« When Push Comes to Shove, It's Not About The Doughnut. | Main | West of Worcester Still Terra Incognita »

October 10, 2007



Sorry, GreenmanTim, didn't mean to cast aspersions on your personal abilities. I realize you are just calling for discourse and discussion. I am just a little fed up with the untruths, distortions, etc. coming from the Gorbal Wormening crowd. Nobody (on either side of the political spectrum) is advocating increasing pollution, strip mining, deforestation, et.al. Someone in my extended family just changed all their lightbulbs to compact florescents (sp?) in their 6000 sq. ft. home at the nagging of their 9-year-old daughter. The level of indoctrination from the GW bunch is reaching disturbing levels. Of course, you could argue something along the lines of "what type of parents don't do any sort of comprehensive research about GW and attempts to educate their child about the errors of her ideas before spending all that money" - that's another issue.

For my money, why discuss solutions to a "problem" that is yet to be proven to be a problem? Should not the money and time that government is now spending to solve this "problem" be better spent on determining if, indeed, there is a problem, first? I realize that a significant segment of government-funded institutions and people have a vested interest in protecting their GW cash cow by twisting the debate. Is it possible for humans to actually affect a shifting weather trend? Is the system self-correcting (ample evidence to support this point)?


Regardless of the rhetoric on both sides about the causes and solutions of global warming, anything that causes people to think about how they can personally live a cleaner, more efficient lifestyle is great. The collective result of individual actions would be enormous.

For me the problem is knee-jerk non-solutions that cost everyone much while accomplishing virtually nothing.

Equally unhelpful are sanctimonious idiots who think that if one doesn't buy into the Goracle's new Cult of Gaia, that you must be morally and intellectually inferior to themeselves.



Thanks for weighing in, Matt, though your presumptions about me and how I form conclusions and test evidence are misplaced. Could be I am mistaken about the level of discourse that is possible across political persuasions, though. Hope not.


Weather fluctuations have happened as long as we know. The northern hemisphere is in a warming phase, the southern hemisphere is in a cooling phase. The sunspot cycle (which is the real determining factor in global shifts) is shifting into a period wherein it is likely that cooling will increase globally (like it did the last known 6 times it happened). We have weather, not thermostat-controlled climate - get used to it. Be interesting to look back on all this hype from ten or twenty years in the future ....

Greenman - Mt. St. Helens' eruption (May 1980) put more toxins, "greenhouse" gases, dust, ash, water vapor, etc. into the atmosphere in 2 days than all of human efforts in the previous 50 years. It was a moderate eruption, by any reasonable measurement/comparison. It strikes me as narcissistic and arrogant to believe that man can have such a significant impact on a) events that have been going on cyclically for as long as we have glacial/geologic capability to determine (read: thousands of years), and b) are clearly the direct result of sunspot influence and cycles (scientifically verifiable).

Believe what you want to believe (and the whole global warming thing is just that - faith-based religion in direct opposition to scientific data). Act as your conscious dictates. The burden of proof still remains with those who maintain that humans are contributing to global atmospheric fluctuations - the proof is not conclusive by any logical basis and pronouncements of proof are usually laden with political misconceptions and outright errors/mistakes.


My two cents, which I deliberately downplayed in the original post, are that the great majority of us, regardless of political persuasion, acknowledge that climate change is real and are concerned about some of its implications for things we value and issues we care about. I would argue that a great many of us, perhaps even a clear majority, recognize that human activity is playing a role in this current climactic episode.

Where we differ is in the appropriate individual and collective responses that this issue may prompt or require; the burden of proof that is needed to assess the impacts and effectiveness of the various strategies and tactics and changes in behavior that are put forth to mitigate climate change, and the degree of comfort that we each have in regulatory, inventivized, and voluntary actions to address the problem.

To me, there is plenty of solid common ground here, if we can keep it.


Even us old crusty right-wingers admit that the global climate changes. Here in Kansas I sit typing in what was once a giant shallow ocean bay that was much later under hundreds of feet of glacial ice. Global climate change is a fact, much like plate tectonics, but how much of it is Man’s fault (whoops, make that Person’s fault, gotta be politically correct), which way it is changing and how much of it can be corrected by our actions is debatable. Personally I’m a little skeptical about somebody who claims to be able to predict the weather a hundred years in the future, and wants me to pay billions of dollars into their pocket to prevent the disaster they see. It sounds too much like a con job.

“Stop Global Continental Drift! Preserve Gonwandaland!”


Um... Fuzzyturtle, for the vast majority of us right-wing, facist, global-warming "deniers", the issue isn't whether or not global warming exists. It does. The issue is how much of it is caused by human activity, which, believe it or not, isn't settled. And if it is due to human activity, what is the best way to deal with it? Dumping several trillion dollars in the Kyoto black hole to delay the current warming trend by 6 years in a century isn't it. Buying carbon offsets so that the rich can feel better about their extravagantly consumptive lifestyles isn't it either.

But feel free to lump anyone who has legitimate doubts about the causes and solutions for the current global warming trend with people who question evolution.

Excellent technique of obscuring the argument.


I like tomatos but I'll miss the sugar maples :(

it was such a crap maple syrup season last year , and looks like there's more to come

good thing theres no such thing as global warming.. or evolution..

I'd laugh at my scarcastic comment if it weren't so horrible (and true in certain circles)

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Cliopatria Award: Best Series of Posts

  • ClioAwards2008




  • View My Stats
Bookmark and Share


  • Top genealogy site awards
  • Get this widget from Widgetbox
  • Technorati blog directory


  • Listed on BlogShares
  • Listed on BlogShares