Hey, Dr. Cloward: Let's Have That Debate


I am not known for environmentalism.  “Conservation” for me is picking up after myself and not overfishing the local lake.  I will recycle when it’s available, but I am not keeping up with those extra bins at home.  That’s a headache and I have better things to do; dragoon those sickly Honduran children to recycle my shit for me.

Don’t get me started on the bizarre lifestyles greenies indulge in, like non-GMO diets or shitting in cat boxes or living in a closet.  I already have a God I seek forgiveness from, and Thoreau was mediocre anyway.

I want to own an electric or hybrid vehicle like I want a haircut from an ISIL militant.  I’m jonesing for a big ole’ diesel truck like every other red-blooded American male.


All that to say I am not very studied on the subject of climatology.  I have at best a pedestrian understanding of the models and science involved.

…Meaning I am totally qualified to debate with this guy:

Oy vey.
Dr. Tim starts out by criticizing his state for not kissing the ring:

Texas is, after all, one of the states that helped initiate a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency for attempting to put carbon dioxide emissions limits on new power plants.

I’m still baffled at the notion that Earth’s vegetation has a limited budget of CO2 it can consume; I guess vegetation has never been known to grow more rapidly or slowly based on available resources.  I am confused at people who want to assert the idea that nature exists in some perfect and static state, and that it is utterly incapable of reacting to human action (humans and their products existing within nature to begin with).  I would love to see the precise amount of CO2 before humanity destroys the atmosphere, how much emission will unlock this achievement, and how climatologists went about discovering it.

In Texas, we are concerned with the short-term economic costs of environmental regulation. However, we can do math, and we understand the long-term implications of not taking action to protect the environment.

Environmental regulation ≠ protecting the environment.  On the face of it, it should be accepted that good intentions do not always have good results.  A good example from recent memory would be the United States spreading western democracy to Iraq.  It shouldn’t be much of a leap for everyone to agree that human organizations are ultimately fallible, even if said organizations share your political leanings.

That’s why, this weekend, I traveled from Texas to New York City, where I’m joining thousands of other people who have come to participate in the People’s Climate March.  I want to make clear that there are many Texans who do not support the actions of our governor and attorney general in resisting reasonable action to limit climate change.

Correction: Dr. Tim made his pilgrimage to the People’s Liberal Craft Fair.  He did this to signal that he is totally socially-conscious and above the typical, brutish red stater mindset.

And lol @ the idea that “reasonable” has anything at all to do with this social agenda.  Check out the next few sentences:

The current scientific consensus is that we are well into the advent of man-made climate change. We are at the tipping point. Unfortunately, at this late date we can mitigate only the worst effects of global warming, and only if we act immediately.

Non Sequitur.  Man-made climate change exists, but certainly not in the manner you want to argue.  We have not reached a “tipping point.”  We still have winters and summers, the doomsday scenarios of the early climate alarmists have never come to fruition.  The ISPCC makes an annual event of making an ass of itself, continually revising their claims downward.

Pressing the PAUSE button on western civilization and the resultant social upheaval would have a drastically greater impact on the climate than anything occurring today.

This is not a mere academic or theoretical issue; climate change denial is dangerous. It has an immense practical consequence because it makes the problem impossible to confront. America’s climate change deniers lead an influential political opposition that would quash any action whatsoever to combat the crisis.

“It’s time for a real debate in which no one who disagrees with anything I say is allowed to speak.” 

It’s always funny when the granola eaters and pajamaboys out-fash the fash.

The rest of his article devolves into shrill cries for totalitarian world government and that all dissenters and heterodox opinions go straight to the zero carbon imprint gulags and Treblinka-inspired biomass generators.


If you want a more serious exploration of the topic by a mind that’s actually studied the issue deeply, check out our recent podcast.  Perhaps Hateful will feel inspired to write something more in-depth in the future.  I hope so, it would be a good read.

For me the signals are clear: the means don’t matter.  Dr. Tim would make the same shrill cries no matter the specifics about CO2 or regulations or climate models or democracy (lol). 

For those hundreds of thousands clogging up the public thoroughfares in NYC it’s not about being correct or advancing science.  It’s about keeping the old, dangerous dream of a one-world government alive.