "settled science" to me.
As for you, its pretty obvious from looking at all the ad hom laced in your posts that this is more about tribalism than science for you. You need to feel oh so smugly superior to the people you hate. Thats not science either.
Its entertainment for the rest of us - watching you be so arrogant in your ignorance. You're a joke.
Mikio:
Yah you've got some obvious self-esteem issues - all this huffing and puffing about how smart you think you are.
Here's a clue: intelligence is demonstrable. If you were truly intelligent, you wouldn't feel a need to broadcast it. You could, you know, simply demonstrate it.
The best part is in 5-10 years the whole AGW scam will unravel and Mikio will slink away pretending he believed in this nonsense.
Typical libtard.
Why are liberals so stupid?
Mikio, prove to us it exists. Show your data. You haven't yet. You can't even explain Mars warming.
You just stomp your feets and shriek like a child. Good grief take your meds. You can't do anything about the weather. Or the Chinese.
And mikio, if you're so smart, you would be able to answer Jack Wayne's questions in a reasoned intelligent manner. Not an insane mindless poo flinging as you have been exhibiting.
It's not healthy to get yourself so worked up, hon.
Dave D,
"I absolutely LOVE how these morons have a problem with "destroying" the climate and it's effects on future generations but they are absolutely devoid of concern with strapping their children with trillions in debt to pay for the social programs they vote for."
And I absolutely LOVE how these whites don't have a problem with "destroying" blacks and the effects on future generations and they are absolutely devoid of concern with taking their children's wealth for themselves with trillions in owed for the crimes they committed and vote for."
The world's changing, folks, so strap in:
It's about to get bumpy,...
Mikio,
"You conservatives are a horrible drag on society and the barrier to progress."
Amen,...
broomhandle,
"Someone who's actually less rational and articulate than Crack. Wouldn't have thought it possible."
Yeah, those links to oil companies are as unimpressive as the 400 years of documented evidence of white's depravity.
Mikio - get pissed and stay there:
It's all neanderthals understand,...
chickelit,
"@mikio: And why the gratuitous swipe a Palin above? Why do you tip your hand so easily?"
The brawling idiot with a grandchild in need of a baby daddy?
The cops should choke her out,...
Mikio.
What is your bicycle made out of?
"Thus, the rest of your argument where you're doubting liberals in general even have a smaller carbon footprint is easily countered and destroyed by the fact that conservatives in general see no reason to have a smaller carbon footprint themselves when they don't believe carbon emissions are even a real problem."
Your statement reminds me of how the Left goes on about how "conservatives" don't consider poverty a real problem, simply because conservatives don't agree with the Left's solutions to the problem.
Ann's Shame said: absolutely LOVE how these whites don't have a problem with "destroying" blacks
No need to. Blacks have been destroying themselves for decades without any help from whites. Check your mirror. Look at what all the racial poison has done to you.
Mikio- I don't dispute that human has some effect on climate. The amount of the net effect is in doubt however. It is plain to see from your response that you can't think farther than the talking points spewed by the likes of Michael Mann and Al Gore. Give me that old time appeal to authority religion some more eh? Good Luck and Good Night
Fen,
"Blacks have been destroying themselves for decades without any help from whites."
No - there's been no Jim Crow, no racist housing policies, no segregation, or discrimination.
And even if there were, those things don't cause desperation, and desperation doesn't cause crime.
It's just been decades of white folks giving us - their "fellow Americans" - their full support.
My God, Fen, but you're stupid,...
RecChief,
"Mikio- I don't dispute that human has some effect on climate. The amount of the net effect is in doubt however. It is plain to see from your response that you can't think farther than the talking points spewed by the likes of Michael Mann and Al Gore."
So THAT's what that list of oil companies was!
Learn something new everyday,...
This reminds me of something I read just this morning:
"The unfortunate people to which I belonged, were both sentimental and callous. It was not interested in being shaken by events and any know-thyself."
He was describing Nazis after the war, but contemporary white Americans fit the bill pretty well.
Especially the words "callous" and "not interested" in knowing what they've done,...
Oh, and Fen, let's not forget the racist prison-industrial complex.
Whites be so gooooood,....
Oh, look at that. Even Big Oil acknowledges AGW is a real problem. So you conservatives have to figure out how to make sense of their being part of the conspiracy too behind the claim their product is changing the climate for the worse. Or not. Your pea brains can just as easily slough that off and remain blithely undisturbed by such conspicuous contradictions in your worldview.
Appealing to authority isn't the same as, you know, proof.
Show me the warming.
Show me a single prediction that has come true.
But I've been making this checkmating move against conservatives for seven or eight years now. It's old news. We're so past you idiots. It makes me sick. You all make me sick. I try to hold my temper, but your same old dumbass responses eventually make me lose it. And now is that time. You conservatives are a horrible drag on society and the barrier to progress. Equating conservatives to Holocaust deniers is being unfair to Holocaust deniers. You're worse, because this is a hugely more relevant problem that needs to be solved and you dumb-half-of-America idiots won't even begin by acknowledging the problem exists.
Aww, logic failed you.
As did your education.
Feel free to provide actual evidence. You know, like why the Earth stopped warming 18 years ago.
Wow - this is so cool - because you guys are deliberately overlooking the evidence Mikio gave you to claim she didn't. We know you saw it:
So this is even more evidence - but of white mental illness.
Just like you do the 400 years of documented evidence of white racism. Which is why all your comments HAVE to be ahistorical.
Whites simply can't handle the truth,...
,...
Crack:
WTF are you babbling about? MAN is your world a bitter, twisted existence. Must TOTALLY suck to be you......
Oh, and the liberals are spending BOTH WHITE AND BLACK kids money from future earnings to buy votes in the present. Amazing that doesn't bother you.
Before everyone piles on mikio, let me add that I think the average defender of fossil fuel usage is not a license to waste such fuels. We have an incredible disconnect in this country regarding the actual price of fossil fuel usage. There is no real reckoning of the true costs: For example, the mounting debt to defend the more or less free usage of them. That, as I see it, is a complete other topic aside from the question of whether fossil fuels are "good" or "bad."
Dick Cheney said that conservation was a personal virtue. He was exactly right.
Been lurking here for a long time, Crack and Mikio are parodies, right? Is it really possible that someone can be so stupid yet think they're smart? If they're legit them I weep for the future of this nation.
"But I've been making this checkmating move against conservatives for seven or eight years now."
I told you that you would insist I was a conservative based solely on my views on AGW. See, you're "checkmating" people who aren't even playing the game. That level of intellectual sloppiness is telling.
Mikio wrote:
"1) Nothing could convince you that liberals ARE cutting down (as demonstrated by your dismissal of the Top Biking Cities evidence for starters)."
Let's assume that ALL the liberals have foregone cars and are now using bikes. What has the impact been on the climate? what ELSE are liberals foregoing? I notice you are responding on a computer to a blog. On both ends of the equation there is fossil fuel use driving the interaction. So, is your harangues of conservatives worth the environmental destruction created by you posting here? Shoudn't you ALSO forgo computers, as well as cars? Also, in NYC you don't need a car. And it's very expensive to find parking. NYC is also a liberal town. If more liberals are riding bikes it may be because they can't afford to buy a car or don't need a car. That's not exactly forgoing a necessity since a car is actually an incovenience. Someone living in the suburbs who forgoes the use of a car and bike rides everywhere. THAT would be a sacrifice. it would also be stupid.
"2) AS IF seeing liberals cutting down would convince you AGW is a real problem! haha Oh, I see Al Gore is living with the Amish now. Guess AGW is real after all."
It may not convince me that AGW was a real problem but it might convince me that Al Gore wasn't completely full of shit.
Been lurking here for a long time, Crack and Mikio are parodies, right?
Crack has admitted a few times that he's a parody. Mikio sounds like a sincere over-credentialed but under-educated fool lacking the curiosity to understand people that his (or her, but he sounds like a pajama boy) superiors have dismissed as "uncool".
Check out Cracks "blog" to see some REAL ignorance, kennymac. I remember him being more reasonable a while back, but it appears he has donned this ridiculous charicature to (sadly) get more attention.
""Hey, hey, ho, ho, fossil fuels have got to go.""
Well, duh. But I'm not just chanting about it like these posers, I'm burning them myself as fast as I can.
IF Crack is a schtick, I have to admit he is an AWFULLY good at it!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा