Thursday, January 14, 2010

Global Warming

I used to be a global warming denier. A very vocal one, at that. Every time it would come up at
the tiny liberal arts university I attended (which, it goes without saying, was a lot), I would pipe up with the insightful comment “oh, that’s not real.”

Did I believe it? Who knows. I had read Michael Crichton’s book that outlined, through murder mysteries, steamy romance, and gunplay, exactly why those who believed in global warming are not just misguided but criminal. More to the point, though, I just enjoyed people’s reactions to my statement. Global warming (or climate change, whatever) is the religion of the 18-24 demographic. Its existence is not just an opinion – it’s fact, that must be prosletised. The misguided must not be tolerated, but converted.

So, needless to say, it was pretty fun to contradict people when it came to global warming. Their reactions were perfect; the only other place I’ve encountered such vehemence is when I use my flatmate’s Xbox Live connection to stand in front of my teammates in first-person shooters, thus blocking their shot and reducing their all-important win/loss ratio. Sometimes I think people would be less upset of I were a Holocaust denier, but I have never had the stones to find out. Hopefully I never will.

At any rate, it’s been a couple years since then and I’ve mellowed a little. However, as I read the newspapers and browse the internet, I’m starting to notice a resurgence of my old opinion. This especially true now, as places like Europe and Florida experience record low temperatures, which is bringing all the deniers out of the woodwork. “SEE?!” a cacophony of columns, blogs, and Facebook statuses (statii?) shout, “we told you!”

Being a low energy person, I have arrived at the same conclusion regarding climate change as I have almost everything else – who cares? And I don’t mean “who cares if the climate is changing,” because I have to say that I do care, especially considering how I plan on returning to New Zealand in the near future. A not-very-large island in the Pacific Ocean is hardly the place to be when the waters start to rise.

What I mean is this, and I address it to all the smug deniers: why do you care if the climate is changing or not? More important than climate change, real or imagined, is a lifestyle change – one that every single one of us would benefit from. Running our air conditioners and heaters less often, hanging out our clothes, and taking the bus now and again is not going to kill anyone. Indeed, it would be a massive improvement in a day and age where obesity is on the rise, cities are designed to make walking not just inefficient but downright dangerous, and huge parts of the world are still in the recession brought on by people living beyond their means.

It’s Pascalle’s wager, but with real life as opposed to mythical conjecture. Let’s say we all make a change, get rid of our cars and bike to work, eliminating the pesky costs of fuel and maintenance and developing strong hearts and thighs that could crush someone’s head. Less radically, let’s say just half of us get rid of our SUVs and trucks and take the revolutionary move of buying a 4-door sedan. Let’s say that happens and global warming turns out to be nothing but collective delusion. Will we look back and say “god, what a waste, I’m healthy, financially solvent, and it was all for nothing?”

Somehow I doubt it.

But look at the alternative. What if global warming is a very real threat and we do nothing? Not only will the waters rise, we’ll be too fat to outrun them. So we’ll pile into our SUVs and try to outdrive them, but we’ll run out of gas before we reach higher ground. So we’ll get out and push to the nearest gas station – but when we get there our credit cards will decline because we maxed them out on our beast of a vehicle’s warranty last month.

So to the deniers: shut up. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem, and if you’re so fixated on global warming (or lack thereof) that you can’t see the bigger picture, you don’t have the analytical skills to have a valid opinion anyway.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to find my MasterCard and book a transpacific flight.

32 comments:

  1. Your use of the word "deniers" is inaccurate. The people you are referring to are AGW (Anthropgenic Global Warming) *skeptics*, not deniers.
    The most vital among those people are scientists, and skepticism plays an important role in science. It compels people to go back, sometimes quite often, to check and recheck experiments and observations to make certain that our understanding of reality is accurate. That's how science operates. The proponents of AGW are not scientists; they don't present information that has been derived from experimentation and observation. Rather, they use computer modeling to make predictions about future conditions. That may be math, but it ain't science. AGW skeptics do not deny global warming. Measurements of reality have shown that the world certainly is warming. The warming trend began around the year 1850, as the earth started to warm after the so-called "Little Ice Age". Before those colder times, our planet had experienced the "Medieval Warm Period", a time during which temperatures were up to 3°C warmer than they are today. (Something the famous Hockey Stick Graph left out.) Factories were not belching out CO2 back in the Middle Ages, nor in 1850, so, like today, CO2 didn't cause the world to warm up. And during the Medieval Warm Period, the earth didn't suffer droughts and all the other dire predictions of alarmists. The increased productivity of farms, due to the warmer temperatures, ushered in The Renaissance as all the peoples of Europe prospered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. no. there are people who completely deny that climate change exists. and those people you mention, the skeptics, they were all deniers before. these people continually have to change their story.

      Delete
  2. How dare you suggest that Americans should voluntarily not act like fat lazy sacks of sh*t. It is our god given right to f*ck up the planet while eating two bags of Doritos and watching reruns of Two and a Half Men.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Anon1: There are many groups who deny or are skeptical of global warming; you have listed one of them. My point still stands.

    @Anon2: It's okay to swear on my blog. And it's not just Americans. It's Australians, Kiwis, Canadians, Western Europe...the list goes on and on.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sam,

    You guessed correctly. I found this entry to be of interest. It’s well written and insightful. These are my observations:

    1) As long as government does not mandate anything you suggest, I’m with you. Nothing good ever comes from government mandates. This is particularly true as regards government bureaucrats presuming that they are best qualified to centrally plan our energy sector. The ethanol debacle is a great example as are the massively corrupt subsidies of wind and solar (over all the various other options). On a smaller scale, this local folly will be -- at BEST -- a moronic waste of tax payer money.

    Why you should care (a great deal)…

    The problem is that governments all around the world are using Climate Change as an excuse for the most expensive and most tyrannical power grab in the entire history of humanity. And, that is why you should care -- and why you should fight these tyrants tooth and nail. You will be forced to pay far more for this than I (an old geezer) will.


    2) It sounds as though you may have already taken note of my analysis of the issue.

    The bottom line is this:

    A) The climate is changing. It always has and always will -- often quite dramatically.

    B) There is reasonable theoretical basis to believe that human activity might have had a tiny (and beneficial) warming impact. But, there is no proof. Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly clear that about 75% of the IPCC warming estimate is cancelled by a negative water vapor feedback mechanism. The only way anybody ever created any hysteria over the impact of CO2 was to assume -- in their computer models -- a positive water vapor feedback mechanism. That assumption is increasingly being proven not merely incorrect, but completely backwards.

    C) The natural cycles are FAR more powerful than anything humans could ever induce.

    i) We are utterly incapable of micromanaging the climate. Nothing we do (or don’t do) will make a dime’s worth of difference to the climate.

    ii) No matter what we do (or don’t do), the Sahara will continue -- every 20,000 years -- to cycle between the desert we see today and the lush, green wet climate of just 5,000 years ago. Just 5,000 years ago, three great interconnected lakes ran north and south through today’s Sahara desert. They will return in another 15,000 years -- orbital precession assures it.

    iii) No matter what we do (or don’t do) when the next glacial period arrives (about 50,000 years from now), New York City will (once again) be covered by an ice sheet at least 1,000 feet thick -- orbital eccentricity assures it.

    Best Regards,
    SBVOR

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just have a question for you. Are you a climate scientist? If not who are you to judge if something is caused by man or not? Who do you think discovered that there are natural cycles to the world? The very same people you doubt in regards to man-made global warming. How can you with such certainty believe one thing they are saying, but then disregard another?

      You clearly don't have the facts, I could find them for you about how we are an imbalance of something like 4% in the Carbon cycle, but I'll leave that up to you.

      Delete
  5. Sam,

    To answer your other question….

    Yes, I also reside in Steamboat Springs and I found your blog by virtue of perusing the list of local blogs.

    FYI, among local blogs, I am especially impressed with Dan Piano’s photos.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would not hesitate to get behind tax breaks for cyclists, tax penalties for SUV drivers in a heartbeat, or related governmental "interference." Sorry.

    The "War on Terror" was likely a bigger grab for power, but it's easier to convince people that they need to be afraid of people who don't look like them than it is to make them be afraid they'll drown. Also easier to take away civil liberties than SUVs. Go figure.

    Either way, I didn't click those links because a mouseover revealed the word "socialism." I'm tired of hearing about how hell-bent we are on socialism, and the idea that that's such a bad thing. I grew up in New Zealand, where healthcare is free, university is subsidised, and broke people are taken care of. And you know what? It's not that bad. I don't know what you and your ilk are so scared of when you rail against it, because from what I can see it's working pretty well for everybody.

    I do admit that it was nice to get a paycheque in the States and gleefully note that I was only taxed 10 percent as opposed to the 20 I would be in NZ. But know what? I can afford it. And so can higher earners like my father, who are taxed 30 percent in the US and 40 in NZ.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sam,

    1) Although apparently intelligent, you’re hopelessly indoctrinated and, as you just noted, willfully ignorant -- just like a good little Socialist comrade. You owe it to yourself and the rest of civilization to educate yourself.

    2) There is no free lunch.

    Click here and here to see that existing entitlements already have this nation on the road to ruin. Socialism is and always has been an unsustainable FANTASY which ALWAYS ends badly.

    3) Click here if you have any interest in learning what propagandists in the media “forgot” to tell you about the Iraq war.

    4) Click here and examine the “credentials” of some of the people closest to our President. If that gives you no cause for concern, then you truly are ignorant of the history of the 20th century -- not that this would surprise me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm not interested in any of those links. So I didn't click them. Have a good day; holding a different set of opinions from you does not make someone ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 1) Sam sez:

    “holding a different set of opinions from you does not make someone [willfully] ignorant”

    But, refusing to examine the opposing evidence does.

    2) Sam sez:

    “I would not hesitate to get behind tax breaks for cyclists, tax penalties for SUV drivers in a heartbeat”

    As regards the concept of Liberal Fascism, it has been noted that:

    “We have replaced the divine right of Kings with the divine right of self-righteous [willfully ignorant] groups”.

    Do you really think you have -- in all your youthful ignorance -- the divine right to dictate what means of transportation is best for all? It appears you do.

    Liberal Fascism has been described as a “totalitarian political religion”. I would describe Liberal Fascism as:

    “The single most dangerous and destructive totalitarian political religious cult ever seen in the entire history of humanity.”

    Click here & examine the new official state religion.

    P.S.) All cults indoctrinate their members to strictly ignore all outside information.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bare with me, I ranted this out in a short time period and as such there are likely to be some errors here and there - however, the fundamental points should no-doubt seep through.

    I'd like to point out a few pertinent points regarding the Copenhagen climate summit. Firstly, I respect that people are getting involved in what they consider to be some active societal participation; such action is a great opposite to the usual apathetic behaviour of the global population, Western citizens more specifically.

    However, this isn't going to achieve anything. Climate Change is in itself not something that is tangible nor does it have solid grounding evidence. To say the climate is changing is self-evident; it's hot one day, the next it may rain. To say it is warming, however - and that this temperature rise is due to CO2 emissions- is totally false. There is no substantiated evidence or scientific findings to prove we have increased the global temperature by our actions.

    The recent climate change debacle involving the CRU of Britain - the IPCC's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) primary source of documentation and 'facts' - was blown wide open through a series of leaked documents (2,500+) which among other things showed blatant lying a bending of data to form conclusions which were sought as hypotheses. This is the opposite of scientific investigation: hypothesis - data - conclusions drawn - hypothesis either correct or false; edits take place. The CRU actually found there to be a 0.7 degree decrease in global temperature, of which they could not explain. The proceeded to change the 'global warming' brand to something more realistic, 'climate change'.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Now, don't get me wrong. We humans are destroying the earth we live on. This is environmentalism, not C02 reduction. We need to stop polluting, using materials that wont break-down over time, destroying plantation, and the like. However, to rally the population on a fundamental scientific lie is to deprive the Earth's inhabitants of the truth of this situation.

    Now, you might ask, why would our government wish to pass a bill that would invariably incorporate a new carbon taxing system along with a cap and trade system? Surely we can trust these individuals. Wrong. This isn't some conspiracy, this isn't false information - this is economics.

    Who benefits from the carbon tax and cap and trade systems? Public money (tax) gets funneled towards government-sponsored green energy expansions: Meridian, Mercury, Contact, in NZ; Exxon, Shell, GE, in the US - along with the other major energy producers world wide. So, you and I are paying for private companies to expand their new technology because they're too concerned about profit to pay for it themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  12. However, this isn't the only problem. The cap and trade system - at the beginning of its inception - allocates the current number of credits required for each polluter to continue at its level of production. This means that no immediate effect will be seen - of course, the idea is to reduce this allocation over time. What they don't mention - you should read their draft bill - is that each credit is traded like a stock of ownership; more buying power = ability to purchase others' alloted credits. The end result is forced monopoly, or more likely, oligopoly. This has happened in trial trading mechanisms set up in the UK and across Europe for other pollutants (Sulfur, etc).

    To make matters worse if green energy is produced by you or I, or an energy manufacturer, then the carbon offset is reimbursed in either the form of more carbon credits (which can be sold for profit) or by a direct tax deduction (public payment).

    Are you getting the picture? This bill (Copenhagen) is funneling public money to expand private energy production - which wont have to decrease based on cap and trade mechanics - that will in turn provide a solid stream of income to the companies in question as they then receive further public money in the form of carbon reimbursements; all this happening while oligopolies further form.

    Now, it's important to note the scientific understanding here. There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers that have yet to be disclosed through media outlets specifically in the US. People often state - without any justification whatsoever - that the Oil companies are the ones fueling climate change skepticism. This is the opposite of right and the definition of wrong. It is in their interests to have a climate bill go through - they'll be laughing at the ignorant public for making such a self-defeating legislation active; albeit passionately.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Al Gore is a joke, I would urge you to do some research into his past, his ideologies, philosophies and most importantly, his business interests. Note he was friends with Kenith Lay of Enron, and in fact now owns the sole carbon trading exchange in the US. Who's to gain?

    If you honestly believe your government is working for you - with you in mind - then you need to seriously reconsider your world view and geo-political understanding. Politicians - whether willingly or not so - are influenced psychologically by Machiavellian and Nietzschean philosophies. You don't mean shit to them, and this bill is just another way to dupe your current standing.

    I urge you to read the draft legislation, which was forcibly released due to legal protest during the first days of the summit. A 2% tax on GDP for developing countries to be paid to the World Bank (private)? The US and Britain instating a new armed carbon police force; NZ will follow suit.

    Having read this far, I thank you. I don't mean to undermine the action that people are taking - conversely, it's nice to actually see people doing something of a political nature. It's just sad that we're active about something which has no credence in prominent climatological circles. This petition will only serve to enforce harsher taxes, less credits, and less public benefit. They psychology at work here is amazing to witness; they're actually getting the public to react how they wish - you are the ones forcing this upon yourself, and it appears as if they are not interested. The opposite of this situation is true.

    The idea is to be skeptical, to question your surroundings and stop being spoon-fed garbage. Just because you happen to see 1000 images of melting icebergs around the world, with flashing headlines ('global sea rise will kill millions', etc) does not mean that we were the cause. If the same access to news media and coverage of this topic were around in the 1920's, it would be just as easy to justify global warming based on image recognition. However, there is still no substantiated evidence to confirm these images are anything but cyclical in nature.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ask the average individual walking down the main-street what they think regarding climate change. 9 times out of 10 you'll get an idiotic (more accurately, conditioned) response that we are destroying the world with CO2 and the greenhouse effect. If you push further, into the science, into the logicality of the situation, into politics, into economics, the rationale behind such actions... you'll get a blank stare and no justification. Ask yourself this: have you actually researched any of this stuff yourself, or are you relying purely on your local Newspaper, TV stations and Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'?

    Perhaps something with spark within your inquisitive latent nature that will pressure you to justify your beliefs, realising that facts and truth have two wholly separate defining characteristics.

    You might find, as have many, that there is no greater irony than Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth.

    I'm happy to debate, discuss, argue anything relating to these things. Now to reiterate: C02 doesn't cause global warming; economic reasoning is the rationale used; we seek environmental action, not climate change related.

    "The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about."
    - H. Jackson Brown, Jr.

    Agreed Morgan [from an earlier discussion], his [Al Gore] past persona and actions clearly overshadow his current green-knight status. I find it rather interesting that both Obama and Gore have received the Nobel Peace Prize; in each case the award was completely wasted on individuals whom have yet to show real initiative, beyond self-serving interest.

    Ahn, I'm not going to personally type out my argument directly relating to C02 and ocean acidification, as I don't have the time right now. I will post some links you may find of interest - which we can discuss - below this comment.

    ReplyDelete
  15. On another note, I feel I should mention my intent regarding the climate change legislation currently being drafted. I believe we should stop using fossil fuels, stop burning them, stop creating artificial and synthetic substances from their base, and stop with the global resource-related fighting that stems - among myriad other things - from energy resources.

    Honestly, peak oil or not, we have a limited supply of crude. Our way of life is wholly dependent on liquid gold for the time being, and naturally we need to cleanse ourselves off this substance.

    Does that mean that we should reduce carbon pollution? Certainly. But this isn't because of the direct relationship between C02 (not monoxide). atmospheric damage/interference, and global climate change. There is - I repeat - no evidence to support the claims made by Mr. Gore and his politic board at the IPCC.

    To rally the population around an artificial 'scientific fact' because there 'might' be a correlation is not fair to the people voting this bill through. As I mentioned earlier, the economic, political, social and physiological implications of this coming legislation is not going to reap benefits for you and I; quite the opposite.

    Why not have a conference on environmentalism? Why not regulate fossil resources and synthetic product use? If Washington wants to push it's capitalist solution, then why not let the market decide how we fix this issue. No cap and trade; having done extensive studies into this I can safely state that the mechanics of these systems is less than ideal beyond theory. Set efficiency caps for all products which require fossil fuels to be created, moreover the harsher chemicals that are required for synthetic manufactuer. It is the nature of business to do what is most profitable; if it's illegal to be environmentally abusive, profit will be effected and thus business will venture into green paths very quickly.

    ReplyDelete
  16. However, the key aspect of difference here is to do with who front the bill and who benefits. In this hypothetical scenario, we the people choose only with our wallets; for, the is no choice but green after a new generation of entrepreneurs work within the green-regulated framework. No taxes, no carbon police, no third-world domination. Developed countries would force their counter-parts to green-up as it would be against their legislation to actually import or sell certain environmentally damaging products in their markets.

    The best part is that those who have caused the biggest harm - making top dollar in the process - will bare the brunt of costly changes. The idea of capitalism is creative destruction; as giants fall new corporations rise to fill their shoes in a more efficient manner.

    Why simply give public money to these businesses when we could rather use our government (keyword being our; of the people, for the people) to loan money either through bonds or structured securities to fund their green-technologoy expansion? Meanwhile, we vote with our feet.

    Now, no matter where you stand (believer or non) the logic of those doing the harm paying the bill makes perfect sense, and the economics of such an implementation is sound. Austrian economics has for the most part been much more people-friendly than the Keynesian philosophy that has been used in the US and most of its western off-shoots since the 1930's.

    ReplyDelete
  17. See, with little evidence to support political climate claims - in fact, downright denials by prominent scientists - it would seem irrational to pass a bill with taxing intent so expediently when there is room for discussion on this topic. Do we want to submit to excess taxes for us and our future generations to a private bank (WB) when we have little reason to trust those who instated the institution in the first place?

    Anyhow as I wrote earlier, here are a few links directly relating to acidification in the ocean and the fundamental 'alterations' which subsequently effect the ecosystems (again, I agree with this, just not the C02 part).

    http://www.erf.org/news/acidification-‘fundamentally-altering’-oceans-fourth-series

    http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2009/12/14/ocean-acidification-by-carbon-dioxide/

    http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/2884

    http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/full/37/12/1131?ijkey=O79jdQYUd

    BqN2&keytype=ref&siteid=gs

    geology

    http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

    http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2009/06/27/the-assumed-authority/

    http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2009/06/17/a-basic-error-in-climate-models/

    Discussion still open.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 1) Mann Made Global Warming hysteria has been debunked.

    So, the greedy scammers have now turned to ocean acidification.

    Click here and/or here to debunk that latest scam.

    2) I would wager that both Sam and TvA think driving a Prius is a more “sustainable” option than driving a gas guzzling giant SUV.

    Click here and see why that is really, really, REALLY not true.

    But, I’m sure Sam would still give Prius drivers a tax advantage over SUV drivers -- his religion demands it.

    3) The so-called “sustainability” religion is rooted in sheer economic ignorance. The world never has and never will run out of any given natural resource. Anyone who has any basic understanding of the natural laws of supply and demand knows why. If you doubt me, study the history of whale oil shortage hysteria mongering.

    That said, click here for a more sober analysis of Peak Oil. Then click here and examine just a few sources which all Peak Oil religious fanatics choose to ignore.

    ReplyDelete
  19. It is more effective to sum up what the links you are constantly sourcing say than to write "click here" 8 times (or more) per comment.

    ReplyDelete
  20. SBVOR, I'd appreciate it if you would deter from making sweeping generalizations about me, as you and I clearly have not met and have thus far had very few words thrown back and forth; essentially, ad hominem argument is psychologically counter-productive. Why? Generally attacking opposition personally is a sign of defeat, yet you show no sign of putting down your factual weapons - thus you at least feel undefeated.

    Now, I could - and likely will, in the near future - sprawl some philosophy on planet earth and why I was surprised to read something you posted: "...the world never has and never will run out of any given natural resource..." You continued on to mention the whale oil debacle; unfortunately the fundamental topic at hand is not historically analogous to whale oil.

    Anyhow, I'll keep this short. If the world were never to run out of resources - and we were to continue pillaging its supply - surely we would only further increase our insatiable appetite for all things fossil-fuel related? Of course we would, it's cheap and highly efficient in base terms. The same goes to many of the minerals and materials we mine. However, the real problem - and the reason why I don't appreciate your classifying me as either a socialist or some religiously-fanatic liberal, of which I am neither - stems from human base design and the effect of harsh pollutants on the populace.

    While it may be true that we are not destroying the earth with our C02 emissions, this in no way changes the valid truth that for all of our efficient burning, we have greater health problems. Major cities and up-and-coming urban centers are likely to grow as does the population, further decreasing the quality of breathing air. Now, moving into green technology - and no, I don't advent the purchasing of a Prius - it would seem logical to begin a transition earlier whilst we still have these problems and this sentimental opportunity - fear mongering produces a climate in the public psyche which can be capitalized by anyone; such logic is present in all politics as opposition hate for one side (group) further unities the party being hated, and the party from which the hate stems, and vice versa.

    I need to continue on some other writing, but I leave this message wondering - with honest interest - how you could justly be pro the energy infrastructure of current. Also, where does your philosophy stand so far as symbiotic universal mechanics are concerned; logicality vs. floating rock? These are pertinent questions, and I've chosen them as they are likely to provide me with some insight into the framework you apply to these issues.

    Remember that we're all indoctrinated and conditioned by our environments, what differs between us is the environment in which we were present.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I keep trying to get out of this, but I keep getting sucked back in.

    I will not have words put in my mouth. I did not say a single thing about driving a Prius. Nor Peak Oil. Nor ocean acidification. My point was that we could all benefit from a lifestyle change. Please do not assume that you know my opinion on anything other than what I've written here.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sam,

    1) Are you really so dense as to fail to understand I was addressing TvA on Peak Oil, Ocean Acidification, etc.?

    2) You stated you would happily apply a special tax on SUV drivers and a special tax advantage to bicycle riders. Is it really a stretch to infer you would apply some tax advantage to Prius drivers?

    3) This venue is way too shallow to continue to bother with. I hope you and TvA have a pair of nice lives (until such time as your religious fanaticism brings it all down around your silly, shallow ears).

    ReplyDelete
  23. SBVOR I'm unsure as to why you would add that last bit, as I'm neither fanatical or religious in any sense; metaphorical and literal. I see you have conceded disdain for this discussion, having begun it as an argument and thus failing to convince anyone of your point of view but rather continuing on your path of blinded self-centric elitism.

    "Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance.” - Robert Quillen

    "If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.” - Elbert Hubbard

    "The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it." - George Bernard Shaw

    Now, crawl back to your basement and re-position your tinfoil hat.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dear SBVOR, you seem hopelessly confused. You conflate socialism with liberalism (indeed, liberal fascism) which are two completely different political traditions. Some would go so far as to say diametrically opposed.

    More importantly, your observation:

    "As long as government does not mandate anything you suggest, I’m with you. Nothing good ever comes from government mandates."

    is trite and meaningless, carrying with it all the gravitas of an aphorism gleaned from a fortune cookie. Government mandates and background rules/laws are the very stuff individual freedoms are constructed on. Do you seriously suggest that state apparatus should not enforce the 'mandate' that legally recognised contracts are to be binding, or the 'mandate' that certain types of interests in property are to be considered 'rights' and recognised in a certain way? I use these examples because hoary old conservative chestnuts like yourself often refer to examples such as 'property rights' without recognising that these would be meaningless without so-called government 'interference'.

    Once we've moved past that point, we are debating the merits of the constraints imposed by government in a liberal democracy (here, using 'liberal' in a more correct sense than the misguided one you appear to prefer). Sam, in my view, has presented an eloquent defence of certain measures which would (at the 'worst', i.e, no global warming) tend to make people healthier and reduce pollution. I hardly see this entry as championing a 'tyrannical power grab' as you suggest. It is you who has attempted to extend his argument in a rather absurd fashion in a dismal attempt to prove your own ideological position unequivocally correct. Where indeed did this Prius point come in?

    As Sam has said, he has no wish to enter the minutiae of the global warming debate with you, a position which I can wholeheartedly sympathise with. The point, as I see it, is not to casually dismiss attempts to minimise climate change as misguided solely because one is skeptical of climate change. Rather, there may be other beneficial effects which are worth supporting in and of themselves.

    For a brief blog entry, this has attracted considerable commentary on your behalf, and I shan't feed your messianic delusions any further by posting any further replies to your posts.

    Good day.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 1) TvA sez:

    “I'm neither fanatical or religious in any sense”

    A) It’s neither/nor, not neither/or.

    B) Without exception, all who have adopted the official state religion lack enough self-awareness (and enough education) to recognize their own religious fanaticism.

    2) TvA expresses angst over “the quality of breathing air”.

    A) “breathing air”? What kind of phrase is “breathing air”?

    B) This misplaced angst is more proof of willful ignorance.

    Examine this chart from this EPA report and tell me about the trends for “breathing air”.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Misplaced angst? You're unimaginably [willfully] ignorant if you can't understand the correlation between chemical pollutants and the health of surrounding ecosystems.

    I honestly believe that you need to seek help, as such I've provided you with some outpatient centers located in your vicinity, linked below. Your delusions and ideological elitism - not to mention your grammatical nit-picking - has led me to the unequivocal position of psychiatric advocacy.

    http://www.cwrmhc.org/

    http://www.healthgrades.com/directory_search/physician/profiles/dr-md-reports/dr-richard-berkley-md-b2f2f463.cfm

    http://yampavalley.info/centers/health_%2526_human_services/pages/steamboat_mental_health_center

    Stay safe my deluded counter-part, and remember that watching Glen Beck 24/7 will likely cause serious mental health ramifications.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I bring my own bag when I grocery shop. Short, but true.

    ReplyDelete