As they flow off the land, we are warned, seas rise. Yet something else is lately worrying geologists: the likelihood that the Earth's crust, relieved of so much formidable weight of ice borne for many thousands of years, has begun to stretch and rebound.People like this, who have no data and only their own imagination to support their statements, give climate science in general a bad name to any individual who would like see real conclusions from real data. He clouds reality with his bullshit and anyone who believes climate change is a crisis should write this moron off, and if possible, tell him to shut the fuck up.
As it does, a volcano awakens in Iceland (with another, larger and adjacent to still-erupting Eyjafjallajokull, threatening to detonate next). The Earth shudders in Haiti. Then Chile. Then western China. Mexicali-Calexico. The Solomon Islands. Spain. New Guinea. And those are just the big ones, 6+ on the Richter scale, and just in 2010. And it's only April.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Extremist Blames Man-Made Climate Change (or Global Warming depending on the propagandist you ask) For Eyjafjallajokull
I admit it. It is fully possible that the climate is changing due to the actions of man. Whether it is having a net negative or positive affect, whether it is a crisis or not a crisis, is hard to tell. Why? Because ass-holes like Alan Weisman are given space on mainstream news websites to write the following completely unsupported nonsense:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Actually, it is not "imagination", Josh, it is logic. And yes, his thesis is supported by logic and evidence about how the Earth's crust works. Duh.
It's a lot like when hockey players skate on a pond. The ice continually shifts under their weight until its pressure balances to the weight and movements of the players. The Earth's crust is much the same way. Some direct evidence of this happening would be nice, though.
The problem here is that certain ideologies only react, they don't think.
"The problem here is that certain ideologies only react, they don't think."
I agree. Instead of identifying this idiot's conclusion as a hypothesis for which remains to be proven, you go head and assume it as fact because it sounds logical and the individual has some knowledge of the earths crust. This, is of course the danger of this extremist being given space on CNN; idiots like you will mistake his conclusions of fact instead of thinking it through and realizing there is absolutely no way this man could know that man-made global warming is responsible for the earthquakes we're experiencing. You go forward comparing the earth's crust to ice on a pond, as if there's only 12 inchs of dirt beneath us and then a giant liquid mass. Because, you know, the earth's crust acts just like a ice on a pond.
YOU are why this man needs to shut the fuck up.
thesis = hypothesis, Josh. "that man" is hypothesizing.
Anyway, if massive changes to the Earth's surface occur, there is no reason to not believe that it would effect the Earth's crust. Don't want to believe it? Fine. Ignore the thesis process, but that just makes you look ridiculous.
Again, getting pissy about scientific hypothesizing and conjecture looks pretty silly to me.
"Again, getting pissy about scientific hypothesizing and conjecture looks pretty silly to me."
What is pretty silly is accepting hypothesizing and conjecture as fact.
"What is pretty silly is accepting hypothesizing and conjecture as fact."
That is your assertion, not mine or anybody else. The essays is 100% conjecture and hypothesizing. In fact, it starts with a question, which is by definition not a fact.
It seems to me that your totalitarianism is showing its ugly head. Since don't actually believe in free speech, but in private property totalitarian "free speech", you can do nothing more than complain and bitch about a hypothetical essay - because you disagree with it. The last three paragraphs reveals the suggestion that he is making in greater detail: likelihood, may, if... all words of non-fact conjecture.
"It seems to me that your totalitarianism is showing its ugly head. Since don't actually believe in free speech, but in private property totalitarian "free speech", you can do nothing more than complain and bitch about a hypothetical essay - because you disagree with it. The last three paragraphs reveals the suggestion that he is making in greater detail: likelihood, may, if... all words of non-fact conjecture."
Only because you do not understand what totalitarianism is. I fully support free speach. I fully support CNN's right to publish this drivel. I completely disagree with their decision to give this idiot space on their website. I understand that the writer knows what he is saying is not fact, and I understand that it is being portrayed as opinion, but as your first comments illustrates, idiots will treat it like fact.
"Only because you do not understand what totalitarianism is."
Totalitarianism has its roots in private property, just like the slave system.
"I fully support free speach. I fully support CNN's right to publish this drivel. I completely disagree with their decision to give this idiot space on their website."
Then you are against the very essence of free speech: debate, conjecture, opinion, and imagination.
"I understand that the writer knows what he is saying is not fact, and I understand that it is being portrayed as opinion, but as your first comments illustrates, idiots will treat it like fact."
Then your problem is with the idiots, not CNN. CNN, at least in this instance, has done what it supposed to do.
Post a Comment