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.
I have seen that eye-roll that he refers to, too many times. It's infuriating. If you want to see it, ask somebody if they have considered how much global warming would benefit the earth, and humans too.
I saw this earlier. Where de Boer goes wrong is in expecting that their views are founded on intellectual premises to begin with. He is puzzled because he has been taught that the Real Intellectuals, those on the left, operate by rational discussion, consideration of alternatives, etc. When he asks for intellectual clarification, he receives back the assurance that it is obvious that these are the right answers, and he despairs that they do not support this.
They don't support this with intellectual argument because leftism is social, not intellectual. In one sense, they are right: it is the most fashionable set of beliefs, and that should be obvious to him. They are not wrong to say that it is obvious, for in the social realm, it is. Only when one confuses that with intellectual evidence do things go awry.
This is not to say that the leftists are always wrong, BTW. What is fashionable is not automatically stupid. It's just that you can't rely on it to be right.
Assistant Village Idiot
de Boer suffers from the very "disconnect" he decries.
Said (like AVA above #1) in other words,
this guy's cognitive dissonance is that
he's trying to make sense of nonsense...
...saying he identifies with the Radical Left
(which is interested in power SOLELY)
but expects them to "reason" (ha!) like he does.
Where I disagree with #1 is that, because of this,
I believe Leftists are therefore MOSTLY (if not always) wrong,
and what is fashionable/obvious is ALMOST always wrong/stupid.
Their assumptions are mistaken for facts, and are never enumerated, much less discussed.
Few people question their fundamental assumptions, regardless of political persuasion.
When pollsters ask Republicans and Democrats whether the president can do anything about high gas prices, the answers reflect the usual partisan divisions in the country. About two-thirds of Republicans say the president can do something about high gas prices, and about two-thirds of Democrats say he can't.
But six years ago, with a Republican president in the White House, the numbers were reversed: Three-fourths of Democrats said President Bush could do something about high gas prices, while the majority of Republicans said gas prices were clearly outside the president's control.
The News Junkie: Ask somebody if they have considered how much global warming would benefit the earth, and humans too.
On a densely populated world, stability is preferred. Some warming (+1°C) won't not cause significant problems, but rapid change beyond that will tend to disrupt agriculture, bring about human migration due to inundation and desertification, and result in widespread ecological damage.
1. It's been COOLING for at least the last 15-20 years.
2. There's NO compelling proof that man's "input" to warming OR cooling
is of any significance (as opposed to, say, a volcanic eruption),
or that man could do much of anything significant to "alter/slow it.
3. After all, it's just a scam to surrender local/national power to international bodies.
kauf buch: 1. It's been COOLING for at least the last 15-20 years.
That is incorrect. Over the last 20 years, NOAA shows warming of 0.177 ±0.090 °C/decade. HADCrut4 shows 0.159 ±0.097 °C/decade.
kauf buch: 2. There's NO compelling proof that man's "input" to warming OR cooling is of any significance
That is incorrect. The physics of greenhouse warming have been known for over a century. In particular, the surface and troposphere are warming, while the lower stratosphere is cooling — a signature of greenhouse warming.