That guy who said this is the worst day of the year must be right… And it must put everyone in a two week funk. No matter what I’ve said lately, somebody has found a really bizarre thing to complain about. If I’ve said “A equals B” someone else has said that “B does not equal C” so therefore I’m an idiot. This has left me quite puzzled as well as a little miffed… Some of them are moonbats so it is to be expected. At least one of them is a mentally unstable moonbat so it was not surprising.
But it starts to hurt when someone you respect rips you apart while taking you COMPLETELY out of context.
So for the time being, I’ll give Bill at INDC Journal the benefit of the doubt that he missed my point.
In this post, I excerpt a story about some “report” saying that there is going to be a “Global Catastrophy” in 10 years unless we do something about global warming. I then wrote a single paragraph about the merits of the story assuming you took it at face value. Then I say:
But this is NOT a scientific paper so none of that matters.
This paper is just an environmentalist manifesto dressed up as science. Ted Kaczynski without the bombs but with a few letters behind his name. The environmental movement has a problem they did not expect to have when it started. A deadline.
To fully understand this report, you have to first understand that the environmental movement is not about science, it is about policy. Be they socialists, luddites or whatever their motivation, the aim is to affect policy. Therein lies the problem.
Policy makers will not pass the draconian legislation the environmental movement wants because there is no pressing need to ruin the lives of millions of people on the whacky theory of the week. So the environmentalists have now created an artificial deadline to motivate policy makers. The news report even says that is why this paper was written!
They actually did it last year when they said that up to 20% of the land mass would be flooded if we didn’t do something in 5 years. That was laughed at, so now, like a kid trying to extend their bed time, the environmentalist are going back to the policymakers and saying “Ok, 10 years?”
I for one welcome the deadline– and I liked the 5 year deadline. Then we can get this goofball, chicken little theory behind us.
Remember this post. When you ring in 2015 and there was no “Global Catastrophy,” tell the person you’re sharing the champagne with, “You know, that guy on the internet was right.”
I wrote one paragraph about the claims in the report (assuming you took it as science and not a propaganda piece) then I specifically say that none of that matters to my point. I then wrote 7 paragraphs making my point that the environmental movement is now trying to create artificial deadlines to affect policy.
Again, you can read the original here for the context. Then oddly, Bill ONLY excerpts the EXACT thing I said was not important and then blasts me because I did not do an in depth refutation of the report. Of course I didn’t, that wasn’t my point. My point, as anyone can see, was about the environmental movement trying to change policy and them using a new tactic.
*Doing an in depth refutation of the report would have greatly detracted from my point.*
Bill did great work on the typefaces used in the bogus CBS memos. I didn’t blast him for not catching the base was closed on the day Bush was supposed to report, because that was not his point. It is a tangentially related but disjointed point. If I make a post that some Dem running for the head of the DNC has a problem because he is against abortion, I don’t then have to discuss abortion too, that a whole ‘nuther kettle of fish.
If Bill would like be to make a post blasting the junk science of global warming, it’s been done to death but by golly I’ll do it just for him. But MAN if you are going to quote me can you at least get the context right?
I can’t wait for spring.
BTW I left a comment for Bill asking him to review his post. 3 hours later, I got no reply so I figured I’d toss this up.
And one more point, Bill makes much of the fact that I put a the end of my remarks, “And please spare me links to people who swear this hoax is true. You will only prove you are gullible. The environmental movement has about a 0-150 record in their predictions of doom and gloom. I’m not buying it.
I knew that by mentioning Global Warming someone would post 10 links to doom and gloom. That was not my point and I did not want the comments to become a “global warming pissing contest.” I was talking about the tactics of the environmental movement.