Gideon MacLeish Gideon MacLeish

I Missed the Global Warming Moron-a-Thon!

I Missed the Global Warming Moron-a-Thon!

Link

Well, I have to thank talk radio for pointing this little tidbit out for me. Apparently, several of Hollywood's elite got together last Sunday to preach at the rest of us and demand that we lobby our congresspersons to sign the Kyoto accords. From what I heard, it was a moron-a-thon of mammoth proportions.

Now, to be fair, I have only heard soundbites of this claptrap. But those soundbites have been enough to make me roll my eyes until I'm deathly afraid they'll freeze that way. While this event was meant to draw attention to global warming, "comedian" Wanda Sykes (as oxymoronic a statement as "comedian" Janeane Garafaolo...but I digress) decided to do her routine about George Bush's Social Security plan, rather than staying on topic. She did a great service for the right, however, by stating OUTRIGHT the liberal mantra that Americans are too stupid to know what to do with their money and that they ought to give it to the government to protect them from their stupidity...but again I digress (in fairness, Sykes did it first).

Robert Fitzgerald Kennedy, Junior, Will Ferrell, Bill Maher (who made asinine, completely false statements about the oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere allegedly dropping to 9% and about all of the animals migrating northward, but as certain retired military personnel on this site have proven, who needs PROOF when you have RHETORIC on your side?) and the usual Hollywood liberal elite (none of whom, I might add, live in homes that draw their energy from solar and wind power or that reclaim greywater and otherwise minimize their impact on the environment, despite having ample funds to do so) preached about our responsibility to the environment and how we need to take personal steps to reduce our impact (I'll remember that at Oscar time when they pull up in Limousines that use a helluva lot more gas than a Prius). It was, for liberals, the perfect showcase of their bogus propaganda.

Now comes the punchline. Can you guess where the event was held? Did they open up the Biosphere in the Arizona desert? Did they deliver their propaganda from a self sustaining, off the grid intentional community? Nope...they went to the world's most fantastic monument to waste....Caesar's Palace, Las Vegas Nevada. This is a city of a million people that draws water from a region where it is desperately needed to fill canals on the rooftops of the Venetian, fountains at the Bellagio that spectacularly spray thousands of gallons in the air multiple times a day, much of which is lost to evaporation in Vegas' 100 plus degree summer heat, and put other similarly arrogant middle fingers in the face of every environmental and conservation movement. This is a city where the lights are on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, where the beacon at the Luxor can be seen from outer space, and where the glow of lights are visible some 60 miles away in the Nevada desert.

The liberals are right that we need to be environmentally minded. Although there is credible evidence that global warming is a myth (before you point to this fall's warmer than usual temperatures, check out The Old Farmer's Almanac's article in the 2006 on sunspots for a FAR MORE LIKELY explanation), we need to be responsible stewards of what we have. But until they hold themselves liable, until they hold communities like Las Vegas liable, they have NO BUSINESS preaching to me as I sit in my woodstove heated, 1200 square foot home, watching a 19 inch TV and doing everything I can to minimize our personal impact on the environment. Bad form, Hollywood libs!

23,575 views 61 replies
Reply #26 Top
What do you need a road map Bakerstreet? In saying millions of pages I am referring to the large body of work that has been done on this subject since global warming came into the public consciousness. Should I have said hundreds-of-thousands of pages, would that satisfy you?

If you're going to win this arguement argue the -facts- though I know that may be difficult for you and the others on this board. My statement of "millions of books" is a truism like stating "the sky is blue" - I don't have to prove it because it is a known fact.

The greater point here is that those who claim Global Warming is bunk, are doing so based on biased and innaccurate reporting, as well as a small vocal minority of scientists who are not completely convinced by overwhelming evidence.

BoP


Reply #27 Top
What do you need a road map Bakerstreet? In saying millions of pages I am referring to the large body of work that has been done on this subject since global warming came into the public consciousness. Should I have said hundreds-of-thousands of pages, would that satisfy you?

If you're going to win this arguement argue the -facts- though I know that may be difficult for you and the others on this board. My statement of "millions of books" is a truism like stating "the sky is blue" - I don't have to prove it because it is a known fact.

The greater point here is that those who claim Global Warming is bunk, are doing so based on biased and innaccurate reporting, as well as a small vocal minority of scientists who are not completely convinced by overwhelming evidence.

BoP


So you're going to argue "against" the hard physical data that NASA has collected over the years? And YES I'm saying global warming "could" very well be bunk. But then I'm basing my assumption on data gathered by NASA. Not on any biased or inaccurate reporting. And I think NASA "might" know just a little more about stuff like this than most people.....scientist or otherwise since they deal with it on a daily basis.
Reply #28 Top
BoP: It is a proven fact that the Earth warms and cools in cycles naturally. You, and others, are saying the the current warming is unnatural. The burden of proof lies on the side that claims something new is happening.

It's easy just to say "Oh yeah, they proved it, you have to believe me." On the other hand you could make a real argument and offer some sort of proof to that effect. I don't have to prove that the Earth has cyclical temperature variance. In order to tie a tiny sliver of Earth's history to cataclysmic change, though, requires pretty solid evidence.

Like I said, you can claim your farts make it rain, but the rain is no proof. Neither is saying that millions of pages prove it if you can't even relate what they say or what they are. Wanna talk about sheeple? How about people who believe "millions of pages" they haven't read...


I'm sure you'll have no problem blowing idiots like us out of the water, though, please continue. OR at least start. Your argument so far is that "scientists say so". Not very impressive.
Reply #29 Top
DrMiler,

My gooodness... you make it too easy. I followed up on the authoer to the article you posted. It seems the author is some hack from New Mexico. He's a certified computer Help Desk technician with his resume easily accessible on the internet. On top of that, this guy has a seperate site under a sub-folder called endtimes. This website is, for lack of a better word, unrepentently biased. His articles are all written with a Conservative agenda, and he makes no attempt at being impartial (so much for journalistic integrity). Therefore any rational person would doubt the veracity of his articles.

Furthermore, if you're going to (at least try to) prove me wrong, try to use unbiased bipartisan (or non-partisan) research to back up your claim. Science does not belong to any political party.

However, I am not surprised by the arguments by the other right-wingers who have posted thus far.. this argument reminds me of the non-debate between Evolution and Intelligent Design. Supporters of Intelligent Design don't have to *prove* that Intelligent Design is real, they simply try to suggest that Evolution as a theory is flawed. It's the ultimate right-wing tactic.. tell a lie enough times until it is virtually indistinguishable from the truth. Classic.

BoP
Reply #30 Top
NASA's findings are only one piece of a very large puzzle, and I don't think it's conclusive enough at the moment. I would need to do further research. Besides, it's not like NASA has a reputation for being consistant. They have made plenty of gaffs in the past.

BoP
Reply #31 Top
"Supporters of Intelligent Design don't have to *prove* that Intelligent Design is real, they simply try to suggest that Evolution as a theory is flawed. It's the ultimate right-wing tactic.. tell a lie enough times until it is virtually indistinguishable from the truth. Classic.


Proving that you don't even know what intelligent design is either. You, as other ignorant people do, pretend it is all Pat Robertson and religion, when in reality there needn't be anything supernatural, deitic, etc. for evolution to be directed by more than chance.

It isn't for skeptics to prove scientific theory wrong, BoP, it is for scientists to prove themselves correct. You can't stand in a scientific pose and the dismiss hypothesis offhand without them even being tested. We all admit there may be something to global warming, but we can't accept the piddly work so far as law.

So far, the proof simply isn't there without reading it with bias. Frankly, the data itself is insufficient to even begin to believe, given the short few decades they have even studied the billions of years of change on Earth. The same with Intelligent Design. We, at least, have an open mind.

The only one here dismissing thought in a "the world is flat" way is you, who can't fathom the idea of any other model other than your own.
Reply #32 Top
I never said Global Warming was law. What I said was that the evidence to suggest that it is real is very strong, and on the contrary, the nay-sayers (even scientific nay-sayers) have been linked with big oil and other polluting industries who have much to lose if legislation forces them to clean up their acts. (Don't ask me to provide you with names, I remember reading articles regarding this from sources I trust.) So whose word am I going to take?

I myself am not an environmental scientist, and I will not claim to know the entire body of knowledge that global warming encompasses, and I doubt anyone here can either... however, I have heard countless reports about the global temperature index rising, and its projected increase..so the global index is going up but one NASA satellite says we're really cooling off? That's contradictory as far as I'm concerned. But that's just the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended).

If NASA's report is true.. I would love to hear them explain why areas that used to be frozen tundra are now thawed, why fifteen-twenty years ago thick ice sheets at the poles are now nothing but melted water. There is REAL phyisical evidence that the Earth is warmer. Yet, DrMiler presents one article about NASA's findings and you want me to throw all that I know out the window? I don't think so. Not until there is more definitive proof. (This is not an invitation for you to post more articles.. we'll just have to wait and see.) ANd you can't have it both ways either..one article suggests that global warming is a natural phenomenon, while the NASA report suggests a cooling trend. So which is it?

Finally, all this talk of global warming is technically off-topic. The original topic dealt with celebrities and their involvement with political issues, not the environment. (My point about the environment is that it is a *real* issue and global warming is only one among many other environmental issues whose effects cannot be disputed... e.g. acid rain, deforestation, etc..) Everytime some celebrity (unless it's Schwarzenegger, Dennis Miller, or Ron Silver...) raises awareness on an issue, the first thing you hear coming out of the Conservative community are the words "Liberal Hollywood Elite" - as if that was a case against their ability to speak out on important topic. In fact, that type of statement betrays its own form of elitism.

So go ahead, if you have any final points about global warming, make them. I won't adress them.

BoP
Reply #33 Top
Again, what you pose as evidence is the phenomenon you seek to explain. If I give you the point that the Earth is warming, which I don't dispute or advocate, it still doesn't prove we are RESPONSIBLE for the warming, or that the warming isn't the natural cycle of planetary temperature.

You're like a UFO buff who seeks to prove aliens exist by pointing to mutilated cattle. Fine, I yeild that cattle are mutilated, but that doesn't mean aliens are responsible. Given a few decades of real weather study and great ignorance toward the cycles of warming and cooling of the earth, no one seems to have proved sufficiently that this perceived warming is an unnatural occurance.

As to the "topic", I find your posts very, very valid. You believe what these people say because of who they are. A guy with a degree on his wall says it, so it must be true. People you consider stupid differ, so you are CERTAIN you are right. The people you debate here are open to either side ending up being correct, we simply don't want to take a knee-jerk stance based on little information.

No offense, your global warming beliefs aren't much different than the fundamentalists you refered to earlier. Both you and they read books you aren't qualified to judge and opt to believe them blindly.
Reply #34 Top
P.S. and if you think blindly adhering to environmental pop science isn't destructive, consider the millions who die due to malaria because DDT was a great environmental evil. The data involved with deeming it so now has been reviewed and found lacking.

When folks like you push reform that harms economies and causes destruction, will you just say "oops" in a hundred years when it is found to be bunk?
Reply #35 Top

One last thing... Las Vegas recieves electricity from the Hoover Dam, an ecologically friendly, and non-polluting source of power.

Kind of makes you feel stupid doesn't it?

No, not at all. when we speak of resource management, we must realize that the power from the Hoover Dam is desperately needed throughout Southern California. Remember the Enron energy scam? Well, the folks at Enron profiteered off of SoCal's need.

While the Hoover Dam IS ecologically friendly, as you insist, the electricity used by its supply often is not. Do you seriously think that light pollution and the heat that is often produced in creating that light are pollution nonfactors? For that matter, have you ever BEEN to Vegas to view what I'm talking about?

You assume that my conclusions come from right wing talk radio hosts, when, in fact, they do NOT. If you read my posts regularly, you will quickly notice that I am a LIBERTARIAN, about as far ideologically from Republicans as I am from Democrats. This article was written about the inconsistencies and hypocrisy of the left, a fact you obviously missed when picking nits for your ad hominem attacks.

I didn't say for a certainty that global warming does not exist, just that it is a highly debatable topic. And, having a cousin who did extensive research on CO2 emissions caused by the SOUTH AMERICAN RAIN FORESTS (and he is a leftist of all leftists...but I digress), I believe that there are far more factors at work than our pollution.

My point was (and is) that if you want to look at the excesses that cause pollution, then you need look no further than the hypocritical Hollywood elite. And if you want to look at communities that pollute, you need to look no further than the city of Las Vegas (care to do the calculations on the tonnage of raw sewage that has made its way into Lake Mead from the city over the years? I know FOR A FACT...it was a widely reported news item...that just about a year and a half ago over TWO TONS of raw sewage made its way into Lake Mead from a burst sewer main at Treasure Island).

I could write an entire book of FACTS refuting your assertions, balance, but the proof is in the pudding. I'm stating facts, you're attacking me personally!

 

Reply #36 Top

The liberals are right that we need to be environmentally minded. Although there is credible evidence that global warming is a myth (before you point to this fall's warmer than usual temperatures, check out The Old Farmer's Almanac's article in the 2006 on sunspots for a FAR MORE LIKELY explanation), we need to be responsible stewards of what we have. But until they hold themselves liable, until they hold communities like Las Vegas liable, they have NO BUSINESS preaching to me as I sit in my woodstove heated, 1200 square foot home, watching a 19 inch TV and doing everything I can to minimize our personal impact on the environment. Bad form, Hollywood libs!

For the record, THIS is one of the biggest problem I have with leftists such as yourself, BoP. You seem to have MISSED this paragraph entirely. And, seeing how it was the concluding paragraph and structurally intended to summarize my entire argument, that was VERY bad form on YOUR part!

Reply #37 Top

How does your retort in any way prove me wrong? Besides you can't just come in here and call me sheeple. Sheeple are passive and accept whatever they are told, they don't go out of their way to post a 1000 word mini-essay in an attempt to educate the poor miscreants who think they know what they are talking about.

No, they just regurgitate what they have been told by their handlers.  Like you did.

Reply #38 Top
why wouldn't you guys want to air on the side of caution? i mean....we are talking about the possible destruction of earth. i mean, it's preemptive. you all like preemptive wars don't you? take this one.
Reply #39 Top

mcdaniel,

I already EXPLAINED how I'm "erring on the side of caution". Are you suggesting that I move outside in a tent and live off of roots and berries?

My point was (and IS) that these celebrities will not voluntarily live the kinds of lifestyles that reduce their impact on the environment. Nor will they hold big business accountable to do so. They simply want to make stricter regulations that hurt small business owners and the working poor. Don't believe me? How many of those making $25,000 can afford a hybrid car? How many small business owners can afford to make the changes the Kyoto protocols would require?

Reply #40 Top
actually, i was suggesting that you move outside in a tent and live off of roots and berries.
Reply #41 Top

Good idea, mcdaniel. You willing to pay for a lawyer to defend me when CPS shows up and tries to remove my kids?

I thought not. If you want to be a luddite, fine (I suggest you cease using your computer first...but I digress). But please don't force your OPINIONS on others as LAW.

And, again, go after the BIG polluters first, k? I don't want you preaching at my micro-waste while ignoring the macro-waste of virtually ALL of our larger communities.

Reply #42 Top
BakerStreet,

I really don't want to rehash the global warming argument, but I will say this... you should follow your own advice when it pertains to scientific theory. Global warming, as theories go, is still debatable -yes- but the case shouldn't be thrown out simply because a fraction of the collected data seems to indicate otherwise, which is what you and the nay-sayers are advocating. Yes, it is up to environmentalists to prove that global warming is a man-made phenomenon, likewise, those scientists who refute global warming must ALSO prove that the supposed warming is a natural phenomenon. You can't just sit back and wipe your hands of the matter simply because you assert it's natural phenomenon. Realistically speaking, it is unlikley that global warming will be proven one way or another, much like other "theories" that cannot be quantified, such as evolution, or the big bang theory. They are established theories and until a better model comes around to replace them, they are considered the paradigm to which the scientific community adheres to.

The reason I accept global warming is sound is because much of what I have read and studied indicates that the warming trend began with the advent of industrialization. I have seen charts showing a sharp increase in global temperature that coincides with the proliferation of internal combustion vehicles, aircraft, and other industrial processes, which started relatively 60-70 years ago. This is, as far as I'm concerned, too much of a coincidence to accept as mere natural phenomenon. I would think that a warming/cooling trend would not spike in so short a time (60-70 years being a mere blip in a geologic time scale), but instead would be a more gradual increase.

Let me make one more thing clear: I do not "believe" in global warming the same way a Fundamentalist Christian believes in the divinity of Jesus or in Intelligent Design. Their belief comes without a shred of proof - that is why it is called faith. I do not have faith in global warming, I simply accept that the scientific community, for better or worse, knows more about the subject than I do, because that is their job. I have done my share of research on this topic, and I believe it to be scientifically sound, and not the hysteria you make it out to be.

Reply #43 Top
That's what you don't seem to understand, BoP. No one is tossing out the idea of "global warming". No one is rejecting it offhand. The point we differ on is whether the data is sufficient enough yet to adopt sweeping reform that could cause other damage.

I'll refer you back to the DDT example. Or you could say at one time the medical industry thought morning sickness was important enough to rush through a drug that created a generation of Thalidomide babies. You don't "err on the safe side" by rushing to fix a problem that hasn't yet been proven to be a problem.
Reply #44 Top
i was suggesting that you move outside in a tent and live off of roots and berries.


Wow, McDaniel. You must be really using your solar collector to its limits to maintain your laptop's power supply, so you can blog from your tent.
Good luck with today's hunting and gathering. I hope you find some good mushrooms or lichen for dinner.
So how are those woven clogs working out for you? I know you forsook leather, wood, and plastics due to their environmental impact. Taking dead reeds from a local field was a stroke of genius, especially the part about them being already withered and dead.

I can assume that you have done all those things in order to speak to Gid about his consumption habits. I mean, "we are talking about the possible destruction of the earth" here. Otherwise you'd be a smarty-pants f**king hypocrite.

And I know that's not true.
Reply #45 Top
Wow, McDaniel. You must be really using your solar collector to its limits to maintain your laptop's power supply, so you can blog from your tent.


McDaniel is a child. Protected from the real world, spoiled by a couple of over indulegent parents, and with no conception of reality.

He will find out when he cannot feed himself and decides to use welfare to further his cause. But he will never learn. He loves sucking on someone else's teat. He did not have to work for it, and he never will either.
Reply #46 Top
i actually work 60 hours a week in a factory. UFCW and I'm proud of that. also, i'm a third year international relations major. so in between being smarter than you, I actually work harder too.

now back to my original point, i want YOU to live in a tent. i'm going to stay here and work on my blog. oh, and before i forget, i also volunteer at goodwill, and am actively working on increases in minimum wage, and for ted strickland in ohio. did i forget to mention that i'm also a young handsome liberal?
Reply #47 Top
A. You work in a factory. Very environmentally conscious.

B. You are a Junior in college, wow.

1. You assume that you are the only one here who is college educated.
2. You don't even have a degree yet.
3. A college degree doesn't imply intelligence. There are a lot of college educated idiots out there.
4. You don't even have a handle on simple capitalization and punctuation rules.

C. You want Gideon to live in a tent.

1. You apparently don't know his living situation. He's gone to great lengths to minimize his impact on the environment. He's sacrificed FAR more than the average American in that regard.
2. That makes you (in the words of singrdave) a smarty pants fucking hypocrite.

D. You volunteer, wow. I'm sure you're the only one on here who does that.

E. You're a "young, handsome liberal"? Not conceited, are we?

As much as I may agree with many liberal viewpoints, you definitely don't represent me, and you're as good a reason as any for me to start calling myself an Independent.
Reply #48 Top
PS - If you want us to read your crap, you need to post it via JoeUser, not through the Political Machine website.
Reply #49 Top
I don't mind if you don't read my crap, tex.

I'm just assuming most republicans are uneducated because most of them are. polls show it. 80% of republicans can't even read. CAN'T EVEN READ! So why would I assume any of you even know what a 'college' is?

and no i do not know tom or whatever you said his name was. 1) i do want him to live in a tent. and with that kind of attitude, maybe you should also.

your right. typical leftist 'do as i say not as i do' how dare I work in a factory! and care about the enviroment. I am asking them to change, but I'll leave it to the politicians. unless someone hands me a gun, then it's intifadah. totally differant topic.
Reply #50 Top
and i'm going to add this-

if you hate mother nature and the enviroment, then do nothing. your current position speaks loudly.