To the global warming nay-sayers

[EasterJoy]

I’m thinking like this – we are very rich and profligate compared to people of times past – even people of a century ago. The average American would make King Herod blush. So we may need a rewrite of “It is more difficult for rich man [way back then] to enter into heaven, than a camel to enter thru the eye of the needle [which I understand is a tiny portal, and camels loaded up with goods would have to kneel to get thru].”

Today it should be “It is more difficult for an average American to get into heaven than it is for an elephant to enter thru the eye of the needle.”

What do you mean that you understand it is a tiny portal? You sound as if it were something that could be done by knowing how to do it. That is not what the reaction of the disciples indicates. Their reaction indicates they think the Lord just said it was impossible to manage:

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and said, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.” Matt. 19:25-26

 

[EasterJoy]

There’s absolutely nothing wrong in investing in various products or projects that will help reduce our GHGs. That’s actually where people should put their money and divest from fossil fuels.

If you have other specific complaints (aside from him traveling around giving his presentation or living in a mansion), let’s hear them. I really have not heard anything specific against Gore, except that skeptics hate him for trying to get people to do the right thing re climate change. Just vitriol, no specifics.

Trying to get people to do the right thing? He’s not a person?

The problem with “investments” is that there isn’t a unlimited amount of money to invest. Maybe I can afford to pay extra for “green” energy, maybe Mr. Gore can, but some people are having to stretch in order to pay for the energy they’re using now, which is the minimum they can get by with not because they’re “green” but because of the green stuff they *don’t have *that is needed to pay for their family’s or their business’s energy costs.

It’s also fine to go out and say “we need to do this” and “we need to do that”, but is what he’s asking for even realistic? Why should people kiss his feet over how green he is when what he’s doing is living a life that is nothing like he preaches and preaching projects that he can’t show are even feasible? What good does it do to go and get big speaking fees for just making stuff up?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Here’s one in particular. I have a friend who, several years ago, found himself in a professional relationship with Al Gore and, over the course of a few months, spent a good deal of time with him. One thing that astounded him was Gore’s apparent cavalier attitude toward “walking the walk.” Aside from the travel and whatnot, what my friend kept coming back to was Gore’s complete lack of conservationist habits at home. He wasn’t attacking the fact that he had a mansion, but the fact that, whether Gore was there or away, even if the house was empty for weeks on end, he kept the lights, furnace and A/C running as if people were at home at all times. He said he his home was surrounded by a variety of spotlights, mostly for landscaping purposes, and that they were on at all times. He said certain rooms of the house were lit 24/7, and that the house was kept at a constant temperature regardless of whether anyone was home. Whenever I leave the house, I turn off everything that’s not essential and turn down my furnace/AC so it’s not heating/cooling the house the same as if we were there. You’d think the champion of taking my money to pay for Brazil/India/China’s carbon credits would at least have the courtesy to do the same.

No, you see, Gordon, these people are the RULING ELITE, they don’t follow the same rules they want to impose upon us. They truly see themselves as being in a different category and exempt from the restrictions they want us to follow. It always amazes me that the AGW believers automatically give their idols a pass on these things. If someone I admired and respected turned out to be betraying the very principles he supposedly embraces, both he and the issue would be crossed off my list because of hypocrisy. Al Gore, of course, stands to gain a heck of a lot of money, perhaps BILLIONS of dollars, from the “carbon credit” scheme that goes along with AGW. He’s hardly a reliable witness.

I feel guilty if one scrap of paper even makes it into the wastebasket instead of recycling - I have been doing this for years now. I recycle all plastics and most cans, bottles, etc. I would conserve even more but products don’t last the way they used to, since everything we buy seems to have moved toward planned obsolescence and being more disposable than fixable. I don’t ask for any kudos, and I still don’t believe in AGW.

 

[EasterJoy]

No, you see, Gordon, these people are the RULING ELITE, they don’t follow the same rules they want to impose upon us. They truly see themselves as being in a different category and exempt from the restrictions they want us to follow. It always amazes me that the AGW believers automatically give their idols a pass on these things. If someone I admired and respected turned out to be betraying the very principles he supposedly embraces, both he and the issue would be crossed off my list because of hypocrisy. Al Gore, of course, stands to gain a heck of a lot of money, perhaps BILLIONS of dollars, from the “carbon credit” scheme that goes along with AGW. He’s hardly a reliable witness.

I feel guilty if one scrap of paper even makes it into the wastebasket instead of recycling - I have been doing this for years now. I recycle all plastics and most cans, bottles, etc. I would conserve even more but products don’t last the way they used to, since everything we buy seems to have moved toward planned obsolescence and being more disposable than fixable. I don’t ask for any kudos, and I still don’t believe in AGW.

I can believe that global warming is happening, I can believe that it is caused by burning fossil fuels, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to get behind every political solution that comes down the pike. As you point out, unscrupulous people and misguided people can mislead those who are anxious to just do something. Just as in dealing with poverty, the problem isn’t so simple that we can just throw money at it, and it cannot be forgotten that money thrown at one problem is money that is not there to address another one, and sometimes food taken out of someone else’s mouth, too.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I can believe that global warming is happening, I can believe that it is caused by burning fossil fuels, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to get behind every political solution that comes down the pike. As you point out, unscrupulous people and misguided people can mislead those who are anxious to just do something. Just as in dealing with poverty, the problem isn’t so simple that we can just throw money at it, and it cannot be forgotten that money thrown at one problem is money that is not there to address another one, and sometimes food taken out of someone else’s mouth, too.

Except for the evidence, dear EasterJoy, that not only is AGW NOT happening, we are actually in a cooling period due to lack of solar activity. I know it’s hard to believe, but God didn’t center the universe around human beings - there are other larger factors in play, and although we are charged to be good stewards of the infinitesimal part of the known universe that God gave into our keeping, we don’t affect very much in the end. These storms called tornadoes are just one of the natural planetary phenomena that we have absolutely NO control over. We still haven’t figured out a good way to predict where or when one will strike. At least hurricanes give us some notice so we can prepare, but all one has to do is look at a satellite photo of a hurricane to have a sense of perSPECKtive about one’s relative power on this planet.

And before someone jumps in to say “But storms have gotten stronger!” that is untrue as well.

 

[EasterJoy]

Except for the evidence, dear EasterJoy, that not only is AGW NOT happening, we are actually in a cooling period due to lack of solar activity. I know it’s hard to believe, but God didn’t center the universe around human beings - there are other larger factors in play, and although we are charged to be good stewards of the infinitesimal part of the known universe that God gave into our keeping, we don’t affect very much in the end. These storms called tornadoes are just one of the natural planetary phenomena that we have absolutely NO control over. We still haven’t figured out a good way to predict where or when one will strike. At least hurricanes give us some notice so we can prepare, but all one has to do is look at a satellite photo of a hurricane to have a sense of perSPECKtive about one’s relative power on this planet.

And before someone jumps in to say “But storms have gotten stronger!” that is untrue as well.

I never said a word about tornadoes, because as far as I know tornadoes are one of the weather phenomenon that haven’t changed a lot since recording of them began. We may be in charge of an infinitesimal part of God’s universe, but unless you have some evidence to the contrary it is the only part of that immense universe that supports the miracle of life. Yes! There are thousands of galaxies visible to us, and it is entirely possible that of all the planets circling all the stars in all of those galaxies, we may actually be the only planet that supports life. At any rate, we are, dear RealJulianne, the precious Planet of the Incarnation of God, and no matter how small we are in square feet, that is a big deal. We are the sanctuary of the universe, the Ark of the Covenant. It may not be obvious from a satellite, but this little planet if a very big deal, indeed.

It is not true that we humans cannot affect very much. There are huge piles of trash swirling around the ocean gyres with our names on them–even if it were not harmful, it would be utterly shameful. Whole large animal populations in North America went extinct when humans got here…our species does cause other species to go extinct. A whole race of beings, often sentient beings, made by God–gone. Huge tracts of forests, full of beneficial plants–gone. Not managed, not kept in stewardship, not shared as the growth of our own species inevitably will require, but just thoughtlessly and senselessly wiped out. Except for those that some call “hysterical environmentalists”, would there be any bald eagles left in the United States? Since there were fewer than 500 nesting pairs counted in 1963, there is a good chance there wouldn’t. Yet now there are over 9,000 nesting pairs. Who’s around congratulating them for being right about that? Who, back in the 1970s, would be saying “animals have always gone extinct over the course of history, it isn’t our fault?”

We have affected the earth. We are affecting the earth. The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, whatever its effect is or isn’t, is the highest it has been in 800,000 years. Even if you want to quibble about whether that is true or not, we are burning through our crude oil at a rate of 90 thousand barrels per day, it generates a lot of CO2, and whether or not it warms the earth up, it is generating a whole lot of a chemical that dissolves coral reefs, a chemical that, whether it is from volcanoes or from us, is killing yet another precious and irreplaceable part of our planet. So while I don’t have a lot of patience for politicians who pretend they are doing something positive just because their idea is going to cost a lot of money and a lot of headaches, in spite of the fact that they are doing nearly nothing that they could be doing personally to change the situation, even though their changes wouldn’t cost any jobs or cause anyone any hardship except them, I also have no patience for those who defend the idea that what we do and what we consume simply doesn’t matter that much. It does. It matters a lot, and even the possibility that it may matter a lot more than we know ought to give one pause.

We are all in need of the mercy of God, but heaven forbid that we start pretending that our actions don’t have real temporal consequences in the world around us. Nature is not immune to our free will. We have not been placed in a moral padded cell. What we do makes a difference, and we had better not start pretending otherwise.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

No, you see, Gordon, these people are the RULING ELITE, they don’t follow the same rules they want to impose upon us. They truly see themselves as being in a different category and exempt from the restrictions they want us to follow. It always amazes me that the AGW believers automatically give their idols a pass on these things. If someone I admired and respected turned out to be betraying the very principles he supposedly embraces, both he and the issue would be crossed off my list because of hypocrisy. Al Gore, of course, stands to gain a heck of a lot of money, perhaps BILLIONS of dollars, from the “carbon credit” scheme that goes along with AGW. He’s hardly a reliable witness.

It’s not just the ruling elite; most of the environmentally-minded liberals I know take the attitude that since they vote Dem, they’re doing their part. In their minds, nothing else is required of them. We recycle at least twice as much as we throw away, and far more than any of my liberal friends do. We do more on a daily basis than most of them do in a week. Yet they’ll be the first to tell you that they do far more for the environment just because of which column they check on a ballot.

I feel guilty if one scrap of paper even makes it into the wastebasket instead of recycling - I have been doing this for years now. I recycle all plastics and most cans, bottles, etc. I would conserve even more but products don’t last the way they used to, since everything we buy seems to have moved toward planned obsolescence and being more disposable than fixable. I don’t ask for any kudos, and I still don’t believe in AGW.

I started taking conservation seriously a few years after we got married. I was driving home one afternoon and as I crested a hill on the highway I had a wide view of our downtown skyline. The air was thick, hazy and brown. It was one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever seen. I wasn’t wasteful before that, but afterwards we started making a conscious effort to conserve gas, electricity and whatever else we could. Our local recycling program started up shortly after that and we took to it in earnest. We teach our kids to do the same, take them hiking and out in nature whenever possible, and teach them to try to leave outdoor places in better shape than they find them. Our kids are far more conscious and conscientious about how their actions impact their environment than the bulk of my liberal friends. I believe there are far better motivations for conserving our resources and cleaning up our environment than the boogie man of global warming, and most of the genuinely effective things you can do either don’t cost anything or actually save you money, as opposed to the schemes and scams Gore and company propose.

 

[Fairwinds]

now hear this.

for the next 12 hours, north America will experience Global Colding.

that is all.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I never said a word about tornadoes, because as far as I know tornadoes are one of the weather phenomenon that haven’t changed a lot since recording of them began. We may be in charge of an infinitesimal part of God’s universe, but unless you have some evidence to the contrary it is the only part of that immense universe that supports the miracle of life. Yes! There are thousands of galaxies visible to us, and it is entirely possible that of all the planets circling all the stars in all of those galaxies, we may actually be the only planet that supports life. At any rate, we are, dear RealJulianne, the precious Planet of the Incarnation of God, and no matter how small we are in square feet, that is a big deal. We are the sanctuary of the universe, the Ark of the Covenant. It may not be obvious from a satellite, but this little planet if a very big deal, indeed.

It is not true that we humans cannot affect very much. There are huge piles of trash swirling around the ocean gyres with our names on them–even if it were not harmful, it would be utterly shameful. Whole large animal populations in North America went extinct when humans got here…our species does cause other species to go extinct. A whole race of beings, often sentient beings, made by God–gone. Huge tracts of forests, full of beneficial plants–gone. Not managed, not kept in stewardship, not shared as the growth of our own species inevitably will require, but just thoughtlessly and senselessly wiped out. Except for those that some call “hysterical environmentalists”, would there be any bald eagles left in the United States? Since there were fewer than 500 nesting pairs counted in 1963, there is a good chance there wouldn’t. Yet now there are over 9,000 nesting pairs. Who’s around congratulating them for being right about that? Who, back in the 1970s, would be saying “animals have always gone extinct over the course of history, it isn’t our fault?”

We have affected the earth. We are affecting the earth. The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, whatever its effect is or isn’t, is the highest it has been in 800,000 years. Even if you want to quibble about whether that is true or not, we are burning through our crude oil at a rate of 90 thousand barrels per day, it generates a lot of CO2, and whether or not it warms the earth up, it is generating a whole lot of a chemical that dissolves coral reefs, a chemical that, whether it is from volcanoes or from us, is killing yet another precious and irreplaceable part of our planet. So while I don’t have a lot of patience for politicians who pretend they are doing something positive just because their idea is going to cost a lot of money and a lot of headaches, in spite of the fact that they are doing nearly nothing that they could be doing personally to change the situation, even though their changes wouldn’t cost any jobs or cause anyone any hardship except them, I also have no patience for those who defend the idea that what we do and what we consume simply doesn’t matter that much. It does. It matters a lot, and even the possibility that it may matter a lot more than we know ought to give one pause.

We are all in need of the mercy of God, but heaven forbid that we start pretending that our actions don’t have real temporal consequences in the world around us. Nature is not immune to our free will. We have not been placed in a moral padded cell. What we do makes a difference, and we had better not start pretending otherwise.

1. C02 is good for the planet. It makes more plants grow. It’s not a poison, and it’s not unnatural. In times when there really were warming periods, not associated with humans or SUVs, lots of C02 was present.
2. Animal species are still being discovered, lots of them. Not to say that it isn’t a shame to have wiped out species, and we should endeavor not to do this, but it’s not as though the planet is now or has ever been a static, closed system. It’s not. Give God more credit than that.
3. We’ve gone over this again and again - pollution is completely separate from the bogus theory of AGW. It’s the blending of the two that confuses many otherwise right-thinking individuals. Global warming is NOT pollution and pollution is NOT global warming. Being good stewards does not mean crippling ourselves when we have ACCESS TO ENERGY that will help all the people on the planet.

 

[lynnvinc]

I have only one thing to say to truebeliever about GW: There is no arguing with a true believer! No matter what facts are presented or the logic used, you will never convince them.

That’s actually more applicable to the skeptics, since the science – facts and theories – are all on the side of global warming being real and a dangerous threat to life on earth.

But I’d be very happy to admit I’m wrong if global average temps go back to pre-1970s levels.

Here’s an idea. Everyone reduce their GHG emissions, make the temps go back down to pre-1970s levels and see if you can make us GW “believers” angry

 

[Fairwinds]

…

Here’s an idea. Everyone reduce their GHG emissions, …

not a chance.

 

[EasterJoy]

1. C02 is good for the planet. It makes more plants grow. It’s not a poison, and it’s not unnatural. In times when there really were warming periods, not associated with humans or SUVs, lots of C02 was present.
2. Animal species are still being discovered, lots of them. Not to say that it isn’t a shame to have wiped out species, and we should endeavor not to do this, but it’s not as though the planet is now or has ever been a static, closed system. It’s not. Give God more credit than that.
3. We’ve gone over this again and again - pollution is completely separate from the bogus theory of AGW. It’s the blending of the two that confuses many otherwise right-thinking individuals. Global warming is NOT pollution and pollution is NOT global warming. Being good stewards does not mean crippling ourselves when we have ACCESS TO ENERGY that will help all the people on the planet.

Do you know what the pKa of CO2 is?

Do you know that discovering a species does not mean that the species just started existing right before you discovered it? IOW, extinction means species going out of existence, but discovering a new species does not imply that a new species has come into existence?

If you want to say you’re deeply concerned about what spewing the exhaust from 90 thousand barrels of oil a day and a roughly equal fuel load of coal is doing to our immediate environment–which of course is significantly not just the CO2 and water, but also includes oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, not to mention small particulates and ash–and not whether or not a few degrees of warming has a thing to do with all that combustion, well, why didn’t you say so?

And what on earth do you mean by “give God more credit than that”? You aren’t saying, are you, that God made it impossible for humans to significantly damage the planet? That kind of sounds like what you might mean by that.

 

[bcuster]

The church has spoken on wise stewardship of the earth. We don’t need a GW scare to do what is right.

 

[dshix]

That’s actually more applicable to the skeptics, since the science – facts and theories – are all on the side of global warming being real and a dangerous threat to life on earth.

But I’d be very happy to admit I’m wrong if global average temps go back to pre-1970s levels.

Here’s an idea. Everyone reduce their GHG emissions, make the temps go back down to pre-1970s levels and see if you can make us GW “believers” angry

Ludicrous. Just ludicrous. You can never disprove a truebeliever.

 

[The_Bucket]

As I said previously, I don’t actually care about global warming. I think temperatures are rising and we need to be good stewards of the Earth. I also think trying to cut CO2 emissions via mandate is a fool’s errand and extremely dangerous to our economic and physical health. Slashing CO2 emissions willy nilly will not lead to better conservation or cleaner technology. It will result in economic stagnation in the poorest of countries who need to use fossil fuels in their efforts to catch up to the wealthier nations.

Better that we adapt to changing temperatures and that wealthy nations innovate on our own so that one day we will all have clean(er) sources of power generation.

Until then, I will support the business that says “we brew unsustainable and totally inorganic coffee” over the one that says “we only serve sustainable and organic coffee.” Why? For the hell of it.

 

[EasterJoy]

… I also think trying to cut CO2 emissions via mandate is a fool’s errand and extremely dangerous to our economic and physical health. Slashing CO2 emissions willy nilly will not lead to better conservation or cleaner technology. It will result in economic stagnation in the poorest of countries who need to use fossil fuels in their efforts to catch up to the wealthier nations…

Which is not the same as saying that one does not care about diversifying energy technologies or developing different new technologies in order to provide energy that has the greatest reliability and economic benefit and flexibility of application with the least environmental impact, just as saying that the evidence that CO2 is raising the temperature is an entirely different matter than the evidence that CO2 levels are rising or that the acidity of the oceans is changing.

Even if one totally believes in global warming and that it is linked at least partly to the use of combustibles as an energy source, it does not automatically follow that the carbon-reduction proposals that are gaining political popularity are the best ways to address the problem. Throwing money at companies to lure them into doing the right thing has this almost invariable way of getting a lot of money into the pockets of companies, but without achieving the desired end.

Isn’t it funny that when the behavior of individuals is a question, the usual political solution is to penalize in order to change behavior, while of late the most common proposals for changing cooporate behavior is through financial incentive paid for by the taxpayer?

I think there is a racket going on there, and I think some of our political prophets are getting in on it.

Better that we adapt to changing temperatures and that wealthy nations innovate on our own so that one day we will all have clean(er) sources of power generation.

To be fair, the whole point of the global warming scare is that the results of temperature change may be too fast to keep up with as it is, but might happen somewhat more slowly if some of the factors leading to the temperature rise are mitigated. It does not make sense to look at a leak in a levee and say “oh, well, we’ll just order more pumps.” That is pretty much nuts.

Be that as it may, yes, we had better have some idea what we’re going to do if the old estimates for flood frequency and severity continue to prove to be underestimates. I mean, how many people remember seeing the whole concept of 30-year storm and 100-year storm just go out the window? Do the weather people even use those terms any more? You can say the first estimates were just bad estimates, and not evidence of a change in anything, but I think that underestimates of emergency response needs is something that needs to be addressed. It causes a lot of suffering when civil government estimates of the severity of possible local emergencies are vastly inadequate.

I say that because no one is saying that if we quit burning fossil fuels tomorrow that the climate would respond on a dime. It wouldn’t, whether the burning is/was responsible for the storms or not.

Until then, I will support the business that says “we brew unsustainable and totally inorganic coffee” over the one that says “we only serve sustainable and organic coffee.” Why? For the hell of it.

That’s the 7-11 that sells the bumper stickers that read:
Earth First…We’ll Log the Other Planets Later.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

I think there is a racket going on there, and I think some of our political prophets are getting in on it.

It doesn’t take a degree in environmental sciences, or even much more than two brain cells to see that, whether it’s a multi-national treaty that requires the US to foot the bill for the rest of the globe while ignoring Brazil, India and China (cough Kyoto cough), or the green energy industry in general. I’ve looked into solar and wind for my home several times over the years and I’m amazed that, in all these years, despite promises of how prices will drop as more people adopt the technology and despite advances in the technology that make these systems much more productive and efficient, the payoff time is still 7-15 years, depending on the system you get. Yet at the same time, many of these companies are willing to install a system free of charge (or relatively cheaply) and then charge you for the energy they produce. You never pay it off and if the solar panels or turbines produce more than you use you don’t get a refund or any reduced cost; yet, you get to feel good because you’re doing the green thing.

I just have to restate that if the GW crowd wants to win me over in the slightest, they have to be willing to address the things that don’t line up with their dogma (such as the fact that we’ve been in a global cooling phase that’s now lasted longer than the warming phase that led to all this hysteria), and they have to quit making ridiculous and contradictory claims. I’ve read reports that, while trying to prove that humans have always had a massive impact on the environment, claimed that the last ice age was both caused by humans due to rampant deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, and ended by humans due to rampant deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. My GW adherent friends see nothing ridiculously contradictory with those two claims.

And while it’s not really related to GW, as far as organic, free-trade coffee goes, I read an article a couple months ago that claimed that the free-trade coffee business is extremely detrimental to small coffee farmers because they actually get paid less for their organic, free-trade beans than they get from the big conglomerates. So it sounds as though the most ethical thing to do is to save yourself a buck or three and go to McDonald’s and 7-11.

 

[holyrood]

I just have to restate that if the GW crowd wants to win me over in the slightest, they have to be willing to address the things that don’t line up with their dogma (such as the fact that we’ve been in a global cooling phase that’s now lasted longer than the warming phase that led to all this hysteria), and they have to quit making ridiculous and contradictory claims. .

I’ll be more won over when I see that Al Gore believes his own Sky Is Falling rhetoric. If he believed it, he’d be reducing his own carbon footprint, rather than he and his wife living in a home far bigger than what I have for myself and 9 children; or using ten times more energy than I use for myself and 9 children; or flying all over the world in private jets.

I also agree about consistency. When I was growing up, it was the coming ice age. Now it’s global warming. Well, which is it? And if it changes that fast, then we don’t have anything to worry about, anyway. It’ll swing right back in another 5 or 10 years.

When I jokingly said to a friend that ‘global warming’ has 10 inches of snow on my deck in mid-May, she lectured me that ‘global warming’ includes any climate change, any erratic weather. So by that logic, a year or five of unusually long or cold winters also proves global warming? By that logic, ANY weather that’s not stable and predictable proves global warming?

 

[Daniel_Lysinger]

Global warming is something I don’t believe at all. For many of the same reasons as posted above

 

[EasterJoy]

It doesn’t take a degree in environmental sciences, or even much more than two brain cells to see that, whether it’s a multi-national treaty that requires the US to foot the bill for the rest of the globe while ignoring Brazil, India and China (cough Kyoto cough), or the green energy industry in general. I’ve looked into solar and wind for my home several times over the years and I’m amazed that, in all these years, despite promises of how prices will drop as more people adopt the technology and despite advances in the technology that make these systems much more productive and efficient, the payoff time is still 7-15 years, depending on the system you get. Yet at the same time, many of these companies are willing to install a system free of charge (or relatively cheaply) and then charge you for the energy they produce. You never pay it off and if the solar panels or turbines produce more than you use you don’t get a refund or any reduced cost; yet, you get to feel good because you’re doing the green thing.

I just have to restate that if the GW crowd wants to win me over in the slightest, they have to be willing to address the things that don’t line up with their dogma (such as the fact that we’ve been in a global cooling phase that’s now lasted longer than the warming phase that led to all this hysteria), and they have to quit making ridiculous and contradictory claims. I’ve read reports that, while trying to prove that humans have always had a massive impact on the environment, claimed that the last ice age was both caused by humans due to rampant deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, and ended by humans due to rampant deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. My GW adherent friends see nothing ridiculously contradictory with those two claims.

And while it’s not really related to GW, as far as organic, free-trade coffee goes, I read an article a couple months ago that claimed that the free-trade coffee business is extremely detrimental to small coffee farmers because they actually get paid less for their organic, free-trade beans than they get from the big conglomerates. So it sounds as though the most ethical thing to do is to save yourself a buck or three and go to McDonald’s and 7-11.

Well, you can’t blindly sign on for anything that calls itself environmental any more than you can blindly sign on for anything that calls itself Christian. So even if you believe the science is plausible, that’s not the same as saying it is absolutely compelling or that the proposals being bandied about are the right course. Those are different things.

Some things (which for charity’s sake will go nameless) are like a Grape Nut, which despite its name is not a grape, and yet also not a nut…