Sometimes you just reach a point when you need to respond to something although you full well know that whatever you say won’t adequately make the point. But that’s never stopped me from opening my big mouth or, in this case, my keyboard. I’ve had so many people suggest to me that I “get a life” instead of spending my time thinking up these lame responses to minutia and other meaningless things. But if I were to get that said “life” I would then have to continue to absorb the “logic” spouted self-absorbed activists trying to make themselves feel better about themselves and then try to secure their 15 minutes of fame on NPR, CNN, MSNBC, Oprah or the View, not to mention the multitudinous Blog sites of other people’s opinions. And I’d like to thank our magnanimous former Vice President, Al Gore, first for inventing this internet thing which we all so pleasantly communicate with in vitriolic anonymity (and being of the Conservative bent, I fully accept my essence as “vitriolic” while acquiescing the “rational,” “tempered” and “meaningful” terms to the posters at “Daily KOS,” “Huffington Post,” et. al., who have many more clues than those who are unlucky enough to have the surnames of Bush, Cheney and/or Rove. Oh, and Mr. Gore, about that SPAM thing you inadvertently created many years ago when you were assembling your ones and zeroes to connect the world . . . putz!
Of course, that wasn’t his fault because those on the other side of the aisle–the side which owns panacea, utopia and the Land of Oz–only create Munchkins and Straw Men (with all due apologies former Secretary of Commerce, Robert Reich. There was no pun intended) while this side is solely responsible for the Wicked President of the West and his band of evil flying monkeys led by King Kong himself, Karl Rove. (By the way, Leftists, is Dubya really stupid since Karl supposedly has his hand up Dubya’s back pulling the mouth tab and spinning George’s head around like Linda Blair searching for the next word to say, or is Karl just a really poor ventriloquist? You gotta choose; you can’t have it both ways!)
Back to our former V.P., the brilliant IP God of this world. Gates did really well inventing one thing and running with it. He didn’t try to be everything to everybody (except for his operating system trying to be everything to everybody and bogging itself down mercilessly) but you, Al, can’t take your success with the most revolutionary communication concept since the Geico caveman spoke his first word on national TV last year and leave well enough alone for just a few years. A wise man once said “When you chose to ride two horses at the same time and they decide to go different ways, you quit making sense.” Alright, I made that up but it does beg the point I’m getting to.
Global warming. Since you really had little to nothing to do with the internet, why should we follow you down the myopic, slippery slope of things we could never hope to control? I beg your pardon, sir, but a different Messiah was promised a few millenniums ago. You are too late. And your influence in this matter cannot seek and can never hope to adequately influence the outcome you strive for. I shouldn’t be so sure, though. I concede it is possible Dan Brown’s research may trace your bloodline back to a great-great-great-great . . . (you get the point!) grandmother from Magdala and, by the way, that gal at the final dinner table does have that Gore-y aura to her but so does Mona in the Louvre. But we can’t worship you, and the hotter it gets the less I’ll feel like it just the same. If things made good sense, it might be different. But when logic gives way to lunacy, something’s got to go. And if you couldn’t muster up enough charisma to defeat a bumbling, word assassin that allegedly can’t walk and find Bin Laden at the same time except to recount little itty-bitty pieces of paper that your constituents couldn’t even skewer effectively in their patriotic effort to anoint their God-given prince the title of king, then why should we put a whole lot of stock into what you say now?
Just one good reason that has nothing to do with blind faith and I’m yours. Instead I am barraged day after day with a chads worth of evidence to build a consensus of science. Remember, your “people” couldn’t punch holes in paper, Al, so what should make me think your educated “people” can predict climate change to a reliability greater than TWC who can only give me a percentage chance of rain tomorrow yet promise me ten years from now I will be toast in my SUV? I’m looking for evidence not consensus. I get consensus from the Weather Channel. But the evidence overrides consensus when I’m ringing out my socks because Weather jocks guessed wrongly. Those with myopia typically can see nearby objects clearly but distant objects appear blurred.
That’s the official definition from Wikipedia dealing with eyesight but it is directly relevant to the myopic vision of ideologues also. Remember the adage “Can’t see the forest for the trees?” If Gorean philosophy requires logic just like other systems require, let’s extend the analogy to a logical end encompassing all factors to their “natural” extensions instead of focusing on just a portion of a scenario to proselytize the brainless. Following is a response to someone who stated something on the order of “well, both sides have a point, but the evidence warrants playing it safe on the global warming side and what would that hurt?
Oh, maybe hugging a tree could cause you to follow-up with kissing your ass goodbye . . . maybe? If you deal with all the ramifications of your actions, that is. Kind of like admiring those trees and forgetting that a forest can only exist and thrive when some of the trees are eventually taken out. You can either cut them down to thin the forest and keep it healthy or Mother Nature will do it in her own way just as she has done it for millenniums . . . without our help.
[Don’t mean to butt in the conversation, but I’d like to add a little information along with logic. It’s just an idea and I don’t want to poo-poo the theory of Mankind adding carbon dioxide and other pollutants to the atmosphere because that’s a given: we did and we do. It’s only logical it will have some kind of effect however little.]
The theory just a few short years ago was that this additional carbon dioxide was breaking open the Ozone layer and allowing in more ultraviolet rays. So is CO2 the culprit? Mechanization and fossil fuels are likely contributors as well as the Sun itself which can never be regulated.
In 1970, the Earth population was just below 4 billion persons. In 2007, it’s rapidly approaching 7 billion and surely will double the 1970 mark sometime in the next few years. And since we human beings breathe in oxygen and then expire CO2 into the atmosphere ourselves–now at a rate almost twice the amount of 40 years ago–how much of a contribution do we as living organisms contribute to the degeneration of our own planet? If we eliminate all of the fossil fuel contributors to global warming, how long will it be–since the resulting Utopia will surely make life “heaven on earth” by the standards of Green thinkers–our own population will strangle this planet with own emissions naturally occurring, and not even considering spatial, nourishment and natural resource consumption?
Nature has its own way of adjusting itself no matter what our contribution and wanting to conserve energy, find better ways to fuel our endeavors and having a desire to be relevant to the planet we live on is a noble idea by any measure. But the same people who strive to control our lives today with the assumption that the answer lies in controlling nature will also be the ones once our population reaches the breaking point that will want to decide which segment of the billions must be disposable to relieve this earth of its natural population. The fear of global warming today will soon give way to the terror of over population in the coming centuries because we as a world society continually strive to override Nature with our narcissistic belief that we are the masters of our own Fate when all we are momentary little pissants who think we know better.
What happens when the herd gets too big on the Savannah? Lack of food and resources starve the weakest and Nature makes her adjustment. It’s not a rule I concocted. It’s the way Nature rules. But now our advances in technology, medicine, food production, energy, et al., have disturbed the natural balance of nature by allowing us to live longer, more comfortably, etc. At a population of 1 billion, not a big deal. But now since we’re having a problem taking care of our own in Darfur, the call to quell the Earth’s heat with a mythical devotion to conservation for the planet is logically a non-sequitur if one considers that such an action will only propel this planet toward another horrible catastrophe since with such improved conditions, population would continue or accelerate to a different but nonetheless merciless end.
Solution? Do we exterminate people now or later? Better yet, let’s just get on the Global Warming Bus and wave exuberantly as we pass by Mother Nature on our way to self-aggrandizement. Of course, She has that wry smile on her face full well knowing that once we reach our final destination, it will be us searching our souls for another different solution when She’s had the answer all along: the natural way of survival of the fittest. Self-regulating and unforgiving.
“Real evidence on both sides.” The only thing “real” is like statistics interpretation; it depends entirely on how a question is asked and then interpreted. And if you don’t take into account all the ramifications of your conclusion, you might as well hug a tree. At least the tree might get something out of it because the other few billions (and multiplying exponentially) of people won’t be giving a damn because you feel good.
It’s really not necessary in the grander scheme of things to hug a tree and cut down those who disagree with you. The tree is more likely to give you a splinter, but your opponent is more likely to give you a hug.