We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
This is actually somewhat rare. It's one thing if individual bloggers face off, like some squabble between Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Reynolds, but the big league blogging sites, like Pajamas Media, Townhall, Politico and RealClearPolitics, usually refrain from any specific finger-pointing or name-calling.
Still, I agree that this Politico piece of AGW sputum is an exception. As I was reading it, I was thinking in the back of my mind, "Wow, what is this, 2003?" Then I get down to the comments and some guy's exclaiming, "Wow, this looks like a piece from 2003!" It just reeks of nostalgia. The only thing missing was any mention of the polar bears and their sad, plaintive plight.
The problem, as with any AGW article these days, is that the question that immediately arises is, do they know what they're claiming is complete bullshit — and thus they're just flat-out lying to us? Is it money, power, sex? Ego, pride, reputation? Or are they honestly so naive as to believe everything they read in the MSM and disregard the rest? As the renown TigerHawk would ask, can you think of a third alternative?
I have no comment as I read it yesterday and my mind has mercifully deleted the entire contents — and I refuse to go through such an ugly ordeal again. My guess is that he was entirely correct about the warming part, right up until he used the word "man".
The response from RealClearPolitics is not only a superb piece in itself as he totally dismantles the guy, but it also has some interesting background on Galileo, which is actually why I'm posting it. I don't do straight AGW anymore. The whole topic is just so 2010.
I would only add that despite my having a plethora of questions for the author of the first article, the very first question — as it relates to the title of his post — would be, "What does global warming have to do with the GOP and politics?" From the title of his post, alone, he exposes the fact that this is an ideological rant bent along established party lines, not an independent review of a scientific question. It's just amazing lefty writers don't understand how clearly we see through the ideological patina they cover themselves with.
As a small footnote, Bird Dog did one of his semi-annual "Tell your friends about Maggie's Farm" posts the other day. When you describe it to them, you can now add, "It's the kind of site where you'll see the words plethora and patina in the same paragraph!"
The original charges against Galileo were not for teaching the Copernican theory, but for
not believing in transsubstantiaton.
A Jesuit Priest, Scheiner, independently discovered suspots around the same time as Galileo.
Scheinder thought the spots were clouds above the sun, and the sun itself remained pristine
and unblemished, as assumed by Aristotle.
A second Jesuit Priest, Grassi, discovered that comets orbit the sun.
Galileo, although very intelligent, was a boor in interpersonal relations. He accused
Scheiner of being a theif, and accused him of stealing Galileo's idea.
Galileo thought comets were atmospheric phenomena, and claimed that Grassi had been drunk, and
hallucinated his observations.
Being only human, Grassi and Scheiner were ticked off at Galileo, and sicked inquisition on him, stating that Galileo's atomic theory contradicted the Catholic belief in trans-substantiation. The non-belief in trans-substantiation was the original charge against Galileo. The charge against
the Copernican belief was an afterthough, pursued after the first charge didn't stick.
Galileo didn't courageously offer himself up as a martyr for science, instead he cravenly buckled under to the inquisition, and publicly recanted his position.
The whole affair was brought about by Galileo behaving like
a jackass and getting his comeuppance.
A more realistic analogy of Galileo with CAGWers is his position on tides. Galileo thought tides were caused by the sloshing bsck and forth of water caused by earth's rotation,
just as CAGWers believe climate changes are caused by the amount of CO2 sloshing around in the atmosphere.
Galileo dismissed Kepler's belief that tides were caused by the moon, and to a lesser extent by the sun, as the speculations of a superstitious nut, We now know that the
superstitious nut was correct.
Incidentally, thanks to Einstein's general theory
of relativity, we are no more incorrect in presuming that the sun goes around the earth than we are in that the earth goes around the sun. Einstein used tensors to describe general relativity. Ttensors were a method of
describing the universe in terms of invariants. The tensors may be easier to work with using the sun as the center, but using the earth as the Axis is no more wrong than taking the equation of an ellipse, and rotating and moving that ellipse on a graph.