Where concerns about the world getting warmer / The people thought they were just being rewarded

August 10, 2006 7:45 AM

Global warming, hooray!
posted by monju_bosatsu (100 comments total)

It's hard to tell the difference between satire and the usual dissembling at the National Review.
posted by empath at 7:47 AM on August 10, 2006

True, there might be some dislocations as crops shifted northward, but so what? Economies change all the time.

By far, the most ignorant statement in the article. A massive distruption in our food supply, but so what?

Although he is right about the media making a big deal about summer heat waves & global warming - climate != weather.
posted by SirOmega at 7:50 AM on August 10, 2006

1. This will not go well.
2. One link FPP, to an opinion piece, in a partisan magazine? For shame.
3. I always get my Nation* political magazines mixed up. Is it the Nation or the National Review that has partisan elitist sycophants and elitists on the masthead and laughable circulation of almost solely beltway insiders.

~off to read the article.
posted by rzklkng at 7:52 AM on August 10, 2006

Was that real? I can't tell.

Anyway, he's an idiot if it's real. Global warming = more energy in the system = extreme weather on both ends of the scale, cold and warm.

Goodness knows, what we really need is more Katrinas, now that FEMA's got everything ironed out and we don't use oil anymore anyway, right?
posted by Dipsomaniac at 7:54 AM on August 10, 2006

What will be awesome is turning these people away from the gates of my high plains fortress outpost when the Mad Max times are upon us.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:55 AM on August 10, 2006

This will not go well.

Sure it will. We can all point and laugh at Mr. Robbins. What's wrong with that?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:58 AM on August 10, 2006

Yes! We can make northern Canada more comfortable! Of course, everything along the equator would become a scorched, uninhabitable wasteland. But hey, you can't make an omelet without destroying a planet.
posted by magodesky at 7:59 AM on August 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

Of course, northern Canada is a desert of tundra, rock, and pine forests. I doubt that anything else would be growing there anytime soon, the soil is just awful.

Not too mention the thousands of lakes that'd need to be filled in.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 8:00 AM on August 10, 2006

A population distribution map of Canada shows most people live in a belt running along the southern border with the United States. But add global warming and vast regions would become comfortably habitable. As well, there would be more land available for cultivation.

What??? Um, yeah...we huddle at the border for warmth. That's it. And, yeah, all those planted crops are going to magically migrate north, planting themselves as they go. Cool.

What a fucking crock.
posted by jimmythefish at 8:01 AM on August 10, 2006

The calendar system here in hell is a little different (we use the Neo-Pagan calendar). Is it already April 1st in the mortal world?
posted by the ghost of Ken Lay at 8:05 AM on August 10, 2006

Nice goatee (eyes rolling). That look went out with Mark Mcguire circa 1994.

And yes, I have bought into Gore's and scientists' warnings about this problem for the sole purpose of "feeling superior" to others (eyes rolling again).
posted by wfc123 at 8:09 AM on August 10, 2006

Wow... I really can't tell if that was satire or not, but I really, really hope that it was.
posted by kaseijin at 8:10 AM on August 10, 2006

This is most definitely a piece of satire.
posted by splatta at 8:11 AM on August 10, 2006

Shorter Robbins:

1. It's just a heatwave.
2. Global warming has unintended benefits.
3. Estimation of effects are overexaggerated.
4. There is no compelling evidence...
5. ...except that in the 1970s we thought there was going to be an ice age.
6. Liberals don't realize global warming benefits them because it will keep their population from moving to warmer states and keep seats in Congress.
7. Liberals like global warming (and fighting it) because it will inspire "big government" solutions, like sea walls.
8. The panic of global warming is a marketing gimmick.
9. Controlling or regulating the positive causes of global warming will end the free market system.
10. Irony defined.

At the root of global-warming alarmism is a deathly fear of change. It is ironic that the Left, which calls itself progressive, is comprised of some of the most reactionary people on earth. They will come up with endless lists of all the changes that will result from temperature increases, exclusively focusing on the negative, as though change per se is something to be avoided.

11. We need to apply the successive intelligence, oversight, public relations, and execution of the War in Iraq towards the War on Global Warming.
I'd say he covered all the bases except incorporating affirmative action, anti-Christian and anti-Semetic biases, radical Islamists, and Ivory Tower elitists. I so want to get in on the GOP talking point fax blasts - I wonder if every Conservative newspaper and magazine flunkie gets a mad-libs editorial template so they can ape whatever sewage flows from Tony Snows mouth?
posted by rzklkng at 8:12 AM on August 10, 2006

monju, are you a "good guy" or a "bad guy"? I can't tell from your posts and comments?
posted by rzklkng at 8:13 AM on August 10, 2006

Personally, I don’t know what all the shouting is about. Global warming is great. Granted, maybe it isn’t really happening, and if it is there are strong reasons to doubt that humans have anything to do with it.

The right-wing playbook on global warming:
1- it's not happening! and if it can be proven to happen,
2- er, humans have nothing to do with it! and if that can be proven too,
3- it's great! Shorter winters! and if that causes things like more (and more destructive) hurricanes, loss of land due to oceans rising,
4- ??? We don't know yet because THEY HAVEN'T GOTTEN AROUND TO MAKING THAT SHIT UP YET.

But, of course, given that reality isn't faith-based, they'll have to find some rationale to explain how that's a good thing too. Perhaps they'll have to use the Coulter-ish "well it'll affect only blue states that are full of traitors and commies anyway" play.
posted by clevershark at 8:15 AM on August 10, 2006

I love how in conservativeland the entire relevant scientific community on a given subject can be completely dismissed as alarmist wingnuts if they challenge the status quo.

I can't belive this douchebag has the temerity to accuse people who want to do something about climate change of fearing change. Demanding an end to a destructive status quo is fearing change? Who reads this garbage?
posted by [expletive deleted] at 8:16 AM on August 10, 2006

He forgot "trees cause pollution".
posted by spock at 8:16 AM on August 10, 2006

Nah, this is the real deal, I know many people who think like this.

Another motive, sometimes open sometimes not, is to end the free-market system as we know it.

It's ironic that those on the right are missing the big picture. We are on the cusp of the largest technological revolution since, well, the industrial revolution. There are fortunes to be made that make the oil industry look like a ma-n-pa shop. Total overhaul of just about everything we do to new clean technologies. You'd think they would get on board because new markets are opening up quickly and they seem to be missing the boat.
posted by stbalbach at 8:17 AM on August 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

The only reason that the GOP hasn't gotten on board with the whole global warming issue is that they haven't figured out how to turn a buck on the destruction of the climate.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 8:19 AM on August 10, 2006

Add me to the "I really can't tell" crowd.

Wow.


Just wow.
posted by rxrfrx at 8:20 AM on August 10, 2006

shouldn't this be on "the onion"?
posted by wumpus at 8:20 AM on August 10, 2006

I am buying my homestead in Alaska now before the prices go up.
posted by caddis at 8:22 AM on August 10, 2006

I always get my Nation* political magazines mixed up.

It's the National Review, which caters to the anything-for-a-buck crowd. This article is supposed to be jocular. I think. Lighthearted. At the same time, it gives that audience permission to confess that, okay, okay, maybe there is such a thing as global warming, but lighten up -- no, don't light up, har har har, crazy hippies -- lighten up, you over-earnest sky-is-falling hyper-hyphenated lefties, global warming is a good thing, don't you see? It's not something we should try to prevent, not if it would mean having to spend any of our lovely, lovely, lovely dollars.
posted by pracowity at 8:23 AM on August 10, 2006

I'm waiting for the neocon spin of the Iraq civil war to begin.

"I'm *glad* Iraq is enmeshed in a civil war! Civil wars are a crucial step on the road to democritization. The American Civil War paved the way for our modern freedoms. . . ."

Blah, blah, blah.
posted by Gordion Knott at 8:23 AM on August 10, 2006

James S. Robbins wrote this book.

James S. Robbins is a Professor of International Relations at the National Defense University in Washington, DC., and Senior Fellow in National Security Affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council. Dr. Robbins is a former Special Assistant in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and frequent commentator on national security issues for National Review, The Wall Street Journal, and other publications. He appears regularly on international television and radio including the BBC, Voice of America, FNC, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN/FN, among others. He holds a Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Medford, Mass. His research interests include terrorism and national security strategy, political theory, and military history.

James S. Robbins is not a scientist. I value his opinion similarly to that of Timecube Guy. The National Review is not interested in columnists who have the qualifications to talk about the subject at hand. They are interested in columnists who say what their readers want to hear.
posted by riotgrrl69 at 8:24 AM on August 10, 2006

GK, it's not a "civil war", it's "sectarian violence". "Civil War" didn't do well with the focus groups. We're still waiting for the panel to come back with the alternative buzzwords for global warming.
posted by rzklkng at 8:26 AM on August 10, 2006

This doesn't just apply to Global Warming!

"So if we see global Terrorism for the beneficial trend that it is rather than a looming threat to life and limb, none of the “solutions” being proposed by the alarmists are necessary."

- More jobs! (armed services and anti-terrorism)
- Boost to the Economy! (in weapons manurfacture)
- A solution to over population!
- It's like a lottery! But with your very own life! The excitement!
- More entertaining then another bloody series of Big Brother!

This line of reasoning can work with anything, just try these as a thought experiment:

Global killer asteroid.
Flesh eating viri.
Brain tumours.
Gangrene.
Locusts.
Supervolcano.
Kissing your sister.

And remember - when life gives you lemons, suck them. Suck them and smile and be glad it didn't give you dogsh*t you miserable f***er - just think of the pleasent citrus breath you're gonna have. No more scurvey for you!
posted by Meccabilly at 8:26 AM on August 10, 2006

"I'm *glad* Iraq is enmeshed in a civil war! Civil wars are a crucial step on the road to democritization. The American Civil War paved the way for our modern freedoms. . . ."

Sorry, you already missed it whooshing by. Fox News was running "Civil War in Iraq: The Upside" headlines months ago.
posted by verb at 8:30 AM on August 10, 2006

Oh, and Iraq's Civil War Sectarian Violence has it's benefits, too. It gives us a chance to start talking about troop withdrawals redeployments again.
posted by rzklkng at 8:30 AM on August 10, 2006

Some rare plant and animal species, hyper-adapted to highly specific climate conditions or micobiotic zones, are already unable to cope with the change. Many may go extinct; some already have. That’s tough, but chalk it up to bad evolutionary choices. When those rigidly specialist species bet everything on a small part of the world in hopes it would never change, they made a very bad bargain. For our part, we have air conditioners, lightweight fabrics, and sunscreen. Why infinitely adaptable humanity has to pay the price for the evolutionary shortsightedness of other life forms is beyond me.

Clearly satire.
posted by Espy Gillespie at 8:31 AM on August 10, 2006

If it's satire, it's pretty good.

If it's sincere, it's pretty dumb.

Here's what I'm talking about:

And if this threatens our cities one would think some form of sea wall would be in order. The Dutch have been doing this for years, there is no reason why we can’t copy them.

As satire this would be a clever way to work Katrina and New Orleans into the article without explicitly mentioning them. But if it's not satire, then I don't what to think.
posted by justkevin at 8:32 AM on August 10, 2006

There are fortunes to be made that make the oil industry look like a ma-n-pa shop.

A 'ma-n-pa shop?' Hardly. Any new technology is facing the prospect of:

- augmenting oil rather than replacing it as an energy source
- costly, risky technology development and energy extraction
- fighting a voracious oil lobby

It's dangerous and foolish to assume that some sort of energy form will come around to replace oil. I know you're not saying this, but at the same time we're here and structured the way we are because of oil, rather than (as I think a lot of people think) 'we're here, so there must be some energy source to come to our rescue'.

Nothing groundbreaking has emerged as of yet. Is this capitalism failing us, or is it because there's a possibilitly that there's no easy solution out there?
posted by jimmythefish at 8:37 AM on August 10, 2006

Every time I read someone who has this viewpoint, I'm reminded of the guy who lived near Mt. St. Helens, and try as they might to get him to leave when it was about to blow, he would not be moved. He insisted that he'd lived there his whole life, and that the scientists were wrong. He was not in danger. He was going to have the last laugh, when it was over.

As soon as it erupted he was killed instantly. I guess those goofy scientists knew something he didn't.
posted by trigby at 8:37 AM on August 10, 2006

Someone call a UN ambulance, my satirometer is broken.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:37 AM on August 10, 2006

Three different things:

Weather. Global warming. Climate change.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 8:38 AM on August 10, 2006

National Review publishes absurd, lame-assed boilerplate polemic thinly disguised as satire (giving them CYA deniability if needed). Jonathan Swift it's not.

Next.
posted by blucevalo at 8:38 AM on August 10, 2006

This isn't satire, except in the sense that the author doesn't care about being truthful to his readers.
posted by riotgrrl69 at 8:44 AM on August 10, 2006

And if this threatens our cities one would think some form of sea wall would be in order. The Dutch have been doing this for years, there is no reason why we can’t copy them.

er, because the US simply doesn't have the will to do so in the first place. It would rather save a buck in prevention and spend a hundred for the cure. Both at home (Katrina) and abroad (Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, etc.), if I may say so.

There was a saying about people who ignore history, but it's fuzzy in my mind just now...
posted by clevershark at 8:50 AM on August 10, 2006

Gaia is just tucking us in with the sweet, sweet blankie of change to keep us warm and snuggly while we sleep. In the morning, when we wake, it will be summer vacation forever! YEAH!!! Why do you liberals hate Gaia? And blankies?! And SUMMER VACATION?!!! BOO!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:53 AM on August 10, 2006

That was hilarious, thanks.
posted by Eideteker at 8:54 AM on August 10, 2006

Why does Gaia hate America?
posted by blucevalo at 8:56 AM on August 10, 2006

Because America bragged to all his friends about that one time behind the bleachers.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:03 AM on August 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

3. I always get my Nation* political magazines mixed up. Is it the Nation or the National Review that has partisan elitist sycophants and elitists on the masthead and laughable circulation of almost solely beltway insiders.

They both do, IIRC. but one is Conservative, and one is conservative lite.
posted by delmoi at 9:06 AM on August 10, 2006

Or to put it another way, one has been absurdly wrong about predicting the course of the Iraq war, and the other has been consistently right. So yeah -- in terms of the names of the magazines, they're kinda similar. If that's what matters most to you.
posted by digaman at 9:13 AM on August 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

The only reason that the GOP hasn't gotten on board with the whole global warming issue is that they haven't figured out how to turn a buck on the destruction of the climate.

People do know how to make money on preventing climate change (for example selling emissions credits, selling hybrid cars, government subsidies for biofuels, etc). The opposition comes from the fact that the right wing is basically controlled by myopic oil interests, and that anything liberals are for conservatives oppose.
posted by delmoi at 9:14 AM on August 10, 2006

Or to put it another way, one has been absurdly wrong about predicting the course of the Iraq war, and the other has been consistently right. So yeah -- in terms of the names of the magazines, they're kinda similar. If that's what matters most to you.

Wait, did I confuse The Nation with The New Republic?
posted by delmoi at 9:15 AM on August 10, 2006

delmoi - I was about to say, I know you're kinda joking around, but THE NATION is "conservative lite"?

The Nation refers to The New Republlic as "fascist". Which I always thougt was funny.
posted by Eyebeams at 9:18 AM on August 10, 2006

America bragged to all his friends about that one time behind the bleachers.

And that, kids, is how we got the Grand Canyon!
posted by hackly_fracture at 9:20 AM on August 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

Dipsomaniac writes "Of course, northern Canada is a desert of tundra, rock, and pine forests. I doubt that anything else would be growing there anytime soon, the soil is just awful."

Besides the fact you can only shift north so far and you cross the Arctic Circle with all the midnight sun and weeks of darkness that comes with it.
posted by Mitheral at 9:20 AM on August 10, 2006

Torture isn't bad when you torture the bad guys, don't you watch 24? Stop hating America.

Civil War? It's just the best way to sort out all the big questions. Parliamentary democracy is too bureaucratic to be efficient.

Global Warming? Grab your parasol and head for the beach, or better yet, let the beach come to you!

I'm wondering what unconscionable evil these fuckwits will tell us to be grateful for next.

If Dick Cheney is caught raping toddlers, what will we hear then?

Tony Snow claims that this proves Cheney has emotions after all. He'll claim that this just demonstrates the VP has a heart overflowing with love for toddlers. "I guess liberals must hate toddlers, if they find any expression of love for them so objectionable," says Snow during a press conference.

Fox News Update: Raping small children gives valuable life experience, builds character. Next on Fox and Friends: Raping 3 year olds, you may think it's physically impossible, but we'll show you how.

The Heritage Foundation releases a study claiming that people raped as toddlers are 20 times more likely to become successful grief counselors and recommend that in order to train better therapists, people should do their part and rape toddlers.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 9:25 AM on August 10, 2006

One thing is certain, the notion (yes, notion) of "global warming" has certainly made mountains out of molehills.
posted by tadellin at 9:28 AM on August 10, 2006

[expletive deleted]: Alberto Gonzales re-examines the child-sex laws and determines that one of the executive privileges of the Vice President has always been a harem of toddlers at his beck and call, while Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter excoriate the Democrat Party for championing a Nanny State in which nannies have the right to interrupt the Vice President during his refreshing interludes of coitus.
posted by digaman at 9:31 AM on August 10, 2006

tadellin, with rising sea levels, shouldn't that be "molehills out of mountains?"
posted by Llama-Lime at 9:32 AM on August 10, 2006

I can't believe he tried to use gaia theory to explain global warming, which is antithetical, even if its satire.
posted by uni verse at 9:38 AM on August 10, 2006

Earth has a fever.
posted by EarBucket at 9:41 AM on August 10, 2006

Bill Frist introduces a bill to make consent mandatory for children under 6. Democrats in Congress are excoriated for challenging the wisdom of a doctor on vital issues of public health.

The Wall Street Journal condemns the Democratic Senate leadership as ignorant, notes that as a licenced surgeon who has performed pediatric heart transplants, Bill Frist is in a unique postition to appreciate the benefits of forced toddler-love.

To avoid accusations of liberal bias, the NYT starts accepting Op-Eds from NAMBLA.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 9:44 AM on August 10, 2006

Earth has a fever

and the only cure, of course, is more cowbell.
posted by Hat Maui at 9:48 AM on August 10, 2006

I couldn't finish this article. I could feel myself getting stupider just by reading it.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 9:55 AM on August 10, 2006

Is there agreement as to what the world will look like if it warms as expected in 200 years time? Will the Sahara still be desert for example, or will the tropical rain-belts move north?
posted by grahamwell at 9:56 AM on August 10, 2006

I think he's trying to be like PJ O'Rourke. Trouble is he's not funny.
posted by rhymer at 9:57 AM on August 10, 2006

It's not satire, it's the way these douchebags really think and it's the way they've convinced millions of stupid Americans to think.

It's why we must destroy them before they use the planet and/or "God" to destroy us.
posted by dopamine at 9:57 AM on August 10, 2006

Can we please take out of the equation of this thread the misguided notion that this is satire? This guy is serious.
posted by digaman at 9:59 AM on August 10, 2006

I can't believe he tried to use gaia theory to explain global warming, which is antithetical, even if its satire.

Oh, I certainly believe that the Gaia hypothesis in in play re: global warming. How could things be otherwise? The only problem is that this chapter ends with that pernicious little organism that caused all these carbon releases causing their own extinction as Gaia goes on her merry and merciless way. Meanwhile, thermophilic organisms party up on the newly boiling water-covered planet.
posted by digaman at 10:03 AM on August 10, 2006

James Lovelock on global warming. Gaia is indeed in play. Like the writer of the NRO piece, he doesn't think there's much to do except adapt as best we can. His take is somewhat gloomier, as you might expect.

Let me rephrase my question though. Will global warming create winners and losers? Is it absurd to think that Siberia or the Sahara might prosper in the event of a global temperature rise?
posted by grahamwell at 10:12 AM on August 10, 2006

The dog barks, the caravan passes.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:13 AM on August 10, 2006

Edit: The dog[fish] bites, the catamaran passes.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:19 AM on August 10, 2006

He holds a Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Medford, Mass.

Is there a reason this guy is embarassed to say that he has a Ph.D. from Tufts?

The National Review is not interested in columnists who have the qualifications to talk about the subject at hand. They are interested in columnists who say what their readers want to hear.

So true. The role of the National Review is not to illuminate their readers with facts. Rather, it is to provide their readers with a set of talking points to repeat to their friends and relatives around the water cooler and the dinner table. I know that our teachers taught us that the more we read, the better off we are, but for things like the National Review and the WSJ Editorial page, it seems that the more people read those, the less informed they become.
posted by deanc at 10:20 AM on August 10, 2006

"Many ingenious lovely things are gone
That seemed sheer miracle to the multitude"

-- Yeats
posted by digaman at 10:22 AM on August 10, 2006

The article comes across like a freshman highschool debating, it tries so hard to cover every possible objection that it completely contradicts itself.
posted by drezdn at 10:22 AM on August 10, 2006

still waiting for the panel to come back with the alternative buzzwords for global warming

I thought that *was* the focus group result. After all, who doesn't like a little warmth?

Hurricanes? Flood? Severe winter? That's not what they said! They said I'd get to shop from the other zones in my gardening catalog and that I wouldn't have to trick-or-treat in a coat anymore.

I do think the term "global warming" hurts mass understanding of all the issues and gives people like this (ahem) gentleman the ability to wiggle the issue to sound like every day is a water park.
posted by Gucky at 10:25 AM on August 10, 2006

trigby:
Every time I read someone who has this viewpoint, I'm reminded of the guy who lived near Mt. St. Helens, and try as they might to get him to leave when it was about to blow, he would not be moved.

His name, brilliantly enough, was Harry Truman.
posted by rogue haggis landing at 10:27 AM on August 10, 2006

Can we please take out of the equation of this thread the misguided notion that this is satire? This guy is serious.

Seconded. And as irrefutable evidence, I submit that no one who used to proudly note in his bio his work as a trustee of this organization could possibly produce (intentional) satire.

What we have here, folks, is a genuine certified Douchebag of Liberty, and it's my intention, when the ecological collapse comes, to lash him to six others of his kind with several lengths of un-American hemp rope and sail these mindless hulls of wasted carbon to safe fertile ground.
posted by gompa at 10:32 AM on August 10, 2006

Not satire, not funny (although satire doesn't have to be funny)...but laughable.
posted by kozad at 10:37 AM on August 10, 2006

Insane.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:46 AM on August 10, 2006

Nice goatee (eyes rolling). That look went out with Mark Mcguire circa 1994.

*looks in mirror, cringes*

I didn't realize goatees were 12 years out of style. That may be why I just adopted one last winter. Actually, it was my wife's idea, so maybe she's the one who's 12 years behind.

Is it all goatees in general? Or just one specific implementation?
posted by Ynoxas at 10:47 AM on August 10, 2006

It's not satire. But he is trying to be funny.
posted by rhymer at 10:52 AM on August 10, 2006

Ynoxas writes "Is it all goatees in general? Or just one specific implementation?"

I think you're safe now, it is no longer foolish looking like in 1995. Merely an eccentricity.
posted by Mitheral at 10:59 AM on August 10, 2006

read the article, its clearly satire.
posted by b1tr0t at 11:43 AM on August 10, 2006

[It helps if you read it in a Colbert voice]
posted by b1tr0t at 11:46 AM on August 10, 2006

dipsomaniac: Was that real? I can't tell.

It was real in that it wasn't satire, but fake in that he probably knows he's full of shit and doesn't care.

clevershark - they've already figured out step four.

1) No such thing as global warming, but if there is-
2) Humans aren't causing it, but if we are-
3) It's a good thing! But if it really is Katrinas and Tsunamis-
4) See #1
posted by Navelgazer at 12:07 PM on August 10, 2006

The goatee is the mullet of the 2000s.
posted by BaxterG4 at 2:22 PM on August 10, 2006

[It helps if you read it in a Colbert voice]
posted by b1tr0t at 1:46 PM CST on August 10 [+] [!]

True, but couldn't that be said of almost everything?

I think you're safe now, it is no longer foolish looking like in 1995. Merely an eccentricity.
posted by Mitheral at 12:59 PM CST on August 10

I hope you're right. My first foray into facial hair, and it had to come to this! Oh, the humanity!

Upon further research it appears I have a Van Dyke, not a Goatee.

Does that make me any less lame? I would hate to miss out on any of the eccentricity.
posted by Ynoxas at 2:35 PM on August 10, 2006

I think global warming is a good term because the globe, on average, will warm.
posted by delmoi at 2:50 PM on August 10, 2006

rzklkng writes "We're still waiting for the panel to come back with the alternative buzzwords for global warming."

"Transnational Thawing"
posted by brundlefly at 2:59 PM on August 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

A population distribution map of Canada shows most people live in a belt running along the southern border with the United States. But add global warming and vast regions would become comfortably habitable. As well, there would be more land available for cultivation.

Yeah all that peat moss is real easy to build on without the permafrost.
posted by robofunk at 3:30 PM on August 10, 2006

A Modest Proposal this is not.
posted by Krrrlson at 3:53 PM on August 10, 2006

Unfortunate.
posted by birdie birdington at 4:03 PM on August 10, 2006

What's that? The Yukon will be a balmy paradise, where we can all cavort nude while friendly toucans and spider monkeys gather fruit for our afternoon siestas? Wonderful! Except that I live in North Carolina. Which, in August, feels like it isn't north of anything but Hell. I think Hank Hill said it best:

DALE: That's code for U.N. commissars telling Americans what the temperature's going to be in our outdoors. I say let the world warm up, let's see what Boutros Boutros Ghali Ghali has to say about that. We'll grow oranges in Alaska!

HANK: Dale, you giblet-head, we live in Texas! It's already 110 in the summer, and if it gets one degree hotter, I'm going to kick your ass!

Also, this is the stupidest statement I've seen today:

And warmer climates might reverse the migration pattern in this country away from the frigid liberal northeast towards the warm conservative south. Imagine Massachusetts and Vermont gaining seats in Congress and then tell me how bad global warming is.

Yes, that's exactly right! Warmer climates would cause people to move to areas that are already hot, and getting hotter, because . . . because . . . er . . . hum. Which contradicts his earlier point about presently cold areas, such as northern Canada, and, presumably, the "frigid liberal northeast" becoming more habitable.

This is today's second stupidest statement, but only because he doesn't manage to contradict one of the main points of his own argument:

That’s tough, but chalk it up to bad evolutionary choices. When those rigidly specialist species bet everything on a small part of the world in hopes it would never change, they made a very bad bargain. For our part, we have air conditioners, lightweight fabrics, and sunscreen. Why infinitely adaptable humanity has to pay the price for the evolutionary shortsightedness of other life forms is beyond me.

"Evolutionary choices?" "Made a bad bargain?" "Evolutionary shortsightedness?" What? This man is high! He seems to think a species can exert some conscious choice on the evolutionary path it takes, which it can then be held accountable for. I suppose all the giant pandas, for example, held a convention at some point, where it was decided that they would eat only bamboo, and have the reproductive habits of Trekkies. And they all wore little name tags, saying "My name is Tsing Tsing" or some such, and there was much drinking, and many attempts at hook-ups, which, because they were pandas, didn't amount to anything.
posted by crake at 4:14 PM on August 10, 2006

Yeah, the whole not seeing the global warming trend continuing and passing by the inconveniant but possibly beneficial adjustments made by humanity thing - pretty silly.
Speaking of Hank Hill style ass kicking, where’s that dumbass who said Russia always wanted northern ports?
The sucky thing is I really don’t (personally) get the whole global warming thing. That is to say - I understand the issue. I understand there are dangers. I don’t understand the actual data and thus can’t “decide for myself” because I’m not a climatologist or in any related field. I do understand there are differing opinions. What I’ve seen has led me to believe there is a problem despite the disparity. But this is not the kind of issue that should be subject to politicizing.

Kinda feels like we’re on a plane and someone in a pilot’s outfit (who is likely a pilot) jumps out of the cockpit and says “Put on your seatbelts!” and another guy in a similar outfit (another pilot?) comes out and says “No, don’t. We’re not crashing.” And the first pilot is saying there is still a state of danger,and the second pilot is saying how airplanes do crash, but not this one, and it's not the airline's fault. Then more pilots come out and most of them are on the side of the first pilot. But then the first class passengers get up and start debating aerodynamics. Someone stands up and differentiates aerodynamics from aeronautics. Meanwhile there’s no beverage service and my wife is choking on a peanut which you don’t get enough of in the first place to really fill you up. I mean it’s a six hour flight and all you get is peanuts and cola? Give me a break. Plus they censor the in-flight movies.
...what was I talking about?
Oh yeah. I’d just like a straight answer. And even barring the possibility of something black and white - a probility sort of thing and maybe some plan of action that doesn’t involve getting multinational corporations to do something? I’m planning on installing some solar panels on the house. I’d be more than happy to (for example) run on biodiesel (if I could sustain it).
posted by Smedleyman at 5:09 PM on August 10, 2006

I think he's trying to be like PJ O'Rourke. Trouble is he's not funny.

Well, then he's succeeded rather swimmingly, hasn't he?
posted by IshmaelGraves at 5:55 PM on August 10, 2006

Is this the same guy who wrote the copy for CO2: We Call it Life? [previously]
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:11 PM on August 10, 2006

Upon further research it appears I have a Van Dyke, not a Goatee.

you have facial hair and expect to fly?
posted by caddis at 7:39 PM on August 10, 2006

What an incredible asshole.
posted by chance at 7:57 PM on August 10, 2006

I’d just like a straight answer.

Ask and ye shall receive, good Smedleyman.

With apologies for how long this runs on . . . hey, at least it's at the end of the thread . . .

First, using your analogy, the damn near black-and-whitest way:

The first guy in the pilot's uniform? He's a pilot, and he flies the kind of plane your on, has never done anything else, goes to special conferences where he and other guys who only fly those kinds of planes discuss what it'd look like if that plane went into a nosedive it couldn't steer out of, and he's saying put on the ole seatbelts even though he probably privately suspects your ass is toast regardless. Maybe he can steer out of this dive, if every single person on the plane leans into it and a couple of nutjobs near the back figure out a way to synthesize a special turbo fuel out of the duty-free vodka, but really his best guess is we're going down hard.

The second guy in the pilot's uniform? Mr. Everything's OK? Might or might be a pilot. If he's a pilot, he flies a totally different kind of plane, and most of the people who fly bonafide Climatology Jets think he's got no business behind the controls. Plus they're pretty sure he's only there 'cause he was a second-rate chopper pilot whose fancy uniform (which conned him past security) was bought for him by his friends, who'll make the most money if someone jumps into the cockpit and burns off every last bit of fuel in that sucker before it gets wherever it's going (and never mind where it's going, that's too confusing).

Me, I'm 100% behind Pilot No. 1 taking the controls.

To unpack this a bit . . .

I'm a journalist. I've been writing about climate change, environmental issues and technology for almost a decade now. (At least whenever I can actually sell an editor on an environmental story, which remains a very very hard sell. And to I guess address the notion of my own bias, all I can say is it'd be infinitely less stressful and more profitable to specialize in writing about almost anything else - how great oil companies are and how exciting it is to live in a city blessed by their presence, or Paris Hilton's shoe size, or the kinds of clothing now available for dressing your dog in. I keep doing it because I have a daughter and I want to pass on to her a future worth living in. Sorry if that's overly sentimental, but it's the truth.)

I've read most of the popular literature (and some of the more technical stuff) on the science, economics and politics of climate change. I've met and interviewed numerous climate modellers and countless environmental and energy policy wonks, solar-energy entrepreneurs and former Big Oil geologists, energy-biz journalists from world-famous news outlets, guys who do data-crunching for oil-patch pipeline companies, hippies and dreamers, fellow writers who've spent months on end pouring over obscure scientific journals, on and on and on. And the consensus is that anthropogenic climate change is real, it is happening, it is outpacing even some of the more liberal estimates of its impact from a decade ago, it is potentially catastrophic in scope, and it seems to be very quickly approaching a point of global climactic disequilibrium whose potential impact staggers even fairly fertile imaginations. Indeed if there's one thing most of these people have in common, particularly the scientists, it's that they're much more candid about their fears off the record than on.

All of that said, no one knows for sure what said impact will be, when, how much, what date precisely to kiss your particular ass goodbye. This "uncertainty" is the wedge that has been exploited to the hilt by some fossil-fuel companies (the only remaining oil company to actively oppose the reality is now ExxonMobil; I have it on fairly good authority that Exxon's CEO comes across as kind of quasi-religious in this crusade) and their sponsored "sketpical" scientists.

I'd highly recommend reading Real Climate to hear minds much more scientifically knowledgeable than mine address the myth and reality of this day to day.

Finally, for what it's worth, I've spent the last year doing research for a book on potential solutions, a sort of world tour of the state-of-the-art in sustainable living. (I've been sporadically blogging the making of said book here if you'll pardon the self-link and are at all interested in such minutae.) My goal is not to formulate The Answer but simply to help push the discussion toward the only rational path I think is worth pursuing, which is the one that leads to us beginning to change how we live in a fundamental way to mitigate the worst effects of this unfolding calamity and build a society durable enough to survive it.
posted by gompa at 8:53 PM on August 10, 2006 [2 favorites]

Is this the same guy who wrote the copy for CO2: We Call it Life?

Then this guy would like a word with him.
posted by homunculus at 8:54 PM on August 10, 2006

thanks gompa. Double thanks - I didn't expect an actual straight answer. (Now if you can just do something about the goofballs adding noise into the public discussion...)
posted by Smedleyman at 1:18 AM on August 11, 2006

gompa; did you decide to have a child before or after you started researching this topic in depth? I know it's none of my business, but I'm currently struggling with the decision myself. Do I really want to bring a child into a world that, in terms of human society as we know it, increasingly seems to be circling the drain? I just don't know.
posted by Stonewall Jackson at 7:02 AM on August 11, 2006

Decided to have a child well into my years researching this; the work has taken on new urgency since. I'm not arrogant enough to think I know for sure we're headed down the drain. It can be hard to see for all the gloom, but people have done some amazing things when they've found themselves in dark times. One of those things is to continue to want to live, give life, carry on. My daughter renews my faith in humanity and redoubles my belief that there is hope every day.

Everyone's gotta decide this one for themselves, of course.

Oddly enough, I find enormous solace in the novels of Alan Furst. He writes gorgeously detailed "historical spy" novels that all take place around the start of World War II. His protagonists are always decent people watching the world crumble into chaos, feeling sucked in despite themselves, finding small everyday ways to maintain their humanity, and eventually realizing they have no choice but to play some marginal role in the struggle against the darkness. The world in Furst's books looks doomed on practically all fronts, but his characters cling to the dim hope (which turned out to be more or less justified) that the good and decent side of human nature would win out in time.
posted by gompa at 8:35 AM on August 11, 2006

Thanks, gompa. I would never presume that I know what's in store for us...predicting the future has always been a fool's game...but I just can't shake the feeling of impending doom, one way or another. Maybe I read too much news.

On the other hand, as was said in the last issue of Harper's...people have been waiting for the apocalypse for a long time, and it keeps standing us up.
posted by Stonewall Jackson at 10:22 AM on August 11, 2006