« Sandbox - 29nov18 | Main | Coming Apart and the Beltway Bubble (updated 4dec18) »

30 November 2018


Todd Juvinall

You should contact Don Rogers and Brian Hamilton at the local paper and ask them to review this. They are "TB's".

George Rebane

ToddJ. 311pm - neither gentleman has a technical background, so all they do is echo the ‘consensus science’ argument.

Todd Juvinall

Agreed. But your article could tweak their bias.

George Rebane

ToddJ 344pm - Maybe. But from emails I've gotten in the past re my commentaries, I think they are at least occasional readers of RR.

Scott O

re Don Rogers - in reading his 11/29 op ed I would say he wouldn't know science if it bit him in the ass. He uses the last 150 years as a basis for the last millennia.

Bill Tozer

It’s human nature to think when things are going good it will always be this way, forever and ever, Amen. It is also human nature to think when things are going bad, things are worse than they actually are.—-author unknown.

Which brings us to the Hockey Stick. If one truly believes in the Al Gore’s Global Warming hockey stick, then if things are left the way they are, the planet will only get hotter and hotter and hotter until we all are fried like a Frito and die. The planet will be knocked off it’s axis and hurl us toward the Sun and we are all going to die. Or thrown out into outer space and we are all going to freeze to death. Either way, it’s man made.

Th Climate Mass Hysteria Mob sees only the hockey stick. The skeptics see waves with peaks and valleys. The ‘true believers’ of man made Climate Doom see only the hockey stick with a one way steep trajectory... even to the point of discarding scientic evidence that does not fit their belief system narrative. The ‘deniers’ see a hockey stick alright, which is used as the arm of the pendulum swinging back and forth, back and forth.



"The Climate Mass Hysteria Mob sees only the hockey stick."

It seems to me that the Climate Mass Hysteria Mob sees an entire set of deep changes to be made to society and this is as good as any reason to implement them.

If the point of the exercise was simply to reduce human-sourced greenhouse gases, some engineering rigor would lead you to different actions.

That's why I can't take them seriously.

That would be a good GeorgeR article. Let's say that CO2 et al represented an existential threat (as opposed to all the other environmental pollutants), what exactly should be done? Wear the oppositions hat for a moment and see where that leads you.

Bill Tozer

Scenes @ 7:52 am

Excellent reply, my good man, excellent. You went straight to the bigger picture. You aren’t suggesting that the ends justify the means, are you? Say it ain’t so.

As an off topic (or is it?) follow up question, why have the dangerous Leftinista Socialists never explained that socialism is impossible with open borders?

George Rebane

BillT 904pm - probably a Sandbox or Scattershots question since there is no recent topic on governance and/or border security, but welcoming illegal entrants (aka migrants) might be an appropriate thread. But my short answer is that 1) socialists have never even explained (the full course of) socialism, and 2) socialism is a very possible interregnum with open borders (that sacrifice the sovereign nation-state) since that will lead to economic then civil chaos, which promotes the transition to ever larger regional jurisdictions on the way to global governance. What's not to like about socialism with open borders?

Scott O

For those out there complaining about the 'fossil fuel' industry money controlling the AGW debate:
"Emerging cities could attract $29 trillion in climate cash"
As always - follow the money.

The comments to this entry are closed.