Seventy-four years ago, a naval battle off this remote spit of land in the middle of the Pacific Ocean changed the course of World War II. Last week, President Obama flew here to swim with Hawaiian monk seals and draw attention to a quieter war — one he has waged against rising seas, freakish storms, deadly droughts and other symptoms of a planet choking on its own fumes.I'm imagining the writers — Julie Hirshfeld Davis, Mark Landler, and Coral Davenport — believed they'd constructed a perfectly beautiful and not at all risible sentence. And, by the way, I love the name Coral Davenport, especially in the presence of an atoll...
... to the point where I'm almost ready to forgive. But I can't. The Hawaiian monk seals are just too much. "President Obama flew here to swim with Hawaiian monk seals...." Obama didn't flap his own personal wings. He flew in an immense fossil-fuel-guzzling jet plane. Just for a backdrop and another vacation — a luxury jaunt of a kind none of us even dreams of. You may go to Florida and swim dolphins, you peasant, but he went to Midway and swam with Hawaiian monk seals.
Did he literally swim with them? These are endangered animals, not tourist toys. But perhaps if only Obama swims with them, it's okay. It's an honor for them, swimming with the President of the United States. Maybe he just went swimming in what is known to be the endangered mammals' habitat —
if you read on you'll see that he was expanding the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument — and the NYT writers threw the seals into their purple-prose sentence to warm things up for readers who love animals. We love those animals. Aw. Seals. And these are very special seals. Obama seals.
How can Obama expect to convince us that we must cut back carbon emissions — make real sacrifices in our little lives — when he emits like mad even when he's trying to alarm us about climate change? It's not merely hypocrisy, it's insanity. How can you expect us to believe when you make a vivid, extravagant show that you yourself do not believe?
But maybe you didn't notice the carbon emissions problem with that sentence because you were distracted by the comparison between Obama's "war" and the Battle of Midway.
Posts
157 comments:
The Emperor's Alternate Reality Bubble rolls on. The sea levels are NOT rising, and weather is less stormy, and drought is less than ever. It now rains too damn fast due to Jet Stream dips caused by global cooling that is freezing the earth.
And nearby rest on the bottom 5 of the 7 Aircraft carriers engaged on June 4, 1942.
Nimitz sent 3, of which 2 were in the fight and we lost 1. The Japs sent 4 and they all went to the bottom.
This victory was possible because of FDR named the right replacement Admiral for Kimmell who was rubble along with all of our battleships.
I hope I live long enough to read the history of this administration. The REAL history.
Great post, Althouse. Beware the dreaded carbon footprint - except when it concerns Air Force One, a huge presidential entourage, and a man with noble intentions.
The NYT should start putting asterisks on their stories where they abandon all pretense of journalism and simply desire to fuel a political narrative, that, in this era, is almost always left-wing.
Next, the President will bravely burn down a rain forest to warn us of the threats to the environment, and shoot a few passers by to warn us of the danger of gun violence.
Gee, if only there had been a clue to the extent of his hypocrisy prior to the election of 2008!!
traditional,
All three of the US carriers were heavily involved.
United States Emperor Obama was term limited, so he has been running for World Government Emperor. Global Warming Hoax is the basis of the World government's authority and taxation.
If Trump loses, denying the hoax will become a criminal offense.
exhelodrvr1...The Hornet's Air Group never showed up until it was all over. And an Aircraft carrier IS the Air Group it brings to the battle.
excellent post Althouse.
Love the name Coral Davenport-sounds like a John Waters character.
The comparison of the efforts of the brave men, many of who paid the ultimate sacrifice in the Battle of Midway with this charade, is depressing. One of the finest moments in our history and one of the lamest.
I went surfing with seals in Nova Scotia yesterday and was spooked the entire time. One they didn't like me and barked at me in little surfacing ambushes that made me jump and two where ever seals are there is always something much bigger that feeds on them - and I didn't have Secret Service dicers protecting my ass. I did drive my 15mpg van up from Florida so I guess that evens the score with Mr. Presidente.
Just the latest reminder that the CriminalLiberalNewsMedia are DemCong operatives with by-lines.
Did the Times already rewrite the first paragraph? I don't see the quoted one.
Reefs are just sharp rocks.
"It's not merely hypocrisy, it's insanity. How can you expect us to believe when you make a vivid, extravagant show that you yourself do not believe?" OK, OK, I appreciate it, but faux outrage, right? I mean, "hypocrisy" is what they do, "insanity" is their MO, yes, they expect us to believe their propaganda--but they do believe (don't you know people believe what they want to believe?) their own BS and believe it's very useful BS. Watch his post-presidency: climate change will be one of the scams that brings in the big bucks for the B&M O "foundation." (The other will be racial justice, or some version thereof. You heard it here first.) They'll aim for a billion, unlike those grifters from AR. There's money and power in that supposed"insanity." It's not hypocrisy, it's a well-organized shakedown.
Well, he's not exactly Jimmy Carter.
Last night in Omaha Dr. Jill Stein told a rally that 60 million Americans will be forced to migrate by 2030 due to coastal flooding. My report is at Power Line.
This disclaimer is at the bottom:
A version of this article appears in print on September 2, 2016, on page A11 of the New York edition with the headline: Obama Takes Climate-Change Battle to Midway.
Only the print-subscribers get the full Monty.
The sea levels are NOT rising, and weather is less stormy, and drought is less than ever.
On what bizarro planet are you living on? You can deny that climate change is not caused by man, but what you can not deny is that the climate is getting warmer (even if you believe the temperature data is fake or inaccurate, you can't deny retreat of glaciers or that lakes are freezing later and later) and sea levels are rising. As for less stormy, some of the flooded areas in Louisiana received 31 inches of rain, a rainfall of 25 inches was considered a thousand year storm.
I read this post twice, and I still can't believe it's a rant about the POTUS traveling in a plane.
Maybe this is one of those things that is guaranteed to boost traffic to the site. You do see a fair number of pieces about libs using planes. But, I've always assumed that writers do that because that's one of Drudge's things. Althouse isn't playing at his altitude, so she couldn't be going for that angle. Also, his radar is tuned for air travel stories in general, not just libs on planes.
There's got to be something more than Althouse blathering about airplanes burning fossil fuels.
There was a vibe of jealousy since Meadehouse will soon be stuck in the WI weather that is on the horizon, while rich folks aren't similarly stuck. Maybe that's what's bunching Althouse's Spanx.
Considering that Obama had to fly over Midway on his way home anyway, why call this photo op "insane". If he made a special trip to Midway from Washington or even Hawaii, your outrage might be justified. But get all bent out of shape about a short diversion which highlights an important point is just petty.
As Instapundit says, I'll believe there's a crisis when the people who say there's a crisis act like there's a crisis.
Monk seals lead lives of quiet denial and self sacrifice unlike our flashy president. The contrast is glaring......I do so hope that Trump gets elected president so the press can get back to afflicting the powerful.
The hypocrisy reminds me of some relatives who were so concerned about global warming and the shrinking polar ice cap that they booked a cruise on an icebreaker to visit the north pole to see the ice damage for themselves.
Clueless.
Complex nonlinear dynamical systems (such as climate) and politics don't mix. Or rather, when they do, by definition it's a power-grab on the politicians' part.
Freder he doesn't care about Climate Change or the freakin seals. He wants to use the "man-made" angle for legacy and to increase government control. So his diversion was very symbolic of what's wrong about him.
Obama has taken atoll on us all, even the monk seals.
Did any of the monk seals set themselves on fire to call attention to global warming?
It's like every year there's a thousand year storm.
Freder he doesn't care about Climate Change or the freakin seals. He wants to use the "man-made" angle for legacy and to increase government control.
That's right, I am a representative of the one-world government. If you go upstairs and outside, you will notice a black helicopter (powered by bio-fuel of course) hovering over your mom's house.
I am watching you and will be coming to lock you up in a FEMA camp where you will be forced to operate a power generating treadmill any day now.
"I read this post twice, and I still can't believe it's a rant about the POTUS traveling in a plane."
It's not that the Prez is riding in a plane, it's that the optics are terrible. You don't make a case for people sacrificing to prevent global warming (by getting more efficient cars, avoiding certain foods, turning off the AC) and then travel everywhere by jet to make those statements. He easily could have made the same case from the White House, without burning all that jet fuel.
And the Prez does often have to fly, but the example he could lead (if he wants us all to cut back a bit) would be to cut back on some of those trips. In a lot of cases, the Prez can do his business remotely or have people come to see him (who don't need a massive platoon of aides and SS agents and police escorts which burn a lot more gas than a visitor would).
It's just hard to convince the average American there's a big crisis when the people complaining about the crisis seem fine not making any cutbacks themselves.
Global wealth redistribution is the driving force behind the Warmist's Agenda. Of course Obama os onboard.
Freder...It is not getting warmer anywhere. It is quickly freezing over at both poles, and the Jet Stream as a result is going haywire dipping down south with colder air sooner than usual.
That excess of colder air is hitting warm air in Texas and Louisiana to rain faster than usual. Is that the droughts you believe are increasing?
You do know that the historic record of temperature data has been corrupted and changed at command by Obama's government agencies, don't you?
I thought Obama promised not to take any vacations while prez?
He sure likes to live large off of the tax payer.
On trips like these, Air Force One never flies solo. Never. There are advance planes, a backup 747, support planes and military fighter escort. That carbon footprint is huge.
At what argument are you railing at? You cannot deny that the numbers I write here, especially 2050 and three meters, are untrue. You cannot not do that. Just look at the numbers, you racist!
You can see from a few commenters above that such hypocritical bullshit always has an audience ready willing and to suck it up and cheer on the protagonists of the propaganda. They can watch the king and his friends gorge themselves on cake and lobster while he pronounces the need for impositions of sacrifice and hunger among the serfs.
"Let them eat cake."
"Thank you, ma lord!!"
Great post, Althouse.
Maybe Atlhouse is hoping this post will bring back so many of the quality commenters of the past that once converged in a thread that was associated w/ a post that had a sorta similar POV.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/06/this-was-moment-when-rise-of-oceans.html
OTOH, looking at that post you see that not only were the commenters better then, the posts were, too. Back then, Althouse herself noted that it took some stretching and hyperbole to form an amped up a reaction. Now, she's on hair trigger for hype and hysteria.
Blogger tcrosse said...
As Instapundit says, I'll believe there's a crisis when the people who say there's a crisis act like there's a crisis.
9/8/16, 8:26 AM
I don't even care if man is warming up the planet. As we have seen recently that means more wheat and food production. we will continue to innovate our way out of any issues, certainly without the great creators of a horrible health care law to help us. They can't even get that right. No thanks, as I have been thinking lately... There is not ONE.SINGLE.FEDERAL.AGENCY that is trustworthy anymore. That goes triple for any WORLD.AGENCY.
Global warming truly is a religion. If you educate yourself on the topic you will be able to win 99% of the arguments you get into on the topic, not because you're now so smart, but because its adherents are forced to argue faith against fact. Evolution-denying conservatives are always on the other side of these kind of arguments. Well, here's your chance to flip the script.
CO2 is required for plants to grow- it's essentially plant food.
Plants grow better when it's warmer.
I like plants.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Three decades ago I made a high tide mark on a bridge bulkhead in the San Marco neighborhood of Jacksonville large enough so that I could see it when I passed by in my sailboat to gauge the eater depth and the tides more or less. It is still completely accurate with no change in the water levels these thirty plus years on.
There's a website somewhere that collects all the things that "prove" global climate change and that man is the evil being responsible. And sets those statements next to each other.
It's literally faith based, because everything is "proof man is ruining the earth!" It's warming? It's cooling? Both prove man is at fault. Acid rain? Rain not acid? Both are proof. More polar bears? Less polar bears? Either way, man is responsible. And so forth.
It is literally impossible to "prove" AGW wrong to these people. PB&J cannot even fathom what kind of event would prove that nature, not man, is running the climate. Heck, even volcanic activity is blamed on evil mankind (actually, evil westerners--somehow, communists in third world countries are pure as the driven snow, despite the obvious fact that their snow is not pure at all, but blackened nightmarish drifts of cancer)
--Vance
PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
Maybe Atlhouse is hoping this post will bring back so many of the quality commenters of the past that once converged in a thread that was associated w/ a post that had a sorta similar POV.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/06/this-was-moment-when-rise-of-oceans.html
OTOH, looking at that post you see that not only were the commenters better then, the posts were, too.
__________________
That's an all star stellar cast of former Althouse commenters there.
Freder...It is not getting warmer anywhere.
You are just wrong. It is mind boggling the absolute wrong things you believe.
Leadership is hard. It takes personal sacrifice. Obama has never been up to it.
Remember when G.W. Bush gave up golf because it was unseemly with men dying under his command. A small thing to be sure, but well beyond what Obama would ever do. Like most well-off leftists, he's all talk, and posing, never making even the slightest sacrifice himself.
Heck, even volcanic activity is blamed on evil mankind
Can you prove this ridiculous assertion?
Please tell me that you haven't just now noticed that liberals are hypocrites about climate change?
(Truth be told, they're hypocrites about pretty much everything.)
According to a fair percentage of the electorate, this IS what Obama should be doing.
THIS is the role of the celebrity politician. To perform beautifully symbolic acts, regardless of substance. To allow us the opportunity to live vicariously through them. After all, could anyone else swim with Monk Seals at Midway? No!*
A large chunk of Obama's job is to do these sorts of things. Date night in New York. Rubbing elbows with the brightest lights of the celebrity A list.
Another is to be a photo opportunity. To allow some photographer to get juuuust the right picture of his handsome face. To be walking away dressed in the latest fashions, suit jacket slung jauntily over his shoulder. To descend majestically from Air Force One.
And Air Force One -- the ultimate prop! How well he has used it! How sad the Chinese denied him yet another majestic descent from the mighty aircraft!
YOU might think it shallow and silly, but this is a democracy -- and many people want a president to do exactly that. Others can handle the messy details of policy and management of the Executive Branch.
* Although I suspect that luxury trips to Pacific atolls to swim with Monk Seals will become an option for the ultra-rich in the near future. After all, anyone can live vicariously through a celebrity. But to be able to have the same experience...!!!
"site of the decisive victory during, you know, World War II"
I think that was Coral, you know, Davenport, who is-- you know--young and cute and you now, clueless as a conch.
It is warming on average at about 1/5th to 1/10th of the rate the models and their champions have predicted, and that is only true over a very short period - a statistically insignificant change requiring huge global sacrifices in life, liberty, and prosperity for a result that nobody but the evangelical global warmist believe can make a difference.
Imagine if the global temperatures started to drop and the actual evidence suggested global warming was not imminent. What would they do? Pretend, lie, cheat like they have been doing, I suspect? I think an apology and abandonment of the gravy train would be impossible. The dense, long-winded explanation of why the data is wrong or unimportant would be ubiquitous.
Freder Frederson said...
The sea levels are NOT rising, and weather is less stormy, and drought is less than ever.
On what bizarro planet are you living on? You can deny that climate change is not caused by man, but what you can not deny is that the climate is getting warmer (even if you believe the temperature data is fake or inaccurate, you can't deny retreat of glaciers or that lakes are freezing later and later) and sea levels are rising. As for less stormy, some of the flooded areas in Louisiana received 31 inches of rain, a rainfall of 25 inches was considered a thousand year storm.
Warmer by .018 degC in the last century. Consistent with historical weather changes as recorded by tree rings and non arctic glaciers. The prevailing winds in the arctic are north to south so information is going to be skewed to he cold side. We are currently entering- so astronomers tell us- a solar minimum so expect over all temps to go down. If we're really lucky they will stay the same due to "climate change" Which is something climate does anyway.
Coral is Nemo's mother and Marlin's wife and a Barracuda's lunch.
I have no problem with how much jet fuel high level government officials burn. It goes with the job. The more interesting aspect of this topic is how these same people live once they return to their private lives. Do they live like they preach or do they consider themselves permanent members of the privileged class? The answer is obvious with fakes like Al Gore. We'll find out soon with Obama.
One thing we learned from Midway was the Japanese Navy hid the enormous loss from the Japanese Army who were traditionally kept in the dark about what the Navy was doing.
The Jap Army awoke in August to find the Jap Navy also had built an airfield on Guadalcanal and wanted the Jap Army to take it back from a Marine Raid. Actually it was a Marine Division that held on for 4 months until the Jap Army gave up on any more re-invasion efforts.
In other words, living in a propaganda bubble while at war is dangerous.
Warmer by .018 degC in the last century.
Link please.
One degree increase experienced in 150 years. That's the IPCC number. That's 1/150 degrees per year on average. Much ado about almost nothing.
What would they do? Pretend, lie, cheat like they have been doing, I suspect? I think an apology and abandonment of the gravy train would be impossible.
And what would it take to convince you that AGW is real?
traditionalguy,
No idea where you are getting your information; you are completely wrong on the Hornet's activity in the battle. The Hornet was involved from the very beginning - as just one example, VT-8 (the squadron of torpedo bombers that lost 16 of 16 aircraft, and 31 of 32 crew) was from the Hornet.
When the term changed from "global warming" to "climate change," it became clear the game is rigged.
Freder, your treadmill mockery, while well executed, sadly falls flat. I have lived long enough now that I have repeatedly run into mockery of my views as such, only for the mockery to become actual reality followed the mockers coming up with an explanation along the lines of "oh, I wasn't serious, but you totally deserve it." The only thing I find unlikely is it will be an actual treadmill. Most likely it will either be a stationary bicycle, for practical reasons, or government corruption will make it a StairMaster bought at triple the normal retail price.
Freder Frederson said, "And what would it take to convince you that AGW is real?"
Some evidence, some data, a conjecture, and a test. A fatalistic, human-hating faith is not enough. Try some science. The test has failed (the models have failed).
Get it right, and I'm there.
surfed said...
I went surfing with seals in Nova Scotia yesterday and was spooked the entire time.
In my case, Sea Lions, but hell yeah. Diving off Point Reyes, nothing scarier, than to get bumped in the back by a 10 ft long black animal.
or see a bit of it with peripheral vision in murky water at 50 ft
Insane carbon-footprint hypocrisy
Hey, maybe that's what the non-traditional Juggalos are fans of!
"And what would it take to convince you that AGW is real?"
I believe it's real--we can measure whether the earth is getting warmer over time. What I'm not so sure about is that human activity is causing it to the exclusion of other factors. How can that be proven? It's not like we have a control group.
If you think we need to cut back on our fossil fuel usage, I'm good with that--making us less vulnerable to supply shocks and less dependent on foreign oil (not to mention keeping the air we breath and water we drink and swim in cleaner) are all fine goals, and should be measured against their costs. But this assumption that it's "proven" that human activity caused global warming? I'd like to see something proving causation rather than correlation, or at least people admit that it's a hunch and not something proven.
The Antarctic ice cap is actually growing, according to NASA. http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
It seems inadequate for POTUS to have simply swum with the monk seals. I want him to have frolicked with them.
Forget the blooming monk seals. Ask yourself what the men of Torpedo 8--who, with the sole exception of Ensign George Gay, sleep in the water off Midway, would think of this grand standing photo opping condescending twit. It does not bear too much thinking about. Real men lived, flew, and died off Midway.
In the "War on Carbon" Obama is flying a Zero.
Freder, when your side decided to give up Man Made Global Warming and then Global Warming and switched to Climate Change, you lost the argument. Climate Change is not a rallying point that you can "win" because NO ONE doubts climate change. Go back to Man Made Global Warming and win that argument if you can. Otherwise you are just trolling yourself:
"And what would it take to convince you that AGW is real?"
I never said it wasn't real. I simply don't know, and neither do you. The models that say it is are incredibly wrong by multiples, even after being adjusted and rigged to force a lucrative narrative.
On such slim evidence how can we sacrifice so much?
There is even less evidence, actually none, that these sacrifices will accomplish anything other than suffering, poverty, and lost opportunity.
There is no evidence that if there is warming that it will continue and not self-adjust as it always has.
There is the real possibility that warming is not bad, but preferable. The planet has been warmer and those were more prodcutive times for plant and animal life, as well as human.
The prescriptions for saving the planet offered by warming fanatics are not realistic or intelligent, but rather opportunistic, corruption creating, and ideological.
In short, the movement is foolish and illogical at best, and corrupt, political, and fanatical at it's center.
What would it take for you to believe that is real? The evidence of that is much more widespread and clear, yet you remain a denier.
Let's see. Life at the equators is abundant. Life at the poles is hard to find. But I'm supposed to fear "global warming" when all indications are that warming promotes life.
Warmth is life. Cold is death.
Freder: And what would it take to convince you that AGW is real?
Given that the evidence relies heavily on computer models, a computer model that could actually be somewhat reasonably accurate would be very helpful. At the moment, their accuracy ranges from "not remotely close" to "perfect predictions for an alternate dimension with completely different physics." I am presented with garbage and then told to eat it because it is filet mignon and lobster. No thank you.
Also, the part where supporters insist that "deniers" be prosecuted for crimes is not at all encouraging for the supporters' faith in the cause. Obvious things should be obvious and not require coercion. The fact that many of the same were screaming about the next ice age decades ago does not help.
But to answer your question, real science with real evidence is the usual standard. Politicized science is worse than useless and is pretty much all there is at the moment. They have failed to predict the future, they cannot predict the past without forcing the model, and then declare they need total control of the economy. Ya know, that sounds a bit suspicious. Snake oil salesmen don't just sell snake oil.
Ok, the Hornet was close. A Torpedo 8 mutiny by Waldron did find the Jap fleet and all died trying, but the rest obeyed orders and disappeared from the battle. If Waldron lived he would have been courtmartialed.
The Drill SGT said...
In my case, Sea Lions, but hell yeah. Diving off Point Reyes, nothing scarier, than to get bumped in the back by a 10 ft long black animal.
Did you consider crossing to the other side of the street?
Every single prediction of the AGW proponents has failed to materialize. Every prediction asserted with great concern and graphic certainty in the award-winning and beloved Al Gore film "An Inconvenient Truth" has failed miserably, yet his opinion would still be respected by many above a skeptical scientist whose assertions have proven true all along. What is that stubborn blindness called?
So: Here's a link blaming climate change for increased volcanism.
And here is Mother Jones blaming humans for this increase in volcanoes and earthquakes.
Like I said, there is nothing--literally nothing-- that happens on Earth anymore that you fanatical leftists do not blame on mankind, specifically Americans. It's nothing short of Gaia worship, but honestly, I'd prefer the old Demeter cult... less dangerous. They just prayed and sacrificed to get a better harvest. You leftists have taken the old, beneficial idea of Demeter and married her with Baal and Tammuz and Mephistopheles to turn the old earth worship into one of the most dangerous and bloody ideas the world has ever known.
--Vance
Actually, Bill, Obama did frolic with the seals, but afterwords, he became pensive and quiet.
He began to wade slowly forwards, the rising waters all around him now, arms spread, hands lightly gracing the surface.
The monk seals scattered as a hush came over the natives gazing quizically from shore, the press corps frustrated, tired in their wet, sandy socks.
Something magical was going to happen...
Vance, you've got that right! Gaia=Baal. Same idolatry, same consequences.
I've been to Johnson Atoll. Visit the quonset hut. No seals.
Why isn't the runway underwater by now? Get back to me when it is and we'll talk about my carbon footprint.
"Freder Frederson said...
Freder...It is not getting warmer anywhere.
You are just wrong. It is mind boggling the absolute wrong things you believe."
Do you close your eyes, cup your hands over your ears, and yell "Nanananananna I can't hear you!" over and over?
Clue us in one the difference between climate, weather, and climate change. We have ice at our caps, so we are in the midst of an ice age. Some warming would be nice. (Myself, I moved to southern Texas, by the coast, to enjoy warm weather.)
Do you equate having an opinion with having a belief? Your writing indicates you are hook, line, and sinker on the whole man-caused-global-warming-I-mean-climate-change-thing-and-we-are-going-to-drown-soon agenda.
I showed how over a decade ago climate science had no adult peer review, on David Appell's old blog, and just got banned for it.
He didn't like my proof. He himself talks to real scientists, not the likes of me.
That sort of proved my point, I thought.
I don't see how anyone could think it bad of Obama to stop at Midway if Freder is correct he was more-or-less flying over the place anyway. I'm not an expert, but flights that refuel might even be more energy efficient than other flights, since fuel weighs something. But I am guessing you didn't realize this to be true (if it is true).
But I think it is good for the President to get a feel for what he is doing, perhaps by going to the places his policies affect, even if it might waste some fuel. Balance is needed. It's not enough to try to do good externally, one should try experience feelings about the beauty of what you are doing, or you are going to stunt your feel for what is beautiful. Feelings may be internal, but they tend to be about external things. E.g., my feelings about females are in my head, and they constitute a fair share of my feelings, but if I had never seen any females or more especially beautiful females or allowed myself to have and notice feelings toward them I would be pretty stupid about what constitutes my feelings toward them, and my feelings about them would be less beautiful and intricate and more akin to those of that poor turtle who tried to mate with a plastic dome.
Robert Louis Stevenson actually hinted that Midway Island is exactly the kind of place one should go to get in touch with one's feelings and to avoid "being wedded to his idols of my generation". In Robert Louis Stevenson's The Wrecker (an uneven novel that he coauthored), Chapter XV, the narrator explicitly states that, for various reasons, but for "above all, the sense of our immitigable isolation from the world and our current epoch", that he wished "all his confreres and contemporaries could partake" of his experience at Midway. And in the paragraph before, "The dull man is made not by the nature, but by the degree of his immersion in a single business". I'd certainly say travel did Stevenson some good. And a President who robotically and monomaniacally does President all day without reflecting on his feelings about life as a whole and, more particularly, about that life which his policies most affect, is not doing anything noble.
Freddy: "And what would it take to convince you that AGW is real?"
A model that predicts the current climate based on observed CO2 conditions over the past century would be a start. No one has even identified the universe of variables that could potentially impact climate, let alone how they intereact with each other, but you want people to believe CO2 concentrations in the ppb range is the primary thing that drives climate? How scientifically unsophisticated does one have to be to accept that type of simplistic argument? And, of course there has been somewhat consistent long range warming over the recent millenia - otherwise Ann would be trying to write a blog while sitting under a two-mile thick ice shelf - but man wasn't around when it started. BTW, you do realize that Mars is also experiencing global warming and it's ice shelves are also steadily retreating. How do you suppose that could happen? Solar activity maybe? Or do you think it's SUVs?
It wasn't just Air Force One that traveled to Midway Island. Always, on all trips, 2 identical 747s fly to the destination plus other, large Air Force transport aircraft to ferry his limousine (in duplicate, plus an aircraft full of weapons, secret service agents, an ambulance, and the rest of any normal presidential motorcade. The helicopters that normally fly over any movement by the president would, presumably, already have been stationed at Midway, but I'll bet they were in the air burning fuel while he was out and about.
As The Wise One (a/k/a Glenn Reynolds) says: I'll believe it's a crisis when the people who keep telling me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis.
" if Freder is correct he was more-or-less flying over the place anyway."
The shortest route between two points on the Earth is found this way. Find the plane containing the two points and the center of the Earth. Determine where that plane intersects the surface of the Earth. Also known as Great Circle Route. This is why flights from New York to Japan fly over the Arctic. I'm not so sure Midway is "on the way". Unless you believe the world is flat, and getting warmer. Hey, if the Earth is flat, how does rising sea levels impact all of us? I'm building a row boat in my living room.
"How can Obama expect to convince us that we must cut back carbon emissions — make real sacrifices in our little lives — when he emits like mad even when he's trying to alarm us about climate change?"
See "sumptuary laws". All that is prohibited for the peons is permitted for the "nobility".
I have been interviewed several times by a freelance writer for produce industry news outlets - her name is Coral Beach.
Freder Frederson said...
Warmer by .018 degC in the last century.
Link please.
It's in Manns' data. Look it up yourself.
The shortest route between two points on the Earth is found this way.
And in a perfect world flights would always be on a great circle routes. They are not. Flight plans balance efficiency with safety factors, which is why flights over the Atlantic maximize time over land. Over the Pacific (and the Atlantic) there are designated emergency landing strips, of which Midway is one. Anyway, the President was flying from Laos, not Japan.
It's in Manns' data. Look it up yourself
I did, and the consensus seems to be .6 to .9 C.
but you want people to believe CO2 concentrations in the ppb range
If you don't know the difference between ppb and ppm you shouldn't even be commenting.
Great circle is avoided to take advantage of winds. The jet stream is a huge factor.
A secretary with huge boobs came in wearing suspenders one day and all the mathematicians were wondering about ellipical surface geodesics. Winds didn't factor in.
The shortest route between two points on the Earth is found this way.
I am sure the president's flight plan has even more considerations, like maximizing time over U.S. territory.
From the NYT quote -
"..one he has waged against rising seas, freakish storms, deadly droughts and other symptoms of a planet choking on its own fumes."
He has waged. The desire to believe in a god-king that will bring us good weather and a bountiful harvest has never been this strong since the pharoahs and their fertile crescent contemporaries. We are truly decadent.
Rising seas. When it comes to land masses, atolls are as flat as flat can be. And yet, Sand and Eastern Islands still exist with, as far as I can tell, the same outlines as 75 years ago.
Freakish storms AND deadly droughts. Is there nothing that AGW can't do? Or Obama battle?
Plus other symptoms. You know ... stuff.
This is worse than hypocrisy. It's meaningless word salad.
The whole article and its premise that global warming is comparable to Imperial Japan, is an insult to the brave men of both the US and Japan who fought and died there in June, 1942.
But of course to the media, and esp people like those ignorant, benighted souls at the NYT, everything else in the world--past, present, or future--has no purpose except aws a backdrop for their worship of their latest, statist heart-throb.
Big deal. Midway got another visit by a Big Gooney Bird.
If you apply the point of view that the global warming/cooling/climate change issue is about putting the worlds most important energy source and the lifeblood of the economy under the control of government/wealthy cronies rather than actually saving the planet everything Obama is doing makes a lot more sense. Notice all of the global whatever conferences are held in warm tropical places and the local airport traffic increases exponentially.
You also need to look at Global warming as a religion rather than as science. The scientific method relies on skepticism and that is not allowed. The climate change people are out to burn heretics, not apply scientific skepticism.
I thought someone would point out the problem of cooing over the Pres. swimming with an endangered species at the same time Federal officials seek to bank swimming with dolphins in Hawaii (NYTimes).
The Battle Of Midway was one the greatest victories ever and this putz has to go frolicking there and espousing his progressive BS?
Freder I hate to break the news to you but climate changes. It always has. It always will. So far screwy data that isn't open for inspection and models based on suspect assumptions is hardly a reason to deliberately impoverish ourselves for the benefit of progressives. Even if it were all true, what of it? There is no credibility that it could be reversed and nothing proposed even begins that process (assuming all of this BS were true) and no major country is going to begar itself doing so or prevent itself from enriching itself by limiting its growth. One world government isn't happening anytime soon and the only somewhat plausible example of that, the EU, is starting to unravel.
It's beyond hypocrisy. It's bigotry with not so hidden motives. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is scientific mysticism informed by emanations from the Penumbra. That said, throw another baby on the barbie... Oh, wait, carbon pollution. Today, they sequester unwanted and inconvenient carbon-based human life forms in the privacy of abortion chambers and Mengele clinics. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Progressive Corruption.
I know I've posted this before but I can't resist. I'm sure George Carlin lost a lot of leftist fans with this brilliant piece on 'Saving the Planet': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTIsI95IscY
LOL @chrisnavin.com
Reminds me of that bumper sticker I'd see in Berkeley all too often: The Goddess is alive, and magic is afoot!
(o)ne he has waged against rising seas, freakish storms, deadly droughts and other symptoms of a planet choking on its own fumes.
Beyond eagerly crediting and parroting the (liberal arts) faculty lounge conventional wisdom about Global Whatevering (and ignoring the mounting examples of failed predictions), what steps has Obama actually taken in this "war" he's "waged"?
For most of us the easiest way to find the great circle route between two points is to use the Ruler tool in Google Earth. The claim that Obama was going near Midway anyway is... amusing.
Freder Frederson said...
Freder...It is not getting warmer anywhere.
You are just wrong. It is mind boggling the absolute wrong things you believe.
*****************
Freder, the satellite data is clear: no statistical warming for the past 19 years, despite an El Nino. Despite continually rising CO2 levels (which are actually quote LOW by geologic standards.)
You seem not to understand a whit about the science, simply mouthing what you read.
It's NOT the "warmest year on record"; the Earth has been much, much warmer in the deep past, and with much higher CO2 levels to boot. GO LOOK IT UP!
You also don't seem to know that it was only through satellites and a dispersed ocean buoy system that we FINALLY got uniform and (mostly) global data. DO YOU REALLY THINK we had global temp data over land and sea before then? Are you frickin serious?
Further, the warming we've seen the past 150 years ago is simply a continuation of the long-term trend since the last Ice Age. In fact , there was a Little Ice Age during the 17th and 18th century; did humans cause that? Did they cause that cold period to end in the early 19th century, when the Industrial Revolution was just getting started, and world population was a fraction of today's?? Did humans cause another cooling period from the early 1940's to the mid-1970's, when CO2 levels were much lower than today, but still rising?
Why not offer some hard evidence? Why not explain why the Arctic ice is returning to historical norms, and the Antarctic ice covering more area than ever? Please point to unusual ocean level rises beyond the 1 to 3 mm norm the past 10,000 years. Tell us why corals, supposedly bleached by acidic and warmer oceans are bouncing back (cf The Great Barrier Reef) Please explain why such corals and other animals would die off due to tenth-of-a-degree temp chances, when they've survived far worse the past 250 million years.
Also, this year the world has seen record harvest of soy, wheat and corn. If "warming" is such a threat, why such a boon? Russia, for the first time ever, might become a major exporter of wheat. Is that bad?
Oh and btw: both Greenland and the Antarctic are bowl-shaped. If all the ice melted , much of the water would be pooled into an enormous lake, NOT emptied into the oceans.
You can look that up, too.
You can find support for my statements at wattsupwiththat.com.
We know about Obama's war on carbon, but any word on his plan for ISIS?
If we could get Obama to confine the war on carbon, like the war on ISIS, to the occasional hashtag, that would be a pretty good thing.
My first thought was of King Canute warring on the sea not to rise. I guess the misallocation of resources by rulers has been going on a long time.
We know about Obama's war on carbon, but any word on his plan for ISIS?
He has, in fact, stated that climate change is far more dangerous than ISIS.
1. President Smiley Pen-n-Phone Son-of-a-Whore must be doing something right! 54% approval ain't chicken feed!
2. Swim dolphins in Florida? Hell No! I wanna go nooding for catfish with Rednecks in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma! Right up the road! Next to NO carbon footprint and real sport!
My first thought was of King Canute warring on the sea not to rise. I guess the misallocation of resources by rulers has been going on a long time.
Accepting the things one cannot change (and knowing what they are) takes a level of maturity that will forever be beyond our poor fatherless president.
As your friend Glenn would say, I'll believe climate change is a crisis when the people who claim it's a crisis act like it's a crisis.
Freder Frederson said...
It's in Manns' data. Look it up yourself
I did, and the consensus seems to be .6 to .9 C.
Sorry. My mistake the .018 figure is just from th1950s . .5 over the last 100 years.
As I said not unusual considering the solar cycles. There has been no recorded increase in the US in the last 11 years.
Let's see. Life at the equators is abundant. Life at the poles is hard to find. But I'm supposed to fear "global warming" when all indications are that warming promotes life.
Way back in the early aughts, the University of Minnesota conducted an experiment on one of its farms. They increased the amount of CO2 in a controlled environment to determine its effects on plant growth. They expected the crop to suffer from the additional CO2 but instead they got more robust growth leading to a higher yield over a shorter growing period. They were quite chagrined about the unanticipated results but were scrupulously honest in reporting them.
Pookie posed this question: .... what steps has Son-of-a-Whore taken in the war he's waged?
I'll have you know Mr Pookie, our fearless leader has made great sacrifice to arrange his fund raising trips to Florida and California so as to coordinate with his golfing weekends on the best courses. How dare you imply that he hasn't done his fair share. Fair share is a big thing for lefties!
Freder Frederson said...
I am sure the president's flight plan has even more considerations, like maximizing time over U.S. territory.
As a generalization that is untrue, and in any event it's pretty hard to maximize US territory flying from Washington to China.
The air route from Washington DC to China is a polar route which goes almost due north over Hudson's Bay, over the Arctic Ocean and then south over Siberia to China. I've never flown it but my brother has many times.
On this most recent trip, Obama instead flew to Hawaii, then to Midway, back to Hawaii and then on to China. Quite a different and more fuel expensive route, especially given the take offs and landings by AF 1, it's decoy and the various support and press planes. On his previous trip to China in 2914, Obama flew direct and non-stop.
It may be that the polar route is altered somewhat to avoid or minimize the overflight of Russia. I don't know for sure, but a knowledgable person could check the flight times of the 2014 trip and get an approximation of the route, so it's not a secret. You can also pretty much tell by looking out the window. AF 1 regularly overflies non US territory, usually without military escort, and certainly including Russia.
So once again you have made something up to suit your beliefs, Freder. You might want to stop doing that. It is too easy to check these days.
Static,
"Given that the evidence relies heavily on computer models..."
Hold on a minute! The warmist conclusion relies heavily on computer models, this is true. But a model is not, Not, NOT evidence!!!
Stephen,
"I'm not an expert, but flights that refuel might even be more energy efficient than other flights, since fuel weighs something. "
Nope.
Landing and especially taking off consume a YUUUGE portion of the fuel budget.
Seals of approval?
I prefer the monk seals that protect the piety of the work in Chimay.
Beware the dreaded carbon footprint - except when it concerns Air Force One, a huge presidential entourage, and a man with noble intentions.
People don't realize just how much goes into a presidential visit. I remember reading Obama's first trip to the UK required an entourage of 500 souls. It's not just the president - it's three or four planeloads of security people, protocol people, servants, political hacks, FSOs, and "advance" teams.
So yeah. This particular stunt put more carbon into the atmosphere than dozens of normal people do in their entire lives. I don't really begrudge a guy taking a vacation on the company dollar if he can get away with it, but have more respect for my intelligence than to try this "awareness raising" flimflam. If anything what it'll do is convince the public Obama doesn't really believe in AGW.
Don't they fly two planes, one as decoy?
So he swam at Midway Island?
Were were the Hammerhead sharks when you need them?
Or surely a Sharknado could have erupted!
God are you stupid. What is it with Republican apologists like you who can't tell the difference between individual virtue/sacrifice and collective or political action? Individual sacrifices won't solve this problem. They simply won't. Only a collective-policy effort will do it. It just goes to show how stupid right-wingers are when it comes to organizing any collective effort whatsoever. Just complete disasters. They completely lack the ability to distinguish between individual action and collective effort.
I'll have you know Mr Pookie, our fearless leader has made great sacrifice to arrange his fund raising trips to Florida and California so as to coordinate with his golfing weekends on the best courses. How dare you imply that he hasn't done his fair share. Fair share is a big thing for lefties!
I bet he hasn't even done that much, but I'm basing that assumption on his general pattern of behavior rather than specific information.
What is it with Republican apologists like you who can't tell the difference between individual virtue/sacrifice and collective or political action? Individual sacrifices won't solve this problem.
What is it with Democrat apologists who don't get the whole leadership thing? If you tell people a thing is important and then manifestly act as if it isn't at all important, people will take you at your actions instead of your words. That's just human nature.
What is it with Democrat apologists who don't get the whole leadership thing?
How stupid are people who think that electing a Hippie President will get people to acknowledge the reality and threat of climate change? As if that would ever happen anyway. People acknowledge the reality and threat of climate change because they think science has something more insightful to say about it than Wall Street does. People acknowledge the reality and threat of climate change because they recognize how trade-offs work and don't assume that mass actions are benign to us. I do things every day that aren't very good for me or people around me and so do you. You might be a purist and think that being the first president to somehow do the job without using our current infrastructure or technology is the only way people will get the message - by just acting the part. But some Americans are actually rational people and don't require a pantomime play about how to solve a problem that can't be solved using the constraints of current technology, anyway. This will not be solved by voluntary or consumer choices - just like every necessary massive infrastructure change couldn't be.
What you are saying is as dumb as saying that FDR couldn't have rallied the nation to fight and massively win WWII without getting into the front-line trenches himself. Which would have been very hard given his paralytic polio.
Dumbass.
It's Republicans who have prevented any leadership on this issue by making hatred of any challenging science a cornerstone of their political character and too big an obstacle for any one leader, especially of their opposition, to overcome. They've infected the American mindset with that thinking, and the infection isn't going away soon.
And nice dishonesty there, Bob. You sound like someone old enough to remember Jimmy Carter wearing sweaters and installing solar panels on the White House roof. Didn't change a thing. Incited hatred even, with Reagan taking the bizarre step of tearing the solar panels out - just to make a point. I guess people aren't as admiring of leadership through personal example as you say they are.
The earth used to be much warmer. Greenland was called that for a reason.
Personally, I'd love to go to Midway, see what it looks like, and swim with Monk Seals.
Obama gave a brief speech at the IUCN World Conservation Congress at a stopover in Honolulu before jetting off to Midway (which has restricted access). After that he flew to China for the G-20 meeting, so his brief stop at Midway was not that much of a detour. It was symbolic. All Presidents do symbolic things. I'm more upset that he provided a couple of planes to wife Michelle and the daughters a while back so they could take a vacation in North Africa for no apparent reason, other than Bill Clinton did the same favor for Hillary and Chelsea just before he left office.
But as PB wrote earlier, it wasn't just one plane that made the trip, it was many. Whenever the president flies overwater (not every flight, just the overwater ones), the back-up 747 plane (call it AF-2) also flies. When Obama vacations on Oahu, the backup plane flies to the Big Island and parks discretely as far out of sight as possible at the Kona airport (at least that's what used to happen). Then of course there are the multiple support planes with the armored presidential vehicles, his mobile surgery unit, his mobile kitchen, the Secret Service vehicles, probably some super-secret communications vans, and maybe even a couple of special military attache units. The Obama entourage is a virtual army on the move.
Asking a politician if they believe in anthropogenic global warming is like asking them if they believe in the proton-proton reaction that powers the sun. "What? What's that? Is that good or bad for my policies?" They aren't scientists for God's sake. Is there any evidence that Obama so much as took high school physics? Does he even understand what science is and is not?
Howabout our NY Times reporters? Do they understand that science is not a truth-crapping machine?
". . . with Reagan taking the bizarre step of tearing the solar panels out - just to make a point."
Fossil fuels are a more efficient use of precious tax payer dollars, R&B.
Every dollar spent on subsidizing solar panels sold by crony capitalists and stupid electric cars driven by upper middle class yuppies would be better spent on health care and college scholarships for the poor.
Fossil fuels are a more efficient use of precious tax payer dollars, R&B.
And just how far away do you live from a large body of water, you silly stupid Hawaiian science-hater?
Relocating a billion people and dealing with them will be a much less efficient use of tax payer dollars, I guarantee that.
It's so easy for you to hate academia and other knowledge and evidence-gathering institutions, Terry. I know that. But you can go ahead and add the insurance industries and the military to institutions you should now find a way to hate (along with science) to your list.
I guess the insurance industry is now also under the thumb of "crony capitalists.. upper middle class yuppies..." etc., etc., etc., blah blah blah.
I'll make you a wager. If ocean levels rise the height of a coffin by 2030, we get to bury you in them - dead or alive. Sound good? Go ahead and put your money and reputation where your smart-ass mouth is.
"And just how far away do you live from a large body of water, you silly stupid Hawaiian science-hater?"
Electricity here is $0.40 KW/hr. Solar, other than for hot water, is still not worth it for most residents unless the government subsidizes it.
You know not of which you speak, R&B. I pay about $200/month for electricity, and it is still nit worth it to get solar. It would cost me $2000 to cut down the trees that would block the sun from the only part of my house where it makes sense to place the panels.
"Relocating a billion people and dealing with them will be a much less efficient use of tax payer dollars, I guarantee that."
This is not a statement about science. It is speculation used to justify a policy preference.
Is the real estate industry under control of crazy AGW deniers, too? Ocean front property is so cheap these days!
I have no idea what the insurance industry says about AGW, but I do know that I don't go to insurance executives to learn about science. That's because they are risk managers and investors, not scientists.
"'ll make you a wager. If ocean levels rise the height of a coffin by 2030, we get to bury you in them - dead or alive."
And the ol' veiled threat.
You probably e noticed, R&B, you not being much for reasoning, but I never said that the ocean levels weren't rising. Or that they were rising. I am man of science, R&B. I do not place my faith in political or pop-science fads. I look at empirical evidence.
And nice dishonesty there, Bob. You sound like someone old enough to remember Jimmy Carter wearing sweaters and installing solar panels on the White House roof. Didn't change a thing.
I'm not sure why you think I'm being dishonest. I thought Carter was a horrible president, and the sweater thing made him the butt of easy jokes, but I respected him for it. And for exactly the same reason I think Obama is in the wrong here. Symbolism is important to leadership. You will never get the political backing to tackle a problem if people think people in charge don't take it seriously. If you (meaning the president, journalists, musicians, etc) aren't willing to make any sacrifices at all, why would you expect any from me?
The solar panels were dumb. In the late 1970s it required more energy to manufacture solar panels than they would ever produce. If they were symbolic of anything it's the many math-challenged proposals of the time. We were going to generate electricity from silage or methane or waste heat from composting. We were going to convert out pickups to steam and burn wood chips to get to the grocery store.
With Obama it's like he's trying to see just how much he can get away with before people call bullshit. Multiple separate vacations to faraway places every year, complete with entourage? I don't want to hear anything about my carbon footprint from someone like that. When he brings it up I'm desperately trying to suppress an eye roll so I can listen to whatever proposal he's making.
With Obama it's like he's trying to see just how much he can get away with before people call bullshit.
Oh, I think he's trying to squeeze in all the far-left agenda items he can this year. God only knows what's next!
I have no idea what the insurance industry says about AGW
Mostly they say that it's an enormous risk that they'll assume for you in exchange for a wad of cash.
There used to be an insurance company that sold "alien abduction" insurance. They also assumed that risk in exchange for a wad of cash.
"but what you can not deny is that the climate is getting warmer"
Remove the NOAA adjustments to the temperature record and from 1896 to today there is no global warming.
I am man of science, R&B.
You are not a man.
You're a weasel of unimaginable powers of bullshit and self-delusion, who looks at something like this, and isn't sure what to conclude about the earth's climate, other than his need to convince his fellow man that they can't see what he pretends not to see.
You are too dumb and self-deceptive a POS for anyone else to believe or put their faith in what you say. People should get paid for the public service of debunking your self-satisfied bullshit; you are that dangerous.
And yes, take that bet about being buried under the water levels whose cause you desperately want to wish away. It's you who are forcing people to live/die with it with your own hypocritical policy preferences, asshole. Clamoring for ignorance in the face of a threat is what's going to consign you to that fate, anyway.
And what would it take to convince you that AGW is real?
Open source to ALL of the raw data. Not massaged, not normalized, not adjusted, not filtered, not nothing. ALL of the raw data, from all of the sources.
And open source the models as well.
If this is really the imminent worldwide catastrophe we're constantly told it is, then let the whole world have access to the data and the models so we can perfect the normalization of the data, and perfect the models, which today cannot accurately predict the current climate, let alone any future climate. If the truth is in the data, and the models are accurate, what's to hide?
If I can cherry pick which weather stations to include and which to exclude, and fudge data, I too can prove the climate is warming, or cooling, or not changing at all.
Having climate change preachers fly halfway around the world to give speeches on climate change is, to many of us, like watching Jimmy Swaggart preach the gospel while banging a prostitute in a whore house.
I thought Carter was a horrible president, and the sweater thing made him the butt of easy jokes, but I respected him for it. And for exactly the same reason I think Obama is in the wrong here. Symbolism is important to leadership.
Right. Leadership out of office with no influence while the butt of many jokes. If that's the kind of leadership you think is befitting leading on the fate of the planet then go ahead and ask your own stupid Republicans to show the personal, symbolic leadership of agreeing to live under exactly as much water level rise whose cause they want to deny away as the planet experiences. It would be VERY symbolic. But of course, your political heroes would not be Republicans if they actually agreed to live by the consequences of what they preached. Being ignorance-promoting liars who detach their stake from the policies they promote is their entire ideology and cause.
"And what would it take to convince you that AGW is real?"
Open source to ALL of the raw data. Not massaged, not normalized, not adjusted, not filtered, not nothing. ALL of the raw data, from all of the sources.
HERE's some raw data for you to deny, reject and not see. Spin, spin away! Deny its unprecedented rapidity and most likely cause! An economy must be saved, no matter how much of the raw materials of that economy we destroy in the process! A stable planet and coastal habitation zone supporting a billion people is simply in no way as important as the stock values of the fossil fuels industries! Tropical diseases must be spread further northward and southward! Entire ecosystems and stable agricultural assumptions must be discarded! Money, money, money! That's where we get our science! The power of Exxon Mobil can buy TEN habitable and climatologically stable planets! SCIENCE WILL COWER AND BOW TO THE RAW POWER OF MINERAL EXTRACTION PROFITS!
You people all deserve to die.
If you (meaning the president, journalists, musicians, etc) aren't willing to make any sacrifices at all, why would you expect any from me?
Because, Bob. A billion other people and more whose lives will be ruined by this have to put up with hearing you pretend that you're the only one with a personal stake in this. And that's pretty damn selfish of you. Why should anyone think you're more important than all of them? Celebrities are getting the word out. You don't want to believe them, that's fine. But it's not about you or about them. There will be shared sacrifices on the part of all but they can be minimized to the point of barely perceptible the more people do about working toward a real solution, and not just a symbolic one. Stop making this about voluntary personal contributions. As I said, they won't be enough. Or did you suddenly decide to put all your faith in humanity's collective rationality when it comes to self-preservation, at least if it's done in the way that you deem virtuous? No one has time to turn this into a masturbatory score-settling and nit-picky list-making exercise of a billion WWJD moments. Get real.
Ignore those videos. Your truth-giver Trump sez that the Chinese invented it all as a hoax.
Boy, those Chinese sure are powerful. Look at all the hoaxes they're fabricating around the world.
Yep. No personal sacrifice there. All that living up there and documentation and getting the word out. Let's disrespect Jim and what he's trying to show.
RH is really a smart guy. He pops in, says his say, then disappears.
That's the way to treat Altouse's comment section.
Otherwise, you end up reading a bunch of losers.
Check out the personal sacrifice of Republicans like the Bush Administration when it came to censoring NASA scientists.
Very virtuous, those Republicans.
RH is really a smart guy. He pops in, says his say, then disappears.
That's the way to treat Altouse's comment section.
Otherwise, you end up reading a bunch of losers.
Just censor all the information your tiny brain isn't able to handle, then. That's how you authoritarian ignoramuses roll.
"And what would it take to convince you that AGW is real?"
If the True Believers knew what the Hell they were talking about.
Thomas Friedman, big AGW guy. Cleared a couple of acres of Maryland forest to build a 14,000 sq. ft mansion. It's his wife that has the money. Her family got it by financing suburban shopping malls in the 60s and 70s.
Anyway, Friedman claims he bought carbon credits to offset his forest-destroying madness. I guess it never occurred to him how much less atmospheric CO2 there would be if he bought the carbon credits AND DIDN'T BUILD THE F'N MANSION.
Ditto Al Gore, DeCaprio and the rest of the idiots who believe that their own consumerism is destroying the world, and make up for it by forcing other people to change their behavior.
Arguing with AGW fanatics is like arguing with stupid, spoiled children. "You have to do what I want you to do and believe what I believe!" they say.
"YOU HAVE TO!"
I see ritmo showed up after a liquid lunch and is busy making friends.
Obama's carbon footprint is many, many, many times greater than mine. I'm ignoring his input here.
Expecting acolytes to live up to their professed standards is difficult...but they expect others to do it.
Celebrities are getting the word out. You don't want to believe them, that's fine. But it's not about you or about them. There will be shared sacrifices on the part of all but they can be minimized to the point of barely perceptible the more people do about working toward a real solution, and not just a symbolic one.
Again, as repeated from Instapundit earlier, I'll believe it's a crisis when the people who say it is a crisis act like it is a crisis.
HERE's some raw data for you to deny, reject and not see.
That's not useful data. Snow falls high in the mountains, gets packed down into ice, becomes part of a glacier that is continually sliding down the side of the mountain, where it "calves" into the ocean. Been happening since long before man, and will continue happening long after man. It's not evidence of anything other than a natural event.
@Terry: Thomas Friedman would have banged the prostitute in the whorehouse and then paid the Church indulgences for the privilege.
Right. Leadership out of office with no influence while the butt of many jokes. If that's the kind of leadership you think is befitting leading on the fate of the planet then go ahead and ask your own stupid Republicans to show the personal, symbolic leadership of agreeing to live under exactly as much water level rise whose cause they want to deny away as the planet experiences.
Actually, Carter did those things while in office and long before AGW became a common theme. His concern was conservation of non-renewable energy and he lived his concerns. It hurts the cause to engage in behavior that contradicts your stated positions. Midway is on the list of National Geographic's 50 Places to Visit in the US and the only one that I will never visit simply because it is a fragile, protected environment. I am sick of people who simultaneously engage in AGW statements while bragging about the number of countries they have visited. Obama made swimming with the seals a desirable status accomplishment and millions of Americans already have the money and now have the interest in going to Midway and soon will be arranging their trips, to swim with the seals. You should be able to see the problem.
Too bad our blog hostess, and so many others, did not listen when people were saying similar things about our now-two-term president back in the runup to the 2008 election.
Because we were right way back then, saying very similar things, and it has taken you Democrat-voting rubes almost two presidential terms just to think the things we knew and spoke about back then. Congratulations - maybe you can limit Hillary to just one term, or maybe even less with an impeachment.
Also, this comment thread contained a reference to a 2011 Althouse post on Jugallos, but the one about clowns luring kids into the woods - nothing.
I give up. These comment threads have lives of quiet desperation and nihilistic outbursts of existential dread.
Post a Comment