In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Rachel Sweet | Main | Arms Dealers »

March 29, 2008


Donald Pittenger writes:

Dear Blowhards --

* In about half an hour from now (it's almost 7:30 Saturday evening, Pacific Daylight Time as I type this) something called "Earth Hour" will be upon us Left-Coasters. The idea is that we should turn off the lights in the house for an hour in recognition of something or other.

Nancy is off attending cultural events with my sister, so I have the freedom to honor Earth Hour in the most appropriate manner.

I'll be turning on every light visible from the outside. After all, we had an unusually late snow yesterday and the neighborhood needs all the warmth and cheer it can get.

* What ever happened to hat etiquette?

It probably disappeared along with the fedora, circa 1960. Just in case you forgot, let me mention that men are supposed to remove their hats when entering a building -- especially a church or a house.

But these days, in the baseball cap era, guys leave their hats on everywhere except church. I notice this mostly in restaurants. And if there was a mirror handy, I might even notice myself wearing one in a restaurant.

I assure you that I only wear a hat indoors occasionally. Hat-wearing places for me include airports, shopping malls and bookstores -- the latter because I need both hands free for browsing. I tend to wear a cap in fast-food restaurants, but not in fancier ones.

Even so, I'm not sure Mother would be pleased.



posted by Donald at March 29, 2008


Donald, I live in Australia, where "Earth Hour" had its inception, (and not far from the town of Tamworth, one of the first in the world to light its streets electrically). Like you, I celebrated with a blaze of lights. I reflected on the volcanic glory of energy derived from coal, hydro and nuclear technology; and on the beauty and ingenuity of the power-grid that brings all that energy to my home and fingertips. I also reflected on the unwholesome, polluting, dangerous and yet feeble power-sources that preceded the modern grid...

Things like candles.

Posted by: Robert Townshend on March 30, 2008 5:13 AM

One night a year the power stations should divert their wires into the ground so that we would all get a chance to see the stars come out. Global warming, who knows, but what I want is to see the Milky Way behind the Space Needle. More people would get behind this blackout because it's not for gay reasons.

Posted by: James on March 30, 2008 6:12 AM

When visiting St. Patrick's in NYC last year, I saw several baseball-cap wearing yokels with their hats on - inside the church. Sheesh.

A baseball cap worn everywhere, especially backwards, makes you look like an idiot. YMMV.

Posted by: chug on March 30, 2008 7:13 AM

I wonder, will they be observing Earth Day in the People's Paradise of China, far and away earth's greatest polluter? I rather doubt it. And I doubt that the Leftists bestowing this guilt trip on the Evil West are in any mood to lecture their beloved socialist brethren in the East.

Posted by: ricpic on March 30, 2008 9:18 AM

Your hat etiquette lasted through the 80s for us hicks and our cowboy hats. It still exists today for a sizable number of us, but we're all of a certain age (over 40), or of a certain raising (rural.) The baseball cap, on the other hand -- well, that's an essay.

Posted by: Scott on March 30, 2008 10:01 AM

I love that scene in The Sopranos where somebody (Christoper?) gets a guy to take off his baseball cap while seated in a fine restaurant, just by mysteriously whispering something in his ear. That's the only time I've ever thought, "Yeah, it would be cool to be a gangster!"

Posted by: Lester Hunt on March 30, 2008 11:19 AM

James -- The times I best saw the Milky Way were while on a troop ship crossing the Pacific, many hundreds of miles from any settlement. Not much twilight out there either.

Posted by: Donald Pittenger on March 30, 2008 11:41 AM

I grew up in a time and place (upper Midwest, 40s) when men always removed their hats. It was a courtesy to others. It wasn't until I reached the West and discovered males sawing away at steaks and shoveling down beans with huge cowboy hats on their heads that I was even aware that different regions had different etiquette. Later I discovered the South as the home of the glued-on baseball cap.

Posted by: Richard S. Wheeler on March 30, 2008 12:05 PM

Yesterday I saw a guy wearing his hat in a theater. Dance group from Brazil was performing, and the theater was packed. I can only imagine the epithets he's got from the row behind.

Posted by: Tatyana on March 30, 2008 12:52 PM

It is fascinating that concern about the excessive use of fossil foods to fuel an often very inefficient contemporary lifestyles is a considered a "leftist" notion. Meanwhile, "conservatives" revel in deriding ideas such as lowering our carbon footprint without offering any reason for their disdain beyond it being an idea supported by "hippies" and therefore unworthy of their consideration. Or asking why we in the west shouldn't continue to enjoy our privileged place on the planet because China (desperate to rise above abject poverty) supposedly isn't following suit.

It is particularly curious to see this paired here with a fine "harrumph" about hat etiquette, surely one of the harbingers of a world going to hell in hand-basket. Not to say that even a billed cap wearing ol' hippie like me doesn't observe the same rules of decorum that his granddad did.

Posted by: Chris White on March 30, 2008 1:23 PM

Chris -- I have the impression that many Righties are willing to entertain and even practice conservation. What I (and, I suspect, many others) don't like is the scare-mongering and claims of "settled science" regarding the global warming issue which seems to translate at times into something approaching censorship. (There were reports a day or two ago that Algore himself indicated that those who doubted him were akin to believers in a flat Earth. In other words, you don't deserve to be heard.) Worse than the relentless propaganda to me and others is the prospect of using such tactics as a wedge to intrude government even deeper into our lives. Many global warming enthusiasts are hard-left, and the one thing about this that truly frightens me is the possibility of them assuming power on the pretext of saving the planet.

As for the hat thing, I was simply making an observation regarding an apparently dying custom, admitting in the process that I too wear a hat indoors. Never said the world was going to hell.

Posted by: Donald Pittenger on March 30, 2008 2:56 PM

Baseball caps haven't entirely disappeared from the Manhattan landscape but there are a lot fewer of them around now than 5 years ago. Still, they're there, often on the heads of (one guesses) younger guys who are going bald. Which makes me wonder: Are more young guys going bald than in previous generations? Seems to me that youthful baldness was pretty rare back in the day ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on March 30, 2008 3:14 PM

One person's "scare mongering" is always another's sacred cow. It seems to me no less a case of scare mongering to float the idea (and here I'm simply reorganizing the phrases you employed in a logical order) that hard-leftist are using relentless global warming propaganda as a tactic to take control the government, seeking to impose censorship and further intrude in our lives.

Isn't there plenty of scare mongering going on about immigration and terrorism? However, if the thing to fear is government intrusion, wouldn't it be fair to say that in these areas "security" has been used to justify the government, specifically the Executive Branch, much greater intrusion in our lives? Yet on this topic it is thought of as a "hard left" position to question the validity of the evidence presented to back up the claims of existential crisis being used to effect these changes.

As for the hat thing, I've been accused of having no sense of humor ... perhaps humor, like the question of what attributes one deems "hot" ... varies widely from place-to-place and person-to-person.

Posted by: Chris White on March 30, 2008 4:37 PM

Chris White:

I believe in the basic facts about global warming, if not the almost religious fervor surrounding it, but you have to agree that something like this "lights out" campaign is simply just another social marker thing that has nothing to do with actually doing anything about it. In fact, most of the folks who worship at the altar of Al Gore are remarkably hypocritical about the whole deal.

Frex, I often get shit about leaving my monitor on at work when I go on break or my refusal to go out of my way to recycle things. This is despite the fact that the main people who bug me about that kind of shit all own cars, travel needlessly and own a hell of a lot more quickly obsolescent tech junk than I do. While my main reasons for not owning a car and living simply isn't predicated by environmental concerns the sheer gall of them lecturing me when they have gigantic carbon footprints compared to my own makes me want to strangle them. Lifestyle environmentalism based on cheap showy displays and mindless consumerism of "green" products is about as sickening as celebrities who purport to speak for the common man from the confines of their chaffeured limo.


I actually wear fedoras and panamas. My modus is to always remove in cases where
1. I could be obstructing someone, hence while seated in a theatre, though I do put it back on before I walk out the doors.
2. When in the presence of someone more senior than I am, in other words, when I'm a guest in someone's house, when I'm before a person of higher status or someone older than me.

I tend to keep in on at all other times.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on March 30, 2008 4:53 PM

Anybody remember when leties told us we needed to discover hedonism?

Now they just scold us. When did Puritanism become the province of the left?

And, yes, Chris, I do mean you. You are such a scolding old lady.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on March 30, 2008 5:14 PM

Worse than the relentless propaganda to me and others is the prospect of using such tactics as a wedge to intrude government even deeper into our lives.

The very existence of government implies rules and regulations limiting one's freedom to do anything they please without regard to others. Do you find speed limits "intrusive," or laws against public nuisance that prohibit you from operating a slaughterhouse in your backyard?

Gore was quite correct to analogize the global warming denialists with flat earthers. Anthropogenic global warming is the best scientific explanation that fits the facts and all the alternative explanations have been examined and found wanting. The propaganda in this case is the disinformation campaign that is the product of the fossil fuel industries, who have a vested interest in opposing limits on CO2 emissions. If these industries would remain unaffected by such regulation, there would have been little or no debate about global warming to begin with.

Posted by: Peter L. Winkler on March 30, 2008 6:28 PM

My sainted father was always complaining about restaurants' lack of hat racks. As he grew older, he could never understand that businesses no longer catered to hat wearers like him. He's wearing a halo now, so he no longer has that problem.

Posted by: Charlton Griffin on March 30, 2008 8:57 PM

Problems for Peter Winkler:

Carbon dioxide is approximately 0.05% of the earth's atmosphere. Approximately 97% of all CO2 released each year is released from our oceans. Only 3% of all CO2 released is accounted for by man-made sources. That means that humans account for only 0.0015% of atmospheric greenhouse gas. That means that CO2 releases by humans is negligible.

What's the most abundant greenhouse gas? Water vapor. Seventy percent of the earth's surface is covered by water! Clouds (condensed water vapor) have a far more powerful effect than even regular water vapor. Carbon dioxide is nothing. It has no effect on global temperature. None.

Carbon dioxide levels rise after temperatures rise, because warm ocean water releases CO2, and cold ocean water sucks it up. Higher global temperatures make CO2 level rise, not the other way around!

It is the sun that determines whether or not there is global cooling and warming, as the energy output of the sun fluctuates over time, and runs in cycles, like the ocean tides or like most other natural phenomena.

The global warming scam is just another way for the socialists to dictate and tax the ordinary citizen, as "carbon taxes" and "environmental inspectors" will be invading your houses soon enough to steal even more money for a larcenous criminal government.

Also, speed limits are advisory. They are not the law. Cops have to be on the scene to issue tickets, and the reason for the ticket is "reckless driving" or "driving too fast for conditions", not exceeding the speed "limit". Giving fines for that is another government scam. Fines are simply taxes. Speeding tickets should never carry fines, as it simply encourages the cops to go after law abiding citizens to raise revenue for the government, instead of more serious, non-money making law enforcement against real criminals.

Posted by: BIOH on March 30, 2008 9:53 PM

It's odd that the only person I know with a low, low carbon footprint! As well as living, shopping and working without a car, I grow lots of a useful species of bamboo, moso, which is some kind of record-holder for carbon take-up.

I do this not out of planetary piety, gaia-worship, or neo-puritan hostility to carbon. I do it because it makes sense. Just like nuclear energy makes sense.

Let me tell you, when you live this way, you become acutely aware of the contradictions (to use a mild word) in the life-styles of AGW preachers. This guy is not the nastiest, but he has to be the funniest.

Posted by: Robert Townshend on March 30, 2008 11:33 PM

I ached to believe BIOH, but assertion is not evidence. If the sun is in a hot cycle, it would affect all planets in our solar system in the same time frame and with the same intensity (adjusting for distance). But I have seen no such evidence. Perhaps he can supply actual sourced data for us.

Posted by: Richard S. Wheeler on March 31, 2008 9:51 AM

I was impressed by all of the exact percentages BIOH bandied about. It reminded me of Ronald Reagan talking about how trees are a major source of air pollution. And I guess the handful of speeding tickets I've gotten over the years, with the fines (or taxes if you prefer) calculated, in part, by how many miles per hour above the posted limit I was traveling were just figments of my imagination.

ST – even in my young hippie days and over the decades since, I've had a long running disagreement in semantics with certain friends about what constitutes hedonism. We'd go out and I'd order a salad with goat cheese and a craft brew beer, followed later by a small amount of herb and a single malt scotch. They'd have a bottle or two of wine with their dinner of soup, salad, surf'n'turf with the baked potato smothered in sour cream and chocolate mousse for desert, topped off by a couple of vodkas and whatever else might present itself. When I would ask why they'd subject their bodies to such an assault I'd be told they were hedonists, going for the gusto. I argued that I was the real hedonist; that I was enjoying every sensation to the fullest during the evening. They accused me of being a Puritan and an old lady, too.

Funny, they'd complain all the next day about how lousy they felt ... having been up worshiping the porcelain god at three in the morning and battling a headache and upset stomach. I still maintain that I'm the real hedonist ... I just look beyond momentary pleasures and calculate the after-effects into the equation as well. Kind of like the global warming debate.

Posted by: Chris White on March 31, 2008 12:37 PM

Chris White,

The percentages are not mine, they are from the climatologists. Its not wise to use an ad hominem argument against scientific facts. The two don't mix well.

As far as the gobal warming scam is concerned, I'm sorry that you and others are scared so easily, and don't have enough of a science background to know when you are being lied to.

And yes, the tickets that you got were a scam. Just because you go along with scams doesn't mean that they aren't scams. It also means you are ripe for future pocket-picking. And my my my, will your pockets be picked!

Richard Wheeler,

You can believe me that the solar data are true and are all over the internet--you just have to look. Keep in mind that the global warming movement is extremely well-funded, and the anti-global warming stance is not. Also keep in mind that the sun is responsible for heating the earth from almost absolute zero (minus 416 degrees Farenheit) to an average of about 60 degrees Farenheit. That's about 500 degrees. A two or three percent change in solar output would mean a 10-15 degree swing in average temperatures--a big shift.

PS, a great deal of the global warming hysteria data for planetary warming are due to the shutting down of weather stations in the 90's in the former Soviet Union, after the place fell apart. Many of these stations were located in Siberia--one of the coldest places on earth! do you think that might bias the global numbers higher, eh?

Posted by: BIOH on March 31, 2008 1:11 PM

Mr. Wheeler,
for scientific data on climate change please look here. Link courtesy Alan Sullivan.

Posted by: Tatyana on March 31, 2008 2:11 PM

I'd order a salad with goat cheese and a craft brew beer, followed later by a small amount of herb and a single malt scotch.

Wow, Chris, you are just so white.

Posted by: PatrickH on March 31, 2008 2:48 PM

Does solar activity influence our planet's climate? No doubt in my mind whatsoever. Do all of the greenhouse gases that have been pumped into the atmosphere, especially since the Industrial Revolution, also influence our climate? There's very little doubt in my mind this is also true. Do different lines of scientific inquiry into the subject that biases or blind spots? Of course. Within the broad scientific community studying various aspects of climate is it the consensus that AGW is real? Yes. Are many of the industries whose profits depend on current energy sources and practices afraid that changes (whether market driven or legislated) due to concern about global warming will hurt their bottom line? Obviously. Can we suppose that those who fear they will lose profits or market share due to calls to lower our dependency on fossil fuels have a vested interest in aggressively promoting any scientific evidence that refutes the consensus? You bet your ass they do! Have we ever seen similar public health and welfare debates in which a strong and growing scientific consensus is insistently attacked by those industries that might suffer from greater public knowledge and acceptance of the data using whatever available studies might counter that consensus? Tobacco's linkage to cancer comes most immediately to mind and then there's pesticides and dioxin and... well, there are enough that I'm sure everyone has one or two they can add to the list.

So, just to return to the original post for a moment, what's so wrong about a grass roots campaign to bring attention to a given topic? Is a silly, meaningless, drop in the proverbial bucket show of concern by shutting off the lights for an hour by those concerned about global warming so different than the display of yellow ribbons to show support for the troops or pink ones for breast cancer awareness? Is this really the slippery slope down which we'll slide toward some leftist fascistic future? Talk about scare mongering!

And Patrick, while I also might order a nice black bean soup ... or BBQ chicken and baked beans ... or a thin crust pizza ... or some grilled tuna - you're right, northern New England boy that I am, I am hopelessly white. And happy to embrace my distinct ethnic heritage.

Posted by: Chris White on March 31, 2008 5:35 PM

Repeating for Chris White--

By far, the most significant "greenhouse gases" (a total misnomer, really) are water vapor and clouds. There is absoulutely no proof that CO2 levels have anything to do with affecting temperature or climate. I challenge you to prove that it does.

Higher CO2 levels come after periods of global warming (due to solar activity). It is temperature that drives CO2 levels, not the other way around! And the increased CO2 has nothing to do with temperature once its released!

The powers that be are softening people up for energy shortages and blackouts with their "turn the lights off" propaganda--which is totally contrived, as there is plenty of energy and CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with temperatures.

Pssst! I tell you a secret--scientists can be bought off! Really! They are just like everybody else. If you don't understand the science, you become a mark. And by the way, the majority of scientists don't support the bogus CO2 warming theory. The media simply edits them out, that's all.

I tell you what--just for fun, do a little research on who initially started the "environmental" movement. You'll find out that it was the big oil companies. Why? Because environmentalists would block new refineries, power plant production, etc, and keep land off limits for new energy exploration. You see, this keeps oil prices artificially high--increasing the oil companies profits!

Do you know what theose big oil companies are doing with their profits? Buying up all the "alternative" energy companies! You keep them oligopolies, but you think that you are helping the earth!

How does this mesh with the anti-industrialist, anti-big business rhetoric of the left? It doesn't. The big boys buy both sides, fella. You need to figure it out how things work.

Posted by: BIOH on March 31, 2008 6:20 PM

Those with an interest in history may wish to reflect on the possibility of global cooling, particularly in the northern hemisphere. One thinks of the end of the first millennium, the early 1300's, the late 1600's. Even a small dip like that of the 1970's caused plenty of tribulation.

In the event of a marked cooling (please seek out impartial info on sun-cycles, Pacific Decadal Oscillation etc!), it may not be pleasant to live in an under-resourced, under-powered society.

To those who endure such a cooling, the orgy of ingratitude and self-loathing called Earth Hour will seem very strange and remote indeed.

Posted by: Robert Townshend on March 31, 2008 6:48 PM


How does water vapour fit in with CO2 emissions? When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air more to a higher (more or less) stabilized level. So CO2 warming has an amplified effect, beyond a purely CO2 effect.

How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000).

Posted by: Peter L. Winkler on March 31, 2008 6:59 PM

While we can argue about the veracity of Wikipedia here is the introduction to their entry on Greenhouse Gases. There are charts next to this in which the concentration of CO2 is shown in correlation with use of fossil fuel. These charts are at least as persuasive as those connecting solar activity and global temperature.

"Greenhouse gases are the gases present in the atmosphere which reduce the loss of heat into space and therefore contribute to global temperatures through the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases are essential to maintaining the temperature of the earth; without them the planet would be so cold as to be uninhabitable.[1][2]. Likewise, an excess of greenhouse gases can raise the temperature of the planet to unlivable levels. The term greenhouse gas is applied to, in order of relative abundance: water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and CFCs. Greenhouse gases are produced by many natural and industrial processes, which currently result in CO2 levels of 380 ppmv in the atmosphere. Based on ice-core samples and records (see graphs) current levels of CO2 are approximately 100 ppmv higher than during pre-industrial times, when direct human influence was negligible."

Or how about looking at this link that answers the 'CO2 rises after temperature rises' argument

No doubt BIOH et al will continue to disparage and deny any and all scientific claims that fail to confirm their views, so attempting to answer a demand for "proof" is inevitably useless. But what else is new?

And on that other burning question of our time, I still miss the Stetson Whippet fedora I inherited from my Grandfather and wore for years. I wonder where I lost it? Probably one of the places where I removed it indoors.

Posted by: Chris White on March 31, 2008 7:30 PM

Tatyana: Thank you for the material on sun cycles and their correlation to atmospheric temperatures. If the projections are correct, we may be in for a period of serious global cooling--and food shortages therefrom.

Posted by: Richard S. Wheeler on March 31, 2008 7:42 PM

Peter Winkler and Chris White,

Global warming is a political issue, not just a scientific one. And that means that open source Wikipedia is not a reliable source, period.

Clouds and snow cover reflect many times more solar radiation back into the atmosphere than any dispersed gas. But you are largely ignorant about science, so you wouldn't know that.

CO2 levels lag temperature increases and decreases. And the proof that CO2 levels don't cause warming is because global cooling has taken place in the past with higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere, put there from the previous warming! How could that possibly happen with your theory? The global warming theory of CO2 levels only shows a one-way increase into infinity. Yet the earth warms and cools in cycles. Your theory is rubbish.

CO2 follows temperature, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! Why is that so hard to understand? This is even shown in Al Gore's movie, except he tries to sidestep it. You remember, that scary scary movie (I think its really a comedy) when Al was up on a stage comparing temperature and CO2 levels in the past. Except in Al's movie, the graphs were one above the other. If you superimpose the two, you find out that CO2 levels lag temperature, just like I said. And every single climatologist knows that. But they take their payoffs and tell you the opposite, and you are gulllible enough to believe a paid liar like Al Gore (whose family wealth is from the oil business). C'mon, Al Gore made a living from lying to the general public! What are you thinking?

Remember, that's 600,000 years of data in that graph that supports what I just said. Explain that away.

Posted by: BIOH on March 31, 2008 9:03 PM

Mr. Wheeler wrote: If the sun is in a hot cycle, it would affect all planets in our solar system in the same time frame and with the same intensity (adjusting for distance). But I have seen no such evidence.

Well, having just returned from Jupiter, I have seen such evidence. It's getting much hotter there.

Posted by: Frank Adams on March 31, 2008 9:51 PM

Mr. Wheeler: I heard it from A. Sullivan, the gratitude (mine included) belongs to him.

Posted by: Tatyana on March 31, 2008 11:05 PM

The spirits of my northeast European ancestors whisper, "bring on the global cooling."

I never much liked the tropics. Cold austere plains with moss, pines, and birch trees, above them migrating birds in the steely autumn sky: that's more like it!

Posted by: PA on April 1, 2008 7:29 AM

My friends run a lovely, fairly upscale Italian restaurant in my town; he's the chef and she runs the front of the house. She refuses to seat any man with a hat, which leads to some funny debates with 20-somethings and once with an bald, gray-pony-tailed, 60ish guy who left before he would remove his baseball cap. Her place, her rules, and she refuses to give in, though she excepts cancer patients from this rule.

Michael, I find it hard to believe that there are any fewer caps on the heads of the young buttheads in NYC than up here in Boston, where they proliferate like fleas on a goat!

Posted by: Brutus on April 1, 2008 8:10 AM

Mr. Adams,

Surface temperatures of the nearer planets have been known and tracked for decades.


Posted by: Richard S. Wheeler on April 1, 2008 9:50 AM

Well, I guess I'm supposed to bow to BIOH, obviously his/her scientific brilliance, absent any political bias whatsoever, makes him/her the definitive last word on climate change. There is no real controversy, there is no general consensus, only BIOH has all the answers.

But I think not.

I sometimes like to check things on either side in, but then I'm a gullible idiot who thinks that IF AGW is real and we fail to do our best to reverse it, the consequences are likely to be dire for humanity. On the other hand, even if AGW is overblown, those efforts will do us no harm and might have significant side benefits (less air pollution, less asthma, new industries, new technology development, etc.)

Maybe BIOH should thumb his/her nose at all of us commie pinko scientifically ignorant fools by surrounding his/her abode with gas burning generators and keep them all running 24/7 ... just for spite. I'll bet breathing all that exhaust will be its own reward.

Posted by: Chris White on April 1, 2008 10:57 AM

What is political about facts? How am I trying to create some kind of political action on my part? Your side is the one going for the politicians, without any real proof, to tax and regulate the daylights out of the rest of us.

That web site you linked is simply another disinfo site, that falsely claims to offer both sides. Again, the real science doesn't support any kind of warming from CO2. Zero. Any website that says otherwise is not giving you both sides.

You have no right to change everybody's lifestyle or impose onerous laws on the rest of us without incontrovertible proof. Unless you have it (and you don't) mind your own business, and make decisions for yourself only.

BTW, you can save all the "carbon" you want, but some guy in China who has never had a car or flipped a light switch will just use what you save. You aren't making any real difference, if that's you motivation.

And don't you start with some kind of world government to impose your erroneous views on the rest of planet that doesn't agree with you. That's the next step. You watch. You'll undermine our national sovereignty with your unfounded fears.

Here's a presentation of the real science POV. If you like to hear both sides, you'll get the truth here. The guy is a good speaker too.

Posted by: BIOH on April 1, 2008 11:57 AM


I've lived through several environmental catastrophes that were guaranteed to be the end of human civilization.

In particular, overpopulation was the leftist crusade of the 1970s, fueled largely by the book "The Population Bomb." This book was required reading in every Rhetoric 101 course in America.

Paul Ehrlich predicted in this book that food riots would break out all over the globe and that famine would become epidemic. He predicted global wars over scare food resources.

He was completely wrong, hysterically wrong. Technology advanced in ways that he failed to foresee. Human ingenuity counted for far more than leftist crusaders could imagine.

I can remember well the proponents of that theory being just as impassioned and certain about their End of the World theories as the present day global warming enthusiasts.

You must also know that global cooling was predicted with equal certainty by leftists in the 1970s.

Not a good track record. Skip the commie stuff. Those of us with enough experience know that there is just something appealing to the human psyche in these doomsday scenarios. My first hunch, whenever a new one comes along, is to assume that the crusaders are driven by something other than their purported cause... like a desire to dramatize themselves, a desire to control other people, etc.

In particular, I often suspect that these End of the World scenarious are just replacement spiritual lives for people who have abandoned traditional religion.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on April 1, 2008 12:19 PM

Let's see ...Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute which is an advocacy institute dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government speaking at an event for Phyllis Shalafly's Eagle Forum (leading the pro-family movement since 1972) is offered as "real science". But Climate Debate Daily, offering links to articles of interest from both sides of the issue and touted by the London Times web site this way - "from the makers of Arts & Letters Daily, Climate Debate Daily ... rounds up news and gives equal voice to the dissenters and the activists and as such is a great place to go for varying interpretations of the latest happenings." is dismissed as "another disinfo site".

In short, anyone who does not agree 100% with BIOH is dismissed. Yet another example of the right's preference for belief over facts and rejecton of anyone who doesn't fall in line.

And I'm getting tired of ST's endless whining and frothing at the mouth about "commies & hippies and feminazis" ... take it to Rush and do the mega ditto dance.

Posted by: Chris White on April 2, 2008 6:36 PM


You never will debate me on facts, nor do you have any answer for Mr. Horner, except to try to dismiss his facts because of his associations--another tactic pioneered by the left (Stalinist "guilt by association"). BTW, just because you don't agree with the views of a group does not mean that the group is disreputable.

I sure hope the 2Blowhards post again on the global warming myth, because I've got a lot more info that will make you and everybody else's jaw drop. But I'll do it when the topic is fresh and more eyes are on it.

Posted by: BIOH on April 3, 2008 3:14 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?