Thursday, February 10, 2005

Pollution, like Greed, is Good!

Global warming! Global Warming! Global Warming! Three cheers for global warming. Turns out that in the absence of human activity, we'd be in the midst of a catastrophic ice age. I think special thanks are particularly due to multinational companies, especially the oil-related ones, who have done their best to draw every bit of fossil fuel from the deep recesses of what would otherwise be the frozen tundra of the Middle East and other areas so that we could burn, burn, burn. And let's not forget those companies in the business of making it easier for them- you know who you are Halliburton - thanks for keeping us warm! A couple of no-bid government contracts for you guys is the least we could do. I feel comparatively ashamed given my paltry contribution, but I recently upgraded to a new Chevy Suburban to right my past of pitifully low pollution-creating activity. What are you doing to keep us from living in igloos? Have you left the lights running when you left the home today? Did you take the long way to work? Do you commute great distances alone in a SUV? We all have to do our part, and every little bit counts.

4 Comments:

Blogger Professor Vic said...

How like a Republican! Accept scientific evidence that makes you look good even if it completely contradicts what you have stated before.

Hatch has frequently posted items claiming that global warming is not occurring and, if it is, it is not a result of human activity. In any case, Hatch says, none of the science should be believed because none of the scientists are smart enough to really know what is going to happen.

Now that some scientist hypothesizes that global warming might have actually done some good, he accepts without question the fact that temperatures are 2 degrees higher than would otherwise happened solely as a result of human intervention.

8:13 AM  
Blogger Bayou Barrister said...

While I have delighted in the literalization of those who frequent this blog, I have refrained from participating until now simply because I argue points ad nausium, both relavant and irrelavant (as is often the case with most blogs), every waking hour of the day, at work and home (for those of you who don't know, I am married to the Hatchers sister in law who, like I, happens to be an attorney). Nonetheless, I am compelled to share now for no compelling reason. Surely I would have written before to defend my falsely accused affiliation with the ACLU, whom I champion for presenting "the arguments" which we can currently thank for the likes of the abolition of slavery, segregation, women's suffrage (which I still have problems with)and many other civil rights, but with whom I hold no formal affiliation but merely an informal admiration. But I digress.

Though I loathe and detest generalizations and pigeonholing--"How like a Repulican."--He's got you Hatcher. While I have not taken the time to review your archives, I have personally heard your take on scientists not knowing what they're talking about. Which premise I tend to agree with--I mean this year butter is good for you, next year it will kill you. Nonetheless, you have jumped on the first bandwagon to promote your carefree and careless lifestyle. Your position sounds like an obese smoking couch potato who says, "Yeah, well I'm not going to bother to exercise, eat right, or stop smoking becaust you never know, I might get hit by a bus tomorrow so why bother." To follow your reasoning, you are that fat guy and you actually got hit by a slow moving bus, not because you were right, but because your big ass was too heavy to move out of the way. The premise that I am supporting is that you were right to begin with, "Scientist don't know shit". The more they learn, the more they can't explain.

With that being said, I will not accuse you of being soo "like a Republican" because that would support a generalation or pigeonholing of all republicans or the general contention that all Republicans are illogical, right brain, overly emotional thinkers when I know that that agrument is not logically deductible. No, I would simply opine that you are mistaken, wrong, or caught up in you emotions, like so many of Professor Vic's illogical, right brain overly emotional Democratic compatriots often are.

Disclaimer: the Bayou Barrister holds no formal polictical affiliation with any political party though he tends to lean to the right, unless his pocket book is involved.

10:47 AM  
Blogger Bayou Barrister said...

While I have delighted in the literalization of those who frequent this blog, I have refrained from participating until now simply because I argue points ad nausium, both relavant and irrelavant (as is often the case with most blogs), every waking hour of the day, at work and home (for those of you who don't know, I am married to the Hatchers sister in law who, like I, happens to be an attorney). Nonetheless, I am compelled to share now for no compelling reason. Surely I would have written before to defend my falsely accused affiliation with the ACLU, whom I champion for presenting "the arguments" which we can currently thank for the likes of the abolition of slavery, segregation, women's suffrage (which I still have problems with)and many other civil rights, but with whom I hold no formal affiliation but merely an informal admiration. But I digress.

Though I loathe and detest generalizations and pigeonholing--"How like a Repulican."--He's got you Hatcher. While I have not taken the time to review your archives, I have personally heard your take on scientists not knowing what they're talking about. Which premise I tend to agree with--I mean this year butter is good for you, next year it will kill you. Nonetheless, you have jumped on the first bandwagon to promote your carefree and careless lifestyle. Your position sounds like an obese smoking couch potato who says, "Yeah, well I'm not going to bother to exercise, eat right, or stop smoking becaust you never know, I might get hit by a bus tomorrow so why bother." To follow your reasoning, you are that fat guy and you actually got hit by a slow moving bus, not because you were right, but because your big ass was too heavy to move out of the way. The premise that I am supporting is that you were right to begin with, "Scientist don't know shit". The more they learn, the more they can't explain.

With that being said, I will not accuse you of being soo "like a Republican" because that would support a generalation or pigeonholing of all republicans or the general contention that all Republicans are illogical, right brain, overly emotional thinkers when I know that that agrument is not logically deductible. No, I would simply opine that you are mistaken, wrong, or caught up in you emotions, like so many of Professor Vic's illogical, right brain overly emotional Democratic compatriots often are.

Disclaimer: the Bayou Barrister holds no formal polictical affiliation with any political party though he tends to lean to the right, unless his pocket book is involved.

10:50 AM  
Blogger Hatcher said...

OK, there may be an inconsistency, that I will admit! But at the expense of a couple of attempts at humor, I think it can be excused. So I'll stick to one of two stories: either global warming is not occurring or it is occurring and to our benefit. Both positions have some scientific support, as perhaps does the veiw that it is occurring and it is bad. So I have two out of three possibilities that enure to my political predelictions, whereas Professor Vic is batting only 0.333 (enough to get you into the Hall of Fame if you are a steroid-loving baseball player, but not enough for scientific certainty). Ergo, I win. My meta-analysis leads to that airtight conclusion.

12:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Sign up for my Notify List and get email when I update!

email:
powered by
NotifyList.com