…and this is a 
It's got almost everything!
Category: Kooks
Posted on: July 21, 2008 8:42 AM, by PZ Myers
How about a little extreme right wing paranoia to start your morning?
Global warming is the perfect excuse to do what the Left always wanted to do - to destroy faith (Christianity), the family and freedom. There is no area of our lives that will not be invaded through taxation, control, regulation or obliteration to save the earth.
Read the whole thing — global warming is the conspiracy that ties together abortion, taxes, communism, and our hatred of little children. If only it had mentioned evolution, it would have been perfect.
Also, it's from a Canadian. It's reassuring to see that the US doesn't have a monopoly on loons. To be fair, though, the replies from other Canadians are scathing.
Comments
"If only it had mentioned evolution, it would have been perfect."
They are getting sloppy. They are used to tying all kinds of unrelated things together and then try to convince you it's all logical but it ain't what it used to be.
Nothing like a good, old bellylaugh.
Posted by: Erwin Blonk | July 21, 2008 8:48 AM
How about a little extreme right wing paranoia to start your morning?
Strangely, it's a welcome break from the repetitive comments of the concerned on the cracker threads.
Posted by: SC | July 21, 2008 8:51 AM
Gee, they get confused babbling up north too. Good to see it slapped down.
Posted by: David Lee | July 21, 2008 8:56 AM
But if there's no global warming, how will us godless libruls fry babies n the sidewalk?
Posted by: Skwee | July 21, 2008 8:56 AM
wow. you can smell the smell of loony as soon as the writer calls the topic of their wrath "The Church of (topic of my wrath)".
(sets off to Church of Child-Murdering Lefties for morning service)
Posted by: alex | July 21, 2008 8:57 AM
Not a nice way to start your morning at all :( Thankfully its mid afternoon in my time zone so i wont vomit on my cornflakes.
Posted by: Gavin McBride | July 21, 2008 9:01 AM
'Green Terror' - wow, that's golden. What a nutjob.
Well, they've got us. I didn't think they'd be smart enough to realize that the warming of the earth will be hot enough to fry only those wretched small children.
Posted by: LisaJ | July 21, 2008 9:02 AM
The pull-quote needs a few corrections:
"9/11 was the perfect excuse to do what the Right always wanted to do - to destroy the Constitution, the separation of church and state. There is no area of our lives that will not be invaded through faith-based taxation, control, regulation or obliteration to save souls for Christ."
Posted by: Richard Rush | July 21, 2008 9:03 AM
No! This can't be Canadian - see the date format -July 17, 2008. That's a mixed up format of large unit, smaller unit, larger unit. Canadians, being more logical than USAnians, write 2008-Jul-17.
Posted by: Richard Harris | July 21, 2008 9:05 AM
Yikes! One of our nutters got out of the cage? I'll have to add my scathing comments to that lot.
I find it truly amazing that the human mind - small though theirs are - can conflate those different things to find a conspiracy to destroy Xtianity. I mean, I have four children and I worry very much about the future they face - to the extent that I try to never drive more than is absolutely necessary (my biking muscles are in tip top shape as a consequence), I'm teaching them how to grow things, preserve things, and put seeds by. I don't hate my little children. I love them. AND I'm very concerned about the consequences of global warming.
One of my chief concerns is that the models are wrong, and we have missed some key factor. We have a lot of conceit that we "understand" the complex system that constitutes our biosphere, but if you have ever studied system dynamics you know that modeling such a complex system is mind bogglingly difficult, with all manner of assumptions and approximations. Well, if we got it wrong and it's not as bad as we think, then we have still done well to cut our energy usage and find renewables. But if we got it wrong and it's worse, then there is going to be a very bad time ahead when adjustment to the new reality kicks in.
This frequently causes bouts of depression.
Posted by: Canuck | July 21, 2008 9:05 AM
Damn, I didn't realize we were against Canadian children too! We need to take care and not lose focus--it's Americans who must stop reproducing.
Posted by: Voracious | July 21, 2008 9:06 AM
Yet, again and again, you hear voices raised against the atheists, and secularists daring to call a spade a spade. These people are literally insane. Paranoid, delusional and obsessive. Good grief, it's not as if we need to make shit up!!
There are any number outrages being perpetrated right now in plain sight. Dafur, Zimbabwe, Burma, Iraq. And the only thing this loon feels threatened by, is the near imperceptible bit of inertia finally imparted to the lumbering, ceaking apparatus of global governance on the climate change front. It makes me despair.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9Ib1WDDgjs
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | July 21, 2008 9:07 AM
I didn't get past the line, "church of global warming".
I wonder if they have crackers in their service?
Posted by: RarusVir | July 21, 2008 9:07 AM
Good morning, fellow west coasters! We are at the heart of the great global warming/ecofreak conspiracy but we have to get cracking if we want to catch up with our east-coast comrades and their daily three-hour head start. It's time for breakfast and then off to the clandestine meetings of our Green Terror cells. Mine meets at a school and pretends to be a math class. No one suspects a thing! Ha ha ha!
Posted by: Zeno | July 21, 2008 9:08 AM
The writer lives in a small agricultural community in Manitoba with a population of under 3,000.
I wonder if he has even been to a large city, much less an overcroweded one like Hong Kong, Lagos, or Jakarta.
More than likely, he has not, so he is just writing out of isolated ignorance.
Move along people, nothing to see here.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 21, 2008 9:11 AM
must be an immigrant from the US. I don't live in canada but spent many a summer there, and it's the rare canadian that has that much rage. The only time I ever got yelled at for "trespassing" (stopped my car on a driveway to look at a map) was once, and the guy sounded American. Also, he was quick to mention he had a gun. Definitely American.
Posted by: Matt | July 21, 2008 9:11 AM
I'm an atheist but I agree with the authors general theme that enviromentalism is just the new referent from which the left critique capitalism after they gave up on marxism.
Besides whether global warming is caused by man or not the solution is not to stop exploiting the enviroment to our benefit, but rather to use technology and capitalism to deal with whatever problems might arise.
As to the enviromentalists motivation for their hysteria, think of it this way. Imagine that irrefutable evidence was forthcomming explaining that global warming is NOT caused by man. How many percent of enviromentalists do you think would dance in the streets from joy shouting:
"YES, the rich people can keep their SUVs and we can all keep pursuing more and more stuff and be "forced" by commercials to strive for unrealistic beauty ideals"
Your guess is as good as mine.
Posted by: FH | July 21, 2008 9:14 AM
I'm not someone that gives a damn about this global warming thing. To me it's just a fad, like the acid rains were back when I was younger, and like famine in africa. Everyone spoke about it for years, then something else came up and it was the end of that.
Now um... To destroy christianity? Dude, I don't think so. Christianity does not need anyone's help to destroy itself.
Posted by: Michelle | July 21, 2008 9:18 AM
FH,
If irrefutable evidence comes out about GW not being human-caused, the environmentalists will still have plenty to complain about: nuclear waste, deteriorating natural resources, pollution, destruction of rain forests, etc..
We did some experiments in micro-econ class that dealt with limited resources. It was never pretty.
Posted by: daenku32 | July 21, 2008 9:19 AM
Cute the morning mood music from Peer Gynt as the trolls arise from their dewy beds of clover, rub the sleep from their eyes, and peer about for blogs to infest. Time to get to work, FH!
Posted by: Zeno | July 21, 2008 9:20 AM
"Cute"? I meant "Cue", of course. :-(
Posted by: Zeno | July 21, 2008 9:21 AM
//It's reassuring to see that the US doesn't have a monopoly on loons.//
Um, PZ, I'm pretty sure it's CANADA that has a monopoly on loons. It's their $1 coin, after all!
Posted by: Benny the Icepick | July 21, 2008 9:24 AM
Yeah all these people dying in Africa just because it's fashionable should really get a grip!
There is a difference between crop failure and anorexia, you know Michelle...
Posted by: Arnaud | July 21, 2008 9:27 AM
I've lived in Canada all my Life (36 Years) and have to tell you, this guy is so far from the norm up here that guy's like him barely register a blip on the map. He's is clearly ignorant of anything resembling facts, but these types usually are. They have the Bible after all. Who needs facts?
Posted by: N osey1 | July 21, 2008 9:30 AM
It's ironic how Christianity has been melded to American ideals and civil liberties. It was the Apostle Paul who told Christians that they must obey their government because Gawd allows all governments to come into power, and that to go against the government was in effect to go against God. When that letter was written (or supposedly written) the Roman Empire was in power. Those scriptures basically destroys the idea that Christianity is all about personal freedoms and Mom and Apple Pie.
Paul
Posted by: Paul R | July 21, 2008 9:32 AM
Well, it was a little break, anyhow. FH and Michelle are already making me look more fondly on the chupahostias.
Posted by: SC | July 21, 2008 9:33 AM
"Soviet Suzuki" ?
What does a Japanese automobile company have to do with Communism?
Posted by: Dahan | July 21, 2008 9:36 AM
"How many people are too many? Global warming cultists never tell us. For 200 years, the Left has been screaming imminent doom is just around the corner because of population growth."
The writer has this absurdly wrong--the rapture will be here long before global warming bakes us into cookies, or would that be unleavened crackers?
Posted by: JHJEFFERY | July 21, 2008 9:37 AM
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | July 21, 2008 9:40 AM
Ah, Zeno, thanks for the link.
Hard to realize a human caught such beauty in musical form. A human just like the filthy scum that wrote the piece this entry is about...
A strange creature man is, indeed.
Posted by: Strakh | July 21, 2008 9:43 AM
Oh wow. And just when I thought that it couldn't get any sillier on the part of conservatives when it comes to climate change... It's like saying that global warming raped your sister and it wants to eat your baby. That's just pathetic.
Posted by: Kel | July 21, 2008 9:44 AM
Huh. And here I thought Alberta was the nutter province.
Posted by: chancelikely | July 21, 2008 9:44 AM
"It's reassuring to see that the US doesn't have a monopoly on loons."
It's not often discussed, but we've got a whole boatload of nutters in the Prairies, especially near the west in Alberta. For some reason, it's just a massively conservative area of the country; they even have a little Creation museum!!
Fortunately, they have absolutely no power outside of local affairs.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 21, 2008 9:45 AM
Besides whether global warming is caused by man or not the solution is not to stop exploiting the enviroment to our benefit, but rather to use technology and capitalism to deal with whatever problems might arise. - FH
Care to be a little more specific about that?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 21, 2008 9:45 AM
Uncommon Descent has also become a nest of global warming denial of late. One would think they'd steer away from that since it's just another issue where they're out of touch with the scientific community, but it seems that the underlying right-wing agenda overwhelms those concerns.
Posted by: ngong | July 21, 2008 9:46 AM
"but rather to use technology and capitalism.
Exactly! We'll just pay someone to build us some new icecaps.
Posted by: craig | July 21, 2008 9:48 AM
ngong #35: "One would think they'd steer away from that since it's just another issue where they're out of touch with the scientific community".
In for a penny, in for a pound, I guess.
Posted by: chancelikely | July 21, 2008 9:50 AM
Those are far from exclusive options. What about technological solutions — more efficient solar cells, to pick a random example — which allow us to stop exploiting the environment?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 21, 2008 9:51 AM
"Uncommon Descent has also become a nest of global warming denial of late."
All science is subject to ridiculous scrutiny by them; simply put, they are incapable of trusting it, because it's so thoroughly debunked the Bible that they are forced to oppose it. Basically, anything they can't see in effect RIGHT AWAY is false: global warming, evolution, etc. Hell, if you took away their TVs, they'd probably decry electromagnetic theory as false!
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 21, 2008 9:52 AM
This author follows the familiar theme of categorizing a position he disagrees with as the "Church of Global Warming". He can't understand that there can be reasoned science and decision making outside the realm of dogma. It simply doesn't fit his understanding of the world.
Posted by: Nate | July 21, 2008 9:53 AM
"Care to be a little more specific about that?"
I'll translate. He's use the old "the climate is far too complicated for humans to have the knowledge to fully understand nor the power to negatively change. However, on the off chance that we are, we humans certainly have the knowledge to understand it and the power to change it" argument.
Posted by: craig | July 21, 2008 9:55 AM
Even here in the UK we are not immune to the global warming deniers. Strangely the most prominent seem to all be related. There is Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is even worse at science than he was at finance, and his son Dominic and Christopher Monckton, who is Dominic's brother in law.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 21, 2008 10:02 AM
Even here in the UK we are not immune to the global warming deniers. Strangely the most prominent seem to all be related. There is Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is even worse at science than he was at finance, and his son Dominic and Christopher Monckton, who is Dominic's brother in law.
And who's that curly haired nutjob TV personality again?
Posted by: craig | July 21, 2008 10:05 AM
"And who's that curly haired nutjob TV personality again? "
Jeremy Clarkson ?
He is no longer a problem since disappearing up his own backside.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 21, 2008 10:07 AM
There are also plenty of Canadian loons here where I live, generally of the funnymentalist variety, but I live in the Canadian equivalent of the Deep South, so there is an analogue there. (Hot weather makes crazy people, and we have cold winters besides.)
So, uh, anti-environmental folks here, do you believe in the concept of natural capital? The economic view of environmentalism is that humans found ourselves gifted in trust with this vast but finite amount of wealth that derives from the planet itself...and we're busy spending it on booze, coke, and anonymous sex. Not taking care of the earth isn't just environmentally irresponsible, it's fiscally irresponsible. (Ever notice how a lot of resource companies are multibillion-dollar concerns?) And once that natural capital is gone, it's not like humanity can get a part time job on the side to pay for repairs to the place...
Posted by: Interrobang | July 21, 2008 10:09 AM
It is clear that in the past, when man has tried to seriously change environmental factors, that we have pretty well mucked it up. Examples are the Bureau of Land Managements' work in the US midwest and western states, and the un-thought out damning of rivers, many of which are being dismantled now.
This is not to say that any ideas should be discarded out-of-hand, but the current climate situation has probably already progressed too far for reversal by anything we currently have on the table, technologically. The great CO2 sink of the oceans is not capturing the amount it has in the past, and thawing of permafrost creating lakes seems to be quickening the problems.
Yes, we need to lower, or end our dependance on finite fuels, but I would object if extraordinary actions are not worldwide in scope, and serve only to diminish, or destroy the North American economy, without any guarantee of positive results.
Posted by: Benjmain Franklin | July 21, 2008 10:19 AM
Don't Canadianians actually celebrate their loons on their currency?
Posted by: Matt Heath | July 21, 2008 10:21 AM
Dahan, #27:
Fool! Do you actually believe the Leftist Lie that the Soviet Union 'broke up'? No, the Soviet Union realized it could defeat the West faster by making Americans buy cost-effective fuel-efficient cars, so they infiltrated the Japanese auto industry and went underground. And that, my friend, explains why the USA still has 6,390 deliverable nuclear weapons, ready launch on short notice. You don't really believe the USA would continue the very expensive maintenance of these systems if no other nation had half that many deliverable weapons, do you? Of course not. So there must be a hidden, heavily armed nuclear power. And it must like within the Japanese auto industry.
Posted by: llewelly | July 21, 2008 10:22 AM
Matt, #16
Interesting pattern of (non)capitalization there.Posted by: Alexandra | July 21, 2008 10:26 AM
Absolutely right. But let's not forget that the vast majority of people who identify as Christian aren't these people. Instead, they're people who go to church on Sunday (more or less), maybe send their children to Sunday school, and otherwise mostly go on with their sane, secular lives. For a variety of reasons, I've spent plenty of Sundays in a variety of churches, and you really don't meet many of these whackaloons. Mostly you meet people who are in church because it's part of their received cultural heritage... it's just "what you do." Those folks aren't committed to a crazy ideology; they can (potentially, at least) be enlightened and persuaded.
In pointing this out, I am by no means suggesting we should "go easy" on the batshit crazy enemies of sense and thought; I'm just saying we need to be thoughtful in making distinctions between who we should fight and who we should convince. If we really hope for a better, more secular world, it's not sufficient to win fights; we must also change minds.
Hrmmm... the fact that there's overlap between liberals' concern for environmental sanity and their concern for socioeconomic justice in no way invalidates either concern. Among the lefties I know, the only concern about the rich and their SUVs and "stuff" stems from the fact that those riches are increasingly gained at the expense of the non-rich, as part of an increasingly inequitable system. Nobody wants you to not be rich; we just want you to not be rich on our backs.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | July 21, 2008 10:26 AM
Polykookery is more common than not. Many of these are unmedicated paranoid schizophrenics.
I know one such. She collects all delusions and carefully knits them into a tapestry. The Catholic church controls the world and the Jews and Illuminati are subsidiaries. The Pope travels around in a flying saucer with bug eyed aliens who are really demons from hell.
The pharmaceutical industry is a big part of it. She hates docs because they keep telling her she is crazy and trying to prescribe zyprexa or abilify.
If you step back a little, these people are hurting and tend to have short lives. She is also one step away from being homeless, keeps getting kicked out of housing for erratic disruptive behavior, and frequently barricades herself inside for weeks on end. Her family has the same affliction and two of them committed suicide.
Posted by: raven | July 21, 2008 10:28 AM
Hey, the guy might be Canadian, but you should drive though that part of the Canada. Start at Barrie and drive north. There are so many roadside signs about preparing to meet thy god and the wages of sin is death, that you begin to think you've landed on another planet. Sure, there are lots of Canadian loonies, but we carry them around in our pockets, and spend them.
Posted by: Greywizard | July 21, 2008 10:29 AM
Ahh... the power of the net. I send PZ an email about a crazy letter to the editor in my local newspaper during breakfast, and its posted with 46 comments by the time I get to work.
@#27: Suzuki refers to David Suzuki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki), a highly respected Canadian scientist, environmentalist, and educator (tonnes of letters after his name, including Companion of the Order of Canada, our highest civilian honour, also greatest living Canadian by popular vote).
Posted by: DH | July 21, 2008 10:30 AM
To the folk mentioning the bird on the Canadian coin: You realize that the call of the loon is actually a satire of letters like the one this article is about.
Posted by: llewelly | July 21, 2008 10:31 AM
@26: "chupahostias"
May your coinage enter the dictionary!
Posted by: chgo_liz | July 21, 2008 10:34 AM
Just so you guys don't get confused too much, being a "liberal" in Canada, especially in Quebec, is very near the center in the political arena (in fact, journalists often say they are center-right). Even then, our left in not anywhere near communism. And their politics certainly don't include mass murdering of children, quite the opposite!
This guy is completely out of the political game. However, we're hearing more and more of these freaks, and the federal government right now doesn't seem to disapprove too much with these views...
Posted by: Simon Coude | July 21, 2008 10:40 AM
My personal favourite is in one of the responses, "When Mother Nature takes a wee wee or blows big wind or worse, the faithful pray. I buy lottery tickets."
Also note that while my area of Canada is a little more backward than some, the author of the crackpot letter is actually from Manitoba, a thousand kilometres away.
Posted by: DH | July 21, 2008 10:41 AM
PZ, conservatism in Canada is just as wacky as it is in the US.
Just this morning I nearly puked in my tea as I read a local letter to the editor in my small-town southern Ontario newspaper decrying Morgentaler's Order of Canada, replete with token patriotic bullshit that one would have expected from Americans in the deep south, but not from Canadians... we're supposed to be too nice for that kind of asshole maneuver.. Apparently if you're a real Canadian, you put your accidental pregnancy up for adoption. *rolls eyes*
Posted by: Spinoza | July 21, 2008 10:46 AM
Except as the federal government...
Posted by: Tulse | July 21, 2008 10:48 AM
@ 49
Maybe it's a poem!
Posted by: Louis Bérubé | July 21, 2008 10:51 AM
I'm with Michelle (#18) on this one, sort of.
I think, perhaps, the point she was making was that the trend to give a damn about the issues comes and goes. The issues at hand don't really go away but they cease to be trendy and get replaced with the next global issue meme of the month.
Global warming is just that, much like the sudden surge of people making a fuss about China and Tibet. It's not as if it's a new issue or anything but it's suddenly hip to talk about it because dullard celebrity X wore a t-shirt about it.
This isn't to say the issues aren't real (the jury is out on global warming...waiting for some science there) but the "supporters" ability to make a leap to the next bandwagon certainly is.
As for that article, total batshit loony. I bet aliens with UFO lasers are helping those nasty leftists heat everything up too!
...we would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling god and jesus fellows.
Posted by: Hessenroots | July 21, 2008 10:51 AM
And don't forget Sir Patrick Moore. Although he's not technically curly haired, or much of a TV personality.
I quit buying the BBC's "The Sky at Night" magazine, and my fiancée cancelled her "Focus" after we both kept getting infuriated when this guy's bleatings on global warming were treated as science, just because the guy knows how to point a telescope at the moon.
Oh; that and "Sky at Night" seemed to keep giving the "Gold" award in a product review to the most outrageously expensive piece of kit.
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | July 21, 2008 10:56 AM
"Scapegoat"?
Posted by: Wes | July 21, 2008 10:56 AM
He forgot to blame the French.
Posted by: LaTomate | July 21, 2008 10:57 AM
Blake:
I think what we have here is a linguistic problem: "Exploit" is these days almost always used in its negative connotation of selfish manipulation... but it also has the sense of simply make use of or even make best use of.
We (along with every other living species) exploit the environment inherently, just by living in it, taking energy from it, discharging waste to it.... It's not that we should (or even could) stop exploiting the environment; it's that we must learn to exploit it in sustainable, beneficial ways instead of unsustainable, destructive ones.
To a certain extent, I agree with FH about technology: We're not going to retreat to a global population of a few million in scattered tribes of hunter-gatherers using Stone Age technology (at least, we're not going to do that voluntarily), and making our large, modern, technological culture environmentally sustainable is going to require (IMHO) more (and better) technology, not less. Even conservation will require advanced technology if we're to maintain something close to our current standard of living (e.g., reducing the energy cost of lighting means developing new kinds of lightbulbs, not sitting in the dark).
That's where I think the right-wing AGW deniers fall off the sled: They claim to be all about capitalism and and markets and entrepreneurship... but if they were serious about that, they ought to see AGW as an enormous opportunity. Wingers are always blathering on about how the market is a meritocracy, and how smart individuals and small businesses can outperform the big corporate "dinosaurs" and such. Well, guess what? The fact of AGW creates huge new markets that are perfectly well suited for the sort of entrepreneurial capitalism that wingers have these wet-dreams about... but instead of jumping on these new markets with all four paws, they spend all their energy denying they even exist. WTF?
The people who will come out of all this smelling like roses (if any of us come out of it at all) will be the left-leaning entrepreneurs, who understand that in the long run, making the world a better place for everyone is a better way to get rich than making the world a shitty place for everyone but yourself.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | July 21, 2008 10:59 AM
#61 : A UN research committee has already analysed a lot of the researchs, and they declared the evidence was overwhelming (as a whole). If the UN and the best scientists gathered by it cannot be trusted on this subject, I don't know who we can trust. =/
Posted by: Simon Coude | July 21, 2008 11:02 AM
"Jeremy Clarkson ?
He is no longer a problem since disappearing up his own backside. "
That's the one. Surprised I couldn't remember his name.
I watch pretty much only non-US stuff these days - mostly UK with some Canadian, Oz, NZ and even South Africa thrown in. (thank you usenet!)
I can't physically escape this country so I guess I'm escaping it that way.
Posted by: craig | July 21, 2008 11:04 AM
Sadly, no nationality has an exclusive lease on kooks. For Canadians, one of our primary patriotic activities is the unexamined assumption that we possess fewer of them than the US. As a Canadian, I also would like to believe this, but am too afraid to actually go see if it is really true.
Even if GW does turn out to be completely unrelated to human activity today, it is certain that, if our patterns of behavior do not change, it, and other environmental catastrophes, will become related to human activity in the future. Anyone who's ever grown yeast in a petri dish knows this.
The usable resources on earth are finite. Technology can, and has, done remarkable things in allowing us to obtain ever greater and more efficient yields from the resources at hand, but no technology can turn a finite quantity into infinity.
We have three choices: 1. we expand beyond this earth, 2. we voluntarily control our growth and consumption, or 3. our growth and consumption will be involuntarily curbed.
A true environmentalist does not care about GW or any other human created natural disturbance. The earth will slough us off and recover. Only those who care about the continuing happiness and prosperity of PEOPLE on this earth need to care about environmental degradation.
Posted by: amphiox | July 21, 2008 11:04 AM
Schweet! One of those responses is a Mendelson Joe letter!
(Google him if you're curious. Central Ontario gadfly/artist guy... tho' as I see he's now living in Almaguin, I guess he's more a middle/Northern Ontario gadfly, now.)
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 21, 2008 11:05 AM
the jury is out on global warming...waiting for some science there
You're kidding, right? RIGHT?
Posted by: StuV | July 21, 2008 11:17 AM
We have three choices: 1. we expand beyond this earth, 2. we voluntarily control our growth and consumption, or 3. our growth and consumption will be involuntarily curbed.
Correct. I think #1 is highly unlikely. Energy cost to move more than a breeding pair is very high. And we don't have a really good destination to hold the expansion.
#2 would be the smart choice, but humanity has pretty well proven that it's not capable of doing the smart thing (due to greed, short term thinking, loony beliefs, etc.).
So my cynical prediction is that #3 will be the "choice" we stagger into eventually. And my feeling is that when the limits are really being felt in a serious way, the scene is going to get very ugly. It will bring out the worst in us.
Posted by: Canuck | July 21, 2008 11:17 AM
"We have three choices: 1. we expand beyond this earth"
I don't mean to be rude, but that's not a choice. It's silly.
Expanding off the earth means terraforming. It's silly to think that while we aren't smart enough not to fuck up a wonderfully robust, self-regulating ecosystem with all the amenities, we ARE smart enough to build one from scratch in a less desirable location that is so much less suitable that one didn't arise on its own.
Forget pre-existing ones - interstellar travel is not going to happen in any real sense.
And even if we DID get the smarts to terraform, say, Mars, we're not going to be able to launch the hundreds of thousands of people per day, every day that it would take to "move" there.
Which means that at best, such a project would simply mean a handful of people using a drastically disproportionate amount of earth's resources than what would be their "fair share," in order to keep their lives relatively cushy while leaving the 99.9999% humanity behind to deal with the consequences.
Which is pretty much the attitude that's causing the problem in the first place. It's just a vastly scaled-up version of the HumVee drive telling everyone else to suck on his exhaust.
And I say that as a life-long rabid space program enthusiast.
Posted by: craig | July 21, 2008 11:25 AM
Sounds almost apocalyptic. I can't see why a good christard would be bothered by a little apocalypse.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 21, 2008 11:30 AM
Basically it's a good thing that they expand their "ideas" to denying anthropogenic global warming, and use the same hyped rhetoric for both.
They thereby undermine both at once, by being equally stupid on them, and by showing that these are only ideological enemies to them.
I like each and every mindless bleat on UD about global warming (Dembski joins in occasionally). Nothing makes them look more stupid than the fact that they do indeed oppose science in general (mostly because it must refrain from opposing their religious notions prior to its accepted), even though they despise science in the particular.
Beyond that, the linked article looks like it's written for a very limited audience of fairly ignorant people.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 21, 2008 11:36 AM
StuV,
I can only assume Hessenroots is stuck in 1998 rather than 2008.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 21, 2008 11:41 AM
Canadian? I'm so embarrassed...
Funny that the online letter has received no comments so far. Is Almaquin News, "The Voice of the People" damming the flood?
Posted by: Adrian Thysse | July 21, 2008 11:42 AM
The name of the guy who wrote that sounds Dutch. One less here.
Posted by: Heleen | July 21, 2008 11:44 AM
I suspect if global warming scientists had framed their work as a technological means to control Earth's climate and increase man's dominion over nature, the political polarization around global warming science would have lined up differently.
Posted by: Mark Plus | July 21, 2008 11:51 AM
Funny Joe should mention Gawd being on vacation...
Posted by: Randy | July 21, 2008 11:51 AM
OT, but related:
It's kind of tough to say whether or not he should have said that the story of Adam and Eve shouldn't be taken literally. Telling students that it wasn't historical would be in order, because it's clearly not what happened, but it does seem a religious interpretation to claim that the early chapters of Genesis aren't to be taken "literally".
That said, he makes a good point about academic freedom--especially at levels beyond high school. Unless he had turned the course into his own opinions about religion, it's hard to see justification for firing him. And they're denying admission of liability for the obvious fact that paying him suggests that they are liable.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 21, 2008 11:52 AM
Bill Dauphin:
Yes, my use of "stop exploiting" was meant in the sense of "selfish manipulation".
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 21, 2008 11:56 AM
I'm always fascinated to hear the basis on which GW denying atheists substantiate their claims.
If you accept the scientific method, understand how it works and are not an expert in the relevant field, on what basis would you reject the findings of a significant proportion of the actual experts? Its a puzzler.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NcRPQeRp_M
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | July 21, 2008 11:57 AM
@70
Ok my comment was a bit too generic.
Climate change is obviously a real thing, arguing that would be moot.
Maybe I'm alone here but there's a pretty damn good chance that this scenario is a natural process. The evidence that human activity is the cause doesn't seem solid enough. There's way too much at work that we don't know and understand to start running around pointing fingers and panicking that we've sealed our fate.
As a platform to get people to really think about how they live and consume it's a great thing. We're certainly not helping the environment but suggesting that we've brought this on ourselves is nothing short of hyperbole.
Trade in your SUV and buy a bike, put solar panels on your roof, stop using plastic bags (or paper bags)...whatever helps you sleep at night. Don't do it because someone told you the sky is falling, do it because you actually give a damn.
Maybe I'm wrong, it's just my opinion on the matter.
Posted by: Hessenroots | July 21, 2008 12:00 PM
CURSES!!!
The Jesus League used their super-powers of prayer and scripture to discover our evil plan to murder all the babies on this earth! Fellow baby-killing, totalitarian Stalinist comrades; our plan has been exposed, and all will be lost if we do not act quickly!
Hurry, we must finish the last phases of our plan before it is too late, when Jesus returns (which I hear will be sometime in late October).
In case you forgot our plan:
Phase 1: Enact legislation to protect environment and allow social justice
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: All your babies are belong to us.
Posted by: Jason | July 21, 2008 12:02 PM
Yet another professional contrarian, eh? If Al Gore had been saying that we need to drive Hummers everywhere, even to our mailboxes, they would now be the conservationists. They aren't right wingers, they are right whingers. The only problem is that they are never right.
Posted by: Mena | July 21, 2008 12:05 PM
"It's kind of tough to say whether or not he should have said that the story of Adam and Eve shouldn't be taken literally."
No it's not. It's very easy.
When discussing stories that are absolutely batshit insane if taken literally, teachers should not only be free to state the fact that they shouldn't be taken literally, they should be encouraged to.
Posted by: craig | July 21, 2008 12:05 PM