We’ve all seen it, heard it, and had our brains wracked by them. I’m talking about people who are not “liberal”; are not “open-minded.” Personally, I try very hard to understand their arguments, and why they’re making them. Are they interested in facts, or partisan electioneering? Are they interested in discussion or cramming an ideology down my throat?
A “liberal” is someone who is open-minded, understanding, comes with open-arms, and seeks discussion and compromise. Then…there are these people:
Look, I like a green Earth. I worked for years as an environmental technician. I’ve worn the plastic suit and cleaned up the hazardous waste spills. I’ve been in places where even bacteria don’t grow because the toxins are so bad. What separates me from the Ed Bagely’s of the planet is that I want to discuss. This guy’s just an angry freak, and yes, that does make him dangerous.
Anger is not a destination or a simple state. It’s a direction. It’s a direction that is stopped by our morals, our character, our sociological and our psychological limits….in most cases. Sometimes it’s not. When that happens we get violence, and people suffer. Even if anger turns to violence 1 time in a million, we should try to understand why it happened, and to that end, I ask:
“Why are people so angry that global warming is discussed, debated, and not accepted or obeyed without question?”
Put another way, has the propaganda of the left stirred people so effectively, angered them so well that we run the risk of violence rather than discussion? I think it has, and I blame the people that Ed Bagely gets his news from-the people that have him so fired up as to start raving about “death panels” in the middle of a discussion about whether or not the debate is open/closed about Global Warming.
Ed needs help, and those who have misled Ed-and so many others-need a moment of inner reflection. It’s one thing to have freedom of speech, but it’s another to yell, “FIRE!” in a theatre (global warming metaphor intended)
See author page
Begley is a fool on many levels – he doesn’t believe that anyone opposed to the man-made global warming theory is allowed to comment unless they are “climate scientists” – so as an engineer, I guess I am not prepared to read and study the information on my own and offer my opinion…..but, he, as an ACTOR, is allowed. He is a huge hypocrite – typical progressive, free speech for me, not for you.
Why is he so angy Thom?
When one attacks one’s religion, one gets angry. Facts need not apply. Man Made Global Warming is now a religion.
Typically, it’s not about reason or thoughtful debate, it’s about emotion and drama.
PS:
Re: the CRU destroying raw climate data gathered over the years. Great oberservation from
Dr. John Lewis, Dep’t of Physics & Physical Oceanography, Memorial University in Newfoundland, Canada (via http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/):
“It is worth noting, in regard to the deletion of raw data by the CRU that real scientific organizations are rather fierce about raw data. NASA, for instance, gives the Principal Investigator (and group) sole access to data for one year, and one year only. After that, the data are placed in the public domain. I do know that some PIs have asked for longer embargos – whether they got them or not I don’t know, but if so, not easily. If the PI simply deleted data it would be the end of his or her career.
NASA’s view is that data collected with public monies should be available to the public; and without copyright – US gov’t materials generally are not copyrighted. All of this is to a good end – the PIs get the obvious results, but some data – e.g. for the IRAS mission – have continued to yield information upon reanalysis even 15 years after the IRAS shut down.
Not every installation is set up to handle terabytes of data, but CRU was very well funded apparently, and anyway, if they couldn’t handle it they shouldn’t have collected or received it.
The CRU leaks will confirm the views of every half-baked political scientist in the world, that science does not deal in fundamental truths but is, rather, a politically negotiated discourse. It is very disturbing.”
Ed makes his living from the manipulating green living and this latest news just impacted his “green” aka/money. Sure he is angry, how will he continue to support himself without his show? A little vested interest there Ed?
As it turns out climate change is Ed’s religion and as anyone who has ever debated religion knows anger and indignant outrage is the first weapon the defender reaches for. If someone found an artifact that proved that Jesus or Mohamed were fiction or that their profiles were a lie does anyone really believe that their followers would abandon them? Ed is now a disciple of AWG.
Love how their temperature cools at the end, and they thank each other for coming on. Lol.
Ed shrilling, “Peer review, peer review, peer review”.
Peer-reviewed by who? Fellow activist scientists? While shutting out non-alamists peer-reviewed research and fudging the IPCC process?
@Word
I was screaming the same sort of thing at my monitor. The Peer-process within globullworming has been corupted as mush if not more than the data.
Too bad Fox News doesn’t read Flopping Aces! 🙂 (Or at least prepare their talking-head a little better.)
“Global warming” is political science, if it is a science at all. At best it is a theory unsupported by facts. At its worst, it is a new age religion that is quick to accuse those with doubts as heretics.
Like drowning people, these ideologues will be grasping any thing and want desperately to pull us in with them, these are the imbeciles we must endure while we destroy the Hoax.
None the less, if a man points his finger like that at me, I will quietly tell him that the next time he points his finger at me, I will break it so that it points back at him.
I have some thoughts.
Ed Begley Jr. was very angry that he was disagreed with. It seems to me that when people become angry about disagreement, it is because they believe that not only are they right but they are obviously right. I can appreciate the feeling. If someone argued that when he dropped the ball he was holding it would go up instead of down, I would probably be quite annoyed with the person. That’s because every fool knows it would go down. So the person is either lying or an idiot. Ed simply does not appreciate that there can be doubt about his belief. So anyone disagreeing is either a liar or an idiot. Of course he becomes angry.
He engaged in ad hominem argument. Don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. Listen only to scientists, in fact only scientists who have a PhD in climatology. The left has demonized conservatives for decades as being evil and/or stupid. Ed seems to be one of those who has really internalized this belief. So naturally people like Limbaugh or Beck are trying to do harm with their programs. Now if you really believed this, of course dismiss anything they had to say.
He dismissed the Physicist that has problems with the whole global warming paradigm because he isn’t a climatologist. But you don’t have to be a climatologist to be wary of many of the conclusions drawn by the AGW community. Establishing causality in any case is very difficult. Cause and effect is typically established by looking at thousands of examples, and observing a consistency of the relationship over all those cases. Every time we do A, B follows. But when we don’t do A B does not follow. In the case of AGW, there is one example. One. The earth. We aren’t able to travel to thousands of other planets and change the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and look at the effect and create plots etc. We have one example. One.
The difficulty here isn’t that Ed is wrong, it’s that he simply doesn’t appreciate the epistemological difficulties involved with this.
I hope that the global-warming deniers are right: that we do not have to fear catastrophic developments because of global warming. I don’t want to leave my daughter (a teenager) to face a catastrophic future.
As far as I see it, however, the principal divide on this issue is between those that believe in global warming and that it is influenced by humans, and those that believe in global warming and that it is a naturally occurring thing, not influenced by man. Both scare the crap out of me.
I remember when conservatives protested government’s requirement to outfit every vehicle with a catalytic converter, limiting vehicles to the use of unleaded gas. The result has been much less lead in the atmosphere and far less pollution in our cities.
I remember when conservatives protested the banning of the use of PFCs in airborne propellants. The result has been a lessening of the eradication of the ozone layer in the upper levels of our atmosphere, thereby preventing harmful UV rays from intruding and warming our earth.
I remember when conservatives protested the Water Quality Act and the Clean Water Act which limited the pollution manufacturers could introduce into our water systems. The result has been that fish and other living things have returned to flourish in their habitat.
It seems logical to me that limiting the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be a good thing. CO2 is poisonous to people and other living things. Trees are lucky: they absorb the CO2, metabolize the carbon and shit out the oxygen. But, if we keep cutting down trees, there will be more CO2 in our atmosphere and less breathable oxygen.
Oh my, what’s a planet to do? See you in Copenhagen.
Rocky
If you can not see that pollution is not CO2, nor is CO2 pollution, than there really is no common ground for us to start on.
Co2 is .038% of the atmosphere.
We humans made 3% of that.
Co2 become bad for humans at 2% long/term exposure. We would have to add tens of billions of tons for tens of thousands of years to do that.
It’s good for plants. Airborn fertilizer. Plants grow better, more food for the poor.
Even if I were to agree that conservatives were wrongly being against all the things you mentioned (Usually not the what, but the how), this is NOT the same thing.
The only thing “unusual” about our temperature is how normal it is. As of todays temps vs 1909, we’re back to net-zero increase.
If you’ll want something else to clean, sulfer’s a good start, particulautes should be gone after. But leave the co2 for when ya run out of all the other stuff.
Untill then, buy sweaters because the sunspots ain’t back yet, and I trust the solar doods more than the trace-gas doods when thinking about how warm it’s might be in 10 years.
Hint: It’s not.
Decisions, decisions. Liberals or nutjobs? After all that has come out, I vote nutjobs!
Nutjobs meet nutjob:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/01/a-fleeting-few-moments-with-a-former-vice-presiden/?feat=home_headlines
What story? The climate change propaganda they have been promoting for over a decade is a fraud?
Peer Review…. Peer Review…. Peer Review
If I get 50 of my peers to say my published papers are legitimate but my peers consist of co-conspirators to perpetuate the fraud of global warming then peer review is worthless.
Personally… I’m glad I don’t have to own a gas guzzling SUV in order to navigate a glacier to get to the nearest 7/11.
A few of the many rather frightening nutjob quotes:
Will the real idiots please speak up?:
Bet this guy goes through earth friendly keyboards at an anti-earth friendly rapid pace:
Wondering if Prof Erlich would be the first to step forward and volunteer for the “cutting out of the cancer.”
How about some population control, a nutjob wish list:
More stupid in the following link:
http://www.peopleforwesternheritage.com/PFWHRMAdditionalQuotes.htm