Global warming, debating beyond the logic not the science.
Global warming! A raging issue that has become one of the signature issues representing the metaphorical and philosophical divide fracturing America. On both sides the groups have sectionalized themselves off into factions that would make James Madison roll over in his grave. In the left corner the scientists and the environmentalist, railing against – what they see as – the further desecration of the natural environment and humanities pollution laden march to imminent apocalypse. In the right corner the Evangelical Christian Right and a few other patches of the Republican Party claiming that the science behind global warming is false and polluting the atmosphere does…no damage….to the Earth.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Tony
I don't have to bridge any gaps to the right. If you think George Bush II is a republican then go read a book on Barry Goldwater and learn something about what conservatism truely is.
I don't feel the need to define myself by standing on one side or the other. I am a supply sider who feels that the democrates get it right on issues pertaining to civil liberties, equality, and this time around the war; post invasion obviously as they buckled to their knees at the alter of public opinion before this mess started.
The truth is I can be very far to the left on some issues and to the right on others (mainly economic) but that's because I don't feel the need to adopt every single standpoint of a particular group.
When I spoke of allocating tax breaks it was not aimed at finding alternative energy. The tax breaks would be given to companies that adapted their facilities and operations to meet a variety of green standards. A oompany may not meet admissions bonus standards but may receive a break because of their methods of waste disposal.
But no.....you can't be open to ideas you didn't hear first on Fox news. GOD forbid! .
77 - Pablo
Well said Tony. I agree wholeheartedly with your above post. The conservatives of the day are imho much more akin to totalitarians, with big government deficit spending to the extreme. The PNAC document sums up very well what these neo-cons are really about. It has nothing to do with individual rights, the constitution, or behaving in a civilized humane fashion towards their neighbors. The homeland security state, is nothing more than the erection of a legal police state, where all citizens are monitored via gps systems 24/7, and presumed guilty until proven innocent. How far we have fallen.
78 - Dr Dreadful
Clavos, every time I type something, I see you've stated it first and pithier.
Hmm... 'pithier'. Comparative form of the word 'pithy'. Now - who uses that word...?
Jerk.
Ah yes.
;-)
79 - zingzing
instead of "pithier," i use "more pithily," as it sounds hilarious.
80 - Clavos
You're jutht pithing into the wind, Doc...*
*(Funny how so many folks who proclaim themselves as liberals know all this arcane stuff from the FNC.)
81 - Dr Dreadful
Funny how so many folks who proclaim themselves as liberals know all this arcane stuff from the FNC.
Not funny at all. The owner of the gym I belong to insists on piping Fox News into the place 24/7.
Staff have on occasion ventured to change the channel, but he makes them change it back again as soon as he finds out.
You'd think I'd be immune with my iPod and headphones, but oh no. He has the closed captioning switched on.
No, it's not at all funny...
82 - Clavos
Well, if it's that traumatic, Doc, perhaps you ought to consider changing gyms...or political philosophies.
Or, maybe, getting fat.
Hobson's choice...
83 - Maurice
Ruvy,
I've read your links. The info is slanted and misleading. I don't believe it.
I've read the bible and still don't believe in god.
I guess you could call me a skeptic....
BTW you made the bold claim there was no Church of Global Warming...
84 - Clavos
Maurice,
I took a quick look at your link. On it, I picked up this quote:
“We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic socialism and environmental policy.” (emphasis added)
-Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)
Wirth also served as Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs in the Clinton administration. He is currently president of the UN Foundation.
He is not a scientist, but he obviously IS a socialist, prepared to use GW, whether or not it is a valid scientific theory, to advance his socialist goals.
No matter the protestations of the believers; the issue of GW transcends mere environmentalism. It is clearly a political issue as well.
85 - zingzing
and a business issue, clavos. don't forget the money to be made.
86 - Clavos
Absolutely right, zing.
87 - Maurice
Clavos,
excellant point. I think all of us care about Mother Earth and want the best for her. I ride my motorcyclel instead of my car so I can consume and polute less. I reuse my RV antifreeze each year when I winterize my RV. I don't have the eco-groovy house that George W. Bush has but I don't squander resources like Al Gore either.
My main problem with environMentalism is the emotionalism involved. My wife gave me crap about not recycling my beer cans. We lived in Detroit at the time and the recycling program was not up and running so they would just haul the cans to the dump. My emotional wife was still upset!
Lets be rational about these emotional issues.
88 - Baronius
Dread, if I follow this conversation, Bill O'Reilly uses the word "pithier" too? I didn't know that. I've never seen his show.
89 - Dr Dreadful
One of his catchphrases - as you'll see if you follow the link - is 'keep it pithy'.
90 - Dr Dreadful
We lived in Detroit at the time and the recycling program was not up and running so they would just haul the cans to the dump.
There was something like that in Michael Moore's book Stupid White Men. He describes following a sanitation crew when they picked up the recycling. They drove to the landfill and simply dumped it there along with all the other trash.
91 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Maurice,
I didn't post the stuff about the messianic redemption because i wanted you to believe in G-d. What you believe is your business.
I did post the stuff about messianic redemption for Irene's information, though.
I posted the links about global dimming because they provide clear reasons for the theories of global warming not seeming to have effect. You don't want to believe them, you don't have to. In the end, its your skin cancer, not mine. As for the asbestos, if you are so skeptical, work with the stuff and see what happens to your lungs. But it's a true capitalist's proposition when you gamble with your health. You can't "socialize" the loss. YOU get to die, not the society around you.
I realize that you are not davka an evil person, and it is the emotionalism of some environmentalists that pisses you off. It pisses me off, too. I am not a tree hugger by any means. But, when you learn about the Jewish Sabbath, you learn lots of lessons about the environment, even if you do not mean to. And being that I do try to observe the laws of the Jewish Sabbath, I do know how a person is not supposed to, among other things, even kick a rock around. G-d's universe is to be left untouched, and the Jew is supposed to contemplate it. That is the purpose of the laws that Jews (and not non-Jews) are required to observe.
Just something to think about.
92 - Maurice
This is somewhat funny.
BTW I posed this earlier. Was it 'lost' on purpose?
93 - Clavos
I have one of those toilets in my apartment (mandated by EPA), Maurice.
It doesn't really take six flushes, but often requires two, and sometimes three.
My wife and I laugh our asses off at the idiots in the government every time it happens.
94 - stormy
I posted one post the other day and then return to….holy cow, all heck breaks loose and the discussion moves to religion!! Back to the topic at hand….
Michael S wrote:
“The issue with the skeptical crowd is the absence of a viable alternative explanation.”
That’s incorrect. You’re putting all of your eggs in a trace gas called CO2 which comprises less than .04% of the atmosphere. I’m putting my eggs in an extraordinarily powerful, variable star called the sun. It’s apparently a fairly strong influence seasonly as well as daily, considering the temperature in my backyard can vary 40 or more degrees in a day. I’ll give you a list of scientists as long as a bad Woody Allen movie who agree with “it’s the sun, stupid.”
Tony wrote:
“So, again I ask the question. If global warming is not real that we can just pump whatever we want into our atmosphere and nothing will happen? I mean you really, seriously believe that?”
Tony, you have a very static view of the atmosphere. That is, everything that enters the atmosphere stays there until the end of time. Here’s a novel idea for you: CO2 is absorbed by plant life (remember photosynthesis in your 9th grade biology class?) and is also absorbed/released by the oceans. As far as pumping “pollutants” into the environment, hell no…I never said I was for that. As far as CO2 emissions, I’m not concerned, nor should you be. For those promoting solar, well, that’s just swell. We can cover Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and New York State with solar panels…and power, I don’t know, maybe 1/3 the country. SUPER!! I say let’s go nuke. You’ll save yourselves from the dreaded and scary (and harmless) CO2, and the rest of us will be happy with clean domestic energy
Dave Nalle wrote:
“Tony, reread Stormy's comment. It's the most cogent thing on here, including your original article.”
Thanks Dave…I always aim for cogent! Glad I attained it for a change!
95 - Maurice
Great points, stormy. BTW great name for this thread.
Here is an interesting (and short) article about the disappearance of harlequins. Here is a classic quote from a scientist that uses a familiar argument:
“Arguing about whether we can or cannot already see the effects,” he said, “is like sitting in a house soaked in gasoline, having just dropped a lit match, and arguing about whether we can actually see the flames yet, while waiting to see if maybe it might go out on its own.”
96 - Maurice
Clavos
...laugh our asses off...
I think I get the pun here.....
97 - stormy
Maurice...thanks for posting the link to the article re: the disappearance of the harlequins.
This is actually a perfect example of biologists (non-climate scientists) automatically throwing their credentials/weight on to the climate alarm bandwagon. If they would stick to their research in an unbiased fashion, they should be determining if the extinction was actually due to varied climate. End of story. But no, their activism comes through as they automatically imply that man is responsible for climate change, which in turn is causing the extinction of the harlequins. That's where I have a profound problem with this nonsense. If these biologists want to debate anthropegenic global warming with someone who similarly does not have a climate science background, I'd be happy to take them on. My background and education is Mechanical Engineering, which provides me a much better understanding of the physical sciences than they have. Yet. I'm sure these folks are included among the "thousands of scientists" who believe we're adversely affecting the climate. One problem - they have absolutely no credibility in that field (less than me, if that's possible!). Thanks again for posting however, it was an interesting article. For the record, I am pro amphibian and unlike the scientists in the article, I did not have the stomach to dissect them in high school!!!
98 - Maurice
Stormy,
I am an electrical engineer and have been designing semiconductors for 26 years. Even with my (supposedly) keen scientific mind I have been led down the path you are describing. That shows me that the media has done a good job of mixing these issues all together.
Thanks for the pragmatic slap in the face.
99 - stormy
Maurice...thanks for the note. If you are an engineer, it's probably your nature to question things. I'm not about to say that we're not affecting the climate at all, but I am willing to say it's minute in the scheme of things. If you take some time to look at the issue from a scientific perspective, it's clear that Climatology is in the dark ages. Most of the issue is politics, not science right now. For instance, the reporting today of the ice shelf that just collapsed in Antarctica. The reporting of this is quite clever, or very naive. At the end it happens to mention that this shelf is part of the Antarctic penninsula. A little research and you'll find that the penninsula has warmed significantly, but it comprises about 5% of the continent - Antarctica as a whole has not warmed -in fact, it's cooled as a whole by one degree since we began measuring temps there about 50 years ago. You won't find the media reporting that minor fact. It would be like saying the U.S. is warming, when in fact just Florida was warming and the rest of the country was cooling. Extremely deceptive. I think the right word would be propaganda. Use your engineering abilities of query and you might be surprised at the nonsense that abounds....this has become a religion of sorts and barely resembles science anymore. Scientists that are skeptics are labeled as heretics and their reputations are attacked severely (they are shills for the oil/gas industry, etc.), when in fact they are just seeking the truth. When one side of an argument can only make personal attacks against the other because they can't effectively debate the issues, it reeks of desparation. I'd start my search for truth with Richard Lindzen of MIT. BTW, he pointed out that the car he drives isn't nearly as nice as those driven by the global warmers. If he wanted to make a fortune he'd switch sides on the debate. That's where the $$ are. Later!
100 - Maurice
Stormy,
Richard Lindzen has been discussed at length on these threads.
Interesting of you to mention that ..this has become a religion of sorts and barely resembles science anymore. Scientists that are skeptics are labeled as heretics....
That is the very reason I posted my link to The Church of Global Warming which contains a list of heritics.
101 - Tony
I'd really love to hear how the warming skeptics explain the phenomina of all those countries that lined up to sign and ratify the Kyoto treaty except us. I guess we members of the "church" of global warming are not the only one's fooled. In fact, the governments of Australia, Canada, The entire EU, India, and even the freakin' Russins have all been duped by this leftist conspiracy.
Wow guys! You have to have one hell of a marketing plan to dupe the heads of the world's most industrialized nations.
Even the People's Republic of China claims that they are striving to reduce emissions even if, because of the economic ramifications, they are not.
Some countries jumped right in, others declined because of economic reasons, but the good old US of A is the only nation to actually deny that the problem even exists.
102 - stormy
Maurice,
Thanks for the link! I missed that when it was posted earlier. There is a lot to it!!
As for the "scientists", I've spoken and emailed with about a dozen climate scientists. You generally won't find (with very few exceptions) any of them purporting the hysteria we see that's being fueled by "activists."
My online debates with some folks generally ended with them incapable of countering my arguments when they got to the end of their 3-fold Sierra Club or Greenpeace leaflet, which was generally filled with easily refutable rubbish. Out of frustration, their last post would normally be, "you must work for the oil and gas lobby." I don't work in that area and never have... but I love science and I love truth. These folks are incapable of critical thought, scientific inquiry and thinking for themselves - they've been completely greenwashed. I'm very pro-environment, pro-alternative energy (for energy independence reasons)... but, I'm against wasting trillions to fight a fictitious monster, when that money could be better spent on genuine environmental issues (Geez, I'm beginning to sound like Bjorn Lomborg). Thanks again. BTW, if you're interested in a bit of satire from 10 years ago (and yes, I believe that site is actually funded by the oil/gas lobby!!!!)
103 - Doug Hunter
"Wow guys! You have to have one hell of a marketing plan to dupe the heads of the world's most industrialized nations."
Not really. It's never hard to sell a government official on a new reason to tax and regulate. (money and power)
104 - Maurice
Stormy,
funny link! I have read a little about Bjorn Lomborg. Not a bad guy to mimic.
BTW bare links are frowned on at BC.
If you have questions about html code you can go here
105 - stormy
Tony, you shouldn't take offense to any of this stuff. I'm finding some of the discussion interesting.
As for your comment regarding the nations that piled on to Kyoto, that's an excellent and valid question. Again, Kyoto was about politics and little to do about science. Even the adherents of Kyoto admitted that compliance with it would have virtually no effect on the climate. A combination of "bandwagon effect", "political correctness", "peer pressure", etc. led to Kyoto ratification. Now, here's a trick question - who killed Kyoto for the U.S.? Yes, officially it was Pres. G.W. Bush, but many environmentalists will tell you it was Pres. Bill Clinton. The bottom line is that Clinton wanted to play the Kyoto game and "look good" by participating in Kyoto (which was political), but he understood the detriments it posed to our country economically. Good for him - a very smart guy. He demanded certain things in the protocol, including credit for carbon sinks (forests, etc.) and India/China participation. Europe was aghast and realized that the U.S. would basically have to make no sacrifices with carbon sinks being counted. That terrified them as they saw Kyoto as a means to give them an economic advantage over us - with carbon sinks, they were screwed and we would be rewarded - they said "no way." In hindsight, it looks like they didn't need Kyoto to get that economic advantage anyway! When Clinton left office, they actually came back to us wanting us to just play ball and offered something similar to what Clinton had requested. Bush said fahgetaboutit, we're out.
CO2 is not a pollutant....95% of it is naturally ocurring....plant life thrives on it....if you removed all greenhouse gasses (e.g., CO2, Methane, CFCs, etc.) except water vapor (which, interestingly, you can't tax), you'd still have most of the greenhouse effect intact (actually, about 95%...I love that number). This is much ado about nothing...except research dollars, high salaried cushy environmental jobs and another means for gov't to tax. It's a win/win for everyone, except for you and me.
All the best....Stormy
106 - stormy
How many times have we seen the word "unprecedented" when this subject is discussed in recent years?
from the Washington Post:
"The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds."
Wait a second…Huh. Upon further review, that article is from November 2nd…1922. Yeah, as in 86 years ago and counting.
But wait, there's more....
"A considerable change of climate inexplicable at present to us must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been, during the last two years, greatly abated."
"2000 square leagues [approximately 14,000 square miles or 36,000 square kilometers] of ice with which the Greenland Seas between the latitudes of 74° and 80°N [roughly NNE of Jan Mayen] have been hitherto covered, has in the last two years entirely disappeared."
"The floods which have the whole summer inundated all those parts of Germany where rivers have their sources in snowy mountains, afford ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened ..."
hmmm, extracts from a letter by the President of the Royal Society addressed to the British Admiralty, recommending they send a ship to the Arctic to investigate the dramatic changes.
The letter was written....in the year 1817. Must have been those blasted SUVs back then. I'd say the current nonsense is...well...unprecedented.
P.S. Maurice...thanks for the tip on using links!!
107 - Tony
No offense taken at all. I am actually really happy that my first post in the politics section of this magazine got such a passionate response. That was really the point.
To read arguments from the intelligent people on this site and having real, fact based discussion, gives me faith that not everyone in this country has given in to mass apathy.
108 - stormy
Tony wrote: "To read arguments from the intelligent people on this site and having real, fact based discussion, gives me faith that not everyone in this country has given in to mass apathy."
I concur!! Definitely some independent thinkers on here of varying opinions. It's a good thing and the result is civil debate/discussion. I haven't participated in a global warming discussion on line for a number of years. Became a bit disenchanted with the erosion of the discussions into questioning my lack of a degree in Climate Science (it's basically a hobby and my engineering background generally provided greater science grounding than my attackers!)...and then the inevitable attack that I was working for the oil/gas industry or lobby (which I wasn't). It was frustrating. That hasn't happened here so I'm pleased!
109 - Maurice
I have been guilty of being overly glib concerning this issue. But now this is super, super serious!
110 - jesse neils
im old greg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
111 - adaniel
It looks as if climate change is too complex for today's democracies. Reading the article and the comments at the same time I see that we have a very similar global warming debate in Europe. It has a different focus, even a different tone, but at the end of the political process there is equally nothing.
For the EU the current American governments skepticism has became a political identity building tool in world politics. However, there is almost no rational debate on the issue in Europe, either. The EU is promoting the Kyoto Protocol, which has proven that is very costly and does not reduce the level of carbon-dioxide emissions. (Not only the US, but China, Russia and India, other main emitters besides the EU are not participating in this trading system). Promoting solar energy in Germany is great for German industrialists who produce the stuff but as useful as if Canada would switch to solar energy.
I believe that today's electorates are used to much narrower focused debates where they can spot the lobby groups, their own interest and gather the basic facts. Although climate change has no meaningful public debate in either side of the Atlantic, a much narrower case, biofuels does!
112 - Maddy and Mr. Young
Global warming is sooooooooo not true!!! And for all of you idiotic tree huggers who do beleive it-ur WRONG!!!!!!!!!!
113 - Cannonshop
Maddy, I'm sure hoping that was sarcasm.
Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change is inevitable humans or not. Climate is NOT STATIC. Around AD 1000, Greenland was wheat country and they were growing french wine grapes in north Scotland.
a Bit longer ago, Egypt was green and the Sahara was a fairly fertile plain a bit like Kansas in terms of climate.
A Few hundered years ago, Chaco Canyon in new mexico, Mesa Verde, and Crow Canyon were good country for corn and fairly good land for living an agricultural existence. There are some (Fringe) archaeologists who think the Persian gulf might well have been a low-land valley during the ice age-much like the Chesepeake Bay was.
Climate Changes.
The debate about WHY is what isn't finished, or settled.
The planetary orbit is not 'stable'-earth wobbles under the gravitational influence of the moon and sun, the tilt of the axis is not fixed, the orbit itself is elliptical and varies-there are some hypotheses that indicate (based on fossil evidence) that ice ages occur suddenly (in geological terms), that the climate may change unpredictably.
Finally, there's the small (but not inconsiderable) issue of what probes are telling us all- probes sent into the Atlantic to measure temperature increases in 2003 aren't recording any change. Most Humanocentric global warming hypotheses rely on oceanic warming. Sattelites sent up to measure climate and weather (and take many times the number of readings that ground-based stations even CAN) aren't showing significant warming either, and certainly nothing at the rates or magnitude that the computer models insist it should be occurring at.
Finally: we've been able to meaure local microclimates reliably for only about 300 years or so. The global climate hasn't been measurable in any reliable sense longer than about 50 years (if that long). Humanity is 250.000 years old if you go to the earliest recognizably "Human" hominids. Earth itself is estimated 4000000000 years old.
Finally, short term predictability of local microclimates is only reliable NOW up to about 48 hours with a reliability of more than about 60%.
Globally, you're talking MACRO climate, which includes all of those microclimates. Considering that economic modeling (which has fewer variables and works along predictable rules that are rather well understood indeed) has a rather poor record of success (witness the failure of centrally planed economics in the Soviet Union and pre-reform Communist China) but a better record than weather forecasting, the discussion and the need to do REAL SCIENCE before making policy decisions is real.
The Evidence gathered in the experiments does not jibe with the explanation of the phenomena, therefore, the explanation is what is incorrect, not the data.
114 - Al Barger
I try to be generous with people whom I disagree with, but I have trouble finding any way to accept that Mr Tobis is even intending to be honest with this nonsense excuse for an article. For starters, he wants to paint it that the opposition to global warming propaganda is coming from Christian evangelicals as some kind of religious issue. It is not. He's just completely making that up out of the air.
Also of course, opposition to destroying the economy and surrendering our industry and pretty much of our economic liberty to the likes of Al Gore couldn't be based on a lot of people honestly disagreeing. No, it must be an evil conspiracy by Evil Capitalists (a redundant phrase, surely).
To answer the title of the essay, no there isn't even really a debate. This is because the global warming true believers (the real religious faith element here) won't actually debate. They declare that they are irrefutably, inarguably correct. Then they put out ad hominem straw man attacks like this article claiming that the only opposition to their plans to rule the world comes from the stupid (religious folk) and the evil (businessmen).
Better watch out: MANBEARPIG's gonna get you!
115 - Cannonshop
damn, my grammar is offal (as in fecal output), too many 'finally' when it should have been 'alsos'...ah well.
116 - Cannonshop
Al, ya gotta understand-once upon a time, Colleges tried to teach people to think critically, to examine statements and assertions, to use evidence and consider counter-arguments on their own merits.
There's plenty of fanatics on both sides of this issue, and the strawman argument is a favoured chestnut of political conflicts, while Academia has diverged from considering all the evidence available to a dogmatic approach centred on Grants and Political/Social Acceptability.
It's socially acceptable to be very 'green' and environmentalist, it's politically easy to back 'green' sounding causes, even in the face of hard evidence.
it's HARD to go against the consensus and demand that ethical standards be upheld when addressing a 'Movement', especially when said movement can be used and abused for political gain by ones allies.
MOST of the people who are willing to stay in Academia tend to be big-government folks, and "Global Warming" is kind of a porkbarrel bonanza for them. The best scientific minds, unfortunately, tend to be involved in, as the movie "Idiocracy" pointed out, regrowing hair and prolonging erections.
Professor Mann's infamous "Hockeystick" graph showing runaway global warming a few years ago is a prime example-a guy with a Masters degree in math showed you can get the same results inputting random numbers in place of the recorded measuring data, meaning the model relies on cooked books.
Cooked books or not, it was sufficient to justify Kyoto in the minds of painted-prince politicians and luddite activists, who rightly spotted a chance to exploit an apocalyptic scenario for an immediate gain in prominence and power.
Americans are a moralistic bunch, so are Europeans, whether they admit it or not, and a chance to find a "New, secular Sin" to condemn is a great opportunity to exploit those urges for a gain in authority and power.
117 - Al Barger
So then Cannonshop, which are you: A stupid Christian or an evil tool on the payroll of Halliburton? We're putting you on the list for our eventual prosecution of environmental war criminals.
118 - Cannonshop
heheheh... Worse. I'm an Infidel, an Unbeliever, a Skeptic, Amatuer scientist, shade-tree mechanic and all those other nasty things, unfortunately, Halliburton doesn't have to buy me, and I don't get on well with god, goddess, or any of those other higher powers people allege exist.
I'm a fanatic's worst nightmare-I think for myself.
So, when I'm burnt at the stake as a heretic, will it be with ethanol, corn-oil, or what? I hope it's a renewable resource!
119 - Jimmy
Global warming is a problem, but we all have to die. I believe the world will come to an end someday and perhaps we will just have to blame this one on mankind.
120 - Glenn Contrarian
Oh, that's good, Jimmy - "we all gotta die sometime so why prolong it?"
Either we grow up and band together to solve the problem...or we wind up like Venus.
We CAN solve the problem - or at least minimize the damage - but ONLY if conservatives and Republicans (and all others who insist that 90% of the world's climatologists are either crazy or too afraid to speak up) will start allowing the facts to determine their belief rather than demanding that their belief must determine the facts.
Global-warming deniers BEGIN with the premise that either there's no such thing or that if there is, that the earth is too big for mankind to really have an impact.
What they don't realize is the choice we have:
(A) If we DO address global warming, and global warming does turn out to be the utter myth that they claim, then we have some economic damage...but nothing on the scale of, say, the current crisis, much less that of the world wars.
(B) If we DO NOT address global warming and it turns out to be TRUE, then we face worldwide catastrophe on a scale FAR worse than WWII.
So that's your choice, Jimmy - do something, or do not...but remember the risk that either choice entails.
121 - Dr Dreadful
I'm just perplexed about Cannonshop's forecast (#118) of his impending doom by immolation. What he doesn't seem to have taken into account is that we can't burn him at the stake using ethanol or anything else, because that in itself would contribute to global warming. We'll just have to freeze him in nitrogen and then pulverize him. It won't be nearly as spectacular or painful, but at least it won't harm the planet.
122 - Cindy D
(wonders how Glenn treats his wife when she's feeling down)
123 - Cindy D
That was too funny Dr.D. Remind me sometime to convince you to let me read one of your books.
124 - Glenn Contrarian
Cindy -
I have to wonder why you asked that. The way I take your question is as an implication that I am not a good man to my wife. Is there anything I've posted showing that my character is badly flawed, that I'm a crude, stubborn ass? I hope not.
But to answer your question:
Footrubs several times a week, hot peppermint tea, listening to her dreams and taking them seriously, going for long walks holding hands. If she's too mad I keep my mouth shut until she's ready to talk, and then I listen to her concerns and discuss the matter without judgment.
Flowers, on the other hand, I reserve for the required special occasions and for the even more important 'just because' moments.
FYI, I agree with Robert Heinlein that women are generally more intelligent than men...and my wife's a wonderful example. For all my vaunted 'book-learnin', she's more intelligent and more grounded in reality than am I. I might have a wealth of facts at hand (and I usually do), but she's the one who knows what to do with those facts. You could say I'm the tool store, and she's the craftsperson who uses those tools (no off-color references intended). One without the other is pretty much useless...but together they can accomplish much.
And on a more personal note, not having been raised with a father figure around the house (ever!), I gained most of my values of how to be a good husband and dad from books. Most would see that as tragically insufficient, but it has served me well and most of all, kept my wife generally happy since I do try my best to be a gentleman in public AND in private.
I hope this reassures you as to my character. Perhaps not, for it is difficult to ascertain such merely across cyberspace...but I don't know how else to give you such reassurance.
125 - Cindy D
G-man,
It was just a random thought after reading #120.