Dan linked to a report that NASA satellite data showed that in 2005, enough ice to cover California melted in Antarctica.
I read the report and came to the final sentence..."No further melting has been detected through March 2007."
Maybe there hasn't been further significant ice melt in the past two years. Maybe there has been ice buildup. Maybe the data just isn't available yet. Regardless, this seemed to me like it could use a little more elaboration, and I posted as much in Dan's comments.
Hell, it doesn't really change the climate debate one way or the other, I was just curious.
But the winner of the inaugural Angry Blogger Award didn't take kindly to my curiosity. A commenter know only as "les" invited me, after what I thought was a pretty vanilla comment by myself, to "Get a fucking clue or shut up."
The funny thing is that a lot of (not all) Liberal bloggers like to position themselves as being on the side of open mindedness, curiosity and the scientific method.
"Ask questions," they say. "Don't take it on faith. Be skeptical."
Frankly, my comment wasn't even very skeptical. In more than two years, I don't recall every writing that I think global climate change is hooey. I've called out AlGore for being a hypocrite about it, sure, but that's a bit of a different issue.
Anyway, "les" did prove Dan's point... that the issue is politically polarizing. He probably didn't intend to make a bad example of himself, to assume he knows my position on the issue based on an innocent and relatively innocuous question. He revealed himself to be the kind of prejudice, knee-jerk, hysterical, red-in-the-face, frothing-at-the-mouth fanatic that most Liberals criticize.
So for showing that he was the Jerry Falwell of Liberals yesterday, I confer upon "les" the Angry Blogger Award.
Congratulations
Angry Blogger Award
Dude, chill outtagged: global warming, climate change, blogger, liberal, fanatic, NASA, environmentalist, Angry Blogger Award
Thanks for the recognition. Two points.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you're calm, reasonable and well informed. On the other hand, you raised a point about the relevance of a situation implying doubt about the effects of climate change, that minimal thought or research would debunk. The two characterizations don't really fit.
"Anyway, "les" did prove Dan's point... that the issue is politically polarizing." I guess my lack of civility made you miss my point--the issue, the reality of human-driven climate change, is not politically divisive. Reality just is what it is. Politicians and vested economic powers use dishonesty, suppression and money to cloud and deny the reality, and avoid addressing solutions. Voters and citizens who simply accept the bs, however calmly and "reasonably," are part of the problem.
When does your award go to Ann Coulter and her blogger/commenter supporters, who rant that global warming is a liberal conspiracy to impoverish and kill conservatives? I really don't think my little rant stacks up.
He wasn't giving you "recognition," les. He was calling you out for being an overreactive, apparently nasty-tempered commenter.
ReplyDeleteSee, this is why I don't want to have children. (Well, it was the *first* reason I didn't want to have children, anyway...there are a few more now that I'm older and have had more time to think about it.) Not the "les" guy...the possibility of the planet self-imploding thing. I've always figured that I'll (probably) be long gone before the planet gets worked into a full-destruction mode, and I certainly don't want any offspring of mine to have to deal with it after I'm gone, so I'm the end of my line. I'm part of the problem, I guess, because I accept whatever the BS is, and while I try to do some things to help here and there, I simply can't help the fact that my hair reacts better to aerosol hairspray, and I'm not gonna stop using it, dammit. As soon as they can stop all those cows from farting, we'll see if I can do something about switching hair products. I do my part there by eating a big, juicy steak now and again. So maybe that evens me out somehow.
It's all too much for me to even consider, is the thing. The world is going to get more polluted, the rain forests are still going to be taken out acre by acre, and those damned cows won't stop shitting, so what can I do about it all? Yep...not having kids. (Which you might see as being a good thing due to my lack of involvement/enthusiasm for the issue, I'm sure len. You wouldn't be the first to make a comment about that, so you might as well just let it go.)
"I guess my lack of civility made you miss my point"
ReplyDeleteDING! I sounds like you finally get it.
Your lack of civility and rationality got in the way of what you were trying to say. This is no big deal if your goal is just to blow off frustrated steam in a fit of hysterical rhetoric.
But if your trying to engage in a conversation, to convince someone of your point of view (which, I might add, wasn't being questioned in the comeents on Dan's blog), then your rant is nothing more than a meaningless clanging bell.
All I have to say is ... "Is that a Don Hertzfeld clip?" If so, brilliant!
ReplyDeleteAnd, I think Faith might be on to something. If we could just get cows to stop farting.... Also brilliant!
emaw, again you miss the point. The point is, you broadcast your misinterpretation as truth when minimal effort would show your error. How many ways can it be put? You prefer to misdirect rather than learn or educate; you're more concerned with form than substance; you can't speak to the evidence so you focus on style. Don't worry, I don't expect to convince you of anything; but it's good for others to see the game.
ReplyDeleteI think that new mast head (that thing at the top) is bangin!
ReplyDeleteThe D,
ReplyDeleteThanks for noticing. You really do rule.
Les,
I didn’t broadcast anything as truth. I merely pointed to what I perceived as a gap in the reporting of the aforementioned story – like when I point out the plot holes in books and movies.
Somehow, you have inferred from a four sentence comment that I’m some kind of environment-destroying oil baron, and you’ve tried to make me the embodiment of everything you hate (I'm guessing there are some offline personal issues you're dealing with that are bleeding throug into your posts).
But I’m tellin' you man, I've never tried to denounce global climate change in nearly two years of blogging. So you are the one making assumptions based on lack of evidence. You’ve done the same with Jim and Travelingal. You’re so enraged you don’t even know who’s "on your side" in the argument.
Re: new mast head, I agree with "the d". It's rocking!
ReplyDeleteA little late to this party, but you are spot-on. And your response to anger precluding a recognition of "friends" is apt as well.
ReplyDeleteIt has come to the point where we must not only agree with conclusions but the reason, as well. For an argument to be valid, the premises, evidence and conclusion all need to be ship-shape.
Cheers.
Thanks Randall. Though I don't think it's what Yeats specifically meant, I can't help but think of the phrase "while the worst Are full of passionate intensity"
ReplyDeleteNot that pasionate intensity is inherently bad, but as Yoda would say, "Careful be. Cloud your judgement, your anger does."