tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post115850632842078184..comments2024-03-18T13:34:06.557-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: Be Very Frightened: Krystallnacht is Coming to AmeriKKKa!Gagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1159411721357830412006-09-27T19:48:00.000-07:002006-09-27T19:48:00.000-07:00Any president and vice president with links to the...Any president and vice president with links to the oil industry is going to arouse HOWLS of outrage from the left. It is axiomatic to them that the oil industry is raping America, and that therefore Bush and Cheney are doing it to. They will agree with every word of this paragraph.<BR/><BR/>Theirs is a world view based upon the idea that the American government, under the control of conservatives even when Democrats sit at the very top, that our government is evil and vicious and utterly corrupt.<BR/><BR/>What is truly bizarre is the free pass they give to the governments around the rest of the world - especially the vicious ones! The ones that prey on, say, Israel, who really does only want to be left alone now. But to our liberal friends, only America and our allies are evil. It boggles the mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158599554532172862006-09-18T10:12:00.000-07:002006-09-18T10:12:00.000-07:00The aesthetic issue of modern life is far more imp...The aesthetic issue of modern life is far more important and real than Global Warming, real or unreal. Humans are made for beauty and much in the modern world, so much of it is so diabolically ugly. That is an issue about which conservatives should concern themselves, as it involves the human soul.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158560638319532982006-09-17T23:23:00.000-07:002006-09-17T23:23:00.000-07:00GW is about the liberal emotional state, not the s...GW is about the liberal emotional state, not the science. Here in Seattle we have a bunch of activists concerned about GW who also want to tear down the snake river hydro power dams. The power would end up being replaced by coal fired power. Pure genius.<BR/><BR/>If we need to do something about GW, it will be optimistic business types that get the job done. Liberals will object vigorously to any effective solution outside of conservation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158556521240640302006-09-17T22:15:00.000-07:002006-09-17T22:15:00.000-07:00I agree with Van and Julie. Global warming/coolin...I agree with Van and Julie. Global warming/cooling alarmists are not looking at a long enough period of earth time. Climate has natural cycles. Did the dinosaurs sit around and ask each other what they can do differently before the ice age? Would it really have made a difference if they altered the climate the .002% that the Kyoto plan will do? We must be sensible and not sacrifice the economy and modernity of daily life for some unproven future. I would certainly like to see people keeping the earth cleaner by simply not littering or throwing their butts out the window. I love recycling! But, F' ya'll if you think I am willing to do without an air conditioner in the Valley!!!Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04969685296436358865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158555619161163962006-09-17T22:00:00.000-07:002006-09-17T22:00:00.000-07:00Nagarjuna said..."Are you qualifed to credibly mak...Nagarjuna said...<BR/>"Are you qualifed to credibly make that claim, Van? I know you're a smart guy, but what is your scientific background such that you can be so unequivocal in your dismissal of the claims of weather scientists who argue that the available evidence DOES support human-caused global warming that poses a serious threat?" <BR/><BR/>I think that one of the worst developments of the last century has been that of "Experts" being given credibility over and above what a standard issue person using responsible fact checking and common reasoning will be able to determine.<BR/>That too can be laid at the door of leftist/Proregressive/Marxist... ah but there goes my one Note again....<BR/><BR/>The simple truth is that if you do a weekends worth of digging on any of the core claims of the Global Warming claims, you'll find that significant sections of data, information & research are ignored, left out or misrepresented to support their crises cause celebe. As with Chomsky and the rest, once you determine that their primary methods, not accidental discrepancies, but their actual methods consist wholly of these policies, together with wide equivocations - then you can simply and safely dismiss them out of hand. <BR/><BR/>Their words are without substance, utterly worthless, and the time and energy already wasted on them has already made us much poorer for it.<BR/><BR/>Also, Gagdad, I'd be interested in your take on this, I suspect that spending too much time trying to understand they and their kind's reasoning is potentially destructive to your own mental state, if you spend too much time trying to make sense of them. Maybe I'm a little odd, but I find that as you start forcing yourself to comprehend the 'works' of Hegel, Marx, Heidegger, Foucault, the Frankfurt school, et al, you can actually feel a warping occurring in your own thoughts. I'm taking a break from my series of posts because after digging into these last four, it's as if their ideas begin trying to literally dis-integrate your thoughts. <BR/><BR/>An odd sensation. So far the best cure seems to be take two Aristotle’s and read Gagdad in the morning.<BR/><BR/>But as to the Global Warmers, I think juliec's comment above was excellent and to the point. The monumental arrogance of them to think that they, who don't even have a coherent and working climatology model for the Present, are nevertheless capable of "fixing" the climatic setting for the entire world to a standard of their choice, to be maintained over an extended period of time.<BR/><BR/>Just as the leftists thought they could recode the structure of society and 'intra-personal relations' with their sophistic pseudo-scientific theories, which resulted in such paradises as the Soviet Union, Hitler, Mao, and so on - they want to do the same for the entire Earth. Can't you just see them dictating to Mother Earth "No, you're too confrontational with your El Nino's, and that Gulf Stream, too strident, just relax, take it easy, we're ok, you're ok". <BR/><BR/>Simply Amazing.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158554117267504272006-09-17T21:35:00.000-07:002006-09-17T21:35:00.000-07:00Listen to us fall all over ourselves trying to exp...Listen to us fall all over ourselves trying to explain away global warning. Idiocy! We all know in our hearts that GW is real and we cause it, and its bad, real bad. Stop running away. How about some spine for a change?<BR/> What conservatives must do is take the lead on controlling carbon burden. We need to take this issue away from the libs and make it our own. We can manage this thing better than they can any day of the week. Don't let the Gore-ites get a monopoly on what is well on its way to being the biggest issue in the politics of the 21st century. <BR/> Our current ideological postition on this matter (either that GW just isn't that important, or that it can't be helped anyway) is political suicide. What's it going to take for you guys to wake up? Does your house have to be underwater?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158553497787011692006-09-17T21:24:00.000-07:002006-09-17T21:24:00.000-07:00"This is how primitives remain primitive--they are...<I>"This is how primitives remain primitive--they are trapped in the now, with no accurate knowledge or history. Their cultures are simply a collective neurosis, just as a neurosis is a private culture."</I><BR/><BR/>Sounds like the perfect dust-cover description of Islam-- No need to read the book!Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08874712703862427318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158549353953219082006-09-17T20:15:00.000-07:002006-09-17T20:15:00.000-07:00a worried convervative said... "If we flatly deny ...<I>a worried convervative said... <BR/><BR/>"If we flatly deny that global warming is caused by people, and later scientific evidence shows that we we're wrong, what will happen to our credibility?"<BR/> <BR/>2:12 PM</I> <BR/><BR/><BR/>Now THAT'S textbook paranoia! <BR/><BR/>(And why try to pretend to be a conservative, Stevie Wonder could see that you are not?) <BR/><BR/>Oh. Yeah. You are infinitely smarter than us. Forgot that. <BR/><BR/><BR/>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158545368134762742006-09-17T19:09:00.000-07:002006-09-17T19:09:00.000-07:00Goy--Yes, I will almost feel sorry for these liber...Goy--<BR/><BR/>Yes, I will almost feel sorry for these liberals if a liberal is ever elected president, because then they will have to bear the pain of knowing that their unhappiness emanates from within. Pain is so much easier when you can project it outward. But of course, that prevents psychological maturity. Which tells you all you need to know about liberals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158542005241079832006-09-17T18:13:00.000-07:002006-09-17T18:13:00.000-07:00Anonymous, I never said that weather scientists sh...Anonymous, I never said that weather scientists should be in charge of public policy. But I believe that those who make public policy, including those of us who vote for those who make it, should have some understanding of what weather scientists say about an important public policy issue and are justified in questioning those without expertise in weather sciences who unequivocally assert that someone has proven that we shouldn't worry about global warming or that the studies demonstrating that humans are causing dangerous global warming are not worth heeding. It seems to me that THIS is, or should be, the truly "elementary" truth.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02549770321948541384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158541485570298772006-09-17T18:04:00.000-07:002006-09-17T18:04:00.000-07:00I realize this is elementary, Nagerjuna, but being...I realize this is elementary, Nagerjuna, but being an "expert" in some narrow field has no bearing whatsoever on what public policies should be pursued. In fact, more often than not, expertise deforms the mind and prevents the person from seeing the big picture. There is a reason why we want a civilian in charge of the military, and a reason why we don't want weathermen in charge of the weather.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158540945495882542006-09-17T17:55:00.000-07:002006-09-17T17:55:00.000-07:00"Lomborg is a liberal, ya bonehead. Just an open m..."Lomborg is a liberal, ya bonehead. Just an open minded and skeptical one."<BR/><BR/>If you read my previous comment carefully, you'll see that I was referring to you or whoever the anonymous poster was who asserted that Lonborg had proven his claim.<BR/><BR/>"And it doesn't take a whole lot of looking into to figure it out, so I have little sympathy with those who wish to keep an open mind about it and not risk being wrong on the issue."<BR/><BR/>Are you qualifed to credibly make that claim, Van? I know you're a smart guy, but what is your scientific background such that you can be so unequivocal in your dismissal of the claims of weather scientists who argue that the available evidence DOES support human-caused global warming that poses a serious threat?Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02549770321948541384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158540840315455832006-09-17T17:54:00.000-07:002006-09-17T17:54:00.000-07:00I would like to make a humble observation about gl...I would like to make a humble observation about global warming. The earth's climate has never, at any point since its initial formation, been static. It never will be, regardless of any human activities designed to keep it at some idealized temperature (which is apparently what opponents of climate change want). The truth is the climate will either be getting colder or warmer, gradually or relatively swiftly, at any given time based on variables which even today's climatologists do not fully grasp, though it appears (reasonably enough) that solar and volcanic activity each contribute far more to climate change than human activity ever has. With this in mind, I fail to find climate change particularly alarming. Perhaps people should be focused more on how best to adapt to changes, instead of trying desperately to keep the climate static.<BR/><BR/>Or try this: Ask your favorite climate change worrier what they believe the earth's ideal temperature should be. Further, ask them how they propose to "set" that temperature. Then query as to whether they've considered that (assuming it were possible) setting the earth's temperature to a static ideal might actually be far more damaging than any changes wrought by nature from one year to the next. For example, how many species would die if we managed to stop El Nino from happening, because their biology is dependent upon weather phenomena that occur with some regularity every few years?<BR/><BR/>Just a thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158539672812998692006-09-17T17:34:00.000-07:002006-09-17T17:34:00.000-07:00nudgeruni--Lomborg is a liberal, ya bonehead. Just...nudgeruni--<BR/><BR/>Lomborg <I>is</I> a liberal, ya bonehead. Just an open minded and skeptical one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158539317987051452006-09-17T17:28:00.000-07:002006-09-17T17:28:00.000-07:00Global Warming 'evidence' has been from the beginn...Global Warming 'evidence' has been from the beginning, consisted of a selective snapshot of data put together with research that is either questionable, or only partially used in order to get a equivocated conclusion otherwise unwarranted by the data or research. <BR/><BR/>And it doesn't take a whole lot of looking into to figure it out, so I have little sympathy with those who wish to keep an open mind about it and not risk being wrong on the issue.<BR/><BR/>In short, it is typical leftist cause mongering, no different than that which was behind Global Cooling, Population Bomb, Silent Spring, etc.<BR/><BR/>It was a pre-formed conclusion that would fit the 'Crisis' template and deemed useful for scaring the public into pushing the agenda of the moment, which is and has always been anti-capitalism, anti-American and pro Marxist Collectivist.<BR/><BR/>Utterly worthless, and as such destructive in and of itself.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158538152060614462006-09-17T17:09:00.000-07:002006-09-17T17:09:00.000-07:00Forgive me if I don't reflexively accept the word ...Forgive me if I don't reflexively accept the word of some anonymous poster who categorically states that some guy I've never heard of has "proved so clearly" that we shouldn't concern ourselves with global warming. That doesn't mean that I dismiss what you say, but I would like to know if those in the scientific community who are qualified to evaluate Mr. Lonborg's research and claims unanimously accept them as the "proof" you claim that they are. <BR/><BR/>If that makes me a "moobat" worthy of your insults, all I can say is that the world needs a lot more "moonbats" who don't automatically embrace some likely conservative's unsubstantiated claims about such a controversial and potentially vital issue here on a blog any more than they should automatically embrace the unsubstantiated and conflicting claims of a "liberal" here or anywhere else.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02549770321948541384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158536857925686632006-09-17T16:47:00.000-07:002006-09-17T16:47:00.000-07:00Only to those of us condemned to having minds that...Only to those of us condemned to having minds that are both open and logical. Which exludes moonbats such as yourself. So never mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158536126902709772006-09-17T16:35:00.000-07:002006-09-17T16:35:00.000-07:00To whom has Bjorn Lonborg proven what you say he's...To whom has Bjorn Lonborg proven what you say he's proven so conclusively?Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02549770321948541384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158534512659226732006-09-17T16:08:00.000-07:002006-09-17T16:08:00.000-07:00No, because even under the worst case scenario the...No, because even under the worst case scenario there are far more pressing human problems on which to spend our limited resources, as Bjorn Lonborg has proved so clearly in his research. Not to mention the fact that the proposed "solutions" have human costs of their own. Thousands will die and millions more will be condemned to poverty lower standards of living with any Kyoto type protocols--which only delay the problem by five years anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158533860087107352006-09-17T15:57:00.000-07:002006-09-17T15:57:00.000-07:00Would it be preposterous to suggest that we just c...Would it be preposterous to suggest that we just can't be sure at this time whether global warming caused by humans is a real threat, and, therefore, that those on the right should be no more dogmatic in insisting that global warming poses no threat than those on the left should be dogmatic in insisting that it does? That is, wouldn't the most reasonable position at this time be to keep our minds open to the best evidence on both sides unless and until it becomes conclusive?Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02549770321948541384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158529881764585112006-09-17T14:51:00.000-07:002006-09-17T14:51:00.000-07:00Richard Hofstadter (1916-1970) wrote an essay in t...Richard Hofstadter (1916-1970) wrote an essay in the November, 1964 issue of HARPERS magazine entitled "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," which was also made into a book of the same title. Although his immediate target was the John Birch Society he contended that paranoia in politics is an endemic situation. His opening sentence says it well:<BR/><BR/>"American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158528746967221602006-09-17T14:32:00.000-07:002006-09-17T14:32:00.000-07:00a worried convervative said... "...evidence shows ...a worried convervative said... <BR/>"...evidence shows that we we're wrong, what will happen to our credibility?"<BR/><BR/>Ahem... with the audience you are concerned about looking bad in front of, um, what Credibility is it that you think conservatives have had, have now, or ever will have?<BR/><BR/>Kind of like Israel being worried about the reaction of the International Community to (any) action they take... it is pointless, they are always going to be viewed as being an illegal zionist entity, and are always going to be bad. <BR/><BR/>Like trying to answer a childs incessant "Why?" question after they first figure out that it always prompts a grown up to give an answer, the lefties will always reply to anything conservates say or do with "maybe so, but you're EVIL, and you oppress Xpeople, and we WANT Y and we Demand it NOW!"<BR/><BR/>If you do less than what you think is right to do (a.k.a. "the wrong thing to do"), in order to look "better" in the eyes of those you think are wrong to begin with - that alone will shoot your credibility with those who oppose you, and those who thought they were allied with you.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158527558965724802006-09-17T14:12:00.000-07:002006-09-17T14:12:00.000-07:00Kahntheroad-- The libs might be wrong about the...Kahntheroad--<BR/><BR/> The libs might be wrong about the causes of global warming, but still...intuitively, it does seem like burning fossil fuels may have something to do with the problem.<BR/> If we flatly deny that global warming is caused by people, and later scientific evidence shows that we we're wrong, what will happen to our credibility?<BR/> Does anyone know what the official Republican party position is on GW?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158524169649264612006-09-17T13:16:00.000-07:002006-09-17T13:16:00.000-07:00Oh, btw, Frisco Moonbat of the Day:Bumper sticker:...Oh, btw, <B>Frisco Moonbat of the Day</B>:<BR/><BR/>Bumper sticker: "Frodo Failed!!! Bush Has the Ring!!!"<BR/><BR/>Which, I'll admit, actually shows more sense of humor than most moonbats. Take for example the BDS patients on the bus who sit behind the poor bus driver and pepper him or her with rhetorical questions about the coming fascist state - "Have you stocked up on canned goods and ammo?" "Do you know that Zionists are brainwashing us through the traffic lights?" <BR/><BR/>"Sir, please talk to someone else, I'm just trying to do my job."<BR/><BR/>"Oh, <I>I see.</I> They got to you already."<BR/><BR/>You think <I>you've</I> seen moonbats? You ain't got nothing on this town!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158522842263110722006-09-17T12:54:00.000-07:002006-09-17T12:54:00.000-07:00"Bob, I'm concerned about the global warming thing...<I>"Bob, I'm concerned about the global warming thing. If the libs turn out to be right, how do we get the egg off of our faces? What's your take on global warming?"</I><BR/><BR/>Worried Con - <BR/><BR/>Even if the dire predictions of the GW crowd come true - melted ice caps, flooded cities, what-have-you - it still would not resolve the central issue of what the <I>caused</I> the events. Liberals have already accepted two vague premises on flimsy evidence 1) that <I>all</I> drastic climate change is caused by human activity and 2) this can be reversed of prevented by drastic changes in human behavior.<BR/><BR/>Liberals take these broad two claims as axiomatic and then present climate data to back them up - but <I>never</I> question the underlying claims. So Al Gore can deplete the ozone layer with endless hot air about science proving that oceans are rising and temperatures are changing, etc. etc. and tell us that science proves beyond a doubt that global warming is real. But that's <I>not</I> the issue. <BR/><BR/>The issue is whether these scientific observations add up to the dire trends predicted by the left and, if so, would the proposed drastic disruptions to our quality of life and economy actually solve the problem. <BR/><BR/>The lack of evidence for <I>man-made</I> global warming, the track record of it's advocates (as Petey pointed out, liberals have been frightfully wrong in almost <I>every</I> prediction over the last 50 years) and the potential impact of the proposed solutions give me pause.<BR/><BR/>Also, consider that the most zealous advocates of drastic preemptive action against theoretical dangers from global warming - including unprecedented government restrictions of our economic rights and disruption of personal lifestyles - are the same people who vehemently oppose even the slightest expansion of government power to defend us from the concrete, immediate threat from Islamic terrorists. <BR/><BR/>How is one expected to take such people seriously?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com