Charter Member of the Flat Earth Society, Mallard Fillmore, strikes again.
11 comments:
Tog
said...
Note the careful insertion of "man-made" before "global warming." That's a recent development for Bruce, since he used to portray climate change as strictly a liberal fantasy with no basis in science and reality.
After a while, he started making up crap (cow flatulence, the sun getting hotter) to explain away the mounting evidence.
I fully expect him to use all the other unsupported lunatic nonsense that's currently flying around the rightwing blogosphere (axis wobble, abrupt deviations of Earth's orbit) along with Michael Crichton's "weather-controlling hippies" fantasy from "State of Fear" and Pat Buchanan's "it's a cyclical event based on data I can't show you because no one can understand it--maybe it's the Wrath of God!!" fartings. Speaking of cow flatulence...
For some reason, the thing that bothers me the most is how Tinsley can't draw Santa hats. Once again he neglects to draw the bottom trim, which makes it look like a nightcap.
I personally have a problem with global warming. It's not whether it's man-made or not. It's not a matter of whose fault it is. The problem is it's a distraction.
We spend so much time disassembling false, moronic arguments such as the ones commonly found in the artistic and intellectual abortion that is Mallard Fillmore that we forget the basic premise.
Let's say that conservatives are right. Let's say global warming isn't man-made. Let's pretend, in fact, it's actually a complete lie. Ocean levels aren't rising.
Even if this were all completely true, we're still left with this: Pollution is bad for us.
What part of releasing millions of tons of harmful chemicals into the lands, skies, and seas is supposed to be okay for us? We fuck up the world in many, many ways. Not just through global warming. There's a GIANT hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic. Is that supposed to be natural? Is acid rain natural? Is the destruction of the rain forest natural? Is the desertification of once arable land natural?
So fuck you, Mallard. Fuck you and your pathetic straw-man arguments and your inability to grasp this simple concept.
The comma after "you" ends the phrase, leaving "and global warming" hanging out there with no verb.
Probabls Drinkley confused this with the use of a comma in a series, such as "...believe in you, the Easter Bunny, and man-made Global Warming". But when there's only TWO items in the series2, the comma indicates the end of the previous "thought".
@ Lagomorph Man - you're right, of course, that there are plenty enough other reasons to get our act together on energy. For one, as David Brin pointed out, there are billions of people on this planet who want to raise their living standard to ours, and 2.5 billion more coming in the next few decades; our carbon-based economy simply cannot do it. There's not enough trees to tear down for crops; if we burned enough coal to bring just that additional 2.5 billion up to our standard, the pollution would be amazing.
And of course, human-caused global climate change is NOT a hoax. But those billions and billions are coming, and we need to get our energy act together or they will do it for us.
Geez, stupid Straw Liberal! That's not Santa, it's one of his helpers! He's just a disposable underling who will be out on the street after his fifteen minutes are up.
Say, just when are Tin's fifteen minutes going to be up?
Yes, it is disgraceful how many people have stopped believing that anthropogenic factors likely contribute to climate change, despite widespread scientific consensus in support of the idea.
What bothers me is more the people who scream that this is some sort of conspiracy to lower the American standard of living. As though every nation in the world met in secret and decided to try to fake this to bring America down. It would be funnier if it wasn't so sad, not to mention that I'd argue plenty of european countries or Canada could argue a better standard of living.
"...plenty of european countries or Canada could argue a better standard of living...."
Since "standard of living" should include, as a base, being alive ... there's no question but that Canada, Japan and the E.U. has a higher std of living that our USA. We inflate our "standard" by all sorts of accounting tricks, e.g. including "under water" homes as being occupant owned.
Remember, if you get cancer from living downwind from a pollution source, your ineffectual million-dollar treatment INCREASES our GDP and your standard of living far more than simply not getting cancer in the first place!
11 comments:
Note the careful insertion of "man-made" before "global warming." That's a recent development for Bruce, since he used to portray climate change as strictly a liberal fantasy with no basis in science and reality.
After a while, he started making up crap (cow flatulence, the sun getting hotter) to explain away the mounting evidence.
I fully expect him to use all the other unsupported lunatic nonsense that's currently flying around the rightwing blogosphere (axis wobble, abrupt deviations of Earth's orbit) along with Michael Crichton's "weather-controlling hippies" fantasy from "State of Fear" and Pat Buchanan's "it's a cyclical event based on data I can't show you because no one can understand it--maybe it's the Wrath of God!!" fartings. Speaking of cow flatulence...
For some reason, the thing that bothers me the most is how Tinsley can't draw Santa hats. Once again he neglects to draw the bottom trim, which makes it look like a nightcap.
I personally have a problem with global warming. It's not whether it's man-made or not. It's not a matter of whose fault it is. The problem is it's a distraction.
We spend so much time disassembling false, moronic arguments such as the ones commonly found in the artistic and intellectual abortion that is Mallard Fillmore that we forget the basic premise.
Let's say that conservatives are right. Let's say global warming isn't man-made. Let's pretend, in fact, it's actually a complete lie. Ocean levels aren't rising.
Even if this were all completely true, we're still left with this:
Pollution is bad for us.
What part of releasing millions of tons of harmful chemicals into the lands, skies, and seas is supposed to be okay for us? We fuck up the world in many, many ways. Not just through global warming. There's a GIANT hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic. Is that supposed to be natural? Is acid rain natural? Is the destruction of the rain forest natural? Is the desertification of once arable land natural?
So fuck you, Mallard. Fuck you and your pathetic straw-man arguments and your inability to grasp this simple concept.
Lago, to answer your "are these natural" questions, I can quote a RWer with whom I've had the same argument:
"Man is part of nature, so Of COURSE these things are natural!!"
Yep. And global warming is good for you.
-- Nick
Ah, Tinshley, the king of magical thinking. "If I whine that people don't believe in man-made global warming often enough, maybe it'll come true!"
More crappy text editting.
The comma after "you" ends the phrase, leaving "and global warming" hanging out there with no verb.
Probabls Drinkley confused this with the use of a comma in a series, such as "...believe in you, the Easter Bunny, and man-made Global Warming". But when there's only TWO items in the series2, the comma indicates the end of the previous "thought".
@ Lagomorph Man - you're right, of course, that there are plenty enough other reasons to get our act together on energy. For one, as David Brin pointed out, there are billions of people on this planet who want to raise their living standard to ours, and 2.5 billion more coming in the next few decades; our carbon-based economy simply cannot do it. There's not enough trees to tear down for crops; if we burned enough coal to bring just that additional 2.5 billion up to our standard, the pollution would be amazing.
And of course, human-caused global climate change is NOT a hoax. But those billions and billions are coming, and we need to get our energy act together or they will do it for us.
Geez, stupid Straw Liberal! That's not Santa, it's one of his helpers! He's just a disposable underling who will be out on the street after his fifteen minutes are up.
Say, just when are Tin's fifteen minutes going to be up?
Yes, it is disgraceful how many people have stopped believing that anthropogenic factors likely contribute to climate change, despite widespread scientific consensus in support of the idea.
Why is this a viewpoint to be ridiculed, again?
Tinsley's opposition to the idea that humanity might be responsible for global warming makes me think of a line from The Kids in the Hall:
"We cannot change! To change would mean...to make an effort."
Tinsley doesn't want it to be man-made, because that would mean we would have to try changing our ways...and we can't have that, can we?
What bothers me is more the people who scream that this is some sort of conspiracy to lower the American standard of living. As though every nation in the world met in secret and decided to try to fake this to bring America down. It would be funnier if it wasn't so sad, not to mention that I'd argue plenty of european countries or Canada could argue a better standard of living.
"...plenty of european countries or Canada could argue a better standard of living...."
Since "standard of living" should include, as a base, being alive ... there's no question but that Canada, Japan and the E.U. has a higher std of living that our USA. We inflate our "standard" by all sorts of accounting tricks, e.g. including "under water" homes as being occupant owned.
Remember, if you get cancer from living downwind from a pollution source, your ineffectual million-dollar treatment INCREASES our GDP and your standard of living far more than simply not getting cancer in the first place!
Post a Comment