January 16, 2007
Scenes from Wallingford

Here are some photos I took earlier today in Wallingford

A canvasser from GreenPeace, standing in the snow, teaching passersby about global warming.


Handbills stapled to a telephone pole.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 16, 2007 01:53 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Priceless!

Posted by: Devil Dawg on January 16, 2007 01:51 PM
2. Wallingford, Seattle, USA.
(aka Area 51)

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 16, 2007 01:56 PM
3. I think I'll write to my Congrasman!

Posted by: ScottM on January 16, 2007 01:57 PM
4. in other news- California economy is going to be hit this year due to losing several crops to unseasonably cooler weather.

Posted by: Andy on January 16, 2007 02:00 PM
5. Kind of reminded of those old guys on a soapbox preaching "The World is Ending!! The World is Ending!! Repent!!! Repent you Sinners!! Repent!!"

This was back in the late 50s and early 60s for the most part, but you could still see these guys in the 70s, too.

Posted by: swatter on January 16, 2007 02:01 PM
6. hmmm...i thought that was a union bricklayer or longshoreman teamster recruiting poster--sorry...

but--unlike the military, can they still recruit at high schools?

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 16, 2007 02:05 PM
7. When you take a whole generation of people, and stop teaching them the basics of independent thought, and the inclination to question the world the around them, not just because of a hunch, but in a critical, methodical and factual way, you get a mass population of sheep. As such, you can have anyone tell these people anything, and they will believe it. Especially, if you connect it to an emotion or other "hunch" that is far more motivating for these dolts than critical thought. A big shiny phrase like "Global Warming" carried just the right amount of emotional connectivity and seeking weight as to attract these moths.

But just look at that poor fool standing there in the cold with Global Waming flyers for Greenpeace, thinking he is contributing to the value of humanity. Hopefully for his sake, he won't figure out much of his time and really, his life, that he is wasting. But that might explain the recent increase in jumpers from the Aurora Bridge, which is only a short 15 minute walk from where Mr. Moonbat is standing.

Posted by: Jeff B. on January 16, 2007 02:16 PM
8. Born on a farm, Dad always said we had to have a real cold winter to kill all the bugs/insects in the ground so they would not attack crops in the following year.

I can see you have not had cold enough winter in Seattle.

Posted by: Old Sgt on January 16, 2007 02:31 PM
9. Get into a discussion on macroevolution i.e. trans species evolution with one of these chimpanzees if you really want to see convoluted logic and distortion of scientific evidence on a grand scale.

Posted by: JDH on January 16, 2007 02:46 PM
10. Most of these folks adopt any political ideology that they think will enable them to get laid more often.

Posted by: Huey on January 16, 2007 02:50 PM
11. they make my head hurt...

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on January 16, 2007 02:58 PM
12. Poor kid. He has absolutely no idea how funny and pathetic he really is, standing there warning of global warming in this weather. We need more like him out there and obvious, just to emphasize to normal folks how abnormal the global warming hysterics are! Or maybe he's out there trying to support showing Al Gore's movie in schools. The movie probably needs the bump, as it didn't do very well in box take, and I noticed from the day it arrived in the video store near me, there were never more than two rented out at a time. Finally had to move it to the bottom row, out of sight. Poor Al!

Posted by: katomar on January 16, 2007 03:02 PM
13. Jeff, You're so right. If the Republicans hold the White House in 2008, they'll have to net the entire bridge. (Or not.)

Posted by: Doc-T on January 16, 2007 03:02 PM
14. In related news:


One day Chicken Little was walking in the woods when -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn fell on her head
"Oh my goodness!" said Chicken Little. "The sky is falling! I must go and tell the king."


On her way to the king's palace, Chicken Little met Henny Penny. Henny Penny said that she was going into the woods to hunt for worms.
"Oh no, don't go!" said Chicken Little. "I was there and the sky fell on my head! Come with me to tell the king."

So Henny Penny joined Chicken Little and they went along and went along as fast as they could.

Soon they met Cocky Locky, who said, "I'm going to the woods to hunt for seeds."

"Oh no, don't go!" said Henny Penny. "The sky is falling there! Come with us to tell the king."

So Cocky Locky joined Henny Penny and Chicken Little, and they went along and went along as fast as they could.

Soon they met Goosey Poosey, who was planning to go to the woods to look for berries.

"Oh no, don't go!" said Cocky Locky. "The sky is falling there! Come with us to tell the king." So Goosey Poosey joined Cocky Locky, Henny Penny and Chicken Little, and they went along as fast as they could.

Then who should appear on the path but sly old Foxy Woxy.

"Where are you going, my fine feathered friends?" asked Foxy Woxy. He spoke in a polite manner, so as not to frighten them.

"The sky is falling!" cried Chicken Little. "We must tell the king."

"I know a shortcut to the palace," said Foxy woxy sweetly. "Come and follow me."

But wicked Foxy Woxy did not lead the others to the palace. He led them right up to the entrance of his foxhole. Once they were inside, Foxy Woxy was planning to gobble them up!

Just as Chicken Little and the others were about to go into the fox's hole, they heard a strange sound and stopped.


It was the king's hunting dogs, growling and howling.
How Foxy Woxy ran, across the meadows and through the forests, with the hounds close behind. He ran until he was far, far away and never dared to come back again.


After that day, Chicken Little always carried an umbrella with her when she walked in the woods. The umbrella was a present from the king. And if -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn fell, Chicken Little didn't mind a bit. In fact, she didn't notice it at all.

The End

Posted by: JDH on January 16, 2007 03:08 PM
15. Just what we need, an unemployed, marginally educated hippie telling us about "global warming". Bet his dad did the same thing about "global cooling"......

Posted by: H Moul on January 16, 2007 03:21 PM
16. This reminds me of the pitifully pathetic handbill campaign done last year by the local Air America affiliate. It was all the proof I needed that the time that the station was in financial trouble.

Groups that are organized, well funded and forward thinking don't do dumb things like this.

Posted by: johnny on January 16, 2007 03:30 PM
17. I see these Greenpeace drones quite often at my evening bus stop. And yes, they are out there when it is cold outside. Apparently record lows in the area don't register with these moonbats. Most of the time I don't speak with them because they are just so ignorant, but occasionally I do like to make their little eyeballs bug out when I ask them if they know how much oil was used to make the components in their outerwear and shoes. It really does render them speechless when it is pointed out many synthetic fabrics rely on petrochemicals and evil polluting factories.

As for the handbills, these were obviously written by someone who went to a school system that valued self esteem over real education.

Great photos, Stefan!

Posted by: Burdabee on January 16, 2007 03:45 PM
18. You captured it perfectly Stefan. The classic socialist smirk.

He's not old enough to remember how polluted things used to be, when people burned garbage in barrels behind their houses, and heated and cooked using wood.

The left is heavily invested in convincing people that things are constantly getting worse. I guess we should be sympathetic. They don't know any better.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 16, 2007 04:07 PM
19. Great shots Stefan. I just komplated my letr to congras xsking them to delai da WASL.

Posted by: Fed Up on January 16, 2007 04:17 PM
20. I suppose it's a bit too subtle for most of you to understand that the phenomenon of global warming includes extremes of weather in both directions, while the overall curve is upward.

So, yes, it's a mildly amusing photograph, but it doesn't illustrate the disconnect that you think it does.

Posted by: Cat on January 16, 2007 04:25 PM
21. Yeh I was just out sunning myself when I had to come in out of the heat wave.

Posted by: GS on January 16, 2007 04:27 PM
22. Gosh "Cat" I believe I can almost hear you sniff.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 16, 2007 04:36 PM
23. I see a lot of ignorance here regarding the issue of global warming / climate change. A cold snap does not refute global warming. End of story.

Do any of you people bother to pay attention to what is happening to the entire globe? You seem to think that your local weather provides enough information to refute the global warming concept.

What you are demonstrating is extreme ignorance and nothing more. The climate is changing and humans bear some responsibility for these changes. Humans have pumped billions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere while eradicating entire ecosystems from the rain forests to coral reefs all over the world.

There is plenty of evidence that the world's glaciers and ice caps are melting. The Earth is changing and ultimately humankind will become the victim of these changes.

The polar bears are threatened with extinction because of the changes which are presently occurring in the arctic. They may not mean much to you, but perhaps you might care about another species which is likewise threatened with extinction: Homo sapiens.

Throughout the history of the Earth billions of species have already gone extinct. All of humankind's immediate evolutionary ancestors have gone extinct. Homo sapiens are a primate species which is driving itself to extinction.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 16, 2007 05:11 PM
24. Cat--What do you think happened to the global temperatures to make the last Ice Age go away? It took more than a couple of hot summers. Oh, wait. You probably think that rise in temperature was due to the bonfires made by our early ancestors.

It's up to you if you think Al Gore is right on this issue (he isn't), but unlike Al I assume you have given up all oil-based products and modes of transportation. Or do you embrace Al's mantra of "do as I say, not as I do"?

Posted by: Burdabee on January 16, 2007 05:14 PM
25. You haven't got much of a sense of humor, have you, David?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 16, 2007 05:16 PM
26. David: I'm going to try to explain something to you that maybe, just maybe, might differ with your views. Be careful here, it's called logic, and it might harm you (legal disclaimer).

There IS plenty of evidence that the world's glaciers and ice caps are melting, and yes, the Earth IS changing. Can you prove, with (and again, this might be difficult for you) SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that this variation is outside of the norm? Polar bears are threatened with extinction - you seem to be saying that perhaps this is due to something that we homosapiens have caused. IF this were true, can you please explain the thousands upon thousands of species that became extinct BEFORE we mere humans walked the earth? One fine example would be the DINOSAURS... hmm... did the human race influence the global warming factors there that caused the dinosaurs to die off, or did the natural course of nature cause this?

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps the reason that human kind's immediate ancestors became extinct was that THEY COULDN'T FUNCTION as evolution passed them by?

Perhaps God is sitting up there with his finger on the CTRL-ALT-DELETE keys, waiting for the right time to reboot this disaster?

Perhaps humankind wasn't destined to last forever? (There's longstanding history of societies dying off - Remember the Romans? Mesopotamia? Prehistoric Egypt? Who built the pyramids - surely human induced global warming didn't kill off that society... why is it no one is left around to explain how they made them (ok, for the moonbats, it was the aliens... I'll finally capitulate that point to you...)

Me thinks we humans think way too much of ourselves - we hardly have the power to influence the world's environment to the extent these moonbat idiots grant us. Mt. Pinatubo did more damage to the environment in 1 day than all of the history of man kind in the 18th/19th and 20th centuries. How come no one's out there trying to ban volcanos? Where's the protest there?

Hmm... Ok David, I probably exercised your brain too much for one post. Go back and eat your granola (packaged in PLASTIC [a petroleum product] and drink your bottled water (packaged in PLASTIC [a petroleum product]) while the rest of us try and warm up in this damned global warming!!!!

Posted by: Paul o' The East on January 16, 2007 05:48 PM
27. David M.

I killed the dinosaurs so I could drive an SUV.

If you'd been around here for a while you notice no one is denying warming is occurring, the debate as with climatologists is as to cause.

Climate is cyclical, it has been 4,500,000,000 years, which is about 4,499,900,000 years longer than humans, and 4,499,999,900 years longer than the internal combustion engine.

Solar output is at the highest energy levels record, we fully do not understand solar cycles. Earth orbit varies in a number of ways all effect climate. We have direct climate data for less than 300 years and have yet to understand climate cycles measured in decades.

In 2005 nearly half the greenhouse gases released in Washington State was released by Mt. St. Helens. We have not even measured the total output of geological activity.

All that and we have people running around claiming to "know" what is causing global warming!!!!

All I can say is BULLSH*T!

Anyone with any intellectual honesty, and without the socialist agenda says humans MAY CONTRIBUTE to the current warming cycle, but no one can say with certainty humans are the cause.

Posted by: JCM on January 16, 2007 06:06 PM
28. Hello Paul,

You are making an absurd argument when you say:

> Me thinks we humans think way too much of ourselves - we hardly have the power to influence the world's environment to the extent these moonbat idiots grant us.

Are you suggesting that humans are too small, too weak and just plain too harmless to influence the entire world's environment?

That's just plain ridiculous. Each of us individually are small & weak but there are 6,500,000,000 humans on the planet. Add the impact of these small & weak individuals together and you will find a force sufficient to destroy the Earth's environment, pollute the entire globe, and alter the Earth's climate.

And you also appear to forget that humankind possesses a massive force-multiplier. Humans have tools. All those factories and power plants and automobiles expel a huge amount of pollution into the Earth's atmosphere.

Do you know how dramatic an impact these pollutants have upon the atmosphere? Don't worry ... I will tell you.

In 2005 I visited Sequioa National Park. I happened to look West and what did I see ... an ugly brown stain of smog on the horizon. Humans are responsible.

There are plenty of evidences of humankind's harmful impact upon the Earth's environment, both small and great. Undoubtedly there are plenty in your own neighborhood.

So are you going to suggest that all of these negative impacts cannot possibly have any harmful impacts upon the Earth's climate?

You also ask an absurd question:

> Polar bears are threatened with extinction - you seem to be saying that perhaps this is due to something that we homosapiens have caused. IF this were true, can you please explain the thousands upon thousands of species that became extinct BEFORE we mere humans walked the earth?

Humans can bear responsibility for the polar bears going extinct even if billions of species have gone extinct in the past four billion history of life on the planet.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 16, 2007 06:16 PM
29. Did they really spell congress "congras"? Is this a product of Seattle Public Schools?

Posted by: Michele on January 16, 2007 06:19 PM
30. Why can't the left blame man for something we can actually do something about? They might as well blame us for causing volcanic eruptions.

Reminds me of Reagan's remark when he saw Mt. Vesuvius for the first time, steaming after a recent eruption: "Heck, we got a volunteer fire department back in the states that could put that thing out in 10 minutes."

We'll get right on it, as soon as we lick this global warming thing.

Posted by: Organization Man on January 16, 2007 06:22 PM
31. Hello JCM,

> All that and we have people running around claiming to "know" what is causing global warming!!!!

Well, all that you have said is that you are entirely ignorant about the climate & humankind's impact upon the climate.

Needless to say, your ignorance does not refute the plentiful evidence that humans have an impact upon the Earth's climate. Nor will your ignorance serve to alleviate the problem in any sense.

You people seem to use the same argument that the tobacco corporations used against the scientific theory that nicotine is addictive and smoking causes cancer. Don't you know that thousands of people died because of these denials of the scientific evidence on behalf of corporate America's blood profits?

In the case of the climate: billions of humans could die because of climate change. Millions have already died from droughts and other causes associated with climate change which has already occurred.

You people who have such a cavalier attitude towards polluting the Earth are placing your own children and grandchildren in danger. They could die because of your polluting lifestyle.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 16, 2007 06:23 PM
32. P.S. It's not global warming killing the polar bears--it's all that Coke they're drinking.

Posted by: Organization Man on January 16, 2007 06:27 PM
33. Hello Organization Man,

> Why can't the left blame man for something we can actually do something about?

Uh ... you really can do something about the global warming problem. The biggest and most impactful thing that you could do to alleviate this problem: Stop shopping. Stop driving. Stop investing.

But honestly I don't believe that anyone is willing to make these sacrifices.

The human problem won't become solved until Nature solves it the traditional way: Extinction.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 16, 2007 06:28 PM
34. David,

Try some data.

Global climate cycles:
Daily rotation, day to night.
Earth annual orbit, seasons.
I don't think these two need a link.
The following cycles that effect climate are extra-terrestial influences, the sun and orbital effects.

Sunspot 11 year cycle

Solar Variations

Solar 1100 year cycle

Milankovitch 21,000 year cycle

Orbital influences

The Maunder Minimum

The Pacific Decadal OscillationThe Pacific Decadal Oscillation

El Nino Southern Oscillation

North Atlantic Oscillation

Volcanic cycles

In other words there are dozens if not hundreds of known climate oscillations on time scales of hours, day to night, to 10's of millennia. How many oscillations have we not discovered because we only have direct recorded scientific weather data of less than 300 years. We have the geological record, but how many variables are not geologically apparent.

What happens when many of the peaks of these cycles occur at the same time.

Global Warming

None of the cycles are attributable or affect by humans.

We are coming out of a period of "mild" weather, or not many of the cycles peaks or valleys coincided. The Puget Sound area has been both glaciated and tropical at various times in geological history.

Saying humans cause global warming is not only simplisict, it's down right idiotic. The processes are far to complex to comphrend let only assign a cause and effect.

Further look at the solution proposed by "warming advocates," from Kyoto to Mayor Nickels, they all involve socialist political solutions, no free market solutions, no technology innovations, it's all about big government telling me what, where and when to drive, and how I should live.

Posted by: JCM on January 16, 2007 06:29 PM
35. I'm less worried about global warming than I am about the four suitcase nukes that Fayed still has.

Just once I'd like to pick up the phone to hear a voice say "Hold for the president."

Posted by: Organization Man on January 16, 2007 06:30 PM
36. David,

Sure, humans impact the environment. ANY disturbance of ANY system impacts that system! The question is WHAT are YOU doing about it? Do you still own a car? Use petrochemicals? Live a non-carbon-neutral lifestyle?

If the answer to these is no, then why preach at others to do so? Perhaps you should change your life first...

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on January 16, 2007 06:32 PM
37. Hello JCM,

> Saying humans cause global warming is not only simplisict, it's down right idiotic. The processes are far to complex to comphrend let only assign a cause and effect.

Evidently, you are every bit as uneducated as the man in the photograph.

Now there is no doubt whatsoever that the climate changes and has always changed throughout the history of the planet. But there is something unique in the history of the Earth occurring right now: Humankind and humankind's tools are destroying ecosystems and polluting the entire Earth.

To suggest that humans have no impact upon the climate is naive.

Don't you know that since the beginning of time humans have died from natural causes? Even so, plenty of humans are murdered every year. In other words: The existence of natural causes of death do not serve to exclude the existence of human causes.

So in the same sense: Natural climate variation does not serve to refute the notion that humans have an impact upon the environment.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 16, 2007 06:45 PM
38. Hello Edmonds,

> Sure, humans impact the environment. ANY disturbance of ANY system impacts that system! The question is WHAT are YOU doing about it? Do you still own a car? Use petrochemicals? Live a non-carbon-neutral lifestyle?

I cannot escape from the use of a car or petrochemicals simply because modern civilization has served to make life impossible without an addiction to oil.

Humans have thoroughly eradicated the natural environment in Florida such as to make it absolutely necessary to depend upon food imports and the grocery store for survival. There is no escape available from this addiction either for an American or for the nation or for the entire species.

For that reason I am certain that Homo sapiens are a species which will certainly go extinct. Once the Earth's resources are exhausted billions of humans will die in the most terrible manner imaginable.

Such is the price that humankind will pay for its excess and recklessness.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 16, 2007 06:52 PM
39. David: My point is there is more to the story than you are sharing. Yes, humans impact the world. No doubt about it. Are we destroying the earth? Hardly. You talk about brown air - I had the pleasure of being in Eastern Washington after Mount St. Helens blew - trust me, I know about 'dirty air' (as a side note, the farmers enjoyed a bumper crop a mere 18 months after MSH blew, thanks to the ash helping to fertilize the ground.)

Sir, the sky is not falling, catastrophic 'end times' as a result of global warming has yet to be proved, and no one has proved that your global warming will be a NEGATIVE. It COULD very well turn out to be a POSITIVE.

You wrote, "Humans can bear responsibility for the polar bears going extinct even if billions of species have gone extinct in the past four billion history of life on the planet." = What if the polar bears go extinct - WHO CARES? WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? Species come and go.

You, and everyone who follows the religion of 'global warming being catastrophic', have yet to answer the basic question - what SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE EXISTS that the current variation of temperature is outside the norms of the planet's history?

Posted by: Paul o' The East on January 16, 2007 06:56 PM
40. You're something else, David. Even for a lefty you push the wackiness envelope. You're miserable every day, aren't you?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 16, 2007 07:05 PM
41. Hello Paul,

> My point is there is more to the story than you are sharing. Yes, humans impact the world. No doubt about it. Are we destroying the earth? Hardly. You talk about brown air - I had the pleasure of being in Eastern Washington after Mount St. Helens blew - trust me, I know about 'dirty air' (as a side note, the farmers enjoyed a bumper crop a mere 18 months after MSH blew, thanks to the ash helping to fertilize the ground.)

If you are comparing smog to a volcanic eruption you are indeed an extraordinarily uneducated and uninformed individual. It is hard to imagine that you people were making such fun of the greenpeace activist while at the same time entertaining such egregiously ignorant opinions about humankind's pollution.

> Sir, the sky is not falling, catastrophic 'end times' as a result of global warming has yet to be proved, and no one has proved that your global warming will be a NEGATIVE. It COULD very well turn out to be a POSITIVE.

Yes, you are true. Global warming might prove to be a net-positive. Billions of humans could die and that would provide Nature with an opportunity to recover from humankind's violence.

> You wrote, "Humans can bear responsibility for the polar bears going extinct even if billions of species have gone extinct in the past four billion history of life on the planet." = What if the polar bears go extinct - WHO CARES? WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? Species come and go.

Homo sapiens are also going extinct, too, Paul. But that should not concern you, either. Species come and go. The Earth existed for billions of years without humans and it will exist for billions of years after humans are gone.

> You, and everyone who follows the religion of 'global warming being catastrophic', have yet to answer the basic question - what SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE EXISTS that the current variation of temperature is outside the norms of the planet's history?

What do you know about science, Paul? Your arguments so far have demonstrated a terrible ignorance and naivete regarding science. You are not qualified to judge any sort of scientific argument.

Homo sapiens are behaving like a plague on the Earth. Nature can solve this problem and it will. Humankind will go extinct and the Earth will become a much better place without us.

Extinction appears like an appropriate punishment for the sins of the Homo sapiens.


Posted by: David Mathews on January 16, 2007 07:05 PM
42. Hello Bill,

> You're something else, David. Even for a lefty you push the wackiness envelope. You're miserable every day, aren't you?

I am merely being honest. The truth is sometimes terrible. Reality is harsh. The future of humankind is bleak. Homo sapiens is a species which can, and will, go extinct.

Homo sapiens is a species afflicted with a terminal illness and certain unmistakable suicidal tendencies.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 16, 2007 07:13 PM
43. Hey David Mathews,

One thousand years ago, the Vikings lived and raised enough grain in Greenland to overwinter their cattle and horses. Can that be done now? What made it hotter then?

A general consensus of researching weather scientists has not decided why, but we know the CO2 concentrations were less than now from ice core samples. It is thought that there were many more sunspots then. Scientists do know that higher sun temperature corresponds with more sun spots.

What is causing the slight warming now is not known. Sunspots are more prevalent now, and CO2 is higher also. Plants produce CO2 and methane. Methane is much more of a green house gas than CO2.

I would definitely reserve judgment on what is causing the slight temperature increase, as do MANY climate scientists.

Posted by: Bob in SeaTac on January 16, 2007 07:18 PM
44. Hello Bob,

> What is causing the slight warming now is not known.

Why is it that conservatives are so very eager to reveal their ignorance when speaking about climate change?

Don't you know: What you don't know can certainly kill you?

The impression that I am getting from the conservatives here is that humans should just keep on polluting the Earth because of our extreme ignorance regarding the climate.

Needless to say: You are betting the lives of billions of humans upon your extreme ignorance. There's a pretty good chance that billions of humans will die because of the consequences of humankind's present recklessness.

Does it make any difference to you that your grandchildren could very well die because of the damage that you are presently inflicting upon the Earth?

Too bad for the children and especially the grandchildren of this foolish generation. They are going to die and you people simply don't care. They will suffer the consequences for your foolishness.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 16, 2007 07:32 PM
45. "Homo sapiens is a species afflicted with a terminal illness and certain unmistakable suicidal tendencies"

I feel sorry for you David. Honestly. You've swallowed leftist doom and gloomism whole. As a result, (judging from your writing), you are evidently a bitter, unhappy pessimist.

Quit believing all the garbage you've been fed and you might discover that life is worth living after all.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 16, 2007 07:36 PM
46. Hello Bill,

I find it astonishing that you disagree with the my statement: "Homo sapiens is a species afflicted with a terminal illness and certain unmistakable suicidal tendencies".

Are you suggesting that 20,000 nuclear bombs and global military expenditures of $1,000,0000,000,000 a year indicate that Homo sapiens is a happy, well-adjusted, peaceful, immortal animal on the Earth?

Have you simply forgotten the last ten thousand years of human history and -- especially -- the last century?

Humans are not well-equipped to survive on the Earth for very much longer. We have polluted the entire globe, we have destroyed entire ecosystems, we have driven thousands of species to extinction, we have depleted the Earth's resources, and we have modified the Earth's climate in ways which shall make the Earth inhospitable to human life in the future.

For that reason it has become evident and inevitable: Homo sapiens are going to go extinct.

Too bad for humankind. But all of our closest ancestors also went extinct, and billions of other species have likewise gone extinct.

There is nothing whatsoever unusual or remarkable about humankind going extinct. From the standpoint of Nature, humankind's extinction isn't even a tragedy.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 16, 2007 07:44 PM
47. Mr Mathews:

There are many here who do not call themsleves conservatives. Most are, true, but you assume too much. That is not surprising given that you seem to assume a lot of things that are not facts.

JCM is correct, and you are not. What is being debated today on the causes of the global warming trend are not facts, but theories trying to explain this reported phenomenon.

Good science involves testing theories before accepting them as reflecting reality. This has been wholly absent in the current debate. This may be a slow way of accepting new theories, but it works.

From my understanding of the theory and the models used to demonstrate greenhouse gas emissions as the cause of the percieved warming phenomena, we are at least 20 years away from reliabably assessing whether the theory is correct.

And to head you and others off at the pass, let me stipulate that I am speaking of studying the theory, NOT studying the potential impacts IF the theory is correct as is the case in the vast majority of the "popular" science journals articles on the subject today.

The models themslves show that we will not appreciably affect the outcome of the model in that amount of time, even if we were to adopt and achieve the Kyoto protocols. So why the rush?

Science ceases to be be science when it is preceeded by the word "political"! There are way to many non-scientists involved in the debate. There are also too many scientists with no background in climatology or atmospheric or geological sciences trying to join the debate as well.

Let science work through the process - without the pressure from political fools more interested in campaigns or causes.

Posted by: deadwood on January 16, 2007 07:59 PM
48. David: Please provide sources for your information. I have yet to see any reference to what you are basing your typical "I am clueless about science" posts on. There was recently a special on mega volcanoes that linked a massive volcanic eruption to global cooling in the mid-sixth century. This lead to an "eternal" winter that lasted several years, causing massive starvation among other things.

And that huge tsunami in Indonesia changed our weather patterns. Seattle was having a "normal" winter until the tsunami and then the weather went squirrely.

What are you going to do? Picket volcanoes and fault lines?? Rather than foam at the mouth about how evil mankind is, either volunteer to travel to Mars or else come up with verifiable scientific evidence to support your Greenpeace talking points. And if you are going to cite numbers, please keep in mind there is a HUGE difference between ppm, ppb, and ppt. I have noticed the environmental alarmists like to change units to get a more dramatic number.

Posted by: Burdabee on January 16, 2007 08:06 PM
49. "Too bad for humankind. But all of our closest ancestors also went extinct, and billions of other species have likewise gone extinct."

Now I get it David. You have an extinction fixation.

There are probably more interesting hobbies.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 16, 2007 08:12 PM
50. Hello deadwood,

> Good science involves testing theories before accepting them as reflecting reality. This has been wholly absent in the current debate. This may be a slow way of accepting new theories, but it works.

I hope you understand that there is a pretty serious difference between testing theories in a laboratory, under controlled conditions, and performing an experiment on an entire planet which happens to host 6.5+ billion humans plus innumerable other species of life.

If a theory fails in a laboratory that is an event of little consequence. If humankind's experiment on the Earth fails that will lead to billions of humans dying horrendously.

> And to head you and others off at the pass, let me stipulate that I am speaking of studying the theory, NOT studying the potential impacts IF the theory is correct as is the case in the vast majority of the "popular" science journals articles on the subject today.

You don't seem to mind so much the potential for billions of humans dying. Your luxuries are more valuable than their lives. Too bad for them that the present generation of humans is composed of so many shortsighted, selfish, reckless, destructive fools.

> The models themslves show that we will not appreciably affect the outcome of the model in that amount of time, even if we were to adopt and achieve the Kyoto protocols. So why the rush?

Why the rush? Because there is a very real potential that your grandchildren will die. Not that either their life or they death mean anything to you. You are looking out for your own interests and could care less about consequences.

> Science ceases to be be science when it is preceeded by the word "political"! There are way to many non-scientists involved in the debate. There are also too many scientists with no background in climatology or atmospheric or geological sciences trying to join the debate as well.

That's about the most ignorant thing that a person could ever say. Don't you see that the impact of humankind's behaviors have worldwide consequences and therefore deserves the political attention of all the nations of the globe.

If the world continues to be governed by unscientific, uneducated, selfish, self-involved fools there is a pretty good chance that billions of humans will die. The consequences of global warming at that serious.

But you prefer to do nothing. You will make no sacrifices on behalf of future generations of humans. So I guess that all of these people are fated to die, and die they will.

Homo sapiens is a species that can, and will, go extinct.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 16, 2007 08:14 PM
51. Hello Bill,

> You have an extinction fixation.

Well, I hate to tell you but it is your own lifestyle which is leading humankind along this path. The ultimate destination is extinction and there is plenty of environmental destruction and global pollution along the way.

If you wanted humankind to survive you would certainly live differently.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 16, 2007 08:28 PM
52. David Mathews-

Okay smartass. You have piddled away enough bandwidth trying to assert your intellectual superiority. Prove it.

First, answer the China question. How will you get China to adhere to the Kyoto agreement? They're buying (and burning) coal and oil, too. Or will you only condemn the United States from refusing to sign onto it (during the Clinton administration, I might add)

You call us all idiots for not buying into your global warming BS. Prove to us that it is true using empirical science, not some mumbo-jumbo hocus-pocus snake oil formula that your mentors pumped into your worthless skull.

You have not given a single substantial argument so far to prove anything yet. Try using something new, like... well, science.

Until you can prove it, you're just another mush-brained, lemming-minded eco-dweeb. I rev my SUV in your general direction. Outta my way, twerp.

Posted by: ERNurse on January 16, 2007 08:29 PM
53. Okay, is anyone counting the number of times David has been requested to just provide some scientific data to back up his pronouncements? Still, he is only capable of replying with sing-song mantras. David, when you can back up your statements with factual data provided by REAL CLIMATOLOGISTS, then maybe some of the folks on SP would take you more seriously.

Posted by: katomar on January 16, 2007 08:35 PM
54. I hate Polar Bears. I'm going to throw another tire in the woodstove.

Posted by: Pete on January 16, 2007 08:40 PM
55. Hello ERNurse,

Why do thes people who demand substantial arguments fail to say anything of substance in their posts?

You ask a good question:

> First, answer the China question. How will you get China to adhere to the Kyoto agreement? They're buying (and burning) coal and oil, too. Or will you only condemn the United States from refusing to sign onto it (during the Clinton administration, I might add)

China isn't going to adhere to the Kyoto protocol simply because obese America, the most gluttonous and polluting nation on the Earth, has refused to do so. Now both China and America can reject the Kyoto protocal because the other nation has refused to join.

Don't you see how humankind is governed by selfish fools? Billions of humans are going to die because of American and Chinese stupidity.

> Prove to us that it is true using empirical science ...

I would provide a scientific argument to an educated audience. The group here is egregiously and proudly ignorant about science and a great many other things. These people won't hear anything so I am content to leave them to their own ignorance.

> You have not given a single substantial argument so far to prove anything yet. Try using something new, like... well, science.

What is the point of talking science to a scientifically illiterate group who apparently is governed by the principle: "Don't Know & Don't Care".

The only remarkable attribute of this group is that you people make fun of the Greenpeace activist while praising your own ignorance and disinterest. No wonder why the world is going to hell: It suffers from the leadership of people such as yourself.

> I rev my SUV in your general direction.

Keep on revving that SUV. Once you have burned up all the world's oil your grandchildren will have no choice except to walk. Not that you particularly care about the consequences of your behaviors. You only think about yourself, and that is all that matters to you.


Posted by: David Mathews on January 16, 2007 08:40 PM
56. Hello katomar,

> Okay, is anyone counting the number of times David has been requested to just provide some scientific data to back up his pronouncements? Still, he is only capable of replying with sing-song mantras. David, when you can back up your statements with factual data provided by REAL CLIMATOLOGISTS, then maybe some of the folks on SP would take you more seriously.

Now you are being absurd, katomar. These conservatives have only asserted their ignorance as a means of avoiding any sort of intellectual thought regarding global warming.

They certainly will not hear any evidence regarding global warming. They would rather just keep on polluting the Earth and leave their grandchildren to suffer the consequences.

I think that you people are really selfish enough to kill your own grandchildren. You will allow them to inherit a mess of a planet and they will suffer horrendously.

What ever happened to the principle of leaving the world a better place?

Humankind is governed by fools. That much is certainly evident. Selflish, self-involved, obese gluttons who want to eat up the entire planet.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 16, 2007 08:46 PM
57. Once again, no factual back-up from David. Only attacks that everyone who doesn't agree with him, in spite of no facts backing up his arguments, is stupid. David, you need to get yourself a hooded cloak and sign.

Posted by: katomar on January 16, 2007 08:48 PM
58. Does it get any better than this?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 16, 2007 08:50 PM
59. Dave - "Homo sapiens are behaving like a plague on the Earth. Nature can solve this problem and it will. Humankind will go extinct and the Earth will become a much better place without us. "
Please tell me you are not reproducing? If not, could you take yourself out soon to help give others children just a little bit more time before they have to go? Isn't that the unselfish and logical thing to do with how your feel?
Since cremation of your remains would contribute to GW so significantly, would you dig a hole and quietly burry yourself so as to not disturb nature and return some value to earth that you have taken so far....because "its for the kids" after all.

Posted by: sokala on January 16, 2007 08:52 PM
60. Hello katomar,

> Once again, no factual back-up from David. Only attacks that everyone who doesn't agree with him, in spite of no facts backing up his arguments, is stupid. David, you need to get yourself a hooded cloak and sign.

The facts are well known and very nearly undisputed. Humans have released millions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere every year for a very long time. The ice caps and glaciers are melting. The pollution of the atmosphere is evident throughout the entire globe.

These are the facts.

Do you want some more facts?

Americans are obese gluttons with insatiable appetites. For the sake of selfishness and greed Americans insist upon consuming 25% of the world's fossil fuel resources and hence generate 25% of the pollution in the atmsophere. For that reason, the obese Americans bear a large measure of the responsibility for the catastrophe which is fast approaching.

Do you want some more facts?

Humankind's pollution is floating in the oceans to the tune of millions of tons reaching the most remote islands of the Pacific and the Atlantic. This pollution fills the stomachs of sea birds and kills them. Scientists often find hundreds of pieces of plastic litter in the stomachs of birds which have died from starvation.

Do you want some more facts?

Within thirty years the human population is going to reach 9,000,000,000. Unfortunately, the Earth is already displaying evidence of strain in its attempt to support a human population of 6.5 billion. Do you know what sort of horrors will result when there are nine billion hungry human mouths but only food enough for eight billion people?

Yes, there is an apocalypse coming. Billions of humans will die in the most horrendous manner possible. Too bad for humankind. Too bad for the Earth.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 16, 2007 08:58 PM
61. David: You wrote: "They certainly will not hear any evidence regarding global warming." To which I respond, "Of course not from you." We've ASKED. Aside from parroting the mantra of your ilk, you choose to be non-responsive.

You clearly have your viewpoint based on your sources. Those of us who question you will always be viewed as insignificant and narrow minded by yourself. Clearly, you are unable to carry on a conversation or debate.

Enjoy your end times. May they come to you sooner so that you will suck up less of our oxygen!

Posted by: Paul o' The East on January 16, 2007 09:00 PM
62. Setting off all our nukes would ruin the planet....until nature came back. We shouldn't be dumping toxic fuels in rivers, those that did and now stopped are coming back. No one here is saying that there are actions that can lead to harm of nature, but me driving my car isn't likely the cause of global warming. What might be a bigger cause is the lack of forrest thining and thus bigger forrest fires. So the environmental movement is actually leading to more pollution in that respect. Then again it might not....more eruptions in the last 10 years than in the previous 70. Would that be a cause? Did man do that?

David face it. You hate man..thus yourself. Why is that? Do you take pills to control your depression? Most of your comments blame your fellow man for things.....and that is everyone including yourself, as you have stated. Why not just leave society and be done with it?

Posted by: Dengle on January 16, 2007 09:02 PM
63. Hello sokala,

> Please tell me you are not reproducing? If not, could you take yourself out soon to help give others children just a little bit more time before they have to go? Isn't that the unselfish and logical thing to do with how your feel?

You are speaking in a silly and uninformed manner, sokala. Not that I would expect anything else from anyone posting on this board.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 16, 2007 09:03 PM
64. Hello Dengle,

> No one here is saying that there are actions that can lead to harm of nature, but me driving my car isn't likely the cause of global warming.

You are like the obese person at McDonald's claiming that eating hamburgers and fries isn't causing his obesity.

Yes, Dengle, you driving your car does contribute to global warming.

> What might be a bigger cause is the lack of forrest thining and thus bigger forrest fires. So the environmental movement is actually leading to more pollution in that respect.

Oh my, can I believe my eyes? Are you suggesting that the corporations are clear cutting the forests for the sake of the environment?

I haven't met so many ignroant & uninformed & disinterested conservatives in my life. And you thought that Greenpeace activist was humorous? You people should listen to your own self speaking.

> You hate man..thus yourself.

You are serious mistaken, Dengle. The people who are polluting the Earth and destroying humankind's future hate humankind. These people are killing their own grandchildren and they don't even know it.

Too bad for your grandchildren. They will inherit both your ignorance and your mess.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 16, 2007 09:10 PM
65. David: When folks here are asking for back-up for your assertions, generally that means maybe a link to climatologists, studies, things we can read and perhaps "educate" our poor, stupid selves. Just because you proclaim something is a fact, that makes it so? In that case, I've got a bridge I would like to sell to you.

Posted by: katomar on January 16, 2007 09:11 PM
66. Isn't it just interesting how CONSERVATIVE a bleeder of a liberal can get? Thanks David for your diatribe. It's been most interesting.

Posted by: JT on January 16, 2007 09:14 PM
67. David--maybe we aren't using small enough words, but I don't know how to make it any simpler. You have been asked repeatedly for outside sources to back up your wild assertions. So far your pea-brain has not been able to process this request.

Joel Schwartz, an environmental scientist, did a comprehensive report on air pollution in this country. Between 1980-2005, fine particulate matter dropped 40%, lead levels dropped 96%, and days-per-year exceeding the eight hour ozone standard decreased 79%. And in that same time frame, automobile miles driven nearly doubled and coal burning for electricity increased approximately 61%.

Also, let's not forget that the famous London fog disappeared when the city switched to using North Sea oil. And we were all supposed to starve to death once the world population reached 4 billion.

Just out of curiousity, do you have any clue at all how much energy is used to manufacture the computer you are using as your virtual soapbox? Or doesn't the Chicken Little Society (aka Greenpeace) provide that information?

So one more time--please read this slowly--cite sources for your over-the-top rantings. If you respond once again with your typical emotional, no facts diatribes, then you win the Most Clueless Moonbat Blogger award this evening.

Posted by: Burdabee on January 16, 2007 09:31 PM
68. Dave,
"Please tell me you are not reproducing" isn't all an attempt at humor at your expense. Honestly, how can you feel the way you do and use any resources at all or multiply that effect by having little Davids? In your world there is no hope, no ability to overcome problems. What so many of us want is to be convinced of is the honest to god real problem and cause. A graph of a hockey stick temperature curve and McCarthy era type movement isn't going to cut it with people who, in spite of what you think, really do care and think about the consequences of actions.

Posted by: sokala on January 16, 2007 09:33 PM
69. Global warming science. Take a glass container, pump it full of CO2, put a light on it, and suprise the temparture in the container will rise with the concentration of CO2 pumped into the container. Now, there are questions about global warming, like how much CO2 can the earth really "absord", will cloud cover mitigate affects, etc. But the idea the "correlation is not causation" needs a caveat, "it's not ALWAYS causation".... well if you ever look at the charts of CO2 and Global mean temperature, it's pretty clear. In small containers CO2 traps heat, it does the same thing in large containers.

I went to a Firmy Lab lecture on this in the 80s, and everything the um.... real scientists predicted in the 80s has come true faster and more furious than they were predicting.

Global Warming is a Theory that is being tested. And those tests keep confirming the theory. The scientific community is not on the fence on this one, the Scientific community is squarely planted on the Global Warming side of the argument.

The problem with the conservative mind set of late, is the idea that "Theories" are just like "guesses", and this started with the "Intelligent Design" BS. Intelligent Design is not a theory, because it is not "Testable". So as the word theory has been muddled, so has the common person's understanding of science.

CO2 traps heat very effeciently. CO2 is on the rise. Previous drops in CO2 have coincided with Ice Ages, no previous record exists that offers a glimpse into where we are heading with CO2 concentrations at this point.

Global Warming is a well tested theory. There are plenty of facts to go along with it.

For those of you who want scientific evidence I suggest, oh, I don't know, that you might start reading some peer reviewed scientific journals on the issue instead of Soundpolitics.

Posted by: Gentry on January 16, 2007 10:46 PM
70. One thing is for sure. If there is indeed a climatic catastrophe that is human induced, or if the more likely scenario of a natural catastrophe such as a meteor occurs, the only hope we have is to be free to use the full extent of human ingenuity to preserve our species.

As long as we are held back in chains by the Marxist/ Socialist/ Environmentalist agenda driven by folks like Al Gore, we move closer to, not further from the abyss. Every conceivable environmentalist folly and hurdle has been put in place for humans to waste our time with infighting, burn our capital on useless government expansion, consume our precious time with sorting recycling which then uses more energy to process, etc., etc.

The survival of humans depends on the freedom to use our minds rationally. And rational does not mean cowering in fear or economic regression at the drop of every doomsday prediction.

Posted by: Jeff B. on January 16, 2007 10:56 PM
71. Way to go all, you overfed that glutonous troll to death.

Posted by: Doug on January 16, 2007 11:23 PM
72. First, whatever he is, Al Gore is not a socialist. Socialists state it directly, they have their own newspapers, etc. Al Gore is firmly in the free market/Nafta/Wto camp.

Second, Global Warming is a tested theory that has been around and been gaining support and acceptance in the scientific community at large for over 3 decades. It is not a recent theory, or an untested theory, and even in the biological sciences, the predictions are proving accurate.

The Scientists, those that are publishing in peer reviewed journals, are overwhelmingly on the side of Global Warming.

But there is nothing to say that Global Warming doesn't present many business opportunities, or that market forces are not useful in combating Global Warming. Take for one example the ski and insurance industries, these two markets are seriously interested in the outcome of this debate. Or maybe you don't remember two seasons ago when there was no real ski season in the Cascades? Or maybe you forgot that Mt. Rainier use to have Ice Caves? Or that Glacier National Park was named that for a reason?

The real debate is over correlation and causation. CO2 correlates extremely well with Global Temperature rise. In fact, correlation is often scientists best tool for discovering causation.

Posted by: Gentry on January 17, 2007 12:28 AM
73. Hello.

Ok, I gotta say it:

How can anybody REALLY believe the accuracy of scientist's weather predictions for the next several decades when they can't even get the 5 day forecast correct?

(Sorry Michael Crichton... I had to steal that one from ya...)

Posted by: Left Behind by the New Democratic Party on January 17, 2007 03:12 AM
74. Hello katomar,

> David: When folks here are asking for back-up for your assertions, generally that means maybe a link to climatologists, studies, things we can read and perhaps "educate" our poor, stupid selves. Just because you proclaim something is a fact, that makes it so? In that case, I've got a bridge I would like to sell to you.

You aren't going to get any sort of link from me. You people sure need some education but I am not going to educate you. Find yourself a teacher and learn a little science.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 17, 2007 04:11 AM
75. Hello Burdabee,

> David--maybe we aren't using small enough words, but I don't know how to make it any simpler. You have been asked repeatedly for outside sources to back up your wild assertions. So far your pea-brain has not been able to process this request.

Given that this is a conservative blog you people have no choice except to use the smallest words possible. Given that this is a conservative blog, I will provide no outside sources as that might overtax your intellect and certainly will exhaust your curiousity.

> Joel Schwartz, an environmental scientist, did a comprehensive report on air pollution in this country. Between 1980-2005, fine particulate matter dropped 40%, lead levels dropped 96%, and days-per-year exceeding the eight hour ozone standard decreased 79%. And in that same time frame, automobile miles driven nearly doubled and coal burning for electricity increased approximately 61%.

Yes, improvements to the environment have occurred in the United States since 1980. These indicate how really had things had gotten before that time. Yet they have not solved the problem of pollution. America is still the greatest polluter on the planet.

> Also, let's not forget that the famous London fog disappeared when the city switched to using North Sea oil. And we were all supposed to starve to death once the world population reached 4 billion.

By bringing up London all you are doing to treating a global problem as if it were a local problem. London's air improved greatly from the a horrendously polluted condition.

As to the 4 billion: Only an idiot would assume that since humans succeeded at feeding four billion humans then humankind will certainly succeed at feeding 9 billion humans. If you drive on the interstate safely at 100 mph please don't also assume that you can also drive 200 mph safely.

> Just out of curiousity, do you have any clue at all how much energy is used to manufacture the computer you are using as your virtual soapbox? Or doesn't the Chicken Little Society (aka Greenpeace) provide that information?

A huge amount of energy is involved.

> So one more time--please read this slowly--cite sources for your over-the-top rantings. If you respond once again with your typical emotional, no facts diatribes, then you win the Most Clueless Moonbat Blogger award this evening.

The people on this blog are cluseless and uneducated about scientific matters. That much has become evident in the discussion so far. I need not cite sources from such an adamantly ignorant group of people.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 17, 2007 04:20 AM
76. Hello Jeff,

> One thing is for sure. If there is indeed a climatic catastrophe that is human induced, or if the more likely scenario of a natural catastrophe such as a meteor occurs, the only hope we have is to be free to use the full extent of human ingenuity to preserve our species.

You vastly overestimate the power of human ingenuity. In the last 10,000 years human ingenuity has only served to destroy and consume and pollute the world. Homo sapiens are a natural catastrophe.

> As long as we are held back in chains by the Marxist/ Socialist/ Environmentalist agenda driven by folks like Al Gore, we move closer to, not further from the abyss. Every conceivable environmentalist folly and hurdle has been put in place for humans to waste our time with infighting, burn our capital on useless government expansion, consume our precious time with sorting recycling which then uses more energy to process, etc., etc.

This is silly. Don't you know what sort of sewer Americans would be living in if there were no environmental regulations?

> The survival of humans depends on the freedom to use our minds rationally. And rational does not mean cowering in fear or economic regression at the drop of every doomsday prediction.

Humans are not rational creatures. If humans were rational you would never see an obese humans. If humans were rational then humankind would never have invented the nuclear bomb. If humans were rational the species would never have overpopulated the Earth and exhausted its resources.

Humans are not rational animals. Humans rank among the most foolish, most wasteful, most violent and most destructive of animals. This is the reason why Homo sapiens is walking, talking natural catastrophe and the species is soon to become extinct.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 17, 2007 04:30 AM
77. (Mathews 75) "...from such an adamantly ignorant group of people."

Yet HIS posts are some of the most lengthy. The unwashed masses are worth engaging?

(Spock--raising eyebrow) "...Facinating..."

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 17, 2007 04:34 AM
78. Hello Left Behind,

> How can anybody REALLY believe the accuracy of scientist's weather predictions for the next several decades when they can't even get the 5 day forecast correct?

There is a difference between meteorology and climatology.

Posted by: David Mathew on January 17, 2007 04:36 AM
79. Hello Jimmie,

> Yet HIS posts are some of the most lengthy. The unwashed masses are worth engaging?

I write more than a sentence because I can. The people reading this blog are undoubtedly more educated that some of those people who are posting.

And this is a very important subject, too. We are talking about the fate of civilization and the survival of the species.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 17, 2007 05:23 AM
80. Cat says:

" I suppose it's a bit too subtle for most of you to understand that the phenomenon of global warming includes extremes of weather in both directions, while the overall curve is upward."


Really Cat? You mean like the "extreme 2006 hurricane season that was SUPPOSED happen that DID NOT? Are THOSE the kinds of extremes you are talking about?"

Really, Linus was more convincing arguing for the Great Pumpkin than YOU bumpkins!

Posted by: pbj on January 17, 2007 06:23 AM
81. Dave Matthews,

Co2 is caused by breathing. Why are you still breathing? You are warming the planet with each moonbat breath!

Posted by: pbj on January 17, 2007 06:35 AM
82. "What is the point of talking science to a scientifically illiterate group who apparently is governed by the principle: "Don't Know & Don't Care"."

Dave Matthews, In what specialty is your degree? See I DO have a science degree as does Stefan. In what are is your degree, English?

Posted by: pbjy on January 17, 2007 06:39 AM
83. Great web page, David. Awesome pictures and good poem.

I am afraid you are overly emotional and tend to believe in any doomsday scenario involving the environment. Take a deep breath and try to look at the earth in the grand scheme of things. It is insignificant and subject to mood swings of the sun and passing celestial bodies. It is constantly changing- sometimes towards cold (as in Middle Ages and has been conjectured to be the cause of the collapse of one of the Chinese dynasties) or warm as it has when you compare it to the last 50 years.

The earth was created with checks and balances. Whenever something gets out of whack, it will be corrected. Sometimes it may take centuries. Relax and believe in a God and please don't play or try to play God with the weather as Gore wishes.

Posted by: swatter on January 17, 2007 07:20 AM
84. My question is: Is David Mathews real? Or is he just a figment of Al Gore's imagination? (Much like the movie.) If David does exist, here's my suggestion: Go to the great Al Gore. Stand beside him. And, in reverance, ask him to change our weather. Behold his powers.

Posted by: Doc-T on January 17, 2007 07:33 AM
85. For much of the Global Warming crowd Global warming has taken on all the ingredients of religion.

Just as my belief in God is based on Faith with no empirical data, just personal spiritual experience, so too is Global Warming embrace with out evidence.

The difference is while my faith is solid, in the face real evidence that my religious beliefs are in error I would examine those beliefs.

I think if we could get an accurate survey we would find that those who embrace Global Warming most fervently lack any deeply held religious beliefs.

Humans have a need to know what is causing something, hence our drive to discover real causes for invents and in the lack of knowledge invent metaphysical drivers for events.

Combine that with the lack of rigorous scientific education. In my own time gaining a B.S. in Bio-Chem at the UW I was surprised at the overwhelming number of fellow students who had real trouble dealing with ambiguity in science. That disproving X caused Y was much easier than proving A caused B. When a test fails you've eliminated that as a cause, when a test succeeds you've only shown that that is a possible cause. These same people had trouble with the distinction of correlation and causation.

So when a theory gains attention that we are in unprecedented warming and CO2 concentrations have increased from 315.98 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of dry air in 1959 to 377.38 ppmv in 2004, 19.4% increase. Many see the correlation and jump to the causation conclusion.

Then in their need to see a cause and effect adopt a the idea with a religious fervor. Ignoring the myriad of climate drivers and our lack of knowledge about those drivers.

Without a real grounding in scientific method, and the healthy skepticism required when testing a theory it is simply not possible to have a rational discussion about the cause of Global Warming, the contributing factors and the level of contribution of mankind.

Posted by: JCM on January 17, 2007 07:35 AM
86. JCM,

This phenomenon is covered quite extensively wherever macroevolution i.e. trans-species evolution is discussed. The religion aspect is well established but there is also scientific fraud involved. Not only is there a giant "leap of faith" required to accept the THEORY as scientific fact, but evidence is manufactured or manipulated to fit the "preferred outcome" or is covered up when it refutes the preferred outcome.

Posted by: JDH on January 17, 2007 08:29 AM
87. We have a winner!! David gets the Pyrite Moonbat Blogger award! (I thought fool's gold would be a better substitute for the real thing).

David-- you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are just another liberal, hypocritical enviroweenie who never has and never will do serious research on global warming or any other environmental issue. Practice what you preach and give up anything that has to do with modern society and get your like-minded friends to do the same. You can start by giving up your resource hog computer.

Posted by: Burdabee on January 17, 2007 08:50 AM
88. Foxnews.com ran an interesting article on Oct. 12, 2006. "New study provides experimental evidence that cosmic rays may be a major factor in causing the Earth's climate to change." They also note medias lack of interest in this story.

Global warming may not be caused by pollution and evil republicans folks...it could be the sun! Let them try to legislate that one.

Posted by: dl on January 17, 2007 09:01 AM
89. Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to 'Religious Belief'
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
December 02, 2004

Washington (CNSNews.com) - An MIT meteorologist Wednesday dismissed alarmist fears about human induced global warming as nothing more than 'religious beliefs.'

"Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?" said Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, in a speech to about 100 people at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

"Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief," Lindzen said. His speech was titled, "Climate Alarmism: The Misuse of 'Science'" and was sponsored by the free market George C. Marshall Institute. Lindzen is a professor at MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.

Once a person becomes a believer of global warming, "you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists -- except for a handful of corrupted heretics," Lindzen added.

According to Lindzen, climate "alarmists" have been trying to push the idea that there is scientific consensus on dire climate change.

"With respect to science, the assumption behind the [alarmist] consensus is science is the source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists [who agree.] But science is not primarily a source of authority. It is a particularly effective approach of inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science -- consensus is foreign," Lindzen said.

Alarmist predictions of more hurricanes, the catastrophic rise in sea levels, the melting of the global poles and even the plunge into another ice age are not scientifically supported, Lindzen said.

"It leads to a situation where advocates want us to be afraid, when there is no basis for alarm. In response to the fear, they want us to do what they want," Lindzen said.

Recent reports of a melting polar ice cap were dismissed by Lindzen as an example of the media taking advantage of the public's "scientific illiteracy."

"The thing you have to remember about the Arctic is that it is an extremely variable part of the world," Lindzen said. "Although there is melting going [on] now, there has been a lot of melting that went on in the [19]30s and then there was freezing. So by isolating a section ... they are essentially taking people's ignorance of the past," he added.

'Repetition makes people believe'

The climate change debate has become corrupted by politics, the media and money, according to Lindzen.

"It's a sad story, where you have scientists making meaningless or ambiguous statements [about climate change]. They are then taken by advocates to the media who translate the statements into alarmist declarations. You then have politicians who respond to all of this by giving scientists more money," Lindzen said.

"Agreement on anything is taken to infer agreement on everything. So if you make a statement that you agree that CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a greenhouse gas, you agree that the world is coming to an end," he added.

"There can be little doubt that the language used to convey alarm has been sloppy at best," Lindzen said, citing Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbles and his famous observation that even a lie will be believed if enough people repeat it. "There is little question that repetition makes people believe things [for] which there may be no basis," Lindzen said.

He believes the key to improving the science of climate change lies in altering the way scientists are funded.

'Alarm is the aim'

"The research and support for research depends on the alarm," Lindzen told CNSNews.com following his speech. "The research itself often is very good, but by the time it gets through the filter of environmental advocates and the press innocent things begin to sound just as though they are the end of the world.

"The argument is no longer what models are correct -- they are not -- but rather whether their results are at all possible. One can rarely prove something to be impossible," he explained.

Lindzen said scientists must be allowed to conclude that 'we don't have a problem." And if the answer turns out to be 'we don't have a problem,' we have to figure out a better reward than cutting off people's funding. It's as simple as that," he said.

The only consensus that Lindzen said exists on the issue of climate change is the impact of the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to limit greenhouse gases, which the U.S. does not support.

Kyoto itself will have no discernible effect on global warming regardless of what one believes about climate change," Lindzen said.

"Claims to the contrary generally assume Kyoto is only the beginning of an ever more restrictive regime. However this is hardly ever mentioned," he added.

The Kyoto Protocol, which Russia recently ratified, aims to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2010. But Lindzen claims global warming proponents ultimately want to see a 60 to 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gasses from the 1990 levels. Such reductions would be economically disastrous, he said.

"If you are hearing Kyoto will cost billions and trillions," then a further reduction will ultimately result in "a shutdown" of the economy, Lindzen said.

Posted by: JDH on January 17, 2007 09:34 AM
90. Classic demonization. Seattle (and a lot of the west coast) has long been a haven for cultural refugees. The guy in the picture maybe moved here from Ohio 6 years ago to escape his abusive Republican past. He's probably a Green Party sympathizer who doesn't vote, but wants to do his best to tilt another election to the GOP. So what?

I could go take some pictures of whacked-out Christian Republicans picketing a Planned Parenthood in Topeka, Kansas with signs that say "The End is Near" - or, how's about those fine folks with the "God Hates F-gs" signs? If I posted them on a demonizing left wing blog, what would I prove? That there are fringe people out there?

I know the purpose of this kind of post is to make beleaguered conservatives feel like enviros and liberals are way out of the mainstream, and that their entire ideology is based on the whims of some hippy Shark encountered in Wallingford.

If anything, Shark's post proves intellectual laziness is running rampant in conservative circles. Since this brand of stereotyping is what you guys depend on for electoral success, I suppose it's only natural you would pursue idiocy to its logical conclusion. Sure has worked well recently, hasn't it?

Posted by: Benjamin on January 17, 2007 09:47 AM
91. O.K. Benjamin, let me help you: "The End is Near" - or, how's about those fine folks with the "God Hates F-gs" are fundamnetally different than psudoscience being passed off as fact. C'mon you know that. unfortunately in Seattle enviro-kooks and leftwing nut-jobs are not way out of the mainstream, they represent seattle mainstream.

Posted by: JDH on January 17, 2007 09:58 AM
92. I just have a simple question, if global warming is so horrible and will cause serious loss of life ("billions of deaths" according to Mr. Matthews), then how is it that during the last warming period there was no such massive loss of life? (You know, the one 1000 years ago) Why would this one cause massive loss of life?

Posted by: justsumguy on January 17, 2007 10:02 AM
93. I just hope all the Greenies are happy when they pay more for their orange juice than they do for their Evian, thanks to the Global Warming going on in California and Florida right now.

Oh, and by the way, Evian is sold in plastic bottles made from refined petroleum.

"No Blood For Evian."

Now there's a bumper-sticker to be proud of.

Posted by: Rey Smith on January 17, 2007 10:04 AM
94. Okay, Dave. Let's assume you are right about EVERYTHING. What would you, the most intelligent person on the planet, do about it? Our leaders are so inept; let's have your solutions!

Have you made any significant changes in the way you live your own life (if only for the sake of adhering to your own principles)? Ranting at other people doesn't count. Obviously you've recognized the futility of trying to change the behaviors of all the world's people. Have you got some way of getting us off this doomed planet? If not - if all you've got to offer is negativity and doomsaying - then go eat some Prozac and leave the rest of us alone!

Posted by: Peggy U on January 17, 2007 10:58 AM
95. I'm not sure what the fuss is about polar bears - they seem to like the warm weather too...

A Canadian Press Newswire story earlier this year reported that, in three Arctic villages, polar bears "are so abundant there's a public safety issue." The local polar bear population reportedly increased from about 2,100 in 1997 to as many as 2,600 in 2004. Inuit hunters (search) wanted to be able to kill more bears because they are "fearsome predators."

Posted by: Right said Fred on January 17, 2007 10:59 AM
96. Benjamin at #90, "I could go take some pictures of whacked-out Christian Republicans picketing a Planned Parenthood in Topeka, Kansas with signs that say "The End is Near" - or, how's about those fine folks with the "God Hates F-gs" signs? If I posted them on a demonizing left wing blog, what would I prove? That there are fringe people out there?"

Classic leftist response--'oh yeah? well you guys have lots of right wing Christian kooks and what about Robertson and Falwell, huh, huh, huh??'

They'll do it every time.


Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 17, 2007 11:03 AM
97. (mathew 79:)
"And this is a very important subject, too. We are talking about the fate of civilization and the survival of the species."

yep--not hot air or gasses, but the friggin' jihadists!

it's all about RELATIVE threats, my boy. driving a car vs. a lightning strike.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 17, 2007 11:30 AM
98. woke from nightmare--kid in photo above rang doorbell and said "Hi, Dad--I'm your new son-in-law."

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 17, 2007 12:06 PM
99. David:

You are blowing an opportunity to enlighten many of us with your knowledge. Just give us the facts (sources). I'm open minded.

You clearly are the all-knowing. From your own website:

The baby elephant is happy because it is not a human.


Yes, wouldn't it be nice if we were all baby elephants. When you are done trotting the world on jet airplanes photographing exotic cars, maybe you can enlighten us on what we can do to stop the sky from falling.


Posted by: Eric on January 17, 2007 12:12 PM
100. Hello Swatter,

> am afraid you are overly emotional and tend to believe in any doomsday scenario involving the environment. Take a deep breath and try to look at the earth in the grand scheme of things. It is insignificant and subject to mood swings of the sun and passing celestial bodies. It is constantly changing- sometimes towards cold (as in Middle Ages and has been conjectured to be the cause of the collapse of one of the Chinese dynasties) or warm as it has when you compare it to the last 50 years.

Yes, there are plenty of non-human forces which impact the environment. But, no, these forces do not refute the notion that humankind's pollution can impact the climate and generate conditions inhospitable to human life.

> The earth was created with checks and balances. Whenever something gets out of whack, it will be corrected. Sometimes it may take centuries. Relax and believe in a God and please don't play or try to play God with the weather as Gore wishes.

Yes, Nature does possess checks & balances. And: Yes, something is most certainly out of whack on the Earth. The problem is subject to correction by Nature, i.e. the offending species is subject to extinction.

Nature will heal her wounds in her own time once humankind is gone. Nature is extraordinarily patient and it will solve this problem in its own time.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 17, 2007 12:24 PM
101. Hello dl,

> Foxnews.com ran an interesting article on Oct. 12, 2006. "New study provides experimental evidence that cosmic rays may be a major factor in causing the Earth's climate to change." They also note medias lack of interest in this story.

> Global warming may not be caused by pollution and evil republicans folks...it could be the sun! Let them try to legislate that one.

The above news story is just an example of the sheer stupidity of the FOX News network. Too bad that FOX News appeals to easily manipulated, gullible conservative voters.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 17, 2007 12:30 PM
102. Hello JDH,

> "If you are hearing Kyoto will cost billions and trillions," then a further reduction will ultimately result in "a shutdown" of the economy, Lindzen said.

Kyoto would cost trillions of dollars. Further reductions might well shut down the world's economy.

I am in favor the world's economy shutting down. Better to lose the world's economy rather than sacrifice a billion human lives for the sake of short-term profits.

Corporations have already made a horrendous mess of the Earth. The entire planet is becoming humankind's sewer.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 17, 2007 12:33 PM
103. Hello justsumguy,

> just have a simple question, if global warming is so horrible and will cause serious loss of life ("billions of deaths" according to Mr. Matthews), then how is it that during the last warming period there was no such massive loss of life? (You know, the one 1000 years ago) Why would this one cause massive loss of life?

Do I have to say the obvious? There are 6.5 billion people living on the Earth now and by midcentury the population will climb to 9,000,000,000.

Climate change is a direct personal threat to those 9,000,0000,000 people. If the crops don't grow because of heat and drought humankind might face a catastrophe of truly apocalyptic proportions.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 17, 2007 12:38 PM
104. Hello Peggy,

> Okay, Dave. Let's assume you are right about EVERYTHING. What would you, the most intelligent person on the planet, do about it? Our leaders are so inept; let's have your solutions!

The solution that I would propose: Cease all global oil exports immediately & sacrifice the entire American economy.

> Have you made any significant changes in the way you live your own life (if only for the sake of adhering to your own principles)?

I have done lots of wonderful things but not enough.

> Ranting at other people doesn't count. Obviously you've recognized the futility of trying to change the behaviors of all the world's people.

Changing worldwide human behavior is indeed futile. This is the reason why Homo sapiens is a soon-to-become-extinct species.

> Have you got some way of getting us off this doomed planet?

There is no escape for humankind from this doomed planet. Humans evolved on the Earth and humans will go extinct here as well.

> If not - if all you've got to offer is negativity and doomsaying - then go eat some Prozac and leave the rest of us alone!

I would do this except I care a little about your grandchildren and the hellish planet that they will inherit from you. Your grandchildren will certainly pay a bitter price for all of the sins of this generation.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 17, 2007 12:46 PM
105. Hello Right Said Fred,

> I'm not sure what the fuss is about polar bears - they seem to like the warm weather too...

Polar bears love the warm weather so much that they might go extinct. Those polar bears scavenging for food in the cities are an indication of the decline in the polar bear's habitat. It is not a sign of good health.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 17, 2007 12:50 PM
106. David Mathews was quite possibly adopted as a baby and doesn't know what I believe to be the truth.

His biological mother, Tipper Gore, always wanted a girl and gave him up.

God help you, David. If ignorance is bliss, you must be a very happy fella!

Posted by: Easycure on January 17, 2007 12:54 PM
107. "I am in favor the world's economy shutting down. Better to lose the world's economy rather than sacrifice a billion human lives for the sake of short-term profits."

Just tragic! This guy leaves me speachless.

Posted by: JDH on January 17, 2007 01:07 PM
108. Good Lord! According to David's website, he seems to be running a close second to Al Gore in consumption of jet fuel. Maybe his jets run on banana peels and he probably hasn't heated his house this winter in a glorious attempt to save our grandchildren.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. (I can't be part of the problem because I'm so gooood and care soooo much. I only buy organic food at Whole Foods because the trucks that deliver strawberries to them in february run on used french fry oil.)

Unbelievable!

Posted by: dan on January 17, 2007 03:19 PM
109. David:

The polar bears you've seen scavenging for food in the cities are actually Rosie O'Donnell and Roseanne Barr in cream-colored down overcoats from REI.

And it's not food they're after. It's Katie Couric.

Posted by: Rey Smith on January 17, 2007 03:28 PM
110. Who said this? "You should concern yourself with the prospect of living in a poor United States, living in a country which has exhausted both its natural resources and its opportunity for greatness, a country which is faced with difficult decisions all of which are painful and involve sacrifices unlike any of those suffered by our ancestors."

Here's a hint - it's David Mathews http://www.theconservativevoice.com/forum/read.html?id=2544

Posted by: JDH on January 17, 2007 03:56 PM
111. I'm more confused than ever! Oprah was promoting Al Gore's movie (as gospel no less) complaining about global warming etc. a few weeks back and yet, she and her friend Gail went across the country with a HUGE entourage of SUVs.

I find it so bazaar that people with millions of dollars think that they can preach "do what I say and not as I do" to the general public and everyone thinks these famous and rich people know more about everything than themselves.

Posted by: SH on January 17, 2007 04:21 PM
112. It's pretty clear that David Mathews has been religiously indoctrinated with Global Warming. Nothing you can say will convince him otherwise. Just look at the fascination with Polar Bears alone. There are many scientists that specialize in Polar Bears that have shown that it is only one of many species of Polar Bear that is in jeopardy, and they are not even sure exactly why that is the case for that one specie. But Polar Bears are standard talking points within the religion of Global Warming. The reality is that species dies off all the time. It's nothing to be alarmed about. It is the way of the world.

David Mathews is a troll. Stop feeding him.

Posted by: Jeff B. on January 17, 2007 04:34 PM
113. David Matthews - I looked at some of your photos, which were quite beautiful, and I can't seem to figure out why you are so down on the human race (your race)? Human's have done some amazingly beautiful things and overcome great obstacles throughout history.

You need a dose of HOPE!

Did you grow up in a privileged lifestyle and feel guilty for this? If so, I pity you.


Posted by: SH on January 17, 2007 04:38 PM
114. Hello SH,

> I find it so bazaar that people with millions of dollars think that they can preach "do what I say and not as I do" to the general public and everyone thinks these famous and rich people know more about everything than themselves.

What is really bizarre is that some Americans think that they are poor although more than a billion humans are currently living on less than $1 a day and another billion are living on less than $2 a day.

And you want to know what the really ironic thing is about these people?

A significant number of these people are our employees and it is their cheap labor which makes American consumer culture possible.

And do you know how many hours a day these impoverished employees work? 12 - 14 hours a day.

Yet we Americans are not willing to make any sacrifices on behalf of either future generations of Americans or the impoverished people of this miserable world. Americans are not willing to sacrifice even their obesity.

We are the wealthy people of the world and yet we are still not satisified. Americans are taught from their infanthood to live in perpetual state of hunger and dissatisfaction. Americans are taught that greed is good and that shopping is life.

A day will come in which the accelerating train of American civilization encounters the brick wall of resource depletion. The United States of America will collapse. Americans will become impoverished. The mobile lifestyle will disappear but Americans will discover that losing the automobile is a small tragedy compared to losing food.

Saving the environment might appear like a trivial thing to some people but our destructive lifestyle is threatening to kill us. The Earth is already displaying abundant evidences of strain and this situation can only become progressively worse over the next several decades as the world's population increases combines with the growth of the world's population of American-style hyperconsumers (in China and India).

What we have here on Earth is the perfect recipe for an apocalypse. The great tragedy of the present situation is that both the best and worst case scenarios result in a global apocalypse.

For those who wish to avoid the apocalypse, I have one more bit of terrible news: This apocalypse has already begun. Throughout the world there are impoverished and collapsed nations in which millions of people are already suffering and thousands are already dying.

If you look at a nation like Haiti or Zimbabwe or Nigeria what you are observing is how the United States of America will look in fifty to a hundred years. In other words: The horrors which presently afflict only the most impoverished people of the world are going to reach the United States of America.

Americans need to wake up and grow up. But I know that this is too much to ask.


Posted by: David Mathews on January 17, 2007 04:47 PM
115. Hello SH,

> I can't seem to figure out why you are so down on the human race (your race)? Human's have done some amazingly beautiful things and overcome great obstacles throughout history.

Human greatness is only a myth. Humans have done some impressive things over the last ten thousand years but our evils, destructiveness and violence overwhelm the little good that we have done.

As to the amazing & beautiful things that humans have done: A single drop of water, a dewdrop catching the sun's morning rays, is more beautiful and amazing that anything & everything that humankind has ever done.

As to humankind's technology: A hummingbird is about a billion times more impressive than the Space Shuttle.

Don't you know that everything human is temporary and transient and right now in the process of passing away? The forces of erosion -- water primarily in all of its forms -- are currently tearing apart every product of human construction.

Don't underestimate the power of water to destroy the works of humankind. Over the last four billion years the Earth has built numerous mountain chains as impressive as the Himalayan mountains. Wind and water has demolished these former mountain chains and sent the mountains into the oceans in the form of sand grains and mud.

Comparing humankind to Nature is like comparing a candle to the sun.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 17, 2007 04:59 PM
116. Universities in this country are turning out people like David Mathews and the guy in the photograph every year. Be afraid.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 17, 2007 05:09 PM
117. 114--guilt, self-hate, lack of nationalism. dont like it? why not move? Paris. Mogadishu. or a cave in Albania? roll around with the enlightened in the streets of Bangladesh and Calcutta. or Havanna. or North Korea.

ask anyone there & their ruling/elected elites if they feel guilt for trying to earn one more rupee than yesterday. then, give YOUR wealth to help them if you want.

the anti-Americanism makes me sick. we gave the world many good things & saves many a country's arses. yet, your ilk would have us self-flagellate. what nonsense.

your ideal would be the cave man still here, not changing a thing around him for his good or his tribe's good.

the world ain't perfect, but someone had to step up & sail that boat over the "edge" or dream about a moon landing without feeling like a criminal for having so thought or tried. would you have condemned the early disease investigators and experiments in vaccinations? too dangerous? too elitist?

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 17, 2007 07:35 PM
118. DM needs to get laid or something.

Posted by: Easycure on January 17, 2007 07:38 PM
119. Hello Jimmie,

> the anti-Americanism makes me sick. we gave the world many good things & saves many a country's arses. yet, your ilk would have us self-flagellate. what nonsense.

You are speaking a myth, Jimmie, and nothing more. When will you wake up from this myth?

> your ideal would be the cave man still here, not changing a thing around him for his good or his tribe's good.

The cave man existence is better than the world-consuming world-destroying existence which is transforming the Earth into humankind's sewer.

> the world ain't perfect, but someone had to step up & sail that boat over the "edge" or dream about a moon landing without feeling like a criminal for having so thought or tried. would you have condemned the early disease investigators and experiments in vaccinations? too dangerous? too elitist?

The price of walking on the moon is humankind's loss of the Earth. Was it worth it?

Posted by: David Mathews on January 17, 2007 07:50 PM
120. Contact Star Fleet immediately.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 17, 2007 08:43 PM
121. I just figured out who David Mathews really is. He's that Cave Guy on the GEICO commercials. Eternally pi$$ed off and unwashed because he's afraid of water.

Posted by: katomar on January 17, 2007 09:07 PM
122. Yeah katomar, I think you pegged him! Time to quit wasting our time on him. He's darnk the coolaid and there's no coming back from that place.

Posted by: deadwood on January 17, 2007 10:18 PM
123. As dan eluded to in #108, look at David Mathews' link to his photos page - it is probably a good assumption that he did not walk everywhere he purportedly took those images. Hypocrite.

Stated in another thread, pertinent here:

One has to wonder what the motives by the science-challenged Kyoto "The Sky is Falling" proponents are. Why has the emphasis on man-made cause become so politically oriented, let alone their primary religion?

Simply. Liberals and progressives FEEL BAD that the West has succeeded so. 'We must level the playing field! Exempt China, India and Mexico to allow their economies to catch up'. Hamstring the West's with carbon taxes, etc.

It really is a psychosis, advocating self-destruction in the name of fairness.

Posted by: David Mathews Needs a Hobby on January 17, 2007 10:38 PM
124. LOOK AT THIS DORK... SAVE THE WORLD AND USE A REUSABLE THERMOS CUP. DUNSKI

Posted by: DISPOSABLE COFFEE CUP on January 17, 2007 10:39 PM
125. LOOK AT THIS GUY... SAVE THE WORLD AND USE A REUSABLE THERMOS CUP. DUNSKI

Posted by: DISPOSABLE COFFEE CUP on January 17, 2007 10:40 PM
126. The Dave dude reminded me of something that I heard again tonight from Dennis Miller. He said he used to consider himself a liberal until all the other liberals began to walk in lock-step.

They all say exactly the same things, apparently according to a script. Some on the right appear to suffer from a similar ailment, but it seems those on the left yell louder and more in sync.

Critical thinking is what many on the left claim they are promoting, but I see no evidence of this in Dave's arguments. They simply parrot Robert Kennedy Junior's and Al Gore's propaganda. Although I don't doubt these men have some intelligence, I do not believe they have the training to speak with authority on the merits of any scientific matters. They are politicians and advocates.

Letting someone else do your thinking is not the same thing as doing it for yourself Dave. Try and research more than one side of an issue before you claim to have answers.

Posted by: deadwood on January 17, 2007 10:59 PM
127. Hello Everyone,

I can see that the conservatives here have thoroughly demonstrated that they are as ignorant and anti-scientific and uneducated as the person features in the photograph.

Does any conservative actually think? Or do you spend all of your time obeying the commands of the advertisers and waiting for the latest revelation of Divine truth direct from FOX News?

Deadwood claims: Critical thinking is what many on the left claim they are promoting, but I see no evidence of this in Dave's arguments. and ... Letting someone else do your thinking is not the same thing as doing it for yourself Dave. Try and research more than one side of an issue before you claim to have answers.

Well, I have yet to see any evidence that the conservatives think at all. As far as scientific research goes, the conservatives here get their science from FOX News and otherwise claim perfect ignorance about these matters.

And then there is the anonymous person, "David Mathews Needs a Hobby" who claims:

> One has to wonder what the motives by the science-challenged Kyoto "The Sky is Falling" proponents are. Why has the emphasis on man-made cause become so politically oriented, let alone their primary religion?

The cause has become political because Americans would rather remain obese gluttons rather than make any sacrifices whatsoever on behalf of the environment and the future health & well-being of Americans. Conservatives have bought the lies of consumerism and gluttony and they cannot conceive of any sort of life.

Conservatives must think that God created the Earth to serve as humankind's sewer.

As to the religious aspect of this: Actually, the Bible has some very interesting things to say about the end of this world. Religion insists that an Apocalypse is coming and that lots of people will die.

> Simply. Liberals and progressives FEEL BAD that the West has succeeded so. 'We must level the playing field! Exempt China, India and Mexico to allow their economies to catch up'. Hamstring the West's with carbon taxes, etc.

Don't you know that climate change will kill the wealthy as easily as it kills the poor? Stopping humankind's suicidal march to extinction serves the interests of all people.

Not that there is any real hope for humankind whatsoever: Homo sapiens are a suicidal species which will go extinct.


Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 04:57 AM
128. DM says: Not that there is any real hope for humankind whatsoever: Homo sapiens are a suicidal species which will go extinct.

There's no hope for you, sir. Your life must really suck.

Posted by: Easycure on January 18, 2007 06:01 AM
129. David Mathews - you bore us. Please troll someplace else.

Posted by: SH on January 18, 2007 08:28 AM
130. Poor David. I bet he was one of the people that believed in the silly Y2K catastrophe, too.

There is a certain type of person that has to believe that we are all about to meet our doom. I guess it gets them high, or something.

I remember my late father who for 30-years believed we were constantly on the verge of economic ruin. None of his predictions ever came true in spite of the numerous "doomsday" publications he subscribed to, (some of which we still receive).

Liberals tend to be pessimists, conservatives tend to be optomists. I don't understand why anyone would want to be the former.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 18, 2007 09:27 AM
131. That should be "optimists". My apologies.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 18, 2007 09:35 AM
132. From today's WSJ: Will Al Gore Melt?

...The U.N. climate panel expects only a foot of sea-level rise over this century. Moreover, sea levels actually climbed that much over the past 150 years. Does Mr. Gore find it balanced to exaggerate the best scientific knowledge available by a factor of 20?

Mr. Gore says that global warming will increase malaria and highlights Nairobi as his key case.... Today Nairobi is considered free of malaria, but in the 1920s and '30s, when temperatures were lower than today, malaria epidemics occurred regularly. Mr. Gore's is a convenient story, but isn't it against the facts?

He considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but again doesn't tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years. The U.N. panel estimates that Antarctica will actually increase its snow mass this century. Similarly, Mr. Gore points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but don't mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing. Shouldn't we hear those facts? Mr. Gore talks about how the higher temperatures of global warming kill people. He specifically mentions how the European heat wave of 2003 killed 35,000. But he entirely leaves out how global warming also means less cold and saves lives. Moreover, the avoided cold deaths far outweigh the number of heat deaths. For the U.K. it is estimated that 2,000 more will die from global warming. But at the same time 20,000 fewer will die of cold. Why does Mr. Gore tell only one side of the story?

...Getting answers to hard questions is not an unreasonable expectation before we take his project seriously....


(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

This is a pretty good article, it is in this morning's paper. I cannot post the whole thing without copy write infraction so you will have to dig it up on your own

Posted by: JDH on January 18, 2007 10:50 AM
133. Hey David #101...at least I posted the source of my information, and so did FoxNews...a real scientific study. You're just cranky because it disagrees with your opinion. Why the unwillingness to consider that a different theory may be the correct one? Because it doesn't fit your pet theory of doom, gloom, and FEAR?

We could spend all the money on the planet on saving the world from CO2 and your theory of Global Warming, but if in reality the sun is a major factor, all that money is just flushed down the toilet. Remember, at one time in history, most scientific minds KNEW that the world was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth. So, let's get the facts correct before we spend that kind of money and require major changes to the way most earthlings live. Hummmm?

I'll do my part, recycle, whatever, etc., but I refuse to live in a constant state of fear.

Posted by: dl on January 18, 2007 11:24 AM
134. Hello SH,

> David Mathews - you bore us. Please troll someplace else.

SH, SH, if you have ever said anything at all interesting wouldn't I recognize your name?

If you are bored it is your own fault. I am not here to entertain you. Nor do I care if you are bored or interested or entertained or enraged by my comments.

I simply don't care about your emotional state.

Hello Bill,

> Liberals tend to be pessimists, conservatives tend to be optomists.

This is simply not true. Plenty of conservatives are scared of a great many things. They are terrified, too, and unhappy and upset and sometimes angry.

The conservatives that I meet are not optimistic. Nor have the conservatives here demonstrated any optimism. In the present discussion I see a lot of devout ignorance combined with a profound disinterest in scientific matters.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 01:20 PM
135. Conservatives are scared of socialism and communism. Rightly so,(no pun intended). The destructive effects of those failed ideologies make any alleged damage from "global warming" pale by comparison.

Liberals are so scared of conservatives that they want to pass laws to prohibit free speech.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 18, 2007 01:30 PM
136. Hello JDH,

> From today's WSJ ...

The Wall Street Journal isn't a scientifically oriented newspaper. It is very much a mouthpiece for corporate interests.

Hello dl,

> at least I posted the source of my information, and so did FoxNews...a real scientific study. You're just cranky because it disagrees with your opinion. Why the unwillingness to consider that a different theory may be the correct one? Because it doesn't fit your pet theory of doom, gloom, and FEAR?

FOX News speaking about science is about as reliable as PRAVDA speaking about geopolitics. Try again. Better luck next time.

> We could spend all the money on the planet on saving the world from CO2 and your theory of Global Warming, but if in reality the sun is a major factor, all that money is just flushed down the toilet. Remember, at one time in history, most scientific minds KNEW that the world was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth. So, let's get the facts correct before we spend that kind of money and require major changes to the way most earthlings live. Hummmm?

Uh ... I hate to say this, dl, but pretty much by definition the sun is a major factor in the Earth's climate. You see, without the sun the Earth wouldn't have any climate at all.

So when FOX News says that the sun has a big impact on the Earth's climate they are pretty much reporting that "the sky is blue" -- i.e., common sense.

The concern about global warming is not related to the sun at all. The primary subject under consideration is the human impact upon the climate via global-scale pollution and so forth. These changes are small relative to the sun's impact upon the Earth's climate but these changes are sufficient to shift the Earth's climate to a new equilibrium which would make life considerably more difficult and potentially impossible.

For example: If sea levels were to rise by twenty feet do you realize that America would lose $trillions of property value along the coast? Do you realize how many industrial and power plants would be lost to the waves?

And where would all those millions of Americans go once they ocean had taken their homes? We are speaking here about an economic and social catastrophe which would be at least a thousand times worse than Hurricane Katrina.

That's the situation that humankind is facing. I don't believe that humankind is up to this challenge. Humans simply are not wise enough to repair the damage that we have already done, much less to avoid the catastrophe which is coming.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 01:34 PM
137. Hello Bill,

> Conservatives are scared of socialism and communism.

That is true but your list of conservative fear-generators is not complete. There are dozens of other things that conservatives fear.

I know because I am very familiar with conservatism. I read Ann Coulter, when Rush Limbaugh had his television program I watched it, and I have had plenty of conversations with conservatives on the web and elsewhere.

Conservatives are not optimistic. Conservatives are often filled with fear, anger and plenty of other negative emotions & thoughts.

Conservatives are optimistic about climate change because their thoughts are governed by greed, selfishness and self-involvement. Conservatives are not eager to make any sacrifices on behalf of the climate because greed & gluttony have become predominant conservative values in modern times.

In the past, conservatives were not so concerned with wealth, greed or gluttony. A lot has changed over the last several generations.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 01:40 PM
138. "There are dozens of other things that conservatives fear."

Name 'em.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 18, 2007 02:00 PM
139. Hello Bill,

A year or so ago the conservatives were terrified to the point of crisis by the illegal immigrants (well, only the Mexican illegal immigrants!).

Conservatives are also terrified by homosexuality and lesbianism. Two women making out is too much for the conservatives, but homosexuality was an evil thing to Ted Haggard only in word, not in deed.

Need I continue this list for too much longer?

There are plenty of things that conservatives fear. Conservatives do not rank among the world's most optimistic, unbeat people, either.

Posted by: David Mathews on January 18, 2007 02:20 PM
140. Great answer. And very revealing.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 18, 2007 02:38 PM
141. Mr. Mathews, your 36 posts doth depress too much. Get back with your band and sing, for you entertainer-pseudointellectuals bore the masses.

Posted by: Shut up and sing, David Mathews on January 18, 2007 03:29 PM
142. One day David Mathews was walking in the woods when -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn fell on her head
"Oh my goodness!" said David Mathews. "The sky is falling! I must go and tell the king."

On her way to the king's palace, David Mathews met Henny Penny. Henny Penny said that she was going into the woods to hunt for worms.
"Oh no, don't go!" said David Mathews. "I was there and the sky fell on my head! Come with me to tell the king."
So Henny Penny joined David Mathews and they went along and went along as fast as they could.
Soon they met Cocky Locky, who said, "I'm going to the woods to hunt for seeds."
"Oh no, don't go!" said Henny Penny. "The sky is falling there! Come with us to tell the king."
So Cocky Locky joined Henny Penny and David Mathews, and they went along and went along as fast as they could.
Soon they met Goosey Poosey, who was planning to go to the woods to look for berries.
"Oh no, don't go!" said Cocky Locky. "The sky is falling there! Come with us to tell the king." So Goosey Poosey joined Cocky Locky, Henny Penny and David Mathews, and they went along as fast as they could.
Then who should appear on the path but sly old Foxy Woxy.
"Where are you going, my fine feathered friends?" asked Foxy Woxy. He spoke in a polite manner, so as not to frighten them.
"The sky is falling!" cried David Mathews. "We must tell the king."
"I know a shortcut to the palace," said Foxy woxy sweetly. "Come and follow me."
But wicked Foxy Woxy did not lead the others to the palace. He led them right up to the entrance of his foxhole. Once they were inside, Foxy Woxy was planning to gobble them up!
Just as David Mathews and the others were about to go into the fox's hole, they heard a strange sound and stopped.

It was the king's hunting dogs, growling and howling.
How Foxy Woxy ran, across the meadows and through the forests, with the hounds close behind. He ran until he was far, far away and never dared to come back again.

After that day, David Mathews always carried an umbrella with her when she walked in the woods. The umbrella was a present from the king. And if -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn fell, David Mathews didn't mind a bit. In fact, she didn't notice it at all.

The End

Posted by: JDH on January 19, 2007 07:56 AM
143. 141:
paid by the word by his sponsor. yeeeeeesh! a 6-page resume candidate type. know the kind?

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 19, 2007 10:35 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?