Oh, you’re the fat pig who is in the marching band, you have no shot.

Please. Feel free Mr. CON-rad.

Comment by dbadass — March 11, 2008 @ 8:35 pm

It’s an inability to respond to global warming evidence with anything other than opinion pieces by prominent deniers, or the aforementioned attacks on the messengers.

Is the Gore thing some kind of kill the messenger type deal or is it something else? Either way, I continue to be more interested in how you might explain the military’s current investment in contingency planning for a changing climate resource shift in geopolitics, acknowledgement by the insurance industry of the need to plan for potential losses due to a changing climate, strategic position of multinational for the staking of claims in new regions of exploration, and all the other responses we are beginning to see. I have no desire to insult the intelligence of anyone but I can’t see any scenario in which an internet nobody somehow is so much more enlightened

Are they igneous, or snarkimentary rocks?

I appreciate your transliteration: “the stone pile guy” . I just wanted you to know that. .

-me

Comment by dbadass — March 11, 2008 @ 6:00 pm

That’s because you haven’t been following the evolution of the troll.

It’s really quite remarkable.

The so called conservatives of today, thru media and think-tank strawman arguments, undermine their own ideology in order to “win”

We see this paradox in action. You want smaller government then elect a guy who uses fear tactics to create a bigger government.

You want to be free and you allow a terrorist, who hates your freedoms, take them away because you fear him.

You say you want to cut government spending, but rush into wars of choice that increase government spending.

You say that Clinton dissembled the military, but the fact is Rumsfeld and Cheney were responsible for 66% of that cuts in military personnel.

You say Clinton was tax and spend, a popular strawman, yet in George W. Bush’s first term was 48.5 percent in nominal terms. That’s more than twice as large as the increase in discretionary spending during Clinton’s entire two terms (21.6 percent), and just higher than Lyndon Johnson’s entire discretionary spending spree (48.3 percent).

You want smaller budgets, yet Bush gave your a record 3 trillion dollar one.

You want tax cuts, but elected a guy that cut your buying power in half by devaluing the dollar by some 40%.

And no, The cairngman, I dont want you to think like me, I want people to think for themsellves and stop listening to the rubbish being pedaled and actually LOOK at the facts instead of depending on some crowing cranium bloviate on some outdated amplitude modulate radio signal for their political news/views which is really nothing more then controversial obfuscation.

Comment by Thecairngman — March 11, 2008 @ 4:59 pm

With apologies to Mark Twain, this post seems to violate rule #7 of the Troll Rules governing Literary Art in Domain of Political Fiction:

“when a personage talks like an illustrated, gilt-edged, tree-calf, hand-tooled, seven- dollar Friendship’s Offering in the beginning of a paragraph, he shall not talk like a negro minstrel in the end of it.”

Only this is the reverse.

Comment by Thecairngman — March 11, 2008 @ 4:59 pm

Well statistics should not be mistaken to ignore exceptions but everyone has seen the numbers as related to political thought and levels of education. I believe even Karl Rove had a thing or two to say on that issue

You make about as much sense as tits on a tree.

Comment by Thecairngman — March 11, 2008 @ 4:22 pm

Southern Baptist?

See what I mean? The blogosphere equivalent to “Wah wah wah wah wa wah”.

Comment by ralph the wonder llama — March 11, 2008 @ 4:28 pm

Shayne feels you ralph.

The personal profit realized by the CEOs of energy companies will be reduced if, by the alarm over the gross economics of energy use raised by this issue leads to the public turning to more independent alternative energy sources ( solar, geothermal. bio-waste etc and any combination thereof). Far worse though would be if the government encouraged such alternatives.

Big Oil hasn’t developed its own industry in 32 years. Energy efficiency for appliances and cars, and pollution standards have ALWAYS been forced by responsive and responsible governments and ALWAYS been opposed by extant commerical interests as a threat to immediate profits should they be obliged to conform.

The question is, global warming or not, isn’t energy efficiency a sensible and worthwhile goal? Isn’t it also good business? European and Japanese companies have long thought so. Their auto manufacturers aren’t losing billions, US companies are. European and Japanese consumers pay much higher energy costs than US consumers, but their economies are in much better shape than the US because they have been practicing energy efficiency for years.

The “bad for businessand the economy ” argument of the deniers does not hold. None of their arguments hold because it is THEY who are making political arguments whilst the GW/CC camp is making rational apolitical arguments ( and never mind the moral dimension).