Remember when Commissioner Dan Saltzman uttered these now-famous words when advocating for a Portland tree ordinance?
Yes, the notion of inanimate objects having legal standing is absurd. Yes, to actually believe it requires a rejection of the American concept of "rights" upon which this nation was founded, and which to a large degree is responsible for the success of the American experiment.
But sadly, advocating for such an idiotic idea in Democrat circles won't marginalize a person in the slightest. In fact, not only will it not prevent you from being appointed to the highest tier of national environmental policymakers, but the mainstream media doesn't think a belief in such things is anywhere near as scary for a government official as a belief in ....... Christianity.
President Obama's "Science Csar," John Holdren (the guy who is on record in his 1970's book advocating forced abortion or adoption of illegitimate children, sterilizing women after two kids, and even putting sterilizing chemicals in the drinking water of undesirable populations) also supported the notion of giving trees and other natural objects legal standing:
From a post on NRO Corner:
“One change in (legal) notions that would have a most salubrious effect on the quality of the environment has been proposed by law professor Christopher D. Stone in his celebrated monograph, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’” Holdren said in a 1977 book that he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich.
“In that tightly reasoned essay, Stone points out the obvious advantages of giving natural objects standing, just as such inanimate objects as corporations, trusts, and ships are now held to have legal rights and duties,” Holdren added.
So Obama's "Science Csar" is a fringe kook. Anyone want to argue otherwise?
But for the New York Times, which has not printed a single news article discussing Holdren's scary and extreme views, this stuff isn't anywhere near as damaging for a public official as the views held by the guy Obama has nominated to head up the National Institute of Health.
This guy, Dr. Francis S. Collins, led the effort to map the human genome. One of the major scientific accomplisments in history. The Times has already printed a news story and an op-ed piece decrying the Collins appointment on the grounds that he is ...... A Christian!
Sacre Bleu!
Apparently, a high level public official in charge of environmental policy being a thoroughgoing eugenicist and wanting to give trees rights doesn't raise any eyebrows at the New York Times. But an official with an avowed belief in God?
That just can't be allowed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
The really sad thing is the NYT remains the newspaper of record for the rest of the mainstream media.
What they choose not to cover is as important as what they choose to cover. Covering up the extreme views of Holdren is outrageous.
Pretending that a thoughtful discussion of how God relates to science, which Collins did in his book and his other writings and speaking, is neither extreme nor outrageous.
And which does the NYT present as a problem?
Is it any wonder why the nation's newspapers are dying a slow and painful death?
You didn't even try to address the question (which is a fair one): if one inanimate entity (such as a corporation) can have legal rights, why can't others (such as trees)?
Oh, "One Bad", when you stray out of your so-called 'field of expertise', you show how ignorant you truly are.
Per 'rights theory', only individuals have rights, and only only God grants them ... that among them are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... and that governments are created by citizens to secure their individual rights from being interefered with.
Corporations do not have rights. The law is used to grant certain authority to groups of individuals i.e. corporations, labor organizations -- but not 'rights'. It grants authority to government itself, often without a solid legal underpinning or lacking either citizen-approval or constitutional amendment to add new authority.
States do not have 'rights'. They have authority.
Trees do not have rights.
Of course, the Left does not recognize 'rights theory' per se. The Left does not recognize constitutionalism that differentiates between individual rights and government authority. That's just 'a failed policy of the past.'
So you can just go on along 'as you were' and continue to dazzle us with your vast expertise on AWG ... or cooling ... or whatever. If the climate can change, it needs to be taxed. Right?
Once trees have standing, can we file an amicus brief demanding increases in carbon dioxide?
.
Anon 3:17 - check your facts bud. Corporations have legal rights separate from their board of directors, etc...
I have a hard time taking this question seriously. David are you really saying the question of whether trees have rights is a legitimate question.
To the extent corporations have "rights" it is because corporations have the status of a person as a legal fiction, which the embodiment of the will of the individual sharelholders of the corporation.
That "person" is able to speak for itself through its board of directors.
To say a tree, or any other inanimate object, could have rights similar to a corporation is just silly. Precisely how would a tree speak for itself? I suppose you, David, would assume that your ilk would appoint yourselves as representatives of the interests of those trees.
As Oregon Guy says - what if those very trees objected to your CO2 limitation schemes? Seems to me that you yourself are the enemy of the rights of these trees.
Would a tree have the right to be free from harrassment by other animals, such as unwanted birds nesting in its branches?
Obviously a human would have no right to infringe on the rights of a tree, so no cutting felling them to build houses.
And if trees have rights, how about other vegetation and of course animal life? Certainly they would have rights too. What do we do when they infringe on each other's rights, as the food chain pretty much ensures?
I just can't believe a serious adult would ask such a question.
Beyond absurd.
You're kinda irony challenged, arne't ya?
Dr. Appell, I note that Rob made a statement, followed by a question, which you "didn't even try to address":
So Obama's "Science Csar" is a fringe kook. Anyone want to argue otherwise?
Apparently, that one is a bit too hard for you?
I note as well that Dr. Stone co-wrote his book with the Drs. Ehrlich - you may recall that Dr. Paul wrote "The Population Bomb" - the central premise of which had already been disproven by the time Stome collaborated with this misfit in 1977. Paul's book came out in 1968, and declared in no uncertain terms that the planet had reached its carrying capacity for humans, and further, that by the 1970's aand into the 1980's most people would starve to death, leaving only a remnant population. Moreover, he emphatically noted, there was nothing that could be done to stop it.
You seem to have a strong affinity for doomsayers, such as Ehrlich and AlGore. In Oregon, physician-assisted suicide has been a legal option for several years. If you truly believe the Ehrlichs and the AlGores, who maintain that humans are killing the planet, then what would be your logical choice in order to reduce this threat?
I notice the neither the Ehrlichs, nor the AlGores, nor any of the other hysterics have themselves taken the obvious step; like Holdren, they believe that they should be able to prescribe it - for other people.
If only there were some word in the English language that could describe the dissonance between the strongly espoused beliefs and the actions of those who claim to hold such beliefs....
David, you claim to be a writer; help me out here...oh wait.
Never mind, I think I found it:
Hypocrite.
Rob Kremer wrote:
> To the extent corporations
> have "rights" it is because
> corporations have the status of a
> person as a legal fiction,
> which the
> embodiment of the will of the
> individual sharelholders of the
> corporation.
Corporations (nonanimate entities) have such rights only because a court said they did -- in what many believe was a highly erronous decision. There's nothing in the Constitution that grants any rights to a nonanimate entity like a corporation.
> That "person" is able to speak
> for itself through its board of
> directors.
That's nothing but convention. Why should the board of directors be able to speak for a corporation? Why not the collective will of the shareholders? Or the workers? Or better yet the public, who grant the corporation its existence and who have a valid interest in monitoring and approving its activities?
The fact is, which you continue to ignore, is that we give certain rights to some inanimate objects but not to other inanimate objects.
I really don't see much difference between a human and, say, a squirrel. Or even a tree. All are biologically similar, at root (DNA). I know humans like to think they're special, but there's absolutely no evidence they are, or that there is such a thing as a "soul" (whatever that means), or that squirrels and trees don't have them, or something equally important (if not more important). Trees reproduce, communicate, resist disease, and cling to life. Just like people. And squirrels. (And yet human fetuses, which I suspect you do prefer to consider alive, do not have the traits of communication or reproduction.) It is only the arrogance of humans, who seem unable to imagine a time when they might not be on top of the food chain, that gets in their way. But trees have been around a lot longer than humans, and will easily outlive our relatively short-term existence.
When/if advanced aliens land here and decide you are, in their view of the world, the equivalent of a tree, will you cease to argue for your "rights?"
> If you truly believe the Ehrlichs
> and the AlGores
I don't believe anyone -- why are you hung up on Paul Ehrlich and Al Gore? They speak for themselves. I speak for myself.
Should you, as a conservative, be painted by Goldwater or the John Birch Society? Of course not. You only seek to connect "liberals" with Ehrlich and Gore because it makes it intellectually simple for you to categorize your opponents and to simply dismiss them. It's a nonthinking person's way out.
> I suppose you, David, would
> assume that your ilk would
> appoint yourselves as
> representatives of the interests of > those trees.
Then your assumption is completely wrong.
Frankly, I don't know who would speak for trees. Probably no one should. Maybe we should just let the trees alone to live their lives. There's nothing inherent saying we must destroy them, any more than there's anything inherent saying someone should destroy us. Perhaps make your houses out of dirt and mud.
OMIGOD!
David! Are you really saying this? No difference between a squirrel and a human? So any plant or animal is of equal station to humans, and humans have no right to use them for their own purposes?
If you believe this, you must be the most immoral person on Earth. After all, each and every day of your life you are violating the rights of countless beings that you maintain are of equal station to you.
What right do you have to live in a dwelling made from trees? You monster!
Actually, you are just a kook. Thanks for making that so stunningly apparent.
Oh, David,
Really...
why are you hung up on Paul Ehrlich and Al Gore?
I'm not - I merely note that they, like you, are nothing more than what the Pope (Dec. 2007) referred to as "prophets of doom". Birds of a feather, and all....
Now, I observed that Rob stated in his post: “One change in (legal) notions that would have a most salubrious effect on the quality of the environment has been proposed by law professor Christopher D. Stone in his celebrated monograph, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’” Holdren said in a 1977 book that he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich.
You leaped in, David, and began to argue in favor of the position advocated by Stone, the Ehrlichs, and Holdren. Obviously, since you share their perspective, the fact that I noticed the correlation and had the temerity to mention it does not lead a reasonable person to assume that I am "hung up" on the Ehrlichs. Quite the opposite, in fact. That you support their position opens the door to questioning exactly how far your level of support goes. If, as I suspect, you support the majority of their views, then it is reasonable to ask additional questions that may serve to illuminate the true extent of your advocacy.
Naturally, you have attempted to dodge the questions, and have attempted to divert attention by asking about my "hang up". That approach is at once disingenuous and dishonest. Unfortunately, it is an approach which seems to permeate your every entry into the realm of discussion.
I ran across an interesting link today. Granted, it was from the Vatican, but I found it more in alignment with my view than with the views of you, the Ehrlichs, Stone, and Holdren.
“The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.”
(emphasis added)
Cheers,
David,
Bless you.
I am one of the 300 tress about to masacured in West Linn for the $20 million solar highway project.
Please do speak for me and stop this genocide.
Your friend,
Tree number 167
I don't share anyone's perspective, and frankly I have no idea what Ehrlich's or Gore's view on trees are, or anything of the sort. I couldn't care less, frankly.
If I find value in anyone's perspective, it's Supreme Court judge William O Douglas' (who I mostly respect because he thru-hiked the Appalachian Trail), who also believed that some inanimate objects should have standing in court:
"The critical question of "standing" would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if we fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated before federal agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers and where injury is the subject of public outrage. Contemporary public concern for protecting nature's ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation. This suit would therefore be more properly labeled as Mineral King v. Morton.
He continued:
"Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a fiction found useful for maritime purposes. The corporation sole - a creature of ecclesiastical law - is an acceptable adversary and large fortunes ride on its cases.... So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes - fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it."
Anonymous 4:52 pm:
I see that you lack the courage to sign your real name. That says a lot right there.
In any case, I would like your explanation of why you think you're superior to a squirrel.
Then, explain why you are not superior to a seriously mentally retarded human.
Then, explain why an advanced species, whether evolved here on earth or visitors here from somewhere else, should not consider you the equivalent of a squirrel and treat you as you would animals you consider "lesser."
If they did, say, shoot you with their advanced weapons, would you complain, or just quietly accept their superiority and your duty to therefore die or accept whatever treatment they care to inflict on you?
I don't share anyone's perspective, and frankly I have no idea what Ehrlich's or Gore's view on trees are, or anything of the sort. I couldn't care less, frankly.
So, you ignored Rob's reference to Stone, Holdren, and the Ehrlichs, and just happened to leap in and begin arguing in favor of giving trees "rights" to legal standing?
That's rather difficult to believe, David.
On the other hand, I find many of your views unbelievable. Perhaps that's just me, but judging from the comments I see here and elsewhere in reply to yours, I doubt it.
I found it intriguing that your reply to anon refers to "advanced species". That's a bit out there, as in your previous rants regarding man-made global warming, you have studiously attempted to deflect references to the fact that Mars and other planets have seen corresponding rises and falls in climatic conditions - despite the fact that no human activity is involved in these cases.
So, you can invoke hypothetical alien species to support your view that all animals are equal, while ignoring extraterrestrial data that disagrees with your view that humans affect planetary climate here.
It's an interesting mindset that you display.
David,
My use of any particular name says nothing at all.
I think I'm superior to a squirrel because they run out in the street and get flattened all the time?
I don't apply a measure of "superiority" to my fellow man. Especially the unfortunate who are severely challenge.
I would explain more if I thougt you were somehwere other than the Outer Limits.
You should keep your weirder thoughts to yourself.
Now go pet a tree.
> I think I'm superior to a
> squirrel because they run out
> in the street and get flattened
> all the time?
That's a very anthropocentric point of view, as humans do a lot of stupid things that squirrels don't do. Wage war. Commit suicide. Overdose on drugs. Destroy their environment.
> Mars and other planets have seen
> corresponding rises and falls in
> climatic conditions - despite the
> fact that no human activity is
> involved in these cases.
Of course they do. So does Earth. So what?
The issue is what are the causes of these changes.
Nor is there anything that says the cause must be the same on each planet. Or that the changes are the same on each planet, even in direction.
If it's very hot in Chicago and also in Tokyo, do they have the same cause?
That's a very anthropocentric point of view, as humans do a lot of stupid things that squirrels don't do. Wage war. Commit suicide. Overdose on drugs. Destroy their environment
To add to your list, David:
Engage in charity. Donate blood. Grow their own food. Develop medical interventions that substantially prolong life. Remove excrement. Fight fires.
David, try to stop being silly.
The issue is what are the causes of these changes.
Well, exactly. And while it may have escaped you, we have this little thing that we generally refer to as the "sun". It's amazing, but the solar output correlates with all planetary climatic changes. Who would ever have thought something like that could happen?
After all, humans are so important. There must be some way to blame humans for the changes seen on other planets; it's just small-scale thinking that leads folks to blame humans just for the changes we see on this planet.
Granted, the little thing we call the "sun" is small potatoes compared to so many of the other stars, but it has shaped the climate of every planet within its grasp.
Humans are insignificant in terms of planetary climatology - termites, as I've noted before, exert a far greater impact in terms of atmospheric gases. Yet, when compared with the effects of solar cycles, they too are insignificant.
You seem to have tried to build a career upon promoting the insignificant as something of great danger. To the extent that you can do that, in order to stay off the public dole, that's great.
However, you may want to consider jumping over to the other side. That's because ever-increasing numbers of scientists are submitting findings that agree with my position in this matter, and shatter your long-peddled view.
If you want to make some money doing "science writing", then you have to go where the money is. That's why you went with "man-made global warming" in the first place, isn't it?
Cut your losses now, sonny, before they begin to bleed you out.
> And while it may have escaped you, > we have this little thing that we
> generally refer to as the "sun".
In fact, the sun is not considered the source of changes in climate on Mars -- many scientists are attributing it to winds and dust. Nor is it even clear if the changes on Mars are global and not just regional (like around the south pole).
> It's amazing, but the solar
> output correlates with all
> planetary climatic changes.
Absolutely and completely false. But not worth my time trying to explain it to you, when you clearly haven't even tried to educate yourself beyond what you read on the first conservative blog that tells you what you want to hear.
> If you want to make some money
> doing "science writing", then you
> have to go where the money is.
> That's why you went with "man-made > global warming" in the first place, > isn't it?
What a skewed, incorrect, and especially telling statement.
No, real journalists don't go where the money is. They report on what is going on on their beat -- in my case, science. They attempt to distinguish good science from bad, whatever it is.
David,
Please try to be real. You couldn't make any money if you geared your "science writing" to facts. The money is in hyping man-made global warming. I understand that, and there's nothing wrong with your decision to pursue that - folks have to eat, after all.
CORVALLIS, Ore. – Researchers at Oregon State University said they have found the reason for the Earth’s ice ages.
They said ice ages are linked to shifts in solar radiation caused by changes in the earth’s rotation and axis and not changes in carbon dioxide levels or ocean temperatures.
Probably not what you want to read. Oh, and the source, of course, is not from a conservative blog.
See, that's one of your many problems, David: whenever somebody dares to disagree with you, you immediately go nuts. You say silly stuff like you clearly haven't even tried to educate yourself beyond what you read on the first conservative blog that tells you what you want to hear.
Do you even have any glimmer of an idea regarding how silly it makes you look? Making unsubstantiated allegations such as the above merely serves to highlight your general insecurity.
Yet you fall into that mode every time. You claim as well that real journalists don't go where the money is, but that's clearly untrue.
While you claim that solar output doesn't correlate with planetary climate change, many scientists disagree with you. See above, for a nice starting point. I understand that they may not be as highly educated as you, and they probably get all their information from conservative blogs. After all, they've committed the cardinal sin of disagreeing with you.
You believe in man-made global warming. You also believe “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, President, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
I say this because you have indicated your support for both positions many times and in many places in the blogosphere.
You should simply acknowledge the fact that you buy into the Left-wing scenarios, that you harbor a deep prejudice against anything that disagrees with that ethos, and that you write in support of those beliefs. You should also acknowledge that writing in opposition to these beliefs would garner you less cash. Honesty is the best policy, David.
You should try it sometime.
MAX Redline wrote:
> You couldn't make any money if you > geared your "science writing" to
> facts. The money is in hyping man-
> made global warming.
You're absolutely flat-out stupid wrong.
First of all, the best selling books in climate science are all skeptical books, by far. That's where the money is.
Secondly, and most importantly, no editor would hire me unless I reported on the best science of the day, regardless of what it said. And this is true of all science journalists. Frankly we couldn't care what the science says -- our job is to report it accurately. And that's what we do. Whether you like it or not, the science behind the skeptics POV is wrong, and is in fact almost always easily shown to be wrong, like your claim of warming on Mars and other planets. You stupidly believe whatever professional skeptics (paid to deny the science) tell you, and never investigate the facts for yourself.
Max R, I'm sorry to have to tell you, but you're exactly the kind of dupe they're looking for.
> Probably not what you want to read.
Idiot: we are not talking about ice ages here. We are talking about recent decadal warming.
Even more so, idiot, a press release is not science, especially one issued yesterday. We'll see what the science community has to say about it. That will probably take years. That's how science works.
And if, idiot, you bothered to actually read the press release beyond the headline, you'd see that the authors do not disagree with the hypothesis of AGW:
Sometime around now, scientists say, the Earth should be changing from a long interglacial period that has lasted the past 10,000 years and shifting back towards conditions that will ultimately lead to another ice age – unless some other forces stop or slow it. But these are processes that literally move with glacial slowness, and due to greenhouse gas emissions the Earth has already warmed as much in about the past 200 years as it ordinarily might in several thousand years, Clark said.
“One of the biggest concerns right now is how the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will respond to global warming and contribute to sea level rise,” Clark said. “This study will help us better understand that process, and improve the validity of our models.”
> You should simply acknowledge the
> fact that you buy into the Left-
> wing scenarios
Further evidence that you're an idiot, as there are many "left-wing" positions with which I do not agree. Say, on GM foods. But you prefer not to think and to blindly categorize people into slots so you can ridicule and dismiss them.
Like I said, you're exactly the kind of dupe the right-wing is looking for. And you don't even know it.
Why I am superior to a squirrel and not superior to a seriously mentally retarded person:
Mentally retarded people require nothing more than a little love and care and they are happy and content; assuming they aren't enduring some sort of physical pain or similar circumstance. I, on the other hand am a little more susceptible to the materialistic. I am more selfish. Not only do I need to be loved and cared for, but now and then I want new shoes, roses, a night out, respect, authority, left alone, sympathized with, to throw a fit, do what I want, do something I shouldn't, get revenge, eat an entire cake. And I don't believe these feelings originated from and explosion in space.
Of course these feelings are not out of my control; but they are present none the less. And their existence combined with my ability to consider them and control them is what makes me superior to a squirrel and inferior to a seriously mentally retarded person.
Look up the term 'Metacognition'
Continued from 1:16 PM
But I must thank David for a wonderful giggling fit during a slow and painful Friday afternoon!
What sort of preventative measures should we be taking "When/if advanced aliens land here and decide we are, in their view of the world, the equivalent of a tree"?
Does Will Smith know? Steven Spielberg? Light sabers and a force push? Does anyone know where to find Gandolph? Or maybe a Sorcerer's Stone! The Flux-Capacitor?
David Appell said:
In fact, the sun is not considered the source of changes in climate on Mars -- many scientists are attributing it to winds and dust.
Oh, really? I thought the wind here on Earth was due mainly to the warming of the Sun. How does it work on Mars?
You're absolutely flat-out stupid wrong
Ah, but David, you don't write many books, now do you? You write for mainstream media, which won't buy material that doesn't support the meme. You're in it for personal profit, and if the media stopped supporting the meme, your writing would reflect the change.
As I said, nothing wrong with that. Just try to be honest for a change. And, true to form, you've degenerated into spittle-laden invective; always the hallmark of a professional writer.
I alluded to that tendency a bit earlier: See, that's one of your many problems, David: whenever somebody dares to disagree with you, you immediately go nuts. You say silly stuff like you clearly haven't even tried to educate yourself beyond what you read on the first conservative blog that tells you what you want to hear.
Do you even have any glimmer of an idea regarding how silly it makes you look? Making unsubstantiated allegations such as the above merely serves to highlight your general insecurity.
Let's see, so far in the past few posts you have called me "stupid", a "dupe", an "idiot", and some other stuff. Wow, Davey, that really demonstrates your intellectual superiority and your scientific chops. Clearly, you're a really fart smeller. Way above the rest of us. And you'd never stoop to doing anything like this:
But you prefer not to think and to blindly categorize people into slots so you can ridicule and dismiss them.
Oh, wait. Those are your words, aren't they, Davey? Gee, now being that you're so much smarter than everyone else, being a "science writer" and all, how is it that you can't see the facts?
Go back up through the thread, Davey. See who exactly is engaging in the very behavior you condemn. Hint: find a mirror.
It never occurs to you to wonder why you lack credibility, does it, Dr. Appell? Oh, sorry - my mistake: you've never educated yourself sufficiently to obtain a degree.
And you call me an idiot.
Stay classy, Dave.
Max, should you ever have the balls to actually stand by what you write, with your real name, send me a note (appell@nasw.org) and I'll respond to it.
Until then, you're just not worth my time.
Wah, Davey, and wah again. Oddly, other people find the means to contact me. You're just lazy. And given to name-calling - the last resort of the simple-minded.
You always pull this. Every time. When the heat gets turned up, you resort to calling people names, then you claim that they aren't worth your time, then you run away.
You're nothing if not predictable, Davey.
Why don't you start a blog of your own? Oh, right - you have. Nobody visits. The only way you can gain the attention you crave is by going into successful sites.
Davey, look in a mirror. The image you project is pathetic.
Sure Max. Then tell us
1) your real name
2) the town where you live
3) your email address.
I suspect you won't. People like you who hide behind their mother's skirts
never do.
Typical, Davey:
You resort to ad-hominem attacks because you're so insecure in your religious beliefs.
You're absolutely flat-out stupid wrong.
Idiot: we are not talking about ice ages here. We are talking about recent decadal warming.
Even more so, idiot,
Further evidence that you're an idiot,
you're exactly the kind of dupe
And you don't even know it.
Max, should you ever have the balls to actually stand by what you write, with your real name, send me a note (appell@nasw.org) and I'll respond to it.
Until then, you're just not worth my time.
As I mentioned earlier, Let's see, so far in the past few posts you have called me "stupid", a "dupe", an "idiot", and some other stuff. Wow, Davey, that really demonstrates your intellectual superiority and your scientific chops. Clearly, you're a really fart smeller. Way above the rest of us. And you'd never stoop to doing anything like this:
But you prefer not to think and to blindly categorize people into slots so you can ridicule and dismiss them.
Oh, wait. Those are your words, aren't they, Davey?
You always pull this. Every time. When the heat gets turned up, you resort to calling people names, then you claim that they aren't worth your time, then you run away.
Sure Max. Then tell us
1) your real name
2) the town where you live
3) your email address.
I suspect you won't. People like you who hide behind their mother's skirts never do.
Why, david, my contact information is readily available over on my blog, and many visitors have found it easy to contact me. You're just a lazy inDUHvidual who gets off calling people names rather than engaging in intelligent conversation.
My name and address is clearly available there, and it's quite apparent where I live, as well.
Your exceptional laziness is exceeded only by your arrogance.
A Helpful Appell Primer:
Here, in a nutshell, is what one can expect every time noted "science writer" David Appell invades a blog. He is nothing if not predictable, and his "discourse" always follows the same pattern. I've assembled his material as a public service: it saves him the typing, and it saves you the reading. After you've read through it, you know what he's really all about. Enjoy!
You don't have the right to ruin the planet for the rest of us -- it doesn't belong to you.
(insert name), as a member of modern society, government *does* have the right to tell you how to live part of your life. Kick and scream and deny it if you want, but it happens to you every day, and is a binding condition of living here. A great many of your potential actions are forbidden by government, for the good of society and/or the planet. It is already so and will be independent of anything to do with curtailing global warming.
(insert name): I'm not interested in arguing constitutional semantics. Save that for your pow wows and bonfires. For all practical purposes, the government can compel you to do a great number of things, all of which impinge on your theoretical freedom, some quite significantly. You know it as well as I do.
You are exactly the kind of fool the Bush administration is counting on -- hardheaded, impervious to evidence, scared shitless that some terrorist is going to blow up your mailbox, and willing to grant the government any power if they will just protect you.
And yet you recoil in fear and anger that your electricity might be generated from the sun and not fossil fuels.
You are locked in chains, and complaining only that someone is blocking the sunlight from the window of your cell.
(insert name), are you saying that you *haven't* yet written your finding up and submitted it to any scientific journal yet, or applied to discuss it at conferences, or went on the seminar circuit? What are you waiting for and why are you wasting your time arguing with some silly science journalist?
I think I will believe these learned men before I believe you, who doesn't even sign his last name, and who gives no reason to doubt the fact that CO2 is a GHG except to say it isn't.
You are exactly the kind of rube they are counting on.
Sure, I could lay this all out for you, if I took 2 or 3 hours and crossed every t and dotted every i. But, you're just not worth it. I have better things to do with my time, and esp with someone who has shown they will stoop to asking the stupidest question without taking even 10 minutes to read the existing literature on a problem.
L1M89 (yet another person afraid to sign his opinions with his real name and hiding behind his mama's skirt):
You're full of shit. (And, I see, also afraid to sign your real name.) I never said anything like that whatsoever. You're lying. I don't even believe in religion, let alone want to defend it, let alone try to propose it as a basis of my thinking. Religion is limp, arbitrary, ineffectual, and completely made-up, unlike the scientific results that have vastly improved our lives over the last 4 centuries.
It's not my job to educate you on every little thing here -- go to Wikipedia and read about them yourself.
Blog comments are hardly the place to explain and establish complicated science, and frankly I have no interest in teaching you anything. Teach yourself.
I fail to see why you can't respond in a polite fashion, but that's really your problem.
You can put your fingers in your ears and jump up and down and yell "No, no, no" if you want, but do you have any logic to accompany your reaction?
Until you can be polite and resist calling someone funny names, as if this were 7th grade, I don't see any reason to take you seriously, or respond to anything you have to say.
Someday you'll know better.
Otherwise, I think you should shut the f**k up and stop denigrating better men than you.
Post a Comment