Slashdot Mirror

The most dangerous person is the true believer...

In practice, political organizations of true believers, in Eric Hoffer's sense of "authoritarian faith", have proved to be emphemeral and unstable, although in the short-term they can be fairly disruptive. The reasons for their failure are that true believers are remarkably gullible and thus liable to exploitation and betrayal by their leaders. They are incapable of compromise and thus can't form alliances that give them broader influence. Even when they become large enough to pose a threat, they usually stir fair-minded centrists out of their torpor and find their opposition larger than ever.

Most important, true believers are prone to disillusionment when, over time, the world does not unfold as they expect it. True believers rarely moderate their views. Instead, they shift from irrational idealism to cynicism when their goals perpetually elude them. As cynics, they drop out of the political process and carp from the sidelines.

For some reason, cynicism is easier to sustain over a long period of time than irrational idealism. The result is that cynicism probably threatens public life and discourse more than hate groups and fanatics. True believers at least stir up debate and force the majority to think about and defend their values. Cynicism undermines the idea that things can ever get better.

If I say 2000 is the warmest year in 500 years, that says either a) I don't know anything about the temps before 1500, or b) the temps before 1500 may have been this high. In the case of global temperatures, the answer is b. Check out this graph of the estimated surface temperatures of the Sargasso Sea over the last 3000 years, for example. Climatologists acknowledge that temperatures rose in medieval times, dropped around 1400, spiked up higher than now around 1500 (thus the quote from BBC), and then we entered what they call a "little ice age" in the 1700's. That's what we're coming out of now.

The fact is, historical evidence does not at all suggest that we are warming the planet with our activity.

In addition, your figure of a 20% human contribution of CO2 is entirely bogus! Each year, humans put about 5.5 Gigatons of Carbon into the atmosphere. The surface ocean and the atmosphere exchange 90 Gt, vegetation and the atmosphere 60Gt, etc, etc. These numbers are all estimates, of course, and, unlike you, I will cite a scientific paper written by climatologists that reviews the current evidence of global warming.

Finally, your assertion that climate scientists are running for the hills or packing their bags for Mars is inaccurate. There is, for example, the Petition Project, an effort circulated by Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, that has garnered over 17,000 signatures of qualified scientists. It states that "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." A competing pro-warming petition, circulated by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 1997, had secured a paltry 1,559 signatures. See this article for details.

You have been popping up on this thread, bullying people with your unsubstantiated assertions, sarcasm, and bogus arguements, but facts are facts, and they're definitely not on your side.

Here's what really was said, thanks to anxietycenter.com:

Gore has claimed during a 1999 interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer that "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." The preliminary discussions for the creation of the Internet took place in 1967 and, in 1969, the Defense Department commissioned the creation of the "Arpanet." Gore was 2l years old at the time and it would be eight more years before he was elected to the US House of Representatives.

Gore's an idiot, no matter which way you look at it.

Al Gore would be just about the worst president I can possibly image. Here are a few articles with reasons why:

35 Reasons Not to Vote for Al Gore.

How to Tell the Difference Between Al Gore and the Unabomber

Apocalypse Gore

Not only is Al Gore a pathological liar like his buddy Clinton, he's also full of very whacky and very scary ideas.

Al Gore would be just about the worst president I can possibly image. Here are a few articles with reasons why:

35 Reasons Not to Vote for Al Gore.

How to Tell the Difference Between Al Gore and the Unabomber

Apocalypse Gore

Not only is Al Gore a pathological liar like his buddy Clinton, he's also full of very whacky and very scary ideas.

The National Review (a conservative political magazine) ran an article entitled Apocalypse Gore which provides an interesting take on him.

I also suggest that you check out How to tell the difference
between Al Gore and the Unabomber.