Even the Left is getting it

DBear

unbeliever
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
3,262
Location
Prime Material
People are finally waking up to the Global Warming Cult. If even The Nation, which is about as far left as it gets, debunks the cult, it's time for some of you to put down the global warming koolaid and back away.
http://www.thenation.com/docprem.mhtml?i=20070514&s=cockburn

Is Global Warming a Sin?
Alexander Cockburn



In a couple of hundred years historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the tenth century as the Christian millennium approached. Then as now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet's rapid downward slide. Then as now, a buoyant market throve on fear. The Roman Catholic Church sold indulgences like checks. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning. Today a world market in "carbon credits" is in formation. Those whose "carbon footprint" is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others less virtuous than themselves.

The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one. There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely on unverified, crudely oversimplified models to finger mankind's sinful contribution--and carbon trafficking, just like the old indulgences, is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism and greed.

Full article for subscribers, of which I will never be...
 
We should have woken up decades ago.
 
The first paragraph contains two glaring historical mistakes.

-The first is a (false) cliche, namely that of the Y1K panic. It's been widely debunked by historians ; there was far more of a Y2K panic (courtesy of the Bug), than there was a Y1K one.

-The second is the association between indulgences and the alleged Y1K panics ; while the notion of indulgence is old, widespread sales of indulgence only began much later (16th century, really), with the church looking at rebuilding St Peter.

If they can't be bothered to get that straight, why should I believe they got anything straight about global warming?
 
:lol:

The difference between Apocalypse fever of AD1000 and Global Warming is that the former stems from faith, the latter stems from reason.

Global Warming is a fact, and about time we all wake up to it.
 
The other difference between the Apocalypse fever of AD 1000 and the Global warming fever of AD 2000+ is that one of these fever never happened at all.

Consider.

-No papal bull from around AD1000 (and we have many of them) refer to the coming or recently avoided Apocalypse.
-Peasants did NOT keep count of the years very well if at all (CF Joan of Arc's trial, where she testified to being "around" 18 when asked her age)
-Serious very long term (decade and more) construction project were begun in the 990s on city walls and the ilk, with the massive investment that meant.
-New constructions built in the 980s and 990s included several brand new architectural innovations.

In fact, in all the documents we have dating back to the era in french, only ONE so much as mention the concept of an End of Days in the year 1000 ; that document is the personal account of a monk who mention hearing it once in his youth, and finding the whole idea laughable.

So where is that Y1K panic?
 
People are finally waking up to the Global Warming Cult. If even The Nation, which is about as far left as it gets, debunks the cult, it's time for some of you to put down the global warming koolaid and back away.
What overwhelming evidence. Congratulations dear Sir, you have me convinced. Clearly you know good science when you see it. :)

straws.jpg
 
??? You'd think fiscal libertarians would want to capture the externalities of pollution. At least, I do. That's the best way to get the market system to deliver
 
??? You'd think fiscal libertarians would want to capture the externalities of pollution. At least, I do. That's the best way to get the market system to deliver
Damn straight.
 
but he has a hilarious surname :lol:

It's prounounced "Coburn". I discovered this after being in a pub, and thinking myself to be very sophisticated, ordering a glass of port very loud.
A friend sidled up to me later and told me "Psst...it's pronounced Coburn".
 
It's prounounced "Coburn". I discovered this after being in a pub, and thinking myself to be very sophisticated, ordering a glass of port very loud.
A friend sidled up to me later and told me "Psst...it's pronounced Coburn".
"Hi, do you have cockburn? ... Can I have some of that then please?"

Please tell me that's how it went...
 
So, DBear, somebody just made up global warming, because...? Did they want to make money? In that case, it failed. It is only draining resources, and nobody's gaining from it. Spread a panic? Then a story along the lines of "OMFG! There's a *huge* comet heading STRAIGHT for Earth! It's gonna hit us tomorrow!!!!!" Make us all feel guilty? In that case, somebody has missed out on all the stuff going on in the 3rd world. Get their name attached to a scientific groundbreak? Then they should have tried something more glamorous, like "FTL is possible and here's how!" I mean, if global warming is so obviously a fraud, wouldn't that work just as well?
In short, I can see no reason to make something like this up. Just for the heck of it, maybe?
Or maybe they are all really, really stupid and just got their PhDs from sheer luck, and you are in reality smarter than a significant majority of the world's scientists in that area. Or maybe the empirical method, the world's most thorough system of verification, is flawed, despite the fact that it has never failed before in the history of science, temporary setbacks barred, meaning that we should stop using all our machines *now*, before they tear a hole in hypersubspace and release supercharged negative space wedgies which might come to destroy us because all the people who made it are less intelligent and systematic than your average possum?
 
I'd like to say that the The Nation is not that leftwing. It's solidly and wholly left within the mainstream, but doesn't go much leftier than that.
 
I like those multi-colored straws.
 
me toooooooo
 
Back
Top Bottom