November 11, 2005
Taking Global Warming Seriously - The Left Offers New Study [UPDATED]
The left has a new ally to back up its claims about the perils of and solutions to global warming. What is this giant of science that puts global warming on the cover and boldly discusses it? Why, it's none other than Rolling Stone magazine! That's right! Rolling Stone isn't just for drugged out rock fans. It's a well respected science journal for global warming activists coming off a high. I've been viewing it wrong. For instance, when I saw Gwen Stefani, a Madonna look alike, on last month's cover, I noted that she had her shirt completely open and her pants riding low. Now, I realize that she wasn't making a statement--she was trying to stay cool!
Science Magazine Explains
(Un)dressing to Stay Cool
In Global Warming
To learn more about Rolling Stone's global warming issue, also featuring an article by Al Gore, refer to these links:
Global Warming on the Cover of Rolling Stone, by Steven Milloy which references Junk Science. That site has a moving counter showing that, so far, the Kyoto Protocol has cost over $110,000,000,000 resulting in a potential temperature savings of (are you ready?) 0.001145 degrees C. !! -- which is a good indicator of the cost-benefit ratio that we would see with the Kyoto program.
Stay tuned. High Times might have an expose' covering the global warming effects on pot growth, and the left will surely be concerned about that information. They need to keep smoking to continue believing and pushing wild claims on this issue.
[***UPDATE***]
Visit the Left Who Keeps Us Entertained !
It drives people on the left crazy, or should I say crazier, when reasoned people don't take them seriously. (Why should we?) They'll argue and pull out all sorts of articles and research in attempts to convince others that they are right, I mean correct. It is especially funny when we make tongue-in-cheek comments and post entries ridiculing their positions, but they take the remarks dead seriously. I have done this over-and-over and they just don't get it. Such was the case, also, with G.M.'s entry on the relationship between global warming and the number of pirates in the world. The guys on the left actually tried to have an intellectual argument to refute that! They're nuts! They will argue and try to prove us wrong, when we're just making a joke. That is like watching the movie "Airplane" and doing a critique on Leslie Nielsen as a drama actor. Guess what. He's not being serious in that movie. Sometimes, as in this case, we're just having fun. Lighten up!
But, no. In checking our stats, I noticed unusual referrals from "radical leftist sites." Investigating, I found that two of our favorite bloggers on the left are having a conniption fit over our comments on global warming. Mark York (who was banned by G.M. for his inappropriate language) and Randy Paul (whom I earlier called a psycho--I apologized) have teamed up to discredit our comments with entries on their sites. Now, they didn't have the courtesy to let us know, but we were lucky(?) enough to discover them.
They went further to say that I was untruthful about having a science segment for kids on public television (not public access) a while back. Well, I did and I don't lie, so they're wrong--leaving me to conclude that their research is not infallible. We forgive them. After all, their desperate positions demand desperate accusations. Ultimately with the left, they abandon reasoned discussions to engage in personal attacks. It worked when they were five years old, so they keep trying it.
To show that there are no hard feelings, I want to encourage all of you to visit their sites and see the contributions that they have to offer to science and the world. We want everyone to see both sides of the global warming issue and politics in general, and you can decide if you want to accept their views--or ours, or neither. First, check out the "wisdom and punditry" of Mark A. York and his post on Butthead's Logic. Then, follow that to "a proud member of the reality-based community" Randy Paul and his article titled It Is to Laugh. But, don't just read their attacks on us and the right. View their main pages to read their philosophies and to check their credentials as climate scientists and overall experts. They will probably appreciate the traffic and will be glad that someone is actually reading their posts.
If you are led, be good sports and leave comments for them. Show them that we care for their views. As visitors, remember to be polite. You're representing the right, and we want to keep wearing the white hats. One last thing. Whatever you do, don't make jokes. They just wouldn't get them.
Posted by GM Roper at November 11, 2005 02:00 PM | TrackBack(rolling my eyes) Oh for the love of GAWD. This is plain stupid. Using THAT magazine? It is junk science, Global Warming. I don't believe any of it.
Posted by Raven at November 11, 2005 05:39 PM
Good update Woody. I feel the muse striking me.. gotta do another Global Warming post just to keep the fools busy refuting me. Sigh, such a thankless task.
Posted by GM at November 12, 2005 06:27 AM
I feel a movement coming on.
Posted by Ogre at November 12, 2005 07:43 AM
And I just saw it drop onto the pile. We get the joke just fine. You do it because of your gross ignorance. Mocking what you don't understand is a tried and true naysayer propaganda technique.
Your support of democracy is the real scream. Now that's hilarious!
I'll stack my credentials and thos of my sources against yours anyday. I have and you've run from them like roaches in the moonlight.
Posted by Mark York at November 12, 2005 12:47 PM
Mark, you're sources are slanted at best with their
science. There is NO SOLID proof of global warming; it's all theory. And I for one do not want to see my tax dollars spent on policy and gimmicks that MAY work. It's a lot of money for something we truly do not know much about. Mother nature is taking care of the Earth and she doesn't charge us a thing. I respect your views but don't agree with them at all.
Posted by Raven at November 12, 2005 01:03 PM
And Raven you simply have no logic behind you, or expertise. My sources are not biased, and unlike yours are real. I have a lifetime of ecological research behind my views. I don't work to recue endangered fisheries because things are going well. They are direct effects of human activities and so it is with the warming. Wingnuttery is not science and all you say is simply false. A theory in science IS fact.
Posted by Mark York at November 12, 2005 01:08 PM
Man, I think you guys have found two of the stupidest libs out there.
Posted by kender at November 12, 2005 01:14 PM
"A theory in science IS fact."
Seriously, where did you get your degree? Any individual with a degree in the sciences (take your pick...biology, chemistry, engineering, physics, etc...) knows that a theory is a hypothisis and not a fact until repeated and replicated.
Here let me help you with the difference between a theory and a fact. We will start with the fact part, and I will be using the fist law of thermodynamics to demonstrate, which states "total energy in a system is conserved." Its been proven in that it has been repeated by many many many tests and replicated by almost every 2nd year engineering student before them.
Ok now we give an example of a theory, and we will use my theory "All true believers in Global Warming are either idiots or hustlers!" My hypothisis is if you bellieve in global warming you are either a) too stupid to understand that there could be a dozen or more varialbes that could be causing an increase in temperature or, b) smart enough to know that there are dozens of untested varibles but are looking to make a buck with research grants (see Micheal Mann).
See the difference? I havent repeated any tests nor has anyone replicated my work. If I ever do perform a test to prove my "Idiots and Hustlers Theory" I might have to put in a correlation that states "Mark York either never studied scienitific principles or was asleep the day it was taught"
Posted by M Harn at November 12, 2005 03:28 PM
Mr. York, I take umbrage with your statement that "A theory in science IS fact."
That has to be, by far, the most singularly obtuse statement I've read in quite awhile, ranking easily with the outputs of some of your more prominent portside bretheren like Durbin, Dean, Jackson Sr, Kerry and Pelosi.
Does this intended "profound" statement of yours
perchance take into account that for every scientific theory there are several counter-theories?
Of course not, that would be too complicated, what with an entire spectrum of "fact" to choose from, each "fact" cancelling out the others.
What you undoubtedly really meant to say was, "A theory in science 'that agrees with Mark's political viewpoint' IS fact.
That's how you come off.
Live with it.
Posted by Seth at November 12, 2005 03:36 PM
Forgive the spelling and grammar mistakes as I was in a hurry!
Posted by M Harn at November 12, 2005 05:24 PM
Science works on theory...I will give it that. It's a part of the process of discovery. Theory is what drives science...it motivates and gives ideas a chance to BE PROVEN. Theory is not science though. No no Mark. And the mere fact that you say this tells me who has a degree here and who doesn't. Where did you study fish anyway? In what harbor?
Posted by Raven at November 12, 2005 06:16 PM
"Where did you study fish, anyway? In what harbor?"
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Ahem, sorry, I couldn't help myself.
Posted by Seth at November 12, 2005 06:49 PM
Seth, shame, of course you could help yourself, after all, you are a rational creature... as opposed to brother York of course.
Posted by GM at November 12, 2005 07:06 PM
ah ha!! That's where Marco Polo studied his fish. At York Harbor in Maine. Hence the name...Marc York.
ROTF
Posted by Raven at November 12, 2005 07:10 PM
Oh yes he's very rational. I studied fish and environmental degradation under every preseident since Reagan. They all employed me to do it. I'll let that speak to credentials.
A theory in science is indeed fact. Nothing, however, is absolute. Now you could certianly discover new peer-reviewed data and thus a new theory, but this doesn't happen ever day. The problem with you people is you're dogmatists. Dogma never changes. The fact of the matter is you haven't presented evidence and a counter theory that passes muster, yet you all want to have equal billing. Not in the real world you don't although that may work in wingerville.
Obtuse? You should know.
Posted by Mark York at November 12, 2005 07:13 PM
When the best comment in this thread is Mark's rejoinder to Ogre's "feeling a movement coming on" by observing that he "just saw it drop onto the pile" -- what started as the next episode in an series of polemics on global warming has clearly utterly deteriorated into something whose only use is for wrapping the remains of my electronic fish dinner tonight.
Maybe you all enjoy this unending wallowing in the mud, but this kind of contest just makes me want to keep out of the way of flying objects. It's past time for all you people to stop the escalation of this juvenile manure slinging contest.
Also, despite the uncertain tone of Woody's last two paragraphs, I would hope the readers (whether they're on the right, the left, in between, or from another planet) do take Woody's basic advice seriouly as written and not initiate a flame war. The Golden Rule is still a good law to follow.
Finally, as a distraction, here are two questions. What is the relationship between conservative and conservation? What is the relationship between liberal and liberty?
Posted by civil truth at November 12, 2005 09:47 PM
Civil, I've never seen an "electronic fish diner." I am truly curious. As to the flame war, it is mere amusement for most of us. We do, from time to time have to deal with trolls as you will see in my most recent post (and yes, York is the subject) but, I do believe that one of the problems in this world is not standing up to bullies, and I firmly believe that York and his ilk are cyber-bullies that call other folks names, attempt to shout them down and use ad hominim as though it were salad dressing (a lot in other words). Sorry you didn't like the effect, but I gotta admit, I had and am having some fun with it. Bombastic narcissisism is just too tempting a target for this old boy.
Posted by GM at November 12, 2005 10:01 PM
Civil, having the firm belief that the world is in far more capable hands than mine for the saving, (GM, Raven, Woody and Seth to begin with), I have decided that trying to change the made up minds of people on the left that seem to hate liberty and true freedom is a waste of time, and can only hope that someday they will realize their mistakes and come to their senses.
In the meantime, I revel in flame wars. People like puddinhead york get what they deserve, and even though I tried to be nice to him at his site, he still decided to moderate my comments, so if he wishes to treat his commenters the way that the DU treats theirs, then I invoke my right to call him names and tease him about his very bulbous head and what appears to be either a bad combover or a receding hairline.
Posted by kender at November 13, 2005 02:14 AM
No ad hominem here. And I'll match my hairline against any of "youse" any day. Same with qualifications and reasoning ability.
Cyber-bully? A pack of howling dogs ought to know about that.
Posted by Mark York at November 13, 2005 02:44 PM
What hairline? I can't match you when your hairline is retreating.
Posted by kender at November 13, 2005 05:18 PM
