Ouch DuJour
This time it’s on me.
There have been some trolls coming around here all of a sudden insulting my writing based on some typos they’ve found (and some admittedly sloppy writing here and there). Thanks to a reader I came across this post from a German based blog named “Sadly, No”, which claims to be humorous. But it spends a lot of time demeaning conservatives because of their views. Such as mocking the fact that Charles Krauthammer is in a wheel chair, as if that’s a reflection of the value of his politics. Ooh, cripple humor!
They went to town on me. And they found some good ammo. I have been sloppy lately. I should do a better job of proofing my site, but I am so busy sometimes I often post things without rereading them. Obviously, that’s a mistake. And I should never do that.
So, even though that site was very insulting and sent a bunch of trolls my way (what does that say about their audience?), I’m glad they showed me the error of my ways.
Which brings me to a point I’ve been wanting to make about lefties. They really have this fixation with demeaning people they disagree with to a ridiculous extent. They are especially fond of cherry picking pull quotes from speeches and holding them up as an example of how stupid so and so is.
In the 80s their targets were Ronald Reagan and Dan Quayle. And they’ve had a field day with Bush these days. But the fact is, when someone does a lot of public speaking, they make mistakes. Bill Clinton and Al Gore have made plenty of stupid quotes, also. It’s only human to trip on your words every once and awhile. But somehow, the lefties think this is proof that the conservatives are stupider than they are. Or, at least, they want to believe it.
Hence, this is what this attack was really about. They start off by comparing me to a pile of dirt and go from there. It’s all about demeaning my views, by mocking my mistakes. They found some good examples of bad writing on my blog. I can’t deny it. But, in a typical lefty fashion, they don’t argue with the logic. They just have to hold it in contempt because that’s all they’re good for. High handedness and conceit.
No wonder they keep losing elections.
B.C.
I have not seen the Gore film so any references to that are lost on me. If you want me to post links to the 100s of recent peer-reviewed papers showing how the average surface temperature has risen steadily over the last 100 years at a much faster rate than what is caused by your “natural cycles” then I will be more than happy to. I could also spend my time showing you that a clear majority of experts in the field agree with that consensus. However, something tells me I would be wasting my time.
I just find it fascinating over the past 15 years how the skeptics have shifted their arguments steadily from “it’s not happening, scientists were predicting global cooling 30 years ago” to “its not our fault” once it was clearly shown that it is happening. I have never seen someone trying to argue both points simultaneously at the same time before though, keep it up!Posted by on 11/12 at 12:10 PMI have never seen someone trying to argue both points simultaneously at the same time before though, keep it up!
Where, exactly, have you seen me arguing both? You have yet to come up with a single, valid argument to deal with the ugly little fact that the natural heating of the Earth at the end of the last Ice Age was much greater and much more rapid than anything that has happened in the last 150 years.
Your blatant disregard for the facts shows that it’s a waste of my time (and James’ bandwidth) to bother discussing your blind faith in those who have the most to gain from politically & financially-motivated scare-mongering. (Shouldn’t you at least check into who stands to gain, both financially and politically, should punitive international treaties be instituted worldwide?)
Then again, as long as it’s those Eeeeevil KKKapitalists’ lives and livelihoods that are affected, who cares? Right?
Posted by B.C. on 11/12 at 12:32 PMSolar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth.
Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments.
It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada.
As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.
Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of “stopping climate change.”
Warmest Regards,
jnPosted by on 11/12 at 12:39 PMWarming, cooling. Its’ all nature’s cycle. And probably related to this as well:
Posted by on 11/12 at 01:01 PMP2 #3 (#28)
I followed the link, and found a man with a vested interest in debunking the evidence regardless of its validity. I agree that we would be worse off should we follow the Gaiafascists’ instructions. But not because AGW is bogus, but because the instructions are counterproductive. In 1600 Elizabethan England had the technology to build an armored, steam powered gun ship. The technology, but not the resources.
To be cruel about it, the AGW deniers are not doing science. They take mistakes and declare the whole to be fraudulent. They take admissions of error on the part of the researchers, and the consequential attempts to correct those errors, and say it is proof of lying. They are not interested in providing proof of what is really happening, only in being insulting and cruel.
Let me put it this way, just because the left is wrong about Iraq does not mean they are wrong about AGW. That’s really what it comes down to here. We have an unfortunate tendency to assume that because someone is right about one thing, he must be right about everything, and when he is wrong about one thing, he must be wrong about all things. A man once said that if you accept part of what Jesus said, you must accept all of what Jesus said, and if you reject part of what Jesus said, you must reject all of what Jesus said.
This ignores one salient fact of Humanity, we make mistakes. Some are small and some are large, but we all make mistakes. None of us are perfect, nor shall we ever be. The best we can do is acknowledge our mistakes when we learn of them, and fix them.
Yes, there are Antarctic ice fields that are gaining in area. Because it’s snowing more and that is feeding their growth. Why is it snowing more? Because it’s gotten warm enough in recent years for it to snow more often. Warm enough for relative humidity to rise to the point where precipitation can occur. Also note that while some ice fields are growing in area, they are shrinking in volume.
Just in case, lay in a supply of loose, light colored clothing for the hot, humid days that could be ahead. If nothing else they’ll be handy for trips to the tropics.
Posted by Alan Kellogg on 11/12 at 03:49 PMAlan,
[off topic] I think me and you would probably disagree on many subject but I agree with some of what you say here. The polarization of opinion over the last few years is concerning. Its odd that the majority of views we hear these days is either ‘moonbat’ or ‘wingnut’. The real world operates in shades of grey so its dangerous to distill people down to one or the other.
For example, most of my views are leftwing but I’m fairly pro-life. This goes down like a lead balloon in most of the places I hang out.
anyway, had a few too many to post on topic so see y’all.Posted by on 11/12 at 04:01 PMPaulo,
Thanks for being civil. That’s all I ask of people on here.
Posted by on 11/12 at 04:15 PMAlan,
I’m not a denier. I’m a skeptic. And I have yet to see anything to convince me the AGW theory is real. I see a lot of deceptions and lies by the so called scientists pushing this theory. Many are well intentioned people who are being very ideological for scientists. The rest seem to be grant grubbers. It’s become the best way to get a grant. Add global warming to whatever you’re studying and voila! instant funding. No wonder so many scientists get emotional about it all. It’s become their bread and butter.
But there is a serious danger in rampant ideology. It leads to crazy behavior and ideas. Such as trying to re-engineer the oceans. That could lead to unseen consequences worse than any claimed by AGW people.
Posted by on 11/12 at 04:23 PMWhy is it that when a skeptic of gw asks a question he gets called names? Why does the gw crowd seem to ignore the economic issues (there are many) of gw? How can a reasonable answer to a question be achieved without addressing the economics of the situation/proposal/idea/theory?
The answer is it cannot. If you ignore the economics you abandon reason. The gw crowd tends to get very emotional. Reason cannot stand against emotion.
Questions raised here (and elsewhere) by gw skeptics such as myself (and others) remain unanswered. Unless you count emotional outbursts, which I do not. When my parents, teachers, babysitters, etc, asked me a question and I dodged it - I quickly learned the folly of the tactic.
Do as thou wilt is the law of the land, and rightly so.
Posted by on 11/12 at 05:08 PMHere’s some ice to chew on, Paulo.
Posted by on 11/12 at 09:34 PMJames,
You claim that “Add global warming to whatever you’re studying and voila! instant funding.” Really? and where is all this magical funding coming from? And surely the whole point of peer-reviewed scientific publishing is that any errors get quickly corrected and ‘lies’ are a very quick way to get your entire career discredited.
Then, after complaining about scientific funding, you cite an organization FUNDED BY THE WESTERN FUELS ASSOCIATION. Good grief! Do you see how foolish that looks?
Jim Brocius - if anyone starts name calling, the rule of thumb is to ignore them. It happens on both sides of a debate. As for ignoring the economic issue, I suggest you google the Stern review and the various discussions around it. He studied the economic implications of the various responses to climate change, it makes interesting reading.Posted by on 11/13 at 02:47 AMpaulo,
So in your world any funding is suspect, unless it comes from who YOU approve?
Kinda shallow and orwellian at the same time there paulo.
Ever consider that the other 50% may feel the same way about YOUR list of approved funders?Your NOT talking science paulo; your shoveling politics and it smells bad.
Warmest Regards,
jnPosted by on 11/13 at 05:03 AMerm, no, it was me pointing out James’ double standards about funding. If something is published in a respected scientific journal then I don’t care who funded it.
cheerio!Posted by on 11/13 at 05:40 AMhave I been banned? The other post won’t let me comment…
Posted by on 11/13 at 05:58 AMCalifornia burns and Global Warming is blamed.
Forget of course the Sierra Club and environmental groups have not allowed good forestry policies to thin out the dead wood and abundent fuel for years.How noble and ignorant these lefties be.
Warmest Regards,
jnPosted by on 11/13 at 07:14 AMPaulo,
You aren’t banned. There is some bug in the software that blocks some posting occasionally. I am trying to track it down.
You’ve been very reasonable. I only ban abusive people.
Anyway, tell me, do you think government funding makes a study pure as opposed to corporate funding? And if so, do you believe that science funded by politics is accurate? Do you think that scientists with a stated political agenda are to be trusted? Are you saying World Climate Report is wrong, despite all the cites and references they give because of their alleged funding source?
If so, then I would say that thinking is more embarrassing.
PS: Where does it say their funding is THE WESTERN FUELS ASSOCIATION? Let me guess, on a pro AGW site. Ah. Must. Not. Question. Authority.
Posted by on 11/13 at 08:17 AMPaulo,
Is there a scientist anywhere on this planet who believes he knows with any certainty how the earth works?
We have not identified all the species on this planet. We don’t even know what percentage we know about.
We don’t know that we have identified all the elements present on this planet.
Imagine the planet is like an auto. We have identified that it is auto. We have identified some of the exterior but we don’t know exactly how much. We have identified some of the interior but we don’t know exactly how much. We have identified the mechanical parts in view, but don’t know how many more parts thier are let alone what funtion they serve.
Yet there are those who claim they know how to drive it and fix it when it breaks down.
This is pure nonsense and one needs no type of science degree to see that anyone who makes such claims are charlatons.
The sad fact is that we don’t know how the world works, let alone how to control it to the degree being claimed.
We have some theories and that’s all. Any truly honest scientist should be willing to admit that when it comes to KNOWING how to manage the world we are woefully ignorant.
Civil discourse about these subjects is a well and good idea. But wanting to dig in my wallet with such paltry knowledge is thievery at best. The big problem with those of you who want to run others lives is you won’t allow the same done to you.
But hey, maybe you knwo who that scientist is, right? I’d love to hear from him if you can point me to him/her. But until I’m convinced that someone can prove they know what they are talking about I’d rather they put thier own money where thier mouth is, not mine.
Posted by on 11/13 at 11:35 AMI’m more frightened by any “consensus” which claims to want to “fix” a global anything. This is doubly so for the U.N.!
Let’s examine this with a critical eye… we can’t cure cancer, though we can find it with microscopes, and yet we want to fix the level of CO2 in the atmosphere through “governmental policy”? Like, for example, how the government fixed New Orleans and Louisiana? Like government has fixed, on any level, taxes, health care, prescription medicines, gun control, abortion, or any number of knee-jerk hot buttons from both sides of the political isle.
Why don’t we simply call the GW platform out for what it really is; a plank in a political agenda. “Give us the power (i.e. control of your government) and we’ll fix everything for you and for future generations who might not even mind the extra beachfront property made affordable by the flooding of Florida.” <satire, in case anyone happened to notice>
Posted by on 11/13 at 02:13 PMStill waiting for some answers to my politely posed questions.
Posted by on 11/13 at 04:33 PMEric and Jim,
Right on the money.
Since when has the government or any bureaucracy done a stellar job with anything? At best you get something you need, that’s relatively adequate to the job. Most of the time, you get a dysfunctional system.
No, strike that.
Politicians did a great job solving poverty, education and crime. Now they want to solve the climate. Yes, we should believe everything they and their enablers say. Because, hey, the UN solved genocide. AIDS in Africa has been cured. And terrorism is a thing of the past. So are dictators.
Yes, whatever the UN says is golden. If UN scientists claim something is true, we should believe everything they say without question. Otherwise, we would be stupid.
Yes, only fools are skeptical of government agendas. Only fools would doubt scientists who work for government agencies, because we all know, governments are apolitical and fair minded. Everything governments say is honest and above board. They never lie to the people. They never make them do anything that isn’t for their own good. Right?
Now why didn’t I come to this realization sooner. Oh, wait—I know why…
Posted by on 11/13 at 11:19 PMThe thing about bad theories and bad ideas is that you don’t neccessarily need to refute the entirty of them. That does not mean that Eric, James or I am correct in our positions. It means we have valid questions that can’t be answered. I’m perfectly willing to change my stance when these questions are addressed and solved. But that is not the tactic taken by the Brendas, the Paulos or the governments of the world.
Posted by on 11/14 at 09:22 AMI, for one, still find it amazing that, in only 250 years, we’ve managed to import every problem which faced our forefathers in England: over-crowding, high property values, unfair taxes, governmental ruling class, pollution, wars (declared or not), and a schism in political views which roughly divides our country in two (don’t kid yourself, the religious divide in England was based on political agendas). The “Democratic Party” is a misnomer if there ever was one, and “Republican”, if the RINOs keep supporting “immigration reform”, is quickly becoming another oxymoron of biblical proportions! Heck I’m to the point where I’d vote for Fred just to see him bash heads against all who support Big Government. Our COUNTRY was not built by big gov’t, and we shouldn’t be controlled by it either.
Now, where does the GW crowd fit in? Comfortably to the left of “Castro’s really a good guy” and “We should sit down and talk with terrorists”. That is to say, I regard all three ideas as incredibly stupid! It really doesn’t matter how much thought is placed into a stupid idea (or theory), in the end, it still remains a STUPID idea. No amount of passionate arguing will change that simple fact. It’s just wasted effort and time (and in this case, some left-wing nuts’ money too).
Now if I woke one moring out here in the desert and find the temperature has suddenly spiked 20 degrees because of all of the CO2 being carried by the jet stream from China and Los Angeles, I reserve the right to change my opinion. Until then I will neither vote for anyone (Al Gore specifically!) who wants to tell me WHY I should be worried about Global Warming while they JET around the country burning more fuel PER FLIGHT than I burn in an entire year in my two Low Emissions vehicles!
Finally, just to point out how silly this all is, there were once TROPICAL SWAMPS and giant alligators in Michigan, so if someone in your fantastic “consensus” could kindly explain what the dinosaurs did to cause this, I’d appreciate it. Also, don’t forget the enormous sheet of ice a mile thick which covered THIS SAME REGION and actually created the Great Lakes! Which is it Gore-ites? Global Warming or Ice Age? I’m rooting for the alligators!
Posted by on 11/14 at 10:42 AMSir, if trolls attack you’re doing it right. Good on ya for whatever upset them. I believe I’ll have to bookmark you and read your stuff.
Posted by cmblake6 on 11/16 at 06:56 PM
Next entry: Listen Up
Previous entry: Happy Veterans Day
