‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ — the 2016 GOP version

Here is a clip from a really long but otherwise masterfully written Jonah Goldberg newsletter posted at National Review:

At times, I sometimes think I’m living in a weird remake of “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” If you’ve seen any of the umpteen versions, you know the pattern. Someone you know or love goes to sleep one night and appears the next day to be the exact same person you always knew.


Except they’re different, somehow. They talk funny. They don’t care about

Jonah Goldberg

the same things they used to. It’s almost like they became Canadian overnight — seemingly normal, but off in some way. Even once-friendly dogs start barking at them. I live in constant fear that I will run into Kevin Williamson, Charlie Cooke, or Rich Lowry and they will start telling me that Donald Trump is a serious person because he’s tapping into this or he’s willing to say that. I imagine my dog suddenly barking at them uncontrollably. (I don’t worry about this with Ramesh because Vulcans are immune.)

I’ll say, “I’m sorry Rich, I don’t know what got into her.”

And I can just hear the Lowry-doppelganger replying, “When Mr. Trump is president, dogs will behave or they will pay a price. Just like Paul Ryan and Michelle Fields.”

“Lowry you bastard! You went to sleep! Why!? You went to sleep and now you’re gone!”

And that’s when he’d give me the Donald Sutherland finger.

I for One Welcome Our New Orange Overlord

I’m losing the will to rebut Donald Trump’s “arguments” because he really doesn’t make any. First of all, most of his interviews are rapidly becoming as journalistically adversarial as the infomercial host asking, “Mr. Foreman, is it really true I’ll lose weight and save money by using the George Foreman grill?”

But more importantly, if you listen to Trump’s answers to almost any question about how he will fix a problem, he uses up the first 95 percent of his time explaining, re-explaining and demagoguing about how bad the problem is. (That is, if he’s not talking about polls.) Then in the last few seconds, he says we’ll fix the problem by being really smart or by winning or by hiring the best people.

In other words, he has no idea how to fix it.

That’s precisely how I react to hearing people defend Trump.



82 comments on “‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ — the 2016 GOP version

  1. Vernon Clayson says:

    I don’t understand the vitriol from people that have had so little to say about the divisive ridden agenda of the current president. The nation didn’t become a better place because a community organizer became president, he had no experience in business, never worked for a living, he was just an acceptable black man. Trump is brash but he wouldn’t storm into officw demanding things his way, he’s smarter than that, as an experienced leader he would confer with members of Congress and seek legal advice on everything confronting him. I also doubt he would govern by daily news cycles and he would take responsibility for the actions of cabinet members, there’d be no freewheeling Secretary of State, think Hillary Clinton here, when has Obama mentioned his part in any of her actions and conduct?

  2. Obama was a past mistake. Trump is a future one.

  3. Barbara says:

    The more I listen to Trump the more I become convinced he is the Republican’s Obama. I cannot put any stock in anything he says, he changes positions as will, has no core values, uses women as props to achieve his ends, cannot hold an intelligent discussion on any topic, is not being vetted by the media (yet), lies, and is just a thoroughly disgusting man.

  4. Steve says:

    I usually detest memes, but this one is perfect.

    Trump is a master of the incomplete thought.

  5. nyp says:

    Yet you voiced no outrage when he was merely accusing the President of being a Kenyan Muslim.
    Why is that? Could the answer possibly be found in Galatians 6:7?

  6. Steve says:

    Nah, back then Trump was a mouth with zero content.
    Today Trump is a mouth with zero content who has managed to somehow amplify his lack of content.

  7. Steve says:

    From the Second Amendment department we have;
    “Rafael McCloud held Miss. couple prisoner before they shot him”

    What!? No nyp report about this? Doesn’t fit the program? Doesn’t support your fantasy?

  8. Steve says:

    Gary Johnson.

  9. He may be the only choice. Heard him speak at a conference here four years ago and was impressed with his level-headedness.

  10. Steve says:

    The vote is the one place principle counts.

  11. nyp says:

    “February was Earth’s most unusually warm month on record, blowing away the record that had been set just one month prior. The new findings, contained in preliminary data released Saturday by NASA and backed up by information from other research groups, show that the combination of a record strong El Niño event in the tropical Pacific Ocean and human-caused global warming drove global temperatures to levels never before seen since instrument records began in 1880.”


  12. Rincon says:

    Come on, nyp. You know the Conservatives will claim that all of this warming is natural. They’re certain of it! How? Well, ummm….they haven’t told us yet, but they’re absolutely positive! Now I remember. They’re positive because their masters say it is so.

  13. Steve says:

    “It would be wrong to blame El Niño for most of the February temperature spike, according to climate scientists, though its role was likely not minor. El Niño events, including the current one, typically peak in early to mid-winter, and then have a lag effect on global average temperatures and atmospheric heat.”

    Indecision is an awful thing. They cannot come to a consensus on just what degree human activity has on the ever changing climate but El Niño is a major driver….

    Like I keep saying, when put in this manner, there is NO consensus.

  14. Winston Smith says:

    You mean, only 6 years after ClimateGate, there are still statistical manipulations going on? I guess some elitist bastards think the rest of us are stupid, or just have short memories…


    Meanwhile, the AGW Inquisition is growing…how dare people not believe the party line?


  15. Rincon says:

    There will never be a consensus for two reasons. 1) This will be almost impossible to ascertain with absolute certainty until it becomes far too late to act. 2) For some reason, people often demand absolute proof before they will act will on a scientific issue, but require nothing of the kind in social or economic issues.

    The stupidity of your position is that you advocate permanent inaction, which only makes sense in the presence of absolute certainty.

  16. Patrick says:

    Don’t let them fool you Rincon, there is more than a concensus and even more than a concensus about the PERCENTAGE, of global warming caused by man (over 75% and up to 90%) and because I posted those links the last time we had this….discussion, and they apparently did not teach anyone anything, seems unnecessary to do it again here.

    “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.”

  17. Steve says:

    Allowing for this 75 to 100 % claim…..natural cycles would have us in an ice age now.

    What would be better, frozen people or a warm world?

    Bunch of doomsayers, you guys are.

  18. Steve says:

    “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000,” claimed ecology professor Kenneth E.F. Watt at the University of California in 1970. “This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”

    “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people,” 1971 Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich author, 1968 book The Population Bomb
    (Back then he was claiming we would all freeze. Today this guy is all about warming….)

    “Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climate change, or even to allay its effects,” Newsweek 1975 “The Cooling World,” which claimed that Earth’s temperature had been plunging for decades due to humanity’s activities.

    yep, it’s all about trends and predictions.
    Fool us once shame on you, fool us twice shame on us.
    You should be embarrassed for falling for it again.

  19. Devastating the economy is required because the temperature might increase a couple of degrees, which might be more beneficial than harmful.

  20. Gary Johnson? Really? Regis Philban has a better chance of becoming President…

  21. Patrick says:

    Ask the 70% of the population that live near coastlines that are going to force many of them to abandoned those cities, if they are happy because warming means the price of tomatos MIGHT fall because of longer growing seasons in some places.

    Ask the hundreds of millions of people,for whom it’s difficult (if not impossible) to find clean fresh water to drink, when global warming will make it absolutely impossible to find water in the future, whether they are happy that formerly freezing temperatures in some places are warmer than they have ever been. Ask people who depend, for their lives and livelihoods, on fishing and sea life, how happy they are that more trees are growing in the desert near Las Vegas, when the fish can no longer live in the waters they are used to fishing because the oceans have warmed, and the rivers and lakes have dried up.

    Ask the projected hundreds of millions of refugees, who are said to need to relocate, from their homes and countries, causing civil unrest and wars, how glad they are that people in Canada are wearing short sleeve shirts in a December, rather than parkas.

    All doom and gloom? Course not, the Canadians, or so I’ve hear, LOVE the idea of getting a really good tan without having to leave Calgary to do it.


  22. Steve says:

    “Gary Johnson? Really? Regis Philban has a better chance of becoming President…”

    What do I win for putting my check next to the person who gets the White House Brien?

    Voting is the one place where principle counts over being on the winning side.

    Yes, Gary Johnson.

    And the down ticket votes are actually more important.

  23. Steve says:

    Patrick is just full of good cheer!

    Keep falling for the con, Mr. Sham Plea!

  24. Winston Smith says:

    Where’s DARPA today? Even some of my liberal friends from my hometown are glad some guy had his concealed gun this morning…


  25. Rincon says:

    A common device used by conservative scaremongers about warming, Steve. You can weigh in on the validity of my source, but there are others: “1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.”

    You are correct that we should have begun a new ice age by now, and that is what the minority of scientists, who were heavily quoted by the media, were concerned about. Their reasoning at the time was not outlandish, just incorrect. So far as I know, there is only one theory as to why the next ice age is late. Do Conservatives have another, competing theory, or do they content themselves with taking potshots at the real scientists?

    As I said, “…you advocate permanent inaction, which only makes sense in the presence of absolute certainty.” Cat got your tongue? And please don’t call the normal progression of technology action.

  26. Steve says:

    Skepticalscience….the creation of a former cartoonist who also claims to have no formal training in climate science.

    Another true believer.

    They told us human activity was cooling the planet. Then they tell us it is natural cycles an human activity is actually warming the planet. In both cases they call for huge money to fix their identified problems. Today they have it down pat, keeping all scientists out who disagree with the party line, even ejecting any climate scientist who decides to stop toeing the line. This makes easy to keep those percentages high. Crisis management carried out to perfection.
    Meanwhile, the climate has been quite nice…especially along those coastlines where property values continue to outpace all others in the world.
    Keep on swallowing.

  27. Patrick says:

    “July 28, 2014 (Updated information added 10/31/2014)

    Annapolis, Maryland, pictured here in 2012, saw the greatest increase in nuisance flooding in a recent NOAA study. (Credit: With permission from Amy McGovern.)
    So-called “nuisance flooding” — which causes public inconveniences such as frequent road closures, overwhelmed storm drains, and compromised infrastructure — has increased on all three U.S. coasts, between 300 and 925 percent since the 1960s, according to a new NOAA technical report.”


  28. Steve says:

    So-called “nuisance flooding” …… has increased on all three U.S. coasts, between 300 and 925 percent since the 1960s

    So has the population increased, by that same amount. Floods remained the same , they simply weren’t in populated areas where one would actually find roads, storm drains and infrastructure….

    nice try

  29. nyp says:

    tell that to the folks in Miami and Hampton Roads.

  30. Rincon says:

    Sorry Steve. I was too impatient. How about Wikipedia?
    “Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

    How about Scientific American: “Nine paragraphs written for Newsweek in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/

    This stuff is easy to find because it is accepted history. Let me know if you need more. As usual, it’s the Conservative propaganda machine that is inaccurate. As long as we’re questioning sources, I note that you haven’t provided any source for your assertion. Can you find anyone other that say, Fox News or the Heritage Foundation, who makes the same claim as you have?

  31. Steve says:

    Search the quotes.

    Seems pretty damned crowded compared with the early 1960’s, ditto Virginia.

  32. nyp says:

    The combination of sea level rise, tidal flooding, and subsidence—the sinking ground—has made Norfolk a prime example of what climate is going to do, and has already done, to our coastal cities. The city and surrounding region is on the front line in the battle against climate change, but opinions within city limits on just how bad the flooding is and what to do about it appear to be mixed. ince 1970, the sea level has risen eight inches in Norfolk. By 2030, scientists expect the sea to rise another six inches. The flooding that endangers Norfolk, says Dr. Hans-Peter Plag, director of the Mitigation and Adaptation Research Institute (MARI) of Old Dominion University, is clearly the consequence of climate change. Global temperature increase is rapidly melting ice sheets in the Arctic, which leads to a rise in global sea level. Combine a rising sea with the natural tidal cycle and you get tides that move further inland, causing tidal flooding in a previously unseen way.” http://tinyurl.com/oszfpjl

  33. nyp says:

    “An unusual January storm bent palm trees and turned city sidewalks into creeks as a small group of Miami-area mayors and administrators huddled in Pinecrest, one of Miami-Dade County’s 34 municipalities. They had come at the invitation of Pinecrest’s mayor to discuss rising sea levels, long predicted by climate change scientists and now regularly inundating their towns. The mood in the room was somewhere between pessimism and panic.On the agenda: making flood prediction maps to help prioritize which roads, schools and hospitals to save as waters rise; how to keep saltwater from leaching into the aquifer; and what to do about 1.6 million septic tanks whose failure could create a Third World sanitation challenge. Someone also brought up the alarming possibility of the sea engulfing the nearby Turkey Point nuclear power plant.
    The scale of South Florida’s looming catastrophe—$69 billion worth of property is at risk of flooding in less than 15 years—is playing out like a big-budget disaster movie, but dealing with it has been largely left to local political and business leaders in tiny rooms like the Pinecrest Municipal Center’s Council Chamber. Their biggest problem is the one climate scientists have struggled with for decades: creating a sense of urgency.”

  34. nyp says:

    “Across the country, even the world, coastal cities are the front lines of climate-change planning, leap-frogging past the political debate to hatch immediate and often very expensive plans to fight the effects they are already living with. Miami Beach, all seven square miles of it, has placed itself at the leading edge of an existential fight facing the entirety of South Florida—230 miles of coastline running from Key West to Palm Beach. Driven by global warming, the sea level here has risen 9 inches over the past century and is predicted to rise at an accelerating pace by as much as another 6½ feet by 2100. Even the most conservative scientists anticipate a rise of at least 2 feet by 2060.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/what-works-miami-beach-sea-level-rise-213731#ixzz42yR2i1wp
    Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

  35. Steve says:

    All things we get for growing the population along the coastlines to the degree we have.
    These places always were dangerous to populate. But so attractive to be, that people really wanted to live on the beach.
    That comes with risks, climate change or not.
    One fact you guys like to ignore, population in these areas rose before all these nasty flood reports. And it rose by the same percentage as the flooding.

  36. Patrick says:

    Steve sometimes I wonder if you can read, or more importantly understand what you read.

    The link I posted, that you at least opened (I mean, you copied part of it) identified the top ten cities most affected by nuisance flooding and the increases in that flooding over the last several decades since around 1960.

    The chart shows Annapolis Maryland as most affected, and shows the increase in that flooding as being up more than 900%.

    If you had spent anytime doing any research, about the population of that city, over the course of the last 50 years, you would have found that it increased about 50% from around 23,000 in 1968 to around 38,000 (projected) in 2014.

    Forget about the fact that the population increase has absolutely nothing to do with the point, which is that the seas are rising, and floods are increasing, for you to say that the population in these cities is somehow about equal with the percentage increase in the population, is just….wrong.

  37. Patrick says:

    Should say, for you to claim that the percentage increase in flooding in those cities, is about the same as the percentage increase in the population of those cities, is just….wrong.

  38. Steve says:

    I said coastlines.
    You cherry pick cities.

  39. nyp says:

    Those stupid people in Virginia chose to build their cities along the coast. If melting icecaps cause their streets to go underwater it’s their own damned fault!

  40. Is the sea rising or the land subsiding?

  41. Rincon says:

    I repeat: “…you advocate permanent inaction, which only makes sense in the presence of absolute certainty.” This position is untenable. I can understand why you ignore the statement because it proves you wrong, but is it wise to take the ostrich approach?.

    From the author of the Newsweek story that you quote: “I’ve been willing to accept that some of that is misused and misinterpreted.” By and large, he added, the U.S. science press has done “a pretty good job” of covering climate change. But “the political press doesn’t check. It tends to do ‘on the one hand, on the other hand.’ A lot of reporters simply will not go into issues like global warming with any understanding that the sides are not equal.” “And, Gwynne protested: “I wrote this in 1975!” “Journalists should not ignore climate deniers, he cautioned. “You have to give all sides a fair hearing.” But that does not mean they have to be treated equally “if they don’t have the data.” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/

    Despite his backpedaling, his article wasn’t unreasonable at the time. It presented a possibility only and was not framed as an established theory embraced or confirmed by the scientific world. Only the uneducated, which, in science, is about 90% of the country, would assume differently. The people warning of cooling were not wrong, given what they knew at the time, especially when they properly expressed it as a hypothesis. They just had only the most rudimentary of information at that time because there was little data to utilize, in contrast to the mountain available today. Further research quickly disposed of this hypothesis before the temperature rose in any substantial way.

    Which brings me to another of my statements to which you refuse to refute: “You are correct that we should have begun a new ice age by now, and that is what the minority of scientists, who were heavily quoted by the media, were concerned about. Their reasoning at the time was not outlandish, just incorrect. It is still true that the next ice age is late. Why? So far as I know, there is only one theory about that, which involve man made changes. Do Conservatives have another, competing theory, or do they content themselves with taking potshots at the real scientists? Are you going to run away from this one again or are you going to face it? Any other reasonable explanation?

    Why do you avoid the hard questions? It should not about winning. It’s about finding the truth and you are assiduously avoiding an honest search for it.

  42. nyp says:

    The sea is rising because greenhouse gasses are causing glaciers and icecaps to melt, and the land is sinking (in some areas) because of subsidence.

  43. nyp says:

    BTW, good article in Politico this week about how Miami Beach is dealing with the phenomenon of fish floating in its streets:


  44. Steve says:

    No I don’t Rincon.
    In fact I have made reference to several things in the works right now.

    You dismiss them as “passive”.

    I can only conclude, from liberals, anything coming from a conservative point of view is to be degraded and belittled.

  45. Patrick says:

    Very nice article nyp! Timely too eh?

  46. Rincon says:

    Passive or not, it’s hard to imagine anyone believing that the United States has taken any more than token action on this issue. Do you feel that what has been done is plenty so far? Before answering, consider that we emit about 17 tons per person while France emits 5.2, Japan 9.3, Germany 8.9, Sweden 5.5 and China 6.7. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC

  47. Steve says:

    One of my “passive” technologies is from Canada.

    Taken as a continent…how does North America stack up, Rincon?

    Our rivers are clean, our lakes are clean, you can breath the air in Los Angeles and all other major US cities today, back in 1970; not so much. In fact look at ME TV for those Columbo movies,,,what does the southern California air look like? And…how does Beijing, today, stack up with that?

    You peeps are all about CO2 today…last I heard plants LIKE the stuff.

  48. Rincon says:

    Since you are praising our air and water quality, which are good, but have absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions, I have to assume that you don’t understand the chemistry here. Answer me this: What percentage of CO2 does a catalytic converter remove from auto exhaust?

  49. Steve says:


    That question is either loaded or ignorant.

    The cat converts CO to CO2. And a bit of steam.
    CO2 is good for photosynthesis. It’s actually causing a greening of the deserts on the planet. Extra CO2 causes plants to require less water.

    Perhaps you peeps would be happier if you had a real, visible problem to fight, like the old days in LA!

  50. Rincon says:

    So tell me, what do clean air and streams have to do with CO2 and warming? Now you claim that CO2 is “greening of the deserts” and makes plants require less water. I presume some scientist(s) came up with that. How come you only trust the scientists that say what you want to hear?

    Lead makes nice, white paint, but it’s not real good for the children that ingest the paint chips. Likewise, greenhouse gases have positive and negative effects. Optimum amounts of greenhouse gases might actually do some good, but as with all substances, overdosing leads to problems. Since no one can be sure what constitutes an overdose of greenhouse gases, you conclude that there must not be one, so you advocate full speed ahead. This thinking is irrational with any other substance you can name. Why is it rational with greenhouse gases?

  51. Steve says:




    You still don’t get it. All you peeps want to do is moan and groan. You are all a bunch of sky is falling crying chickens.
    As climate changes (like it always has and always will) Humans will adapt and there will be good and bad. JUST LIKE IT ALWAYS IS.

    Adapting does not mean moving back in to caves and forgoing all modern convenience in a weak attempt to “save the planet”
    Adaptation means finding WORKABLE ways to make things better.
    Solar and wind do not have the capacity to work. Humans are finding other ways to adapt and I have shown a few of them to you. They are not passive, they are in functional trial stages now and at least one of them shows a way to make solar work.

    This is good news but you just can’t let go of your gloom and doom. It is you who only listen to people who say what you want to hear, not me. In a sea of wolf criers I look for the good news.

  52. Rincon says:

    “As climate changes (like it always has and always will) Humans will adapt and there will be good and bad. JUST LIKE IT ALWAYS IS.” So mankind isn’t contributing to the alleged warming? There’s no point in even inexpensive prevention measures?

    “Adaptation means finding WORKABLE ways to make things better.” So does mitigation. Adaptation is like a lifetime smoker trying to cure his lung cancer with chemotherapy. Refusing to do the prudent thing early results in a disastrous situation later, but not in every case. You feel lucky. I don’t trust luck.

  53. Steve says:

    “There’s no point in even inexpensive prevention measures?”
    EVERYTHING you peeps call for are, in no way, “inexpensive”.

    Mitigation….right. Just another way of telling humans to stop using any energy and go live in caves.

    There you go again, moan and groan, sky is falling, cancer is death. What a bunch of bright, cheery, get it done people you modern liberals are.

  54. The solution is worse than the problem … Burning the barn to kill the rats.

  55. Rincon says:

    “EVERYTHING you peeps call for are, in no way, “inexpensive”.
    Mitigation….right. Just another way of telling humans to stop using any energy and go live in caves.

    And you say WE’RE doom and gloom? Look in the mirror.

    The solution is worse than the problem? Which solutions? You think getting off foreign oil would be a bad thing for our nation? If we had accomplished that by the mid ’90’s, we wouldn’t have lost almost 10,000 Americans, most of them young and healthy, in 9/11 plus three wars. We also wouldn’t have suffered more than 51,000 wounded, so many with limbs blown off that it’s considered a serious national health care issue. These were also mostly young and healthy. We would not have spent $4 trillion or so on those wars, adding to our already bloated deficit. We also would not have funded the explosion of Muslim fundamentalism proffered by the Wahabis over the past 40 years or so.

    Why didn’t we get off foreign oil? Because Conservatives thought it was too expensive. Seems to me that the Conservative alternative was expensive indeed, with no letup in sight. Next is Iran, which has enjoyed funding with only a short gap, through the generosity of U.S. citizens. We will have wars as long as we keep funding both sides.

    You think insulation is too expensive? Funny, I’ve always thought it paid for itself. You guys really support government zoning ordinances micromanaging our lives? Minimum lot sizes, kids. They cost us trillions and eat up trillions of gallons of petroleum, all to keep out the riff raff. There isn’t a cheaper way?

    Saving fuel often saves money, but as has been finally recognized by economists, people frequently make irrational financial decisions, so good old capitalism is a lot more inefficient than anyone knew. Try Googling irrational consumer. I did, and here’s the first article that popped up. The first sentence: “A new paper reviews how psychology, biology, and neurology are ganging up on economics to prove that, when it comes to making decisions, people are anything but rational.” http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/the-irrational-consumer-why-economics-is-dead-wrong-about-how-we-make-choices/267255/ Although this article mentions “a paper”, it is a review article, which is a summary of a large number of other papers. The entire field of economics is changing because of discoveries in neurology and behavioral science.

    A personal example of this kind of behavior: I provided a hot water heater blanket for an apartment I rent out. I invited the tenants – 4 different ones – to tape it onto the heater, a five minute job. NONE of them did it. Two moved out because they could no longer afford the rent, so they sorely needed the money. I finally put it on myself. They all would have saved the cost of the blanket every 6 months, about ten bucks. It went for 7 years without any of them bothering. Total savings would have been about $140. Hardly a fortune, but 140 dollars buys a helluva lot of natural gas.

    So much natural gas is flared off in North Dakota that the nighttime satellite photos make it appear to have a bunch of big cities. In a rational world, we would wait to pump the oil until we could put in the infrastructure to sell the gas as well. Nope. It’s all about making money right now. To hell with throwing away a natural resource which will run out in less than a dozen generations. To hell with making a much bigger profit in twenty years. They can make a profit today.

    You say this is all too expensive? I think that’s a poor judgement.

  56. Steve says:

    Get off foreign oil….. broken record.

    It’s not oil you are talking about. It’s politics.
    Especially today where the USA has set the price for oil, using the marketplace, no less.
    And due to competition it is the US that stopped fracking and slowed pumping, not the foreign countries.

    Your cheery thought for the day. People individually, are irrational….wow, knock me over with a feather. Crowds are very different things.

    I note you decided not to attack the examples I have provided in the past. Maybe you are seeing they have real workable promise in comparison to your shoulda, woulda, coulda wine today.
    Have some cheese, it goes nice with that wine.

    Still, it was an entertaining diatribe.

  57. Rincon says:

    Try reading the article. We always knew that crowds are sometimes irrational, like tulips in Holland. The game changer is that it appears crowds are irrational on a routine basis a la Donald Trump.

  58. Steve says:

    Well, count me out of the crowd. I have made it clear Trump is not in my list of potentials.

    Changing the subject doesn’t make it less expensive.

    Lines at parks are the reason I don’t go to them anymore. Also the reason I try to go to movies well after the rush of opening day. Took me a a month to go see Star Wars.
    I keep saying I had money when I was out of work, perhaps I take the pain today so I can be comfortable in retirement.

    That article talks about individuals in a crowd, not the output of the crowd as a whole.

    Guess I’m one of the stabilizers.

  59. Steve says:

    While lamenting not “getting off foreign oil” in the past, I look to the future. Rincon calls this “passive”.


  60. Rincon says:

    Let’s see. Steve thinks the thousands of scientists that have spent decades studying global warming are a bunch of crackpots, but the tiny cadre that are trying to develop solar panels for roads are geniuses that are about to make a breakthrough, even though one of them says, in the article you linked: ” ‘The issue is cost.’ says Mark Jacobson, an engineering professor at Stanford University who has promoted a plan for powering the U.S. solely with renewable energy.” “He expects a solar road won’t be able to compete on cost, but ‘I’m hopeful it will.’”

    So your boy here EXPECTS that these roads won’t be able to compete on cost, but you’re ready to buy into this hook, line and sinker. Talk about believing what you want to believe instead of what you see…

  61. Steve says:

    Positivity from a modern day liberal is just not a realistic expectation.
    Rincon proves it, repeatedly.

  62. Steve says:

    I have stated MULTIPLE TIMES global warming, climate change and the science behind it are CORRECT!
    The issue I have PROVEN you guys wrong with is the percentage AGW EFFECTS global warming, climate change and POLITICALLY DRIVEN science behind AGW!

    You are deep well of entertainment.

  63. Rincon says:

    Am I correct that you are saying you have proven us wrong because nobody can know what percentage of the warming we have experienced is natural and what percentage is anthropogenic?

    The science behind global warming is politically driven because you say it is? You have given very little evidence to support your claim.

  64. Steve says:

    You ignore all that I have provided and again you ask me to provide it.

    OK one more time, one item only. One name.

    Judith Curry.

  65. Rincon says:

    One name. My position has the support of all but a few climatologists, but you’re convinced that THIS one knows her stuff. Making it more laughable is that she actually doesn’t dispute the scientific community on the facts. She has registered an opinion on policy, about which she is no more an expert than you or me. Very entertaining, but also very light weight.

  66. Steve says:

    “My position has the support of all but a few climatologists,”

    Wrong, as I have pointed out climate change is real and is fully proven. AGW is only ONE driver and there is NO CONSENSUS as to how much of a driver AGW is!

    You guys have changed AGW into Climate Change (caps and all) The two are NOT one and the same.

    She most certainly has disputed the claims that Climate Change is AGW, one and the same.

    As do many others.

  67. Rincon says:

    Let’s see if you agree with them or not. Are man made emissions most likely a major (>50%) or minor driver (<50%) OF THE CHANGE?

  68. Rincon says:

    Come to think of it, the only other drivers have to be natural, of course. Is there even a speck of evidence to suggest what the Earth’s temperature would have been without man’s influence?

  69. Steve says:

    Aug 12, 2014 – Earth’s hottest periods occurred before humans existed.

    Yes it was hotter before humans became part of the mix.
    It was also colder and the climate changed. Climate changes. (period)

    You are now asking me my question! My response remains the same, there is NO consensus on that issue. There are opinions and if you wish you can find them, but there are almost as many opposing opinions. This is the very issue that needs to be answered prior to taking serious action, meanwhile experimental actions are going on with some showing real promise.

  70. Steve says:

    Funny, you fall for the mistaken idea that human activity isn’t “natural”.

    Perhaps this is another way to propagandize enforced population reduction?

  71. Rincon says:

    Wow, thanks for sending me the source that proves that you are completely wrong about this. Your own source, climate.gov, says, “Carrie Morrill of the National Climatic Data Center explains, “You’d have to go back to the last interglacial [warm period between ice ages] about 125,000 years ago to find temperatures significantly higher than temperatures of today.”

    In answer to your other irrational rant, by your definition, there is nothing in existence that is not natural, thus rendering the word useless when your definition is used. But why take my word for it:

    natural play
    adjective nat·u·ral \ˈna-chə-rəl, ˈnach-rəl\
    Popularity: Top 20% of words
    Simple Definition of natural

    : existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature

    : not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial

    : usual or expected http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural


  72. Steve says:

    Yes, totally agree.
    Human activity is natural.

    Now to what degree is that natural activity driving the change in the ever changing climate?

    Of course the time frame in planetary history that beats today’s average global temperature has NO HUMAN activity.

    Get THAT?

  73. Rincon says:

    “Of course the time frame in planetary history that beats today’s average global temperature has NO HUMAN activity.” Absolutely correct, but your conclusion from that is not only in left field, it’s in outer space. From your link: “You’d have to go back to the last interglacial [warm period between ice ages] about 125,000 years ago to find temperatures significantly higher than temperatures of today.” Warmest in 125,000 years and you think the odds are that mankind has little to do with it. I hope you haven’t planned your retirement around winning the lottery.

    There’s also the fact that the planet’s temperature is far warmer than at the same stage in the planetary cycle influencing the timing of the ice ages. As you know, the Earth should have begun cooling 2,000 years ago, but somehow, is warming. But it’s all due to natural (as opposed to man made) forces, although you just don’t seem to be able to put your finger on what natural forces are causing this. But you know that it’s due to nature – somehow – and you’re completely certain. Remarkable.

  74. Steve says:

    “natural (as opposed to man made)”

    And here we are again.

    No, I am not certain. Except about one thing, you guys cannot come up with a consensus of scientists who all show humans are the one and only driver of the current change in climate.
    Hell, you guys can’t even come up with a 50% “consensus” on that!

    And you call ME “certain”

  75. Rincon says:

    If you’re not certain and those with the opposing view are uncertain, why then should we take the approach that is at your extreme rather than a more moderate course?

    Your link is on my side Steve. Read it again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s