## Friday, January 20, 2006

### Watermelons

Watermelons are green on the surface but red inside - much like the authors affiliated with realclimate.org who are green whackos on the surface but red commies inside. They have finally erased the ridiculous comment that what they're doing is not politics. In order to celebrate their new image, three of them have decided to be interviewed by "DarkSyde" from Daily Kos (the readers of realclimate.org are obviously expected to know the nicknames of all blogging revolutionaries in the world), the most popular blog among the communist lunatics (whose logo has probably been borrowed from the Great October Revolution).

Meanwhile, the performance of realclimate.org stands at approximately 11% of the performance of climateaudit.org of Steve McIntyre although there are 11 times as many authors on realclimate.org.

1. The corrent record cold temperature in Russia and record colds in some areas of USA a while ago makes one wonder the trend could be a global cooling instead of global warming. In any case human is not responsible for the natural cooling or warming of the earth.

Russia is cutting natural gas supply to Western Europe again, this time for reasons they have no control because they need the gas themselves to keep warm. Mean while Iran cuts its gas supply to Turkey from 20 million cubic meter a day to 6 million, a reduction of 70%!!! The reason is "cold weather". But we all know what the real reason is.

Mean while, crude oil price reached $68 a barrel, not too much below the$70 high reached right after Katrina. The difference is this time people don't even notice it. We are getting accustomed to crisis and become none-responsive, thinking that everything is normal. A few months ago we had one city which is virtually wiped out, and a short while later most people don't even remember what had happened. Our nerves are becoming numb.

But things are NOT OK. We are extremely lucky this winter that now we see very unusually warm temperatures in the North East and Mid West. But we still have a huge energy crisis and future winters will not always be so co-operatively warm.

2. TY for the link ;)

I think I'll trust the experts over a science fiction writer and two amateurs from Canada. See guys, I live in Florida, I have skin in this game.
If I could, I'd like to correct what may be innacurate assumptions on the part of the blogger who was nice enough to link my article.

I'm a moderate conservative anda former Bush backer. It's just that this WH has made some blunders, be they honest errors or intentional mistakes. It would be foolhardy to continue to support that kind of incompetence. I blg on Dkos because I can no longer support this WH or this particularly corrupt GOP congress. And becasue the curent perversion of conservatism has turned their back on science, choosing instead to pander and nurture the most pig ignorant segments of our society as their 'base'.

Hopefully we'll have a more competent and effective conservatve WH in a few years, one which is fiscally responsible and a bit more in touch. Then I'll happily join you fine people to defend them.

3. Dear darksyde,

it was a pleasure to link you, especially if the link was not necessary for you to thank me. ;-)

Let me continue to be aware of the fact that you only call Mann et al. "experts" while you call McIntyre et al. "amateurs" because you have no idea about the technical discussion that takes place today. The reason why you "believe" Mann et al. is purely political and has nothing to do with science.

Believe whatever you want, but don't expect me to consider you a moderate conservative if you work for this extreme left-wing propagandistic company called DailyKos. Your past is not as important as the present. Friedrich Engels may have been a child from a capitalist family - but see what he had "produced" during his life.

If I assume that you used to be a moderate conservative, then let me tell you this: you can gain cheap popularity among the communist nutcases and you may enjoy it, but you conscience will eventually tell you whether you did a right thing. And the answer will be No.

All the best
Lubos

4. Lubos,

Not a problem, I'm content to be working for DK. Although working is probably not a cogent term, more like donating my time for something I feel good about.

I loved the Loop Quantum Gravity article BTW. I wish we had more stuff like that available for science geeks like me.

5. Lumo,

I'm sorry I missed your last comment. I didn't set out to gain popularity. In fact when I first started posting on Kos as a diarist many of the regs thought me a troll.

It's not conservatism per se I see as a problem. There are plenty of good ideas among conservatives. Really, no one perspective is likely to be always right or always wrong. The problem as I see it with the current dynamic is one of one party rule. If you look at past cluster fucks in history, the perps were usually one party states, be they left or right or incongruous. I have no doubt that if the dems were in control of Congress, the WH, and other centers of power, they'd be feathering their own nest as they have in the past. I would liken this current political landscape to the late 70s. Congress was dominated by dems, the WH was controlled by a dem, the courts were fairly liberal in many places. And despite the fact that few people would accuse Jimmy Carter of being either an idiot or dishonest, it just didn't work well when real problems intruded from the outside demanding real solutions and real sacrifice.

One party rule is, to the best of knowledge, almost always dangerous and almost always ends badly, for it allows the ruling party to cover up and rig the system while basically robbing the system blind. That's what appears to be happening now with the GOP. It's not the ideology, it's human nature unchecked.

There's enough opportunity for collusion among the two parties and there has in fact been such colussion in the past. I wish we had more like three or four.

6. Dear DarkSyde,

thank you for your inspiring comments. We probably live in very different environments because one party GOP rule is definitely not a threat that I know from the real life in Cambridge :-) - and it is hard to encounter such things even outside Cambridge, I guess.

A one party system may look very different than you think, and in some sense it may be helpful for someone to experience these things for a couple of years to see the difference between a one party system and the (current) U.S. democracy. I've tried both and be sure that there is a big difference between the systems. Your life would evolve in a very different way if you were doing similar things against the party in the government in a one party system.

Incidentally, I find your anticreationism attitudes OK, of course, but I don't like the way how you politicize the issue. The base of GOP may be dumb but the base of the left-wingers is at least equally dumb. It's just that you may dislike one type of dumbness more than the other.

Finally, let me tell you that a fiscal responsibility is something that I also miss in the current WH but I don't believe that the existing Dem alternatives would improve the issues, except by a heavy tax hike.

All the best & greetings to your commie friends from DK

Lubos

7. You'll be pleased to know that CA just scraped through VFD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Climate_Audit

8. Dear William,

I knew that you underestimate the latent heat of ice by 3 orders of magnitude and that you cannot count probabilities of order x/128 for 128 equally likely alternatives.

But it is news for me that you are also illiterate.

You wrote:

==
You'll be pleased to know that CA just scraped through VFD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Climate_Audit
==

If you open the page that you tried to read but you have failed, it says:

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Greetings to your fellow crackpots at RealClimate :-), Lubos

9. DS writes that " the current perversion of conservatism has turned their back on science, choosing instead to pander and nurture the most pig ignorant segments of our society as their 'base'."

That reminds me of a remark Bush (or maybe it was Karl Rove) is reputed to have made in private, a variation on a quote by Lincoln, our first and greatest Republican president: "You can fool all the people part of the time, and you can fool part of the people all the time, and those are the ones we wamt to concentrate on." There's a germ of truth in this cynical remark, apocryphal or not.

My own view is that Western societies could do without "left wingers" and "right wingers" altogether. These are the names of the extremes on the political spectrum, fools at one end and knaves at the other.

On the other hand, both liberals and conservatives are necessary elements in any healthy democracy: one group by temperament likes to specialize in conserving what is best in society, the other in reforming what is worst.

Eliminationist attitudes toward the other side, therefore, are a kind of sickness of democracy, the past time of partisan fiends.

Let me add one more thing. It is also possible to be a conservative and a liberal at the same time. Edmund Burke is an outstanding example of this, Adam Smith another. And so am I in my own poor capacity: I try to approach each issue on its merits, taking a conservative stance in one case and a liberal one in another, but guided in every case by the principle of the greatest good of the greatest number.

If you'd like to see how this might work in today's political context, I invite you to visit my web site at BornAgainDemocrats.com.
--
Luke Lea