Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Global Warming Nutjobs

While the facts in the 2nd paragraph might very well be accurate, the suggestion (informed by science, of course) shows what nutjobs these Church of Global Warming adherents are.

What? You don't want to follow the link, you say? Fine.

The paper by the Optimum Population Trust will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

Did I tell you, or did I tell you?


Amerloc said...

Oh, c'mon. As long as no one in the family exhales....

Darren said...

Perhaps the Global Warming crowd should try it your way, and report back to us on the results :-)

Law and Order Teacher said...

Our only hope is that these people don't reproduce. What the heck is with these people reducing human life to an equation. The next thing you know we will be at the Soylent Green level. Here's hoping that these people are the first to go.

Chanman said...

Since the global warming crowd is composed of a bunch of petulant children anyway, perhaps they should do as toddlers do and just hold their breath if they don't get their way.

How many trips to London would that equal?

allen said...

What's really laughable about these outfits is that they've been making these predictions since, at least, the 1950's and not only have they proven to be wrong but they predicted the opposite of what occurred. People live longer, have fewer kids, have a higher standard of living. All of this in the face of more-or-less continuous dire warnings about the threat posed by over-population as the population of the Earth more then doubled.

Tyler said...


Read this. ^^

I can't fathom why you would be so opposed to seeing An Inconvenient Truth. You can't say it's not worth you time, because clearly this is an issue you care about. You have 33 posts about it. You also can't claim that it's likely extreemely biased. It's biased in the same sense that any media is biased. Whenever I see something (Bill O'Reilley or some other such media) I don't just blatantly disagree BECAUSE it's Bill O'Reilley talking. In fact, I watch O'Reilley quite often and find myself in agreement with much of what he has to say. What I disagree with is that part of his program that I can specifically attack and articulate my reasons for disagreement. It seems to me like you're disagreeing with Al Gore BECAUSE he's Al Gore. That's ridiculous and, even worse, logically flawed. I'd expect better of you

Belief in Global Warming only requires two "leaps of faith" is that's the proper term.

1) Humans are putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere - more than ever before
2) More CO2 causes an increase in the planet's temperature

If you read that article I linked to, you'll see that you're absolutely correct to say that higher temperature can cause an increased suceptibility of the atmosphere to CO2. But to say that it's a one-or-the-other thing is just plain wrong and goes against all of science and common sense. Both are possible, which of course in no way refutes the second "leap of faith." Can you articulate to me which part of these "leaps of faith" you don't agree with, and why exactly it is that you disagree with them? It's really a straightforward issue that has become clouded up by people like Gore getting involved.

So what I ask from you is an articulation of the reasons for your lack of belief, and of your reason for not wanting to see An Inconvenient Truth. If your reasons for disagreeing are valid, you'll be able to use them to discredit what Gore has to say, right? Or are you afraid you won't be able to dis-credit them, and then you'll have to either lie to yourself or change your opinion. You wouldn't want to be a dirty communist flip-flopper, so just not watching the movie can solve it all, right?

Darren said...

I'm not "afraid", Tyler. I merely doubt I'll learn anything that I haven't already read about several times.

Want to challenge *your* assumptions, Tyler? Watch the video An Inconvenient Truth Or Convenient Fiction at

And I don't disagree with Al Gore because he's Al Gore, although that doesn't help his case with me. I disagree with him because I've had more math and science education than he has, I don't have an agenda to stay relevant, and I'm not a global warming hypocrite. Heck, the solar power people told me my electrical usage is "ridiculously low" and that it would take me 20 years to recover the cost of a solar system.

And Al uses 20 times the electricity of the *typical* American home.

Tyler said...

I'm not attacking you personally. I'm attacking your seeming stubborn-ness to accept global warming. You still haven't explained why you disagree with global warming advocates - not Gore, just the proponents of the idea in general.

I watched the video in full, and I'm willing to admit that nobody really knows for certain. Certainly Gore was extreeme - but as you well know, when advocating for change, you reach high with the likelyhood of acheiving a lower goal. If you ask for $100 you're lucky to get $50, at least in the political world. Gore is doing the same thing. If he scares everyone half to death and that causes us to do something about the problem, even minor, great - mission accomplished (as Bush would say). Whether the sea levels will really rise 20 feet, who knows? But I think the thing is we need to do something about the problem, because it's clear there is a problem that is caused by human activity. To what extent, we don't know. All we know is it's non-zero, meaning action should be being taken now.

I still urge you to watch the movie. I watched your propoganda, now you watch mine. I just can't fathom why you'd be willing too watch a direct attack on something you've never seen. Of coure you have a skewed view of what it really is like. What harm can come in seeing it for yourself and formulating your own opinion?

Darren said...

I won't watch his propaganda for the very reasons you gave--nobody knows for certain, Gore was extreme, and he is alarmist. I don't believe that the ends justify the means, but one could conclude that you do based on your "reach high with the likelihood of achieving a lower goal" remark.

I don't view the video you watched as propaganda. I view it as reasonable and scientifically-based, the very opposite of Gore's movie.

I haven't watched any Michael Moore films, either. I don't have to have been in a gulag to appreciate Solzhenitsyn.

It was nice talking to you again today. Been way too long.

Tyler said...

Haha, ya, I know. We diasgree just about everywhere politically, but when you get dow to it, we're quite similar in the way we think about such issues.

You're usually more knowledgeable than I am when we talk politically, though, because I have this pesky thing called AP classes that limits my ability to stay as informed as I would like about all of the issues. They tell me it will pay off for my future though or some BS like that.

(note the sarcasm on the last part...hard to convey at a keyboard.)

Oh, on a random note, I just thought of something I thought you would find interesting / disgusting. I heard from an unreliable source that Michael Jordan makes more money from adds and royalties from Nike than all of their workers in the sweatshops in Asia combined...what is the world coming to?

Darren said...

Capitalism? =)

Oh, and I never took an AP course =) Of course, perhaps I'm knowledgeable despite that lack, not because of it. I'm probably more informed about history and politics and such since I've experienced them since before you were born! Remember, the first president I ever voted for was Reagan (the second term). That might seem like ancient history to you, but I was 15--little younger than you are now--when he was elected.

Tyler said...

I'm hoping the first president I vote for is Gore in '08, then again in '12.