Tuesday, March 4, 2008

Air Conditioning

O.K. - I've had enough - you people are idiots:

California can't afford Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Green policies.

I told you San Francisco can't afford Mayor (and proven scumbag) Gavin Newsom's Green policies.

That bitch at the L.A. Times is, still, on the Green warpath against ordinary citizens.

And that staunch environmentalist, Prince Charles, is ignoring his environmental impact to go for a ride on his yacht.

While John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, says Global Warming is a hoax - which is being carried out with with the help of the media (in case you haven't noticed) - and he's suing Al Gore.

Now, who are you stupid bastards gonna believe?

And where are all those overflowing landfills?

6 comments:

  1. You might something from this article on the seventies cooling myth.

    The global warming rate was discovered in 2005 (unless the head of the NASA institute of Space Studies is a NewAger of course).

    For a picture of what is happening in the Arctic (rather than speculation).
    Can I suggest - cos a motherfucker like that is hard to hide - that:


    After existing for many millennia, the northern section of the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica -- a section larger than the state of Rhode Island -- collapsed between January and March 2002, disintegrating at a rate that astonished scientists. Since 1995 the ice shelf's area has shrunk by 40 percent.


    be explained away as a trick. I'm pretty sure someone on the team has photos of David Copperfield visiting the region at the time and taking a particular interest in making the Larson B ice shelf disappear.

    Not as spectacular (or from an actual science journal or report), a kind of argument to keep on pumping out those gases.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, Berko, how such a nice person as yourself can still be pushing for attacking your fellow "citizens of the earth" is puzzling (haven't you ever studied fascism?) here's a few thoughts for you:

    The earth was warming - but humans didn't cause it - and it's just incredible hubris to suggest we have. But what can we expect from environmentalists who insist no one can care about the planet unless we do what THEY say?

    Environmentalism's roots are in paganism, and we all know about that long distinguished line of great pagan thinkers, right?

    For people all fired up about "change," you sure do freak out when you get some.

    It's clear that, while you're buying whatever supports the malthusian position, you're ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. The various scientists who participated in the IPCC report and have since recanted? What do you say to them? The founder of Greenpeace - who says his org was taken over by ideologues - and denies the importance of global warming? (Not that the Left cares when it's they who act like fascists,...)

    If you don't think there are NewAgers in NASA, then you're not paying attention. I mean, you've been spouting out the exact same nonsense - using the exact same terminology ("Big Oil," "Big Pharma," etc. - as the Lefties everywhere else. It's a cult, Berko, and it's everywhere. Click on my science tag and find the two posts I did where I show that many science bloggers are Lefties, former-hippies, and NewAgers. That's a bias not to be trusted.

    And, finally, I figured out a long time ago that the reason NewAgers are always asking "What are you afraid of?" is because they're such scaredy cats.

    Critical thinking, Berk, it's our only hope.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks but, though I take your point about environmentalists seeking to impel others to follow their example, I don't think that is the crux of the argument.

    I come from a small isolated rural community originally and it was always natural to hoard and re-use things so we (and farmers were all rusted-on conservative voters)don't see this as an ideological issue. You just wouldn't throw out an empty treacle tin if you could use it again. Sure, we didn't recycle everything but that's because we lacked the technology to do so with some material. Anything we could make use of, we did. This had nothing to do with a pagan sensibility or fascism!

    I don't know about hubris. Consider the size of our populations and the sheer amount of pollution we pump out. That's not going to have an effect on the biosphere? They wear masks in Hong Kong so they can breathe so the air is affected at least regionally (but polluting cities don't exist in a bubble) and a real test of the effect we have on the planet: Chernobyl, which contaminated well beyond the reaches of the site itself. We're talking animals, crops, air, soil and birth defects in humans.

    I've no love of NewAgers myself because they commercialise ancient knowledge that was passed down through generations and coopt and distort it for their own purposes.

    Great pagan thinkers? Two words: Ancient Greece. The foundation of philosophy, medicine, architecture, mathematics etc etc etc.
    More contemporary:

    'There is ample evidence that pagan sensibility can flourish in the social sciences, literature, and arts, not just as a form of exotic narrative but also as a mental framework and a tool of conceptual analysis. Numerous names come to mind when we discuss the revival of Indo-European polytheism. In the first half of the twentieth century, pagan thinkers usually appeared under the mask of those who styled themselves as "revolutionary conservatives," "aristocratic nihilist," "elitists" — in short all those who did not wish to substitute Marx for Jesus, but who rejected both Marx and Jesus. [9] Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger in philosophy, Carl Gustav Jung in psychology, Georges Dumézil and Mircea Eliade in anthropology, Vilfredo Pareto and Oswald Spengler in political science, let alone dozens of poets such as Ezra Pound or Charles Baudelaire — these are just some of the names that can be associated with the legacy of pagan conservatism. All these individuals had in common the will to surpass the legacy of Christian Europe, and all of them yearned to include in their spiritual baggage the world of pre-Christian Celts, Slavs, and Germans.'
    [http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/marx.php]

    Monotheism is a bigger enemy than paganism because it demands that you follow one creed and reject everything else. That is why the two greatest threats are Christianity and Islam (Judaism is exempted because they're not interested in converting you or beating you).

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I like you, Berko. You make me smile because I don't feel like I'm talking to an idiot, and, given time, you're starting to prove it. Good job:

    "Though I take your point about environmentalists seeking to impel others to follow their example, I don't think that is the crux of the argument."

    Just making conversation here: they aren't trying to "impel" anything - they're trying to force us to do things, using manipulation, lies, anything. And they'll let nothing stop them. That's what gets to me. It may kill my attachment to my/their humanity - I really stop caring when they get hurt, killed, or whatever - but actions get reactions, and since they're insisting on being the dregs of society (for caring so little about others) I can't help but think their low tactics deserve the same in kind, or worse. It worries me, how they've twisted me, but not too much. I truly have learned to hate them.

    "I come from a small isolated rural community originally and it was always natural to hoard and re-use things so we (and farmers were all rusted-on conservative voters) don't see this as an ideological issue,...This had nothing to do with a pagan sensibility or fascism!"

    Jesus, Berko, then you've been taking offense at an argument that's not directed at you. (Your guys sound like my cousins, in Oklahoma, who would always say "Don't come here with none of that California bullshit!" when a visit was announced. I agreed with him whole-heartedly.) You may not understand that many Americans have, completely, lost touch with such thinking. Recycling, etc., isn't used as a practicality to NewAgers but as a device for control. That's my beef. If they were reasonable, I'd have no argument, but I know these people and being reasonable doesn't come into it.

    "I don't know about hubris. Consider the size of our populations and the sheer amount of pollution we pump out. That's not going to have an effect on the biosphere?"

    Naw, as George Carlin said, we're specks on the planet. It wipes us away in no time. Dinosaurs ruled, once, too. We're too useless to consider as a problem for the planet.

    "They wear masks in Hong Kong so they can breathe so the air is affected at least regionally (but polluting cities don't exist in a bubble) and a real test of the effect we have on the planet: Chernobyl, which contaminated well beyond the reaches of the site itself. We're talking animals, crops, air, soil and birth defects in humans."

    Berko, you're not supposed to use the exceptions as the rule. Sure, things have gone wrong in various places in time, but, generally, mankind has been fine - the march of progress is the proof - and the idea that nobody but environmentalists cares is a direct insult to the humanity of the rest of us. They're nuts - and dangerous - period. "Feeling" like things are going wrong doesn't make it true. They're cowards, allowing every mistake - every exception - drive their fears. And that's no way to go through life.

    "I've no love of NewAgers myself."

    Glad to hear it.

    "Great pagan thinkers? Two words: Ancient Greece. The foundation of philosophy, medicine, architecture, mathematics etc etc etc."

    And we've left them in the dust - where they will forever reside.

    "Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger in philosophy, Carl Gustav Jung in psychology,..."

    Please: spare me the Nazi totems. In case you haven't noticed, I've no love for such fools.

    "Monotheism is a bigger enemy than paganism because it demands that you follow one creed and reject everything else."

    Bullshit. I'm an atheist, but not so stupid as not to understand, and appreciate, the underpinnings of Judeo-Christian ethics on society. People driven by a hatred of Christianity are as useless as Christians inflamed. They're all - equally - a problem. One demanding there's only one way and another offering, really, nothing - in various guises. Critical thinking is all we've got now. People who can't accept that are the threat.

    "The two greatest threats are Christianity and Islam (Judaism is exempted because they're not interested in converting you or beating you)."

    Bullshit again: the threat is the attachment to religion at all. We're in the year 2008: long past time for such foolishness - no matter where it comes from. Though I understand it (post-Holocaust) the Jews, clinging to their identity as Jews, is just more identity politics at it's worst - and I'm a supporter of Israel. But such thinking will never lead to peace. I live on a level playing field. Anything less is just throwing a wrench in this work-in-progress we call "civilized society."

    Big up, Berk.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Bullshit. I'm an atheist, but not so stupid as not to understand, and appreciate, the underpinnings of Judeo-Christian ethics on society. People driven by a hatred of Christianity are as useless as Christians inflamed. They're all - equally - a problem. One demanding there's only one way and another offering, really, nothing - in various guises. Critical thinking is all we've got now. People who can't accept that are the threat."

    But you mistake me. There are cultural values that are directly attributable to our Judaeo-Christian heritage that have found humanity. Like everything else, it has adapted to the times. Thus there are aid-giving Christians and materialistic Christians.

    I was brought up in a Christian household. I gave the various traditions a very reasonable trial workout and found that they fell like a pack of cards. If you got to see the illogic and downright danger of a kind of thinking that governed these people's lives then it became possible (not easy because you're inculcated) to throw off its restrictions and fantastical thinking.

    I can't see one good thing about a holy war and the pussiest scarediest folk are the end times Christians with their wretched tracts decreeing 'Lo and it shall come to pass'. When they're the ones who are waging the war, big surprise there.

    What was it about George talking about talking to God and getting the nod? Yes leaders with a messiah complex spook me too.

    Anyway my point is that evangelical Christians would be well aware that Mystery 666 uses Biblical text to predict that, when the Cold War with Russia ends, a new war will start with the Arab nations and this battle presages Armageddon.

    I refuse to buy into bullshit too. Who has the most to lose from a polluted planet - millenial Christians or agnostic ecologists? The reason they write literal garbage about depriving the cardboard billionaire of his raw material is because of Christ's poison pen pronouncement to 'give no thought to the morrow'

    What if science extends your life? Oh wait it does. So what kind of world do you want to live in.

    I no more want to follow the agenda whose cause and beliefs I don't believe in than you do. And you call me names for doing so.

    I'll tell you a secret. It isn't being a leftie acolyte or being irritated by Bush that causes me to oppose the war. It's the fact that Biblical prophecy, if it's going to be used as a blunt instrument of state, cannot be seen to cheat. If they're going to spend their whole time telling us what to do then they've at least got to play by their own rules.

    9/11 gave the West the reason to strike the Saudi terrorists who attacked US sites and root out the perpetrator. So it was an essential precondition to waging war.

    But who wants war? War is hell.

    so what's a safe Arab nation to attack? Iraq because they invaded Kuwait before and gassed the Kurds; all of which was of strategic importance to the attack on the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. Makes sense to me. But only because it fulfills scripture.

    The lesson to take away from this isn't that those casino gamblers were right to throw their drinks at Linda Ronstadt but that passions were enflamed and people stopped thinking rationally. There was a lot of internal turmoil as a result.

    It's a master stroke to talk like a yokel with learning problems while at the same time convincing the American people that the best way to respond to the attacks is to go where the terrorists aren't. Anyone who questions this, do anything in your power to marginalise them. If they're the only one asking tough questions, put them at the back. If you don't see this as propoganda then I don't know what is.

    Blair at least got my respect for sitting in the round in front of camera while people tackled him with all their misgivings and horror stories. I guess when you got control of the reins you just make it up. Let's see I'll deliver a prepared soundbite, tell a bad joke, and exit stage right.

    But it didn't last. I don't know if there were voters who said "30 billion of our money is alright to spend but 35 billion look I dunno" Wimps eh.


    Bible ethics may be good in places but the ending is not to my taste.

    I'd put down the Iraq invasion as one of the clumsiest ever in terms of its brief. "We'll go in and blow the shit out of these people and get everyone around to come in and attack us for doing so". Wish I'd thought of it.

    But then I doubt the thought even went that far. You got rid of Saddam in short order, then artifacts from the dawn of civilisation started getting looted, oil fields were blown up, civilians came to grief in an strange variety of ways and probably wondered what they'd done to deserve such liberation.

    If you're only as good as your PR then the neo cons can have had the best intentions in the world but aren't good at showing it. Waterboarding indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I absolutely match with everything you've presented us.

    ReplyDelete

COMMENTS ARE BACK ON