Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Are terrorists now angling for libertarian support? | Main | Parliamentary Press Gallery shenanigans »

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Global Warming: The New-Age Fundamentalism?

David Suzuki and his colleagues in the anti-consumption, anti-global warming community boast that their findings are merely the product of objective, amoral and verifiable science. Tim Denton argues convincingly that they are but the latest manifestation of an ongoing effort to label and punish human "sins".

Paul Canniff

Posted by Paul Canniff on September 5, 2006 in Science | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8342d58e453ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Global Warming: The New-Age Fundamentalism?:

» Featured on BuzzTracker from BuzzTracker.com
[Read More]

Tracked on 2006-09-06 8:09:39 AM

Comments

All beliefs become religion.

What is different between actual religion and the beliefs on the environment, and global warming, is that people who practice religion, know they are practicing faith in that which cannot be see. The environmentalists contest that they can see the global warming. Each and every single time there is a natural disaster, folks come out of the wood-work, saying that this is a manifestation of the global warming. well, this year, we have had a normal year, in weather. So normal, that it is stereotypical! All predictions said, we would be facing increasing hurricanes, and terrible disasters.

Reminds me of the prophets of old.

No one, in Canada, dare even mention the historical facts, such as when the Jews left Egypt, and how they got to israel, and prosperred. No one mention how the lands failed to produce after the Jews were kicked out. I know, that is not Canada, but since the Conservatives have taken power, look at how we are being blessed here in Canada!

Sure, that's religion.

But at least I am honest enough to say so.

No one can deny that this year, there has been no negative effect of global warming, that we can see.

This has made the environmentalists very dissapointed.

So, how many trees would it take?

If every single Municipality planted 100,000 trees, that oughta do it!

I believe.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-09-05 9:36:33 AM


The Suzuki/Green idea of consuming less can only be done by reducing world poplution and that can only be done when you successfully teach the Africans, East Indians, Chines and Muslims what causes so many babies to be born, then convince them to stop it?

We may be well on our way to aborting ourselves out of existence, but will they buy into this?

Any bets?

Posted by: Duke | 2006-09-05 9:39:45 AM


the left of course blames "big business processes" for creating or increasing "global warming"

but even IF it were true why would business increase production of anything if supposedly as the left says there was no global warming 60 years ago? fact is if a business overproduces they will be stuck with their products and go out of business. the ONLY reason all types of production ar going on is because the population is growing in leaps and bounds in the MUSLIM world for example from 750 million in 1980 to over 1.3 billion in 2006 - that is about a 50% increase. then add in the rest of the ignorant 3rd world. at the same time other animals are becoming extinct.

overbreeding by muslims ,must be addressed! the press refuses to mention it.

the left is pro-abortion for us BUT never say a word that the muslims should start doing it.

Posted by: woodbridge | 2006-09-05 9:47:42 AM


i meant to type 40% in 25 years inabove post
---

syria still there


BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) -- A remote-controlled bomb on Tuesday wounded a senior police intelligence officer who played a key role in the investigation into the slaying of a former Lebanese prime minister.

Security officials said four of the officer's aides and bodyguards were killed in the sophisticated attack in south Lebanon.

Lt. Col. Samir Shehade, deputy chief of the intelligence department in Lebanon's national police force, was taken to the Hammoud hospital in Sidon, and hospital officials said his condition was stable.

The four dead were Shehade's aides and bodyguards, and another five were wounded in the attack, which occurred as Shehade's two-vehicle police convoy drove by the village of Rmaile, near the southern port city of Sidon.

Interior Minister Ahmed Fatfat told the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation that the blast was caused by a roadside bomb loaded with nails. He said it targeted the car normally driven by Shehade, who was traveling in the other vehicle at the time.

Fatfat did not say who might have been behind the attack but said it could have been aimed at Lebanese security forces, who are deploying to south Lebanon under a U.N.-brokered cease-fire deal that ended a month of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas August 14.

Lebanese army troops are supposed to deploy in the south with a beefed-up U.N. peacekeeping force as Israeli troops withdraw.

Shehade also was involved in the arrest last August of four pro-Syrian Lebanese generals in Lebanon. The four were arrested on suspicion of involvement in the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

Security officials said Shehade was involved in the interrogation of several witnesses in the Hariri probe, including Syrian intelligence operative Husam Taher Husam.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case, said Shehade had received threats because of his work in the Hariri probe.

Hariri's son, Saad Hariri, a prominent lawmaker in Lebanon, called the attack a terrorist act. "This is a message which we reject," he told reporters in Beirut.

The roadside bomb was detonated by remote control as the convoy traveled on a highway between two bridges, said other security officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press. Two of Shehade's bodyguards, Chief Sgt. Wissam Harb and Chief Sgt. Chehab Aoun, were killed. Two others later died of their wounds at a hospital.

Shehade's convoy was riddled with shrapnel and TV footage showed at least one bloodied man slumped on his seat in one of the cars. Police sealed off the area and began an investigation.

The Tuesday explosion came 10 days before U.N. chief investigator Serge Brammertz was to submit a report to the U.N. Security Council updating his findings on the Hariri investigation.

Previous reports have implicated top Syrian and Lebanese security officials in the killing, which rocked Lebanese politics and led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, ending a 29-year-military presence.

Syria denies any role in the Hariri slaying or the subsequent bombings.

Posted by: woodbridge | 2006-09-05 9:51:50 AM


Just for a moment there, woodbridge, I was about to compliment you for bascially staying on topic.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-05 10:12:35 AM


More junk science hyped by MSM. Serious science does not claim that this is caused by humans or even if in fact there is truly global warming.

Most of us favour common-sense (rare these days) conservation, but I see red with all these phony greenies. I have yet to see one who walks the talk. Just take a close look at their livestyles.

Of course global warming and smoking are grievious sins for these people; much more dangerous than Islamists.

Posted by: Alain | 2006-09-05 10:17:44 AM


Woodbridge:

"from 750 million in 1980 to over 1.3 billion in 2006 - that is about a 50% increase"

That would be a 73% increase, the way I see it.

Posted by: Herman | 2006-09-05 10:31:10 AM


If you mention the word, "business" to leftists, they recoil into offence, as if someone had said a dirty word!

Posted by: Lady | 2006-09-05 11:34:33 AM


Woodbridge - I think you momma shoulda had an abortion, there'd be one less asshole out.

Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-05 12:37:05 PM


If global warming is such a threat that required massive involvement, then why did Suzuki not protest the Chretien government's granting of exemptions to Ontario's auto industry and Alberta's oil patch?

I think that he was more interested in getting it through than he was in seeing it justly applied. Suzuki has sold out his credibility as a scientist.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2006-09-05 1:43:13 PM


People who like to claim that much of the global warming is man made do so by naming greenhouse gases and its feedback loop as the primary culprit. They say that the carbon dioxide levels are higher now than in the past 800,000 years. They show a chart of the Vostok ice core data, that I like to call the GRID chart since it says GRID on the bottom left, as proof of the historic carbon dioxide (CO2) levels.

The more I look at the GRID chart, found on the http://carto.eu.org/article2481.html and http://thiver.wordpress.com/2006/03/04/simple-proof-that-global-warming-is-a-fact/ pages as well as many other sites, the more interesting things I notice. Look at 130,000 to 120,000 The temperature dropped while the CO2 concentration remained high. Look at the past 10,000 years that shows CO2 rising even though the temperature has been stable. Around 70,000 years ago, the CO2 spiked while the temperature continued to decrease. The http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/ page has more recently obtained data from the Vostok ice cores that go back 650,000 years now. It too has a chart (just before the comments section) that is similar to the Grid chart. It shows that 420,000 years ago, the CO2 level rose before the temperature then stayed high after the temperature dropped. This tells me that the greenhouse effect is minimal if at all existant on a global scale.

Global warming alarmists have used a rise in greenhouse gases as their platfrom even though it is smoke and mirrors.

John M Reynolds

Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-09-05 1:53:55 PM


WOO HOO, congratulations John M Reynolds, looking at just one piece of data you just proved 95% of all accredited scientists in the world wrong. Gee, maybe I should become a greedy, bible-thumping, child killing racist so I can be as smart as you.

Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-05 1:59:36 PM


You may call me a "greedy, bible-thumping, child killing racist" as much as you like, but it does not prove me wrong. The basis for their global greenhouse theory is in shambles and name calling is the best you can come up with? Grow up.

John M Reynolds

Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-09-05 2:08:42 PM


Mr. Suzuki is, in my opinion, a professional fraud artist. No one has ever gone broke frightening the wits out of the gullible, even with lies. There's a sucker born every minute, and Mr. Suzuki is, in my opinion, banking on that.

It reminds me of that concept of original sin, one of the greatest marketing scams in the history of man: you are guilty, the snake-oil salesman claims, whether you did anything bad or not, simply because as a human you were born and you must consume until you die.

It would be best for the species if all these professional shysters took a very long walk off a short pier.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-09-05 2:16:45 PM


I'll grow up when you wake up. The greenhouse theory is in shambles. Well, when you're done reading Luke 3:72 or whatever fiction you're reading these days, read these articles:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4495463.stm

http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/threat/threat6.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=41308

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000C9535-EF02-1C5A-B882809EC588ED9F

http://www.livescience.com/environment/global_warming_041115.html

http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=9563&channel=0

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1415818.htm

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/september22/yellowstone-922.html


So there is 1-10 of 5,340,000 pages when I entered "proof of global warming" at Google.
I'll be happy to accept any contrary evidence that is not paid for by your good friends at "Exxon".

Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-05 2:19:09 PM


Those of you who are keeping score at home may have noticed that the topic here is: "Tim Denton argues convincingly that they are but the latest manifestation of an ongoing effort to label and punish human 'sins'."

Ergo, when discussing the enviro-mentalists attempts a power-mongering, it matters not whether or not any particular climate model is correct or incorrect, much the same as when arguing about how churches use "sin control" as a lever of power, it matters not whether or not god exists.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-09-05 2:26:39 PM


LEfty_99: if you're such an expert on "global warming" then how do you explain the Chretien government's granting exemptions to Kyoto to Ontario's auto industry and Alberta's oil patch?

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2006-09-05 2:29:04 PM


He's a deliberate troll, Pike, he announced it in another thread. The only effective way to deal with such pests is to ignore them.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-09-05 2:32:56 PM


I guess I need to provide you with some education about politics. Hmm, I'm trying to think of a reference from the bible, so you'll understand. Sorry I can't. Ok, well I'll try in normal person terms: to get re-elected.

Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-05 2:35:11 PM


You won't be able to ignore me Vitruvius. It's in your nature to be a war-monger so you won't be able to resist the temptation to fight back.

Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-05 2:38:05 PM


I like the 1st and 5th that quote the same study and put the word proof in single quotes. None of your links explain why temperature is independent of CO2. Do you have any links that explain the ice core data while credibly maintaining that global greenhouse effect is possible?

John M Reynolds

Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-09-05 2:40:28 PM


Vit: sorry, I should have known. His claim that all those who don't believe in global warming only read the Bible was a clear warning. It's really sad that they refuse to debate these kind of things. The mere fact that Greenpeace and other anti-capitalist organizations support Kyoto is more than reason to resist it regardless of the science behind global warming. It's a horrendous idea that must be stopped.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2006-09-05 2:40:35 PM


First off, Mr. Reynolds, I just gave the first ten links, so if two are the same, then I'll give you the eleventh if you wish.

Second, you'll have to give me some time on that proof because I have over 5 million pages to go through. I'm sure its somewhere amongst all the rest of the evidence.

Oh, and Pike, I think capitalism is "a horrendous idea that must be stopped".

Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-05 2:46:11 PM


Take your time. Luckily, you should only have to go through 3 million before getting to a 'More links like these' type of google page. Or you can do what I did. I dug through several google searches like yours and went through thousands of similar links before I gave up looking. No one has been able to answer my question on the few forums I posted it either. I would appreciate it if you gave it a shot and found the answer.

Good luck.

John M Reynolds

Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-09-05 2:54:49 PM


"Oh, and Pike, I think capitalism is "a horrendous idea that must be stopped"."

How ironic! Capitalism is the only way that "global warming" can be curbed, by encouraging people to change their ways to help. Rigid authoritianism won't work because it encourages resistance.

Simply put, if you want to fight global warming, then resist the anti-capitalist, anti-freedom Kyoto scam.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2006-09-05 2:58:38 PM


I haven't read any of your previous posts. What exactly is your question Mr. Reynolds?

Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-05 3:00:00 PM


Listen up, Pike. He's playing you like a big mouth bass. He believes nothing, he will say whatever he thinks will get you most pissed off. Spit out the lure, man: sit on your hands.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-09-05 3:01:19 PM


Pike, for me, Kyoto is not much of a debate. I've never really fancied the thing except that it is a way to help poor nations by forcing rich ones to by their credits. But, as far as curbing global warming, it doesn't go anywhere near what has to be done.
As far as capilalism goes, you are right that we it need to save this thing. Big business, such as automobile manufacturers, will play a big role in all this. Unfortunately, capitalism is what caused all this in the first place, so you can appreciate my dislike of it.

Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-05 3:04:13 PM


I dont know how one could even say that attempts to improve the enviorment are at the expense of man. Would'nt it be in our best intrests to respect the planet we live on? I can see ones agruement that maybe it looks worse at this point then would normally be expected due to solar effects, however there is no debate that humans have added to this effect with polution.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that either way we need to re-think what we are doing here.
I'd like to add this vegetation he speaks of that is absorbing the Co2. There's just not enough plants on earth to convert this much Co2. I thought we knew that back in the 80's.

Posted by: justwondering | 2006-09-05 3:06:23 PM


It's a feint, Pike. He's lieing. He's trying to sucker you in.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-09-05 3:08:27 PM


Listen Vitruvius, I apologise for being aggressive earlier, but you must understand, hearing things like "kill all the muslims" and "global warming is a farce" fukcin pisses me off. I won't back down on my previous comments, even the ones accusing you people of being racist, etc. because you are, but I what I used to be like, I see in many of you. I used to be extremely right-leaning but only because I was blind. But a new sense of realism, travel, and a voyage into my soul have turned me away from the darkside. I have seen a lot of suffering and poverty through my travels, and what upsets me the most is that I was, as you people are, oblivious to it. I released any sense that I deserved to live in this wonderful country because I was born here. I was born on this planet, and that's what I intend to improve.

Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-05 3:15:57 PM


Lefty_99,

You want evidence of global warming?

What for? The world was even hotter than it is now, before. You want proof? Go north, and you will find tropical trees that have been fossilized, in locations where they simply do not grow anymore.

Oh, that was different...yada-yada-yada....

Or, how about the fact that Europe was much warmer a thousand years ago, than it is today.

Oh, that does not count?

Apparently, Europe has been getting colder.

That too, does not count?

Oh, but the polar bears?

OK, you like Polar bears, you save them. They survived through a few ice-ages, and warming periods before, so they should, survive through current weather.

The earth gets hotter and colder, and things change, and animals and people have to adapt.

You want more orygen?

You know the easiest way to manfacture oxygen, other than planting more trees?

It's called aluminum.

So, more mining aluminum equals more oxygen.

How's that for proof?

Never mind, it probably went over your head. Go back to your granola....

Posted by: Lady | 2006-09-05 3:24:45 PM


Notice the technique, ladies and gentlemen. Another feint designed to attract sympathy for pathos, and yet imbeded in it is a claim that everyone who posts here is racist. Therefore, if you express any agreement with his false reasonableness, he will then use that to claim that you agree that you are racist.

Remember, in another thread, Mr. 99 said: "since I'm bored and enjoy harrassing ignorant assholes, I plan on spending much time on this website."

No additional amount of words can undo the effect of those words.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-09-05 3:28:26 PM


Global warming is natural, it happened after the ice age and it'll happen again. Mars is warming too. England used to be a primary source of wine to the Roman empire and is now too cold to have vineyards.

I'm looking forward to orange groves in Alberta where once we had lizards the size of semis roaming the Badlands area.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-05 3:28:46 PM


Vitruvius, he's got you and now me responding to him. It's too much.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-05 3:30:47 PM


Lady, just the fact you make these wild statements shows me that you are weak minded. Instead of reading and educated yourself, you've allowed your self to be propogated. I suppose you sell Amway too. Or maybe you just leap from one cause to another, whoever does the best job of brainwashing you.

Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-05 3:39:08 PM


No, Speller, I have not been responding to him, I have been discussing the phenomenon he represents, with the readers of the Shotgun, not with him. I realize I must keep a lid on such meta-commentary, so I'll leave it at that.

As to the matter at hand, I don't think the question of whether or not dangerous climate change is ahead is relevant to the topic. As Paul originally noted, "Tim Denton argues convincingly that they are but the latest manifestation of an ongoing effort to label and punish human 'sins'".

So, it seems to me, the point is that even if, over the next thirty years, the global mean temperature does rise by one degree (as the latest IPCC models suggest), rather than having an intelligent discussion on the significance of the matter and any mitigation issues that might arise, based on the new science and available technology at that time, the enviro-mentalists of today are running around lieing, in order to try to convince people to repent for what they see as our original sin: being human.

In short, the enviro-mentalists don't care whether or not there's really a threat to the environment, they're simply interested in whatever it takes to gain the power to control *you*.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-09-05 3:43:24 PM


something tells me Vitruvius doesn't like being called a racist

Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-05 3:44:26 PM


That's a very good point, Vitruvius. It really is about controling me and trying to justify rationing, restricting, undermining my quality of life and ability to work for a better future for my family.

Still though, I would look forward to growing oranges if the temperature rose fast enought. Too bad.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-05 3:53:04 PM


Dude, we're not asking anyone to "repent". My father is just as guilty as your father for causing the problems we have now, so therefore I am just as responsible as you are. However, the difference is that I am accepting responsibilty and am trying to make a change so my son doesn't blame me. You, on the other hand are shirking your responsibilty as a citizen, a forebearer of future generations (God forbid your children think like you), and as a human being.
No one is blaming anyone for causing this because it was not known what would happen, but now there is no excuse except blind ignorance.
By the way, no environmentalist would ever use the word "sin", references to God are taboo nowadays, didn't you know?

Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-05 3:59:08 PM


Thanks, Speller. It's usually easy to spot such folks, they tend to run around using words like "guilty", "shirking", "blame", and "ignorant", even when discussing people they know nothing of.

I, for example, have a remarkably small consumption footprint, and the systems I work on every day are used to help make our production systems ever cleaner, safer, and more efficient. But just because my professional work in computer modelling leads me to strongly distrust the claims of the enviro-mentalists, when I express opinions of skepticism, I am labelled dirty, and worse.

Clearly, those people are a classic case of the parasites not respecting their hosts: the whining losers not realizing that their lives are dependant on our work.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-09-05 4:10:22 PM


I am astounded by the confidence with which some people dismiss the scientific consensus on political grounds. It is frustrating to watch people ignore what their opponents are right about in order to gain an illusionary rhetorical advantage of righteousness.

Even more surprising, is the evident failure to recognize the basic value of conservation. Isn't it a basically conservative value? The danger of avarice to society and the individual's moral character has been known for thousands of years.

It's simply logistics people. Number of humans times the amount of resources each one uses. We are finite, and so are our resources. If you don't want politically motivated environmentalists to dictate public policy you have a responsibility to educate yourself as to the scientific facts.

Posted by: Tim | 2006-09-05 4:13:14 PM


I could give a shit about your work. I don't need this computer, or my tv, or my mobile phone, or anything. I only have these things in order to keep up in the world, but if no one else had these things, I wouldn't miss them at all. "We live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities" - Oscar Wilde.(a 19th Century poet, as I'm sure they didn't teach you that at computer camp.

Your arrogance and selfishness only prove my point.
I am glad you are labelled dirty, and worse. You deserve it. But I can understand your skepticism. Afterall, I'm not convinced that the holocaust ever occurred, or that man walked on the moon, or that the earth is round.

Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-05 4:21:50 PM


Suzuki and his ilk ARE on a powerplay.

They do it with a guilt-trip technique which puts blame on humanity without needing to understand the natural cycles of how things are.

Yet, the existence of many things, including the solar system was not of man's making.

We are just here for the ride.

No human being could have created the mountains, no central committee could have designed trees and if you really think about it, how could any of the stuff around us have been random.

Yet, that is the first thing denied ... that somehow all around us was an accident.

Yet, according to the Suzukis of the world, even though humans had nothing to do with setting the stage, they are the only ones who can do anything about it.

Do they not understand Mother Nature will reclaim all, no matter what obstacles humans put up in front of her? Do they not understand that damming up the Mississippi River will have consequences down the road?

Would David Suzuki have advocated against all the world's great engineering projects? Probably.

It seems to me he's a bit of a Luddite with a goatee who wants time to stand still.

Now, people with even a rudimentary understanding of the Bible understand the value of a minimalist existence.

I've also come to that conclusion without having David Suzuki scare me into that position.

Yet, everybody has the freedom to make their own choices and will have to live with that choice.

Freedom of choice is what the environmental activists really fear ... since it means a loss of power, a power which they will first attempt to regain through name-calling. Then, when that does not work, they will start becoming violent.

It's a pattern that has repeated so much in history, that only those who cannot see past their own noses do no understand.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-09-05 4:31:09 PM


Tim we do not have any problem with scientific facts, but we do have a serious problem with junk science parading as science. The claim that just because people do not fall for the latest thing in junk science means that they are into raping and destroying the environment is not only ridiculous but downright stupid. And those who harp on the outdated claim of the danger of overpopulation, I suggest you update your information.

So I reject the junk science, reject the claim that mankind is evil in relation to the environment and reject making a god of nature and will continue to do so.

Posted by: Alain | 2006-09-05 4:31:43 PM


Speaking as a professional scientist, Tim, I do not agree that there is a consensus, and I do not agree that science cares about consensus, science only cares about verifiable results.

Having said that, I do agree, Tim, that (in my opinion), people spend far too much of their resources (such as time and money) on acquiring useless shit (pardon my language). If I could just snap my fingers and cut consumption by half, I'd be tempted to, if it weren't for the fact that it would cause a global depression, lead to civil war in dozens of countries, and possible nuclear disaster.

As far as we know, minor increases and decreases in various climatological measures are likely over the next hundred years. We have plenty of time to figure out what's really going on, and to decide what, if anything, to do about it.

But you tell that to the elitist power-mongers, and they won't believe you. Waiting, working, and thinking are not good enough for them, because such intelligent behaviour does not advance their attempted power grab.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-09-05 4:40:57 PM


Power through fearmongering.

Hmmmm.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-09-05 4:47:49 PM


lol, awesome "Set you free".
I'd also like to point out that the worldwide depression myth is absolutely false. In fact its the exact opposite. There will be a lot of money to be when the decision to turn to alternative sources happens. This new electicity has to come from somewhere right? And someone must distribute it. And people must pay to consume it. The fact is, that global warming will have more of devastating effect then stopping it because insurance companies will stop insuring property, life, and possessions ruled to be destroyed by "nature" because its will be far too costly.
If economies do suffer because of reduction then it'll be the USA that gets hurt the most, but that would be justice since they caused this mess.

Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-05 4:54:12 PM


Left_99,

It is a fact that aluminum mining, has the byproduct of oxygen. It is therefore, good for our air, to mine and smelt aluminum. The more we mine aluminum, the more oxygen we free from the aluminum ore.

And no propaganda was read in the discovery of this fact. Information on this, is found, with great ease, in most high school chemistry text books.

Looks like it is you who needs to go back to school, and learn some of the scientific basics! It is you who has his head stuck up the propaganda bandwagon, so deeply, that to get some fresh air, you must regularily visit this right wing think tank.

Well, hate to inform you, but you are a lefty!

So, when are you coming out as iAN?

Posted by: Lady | 2006-09-05 5:48:49 PM


I do think you're being a bit disengenous in that comment, Lady. Aluminum smelting, one way or another, probably isn't of significance in the matters at hand, namely, as Set You Free put it, "Power through fearmongering". And, there's no way 99 is IS, the style is all wrong ;-)

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-09-05 5:58:02 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.