Okay, this is interesting.

First this: I've already talked about global warming and after reviewing my previous bit on the subject, everything I could want to say here is already in there.

However, two quick things. First up, if anyone's claiming that skeptics of manmade climate change are in the fossil fuel industry's pocket, then I'd like to state that I'm not. In fact, I'm pissed that I'm not. If a representative of the fossil fuel industry would like to contact me through the website, I'd appreciate it.

Also, notice this exchange:

O'BRIEN: The president seems to be saying we should err on the side of caution given the stakes here. What do you say to that?

INHOFE: Well, the president has said, "I don't know whether it’s manmade or natural. But we need to get beyond that point." That's a good statement, and I agree.

My committee that I chair just two weeks ago had a hearing on the technology that could be used out there in the event that we wanted to do something and found that CO2 had something to do with it. But keep in mind, CO2 — if everyone complied with the Kyoto treaty, it would only decrease the temperature in 50 years by 6/100 of a degree.

O'BRIEN: Not talking about Kyoto. He's just saying something should be done — in other words, err on the side of caution.

INHOFE: That's fine. I think we should do that, yes.

Did you get that? I don't want to talk about specific things that have been offered up to take care of the situation, I just want to talk about the situation. Does the situation warrant something to be done? He even says that: "something should be done." He can't refute Inhofe's statement–whether or not the statement itself is correct I can't say, mind you, he just can't refute it–so he backs up to a generality for his defense.

What did I say?

"1) Something must be done. 2) This is something. 3) Therefore, it must be done."

Congratulations, Mr. O'Brien. You could be a lawmaker!

In fact, lest you think I'm going all rah-rah for Inhofe–check out his last statement there. He agrees! Something must be done! Why? Because he's a lawmaker!

Found via Drudge.

Now I get to sit back and watch any commenters harangue me for not caring about the environment. Or something.

The trailer for An Inconvenient Truth.

First of all, since this seems (seems?) to be a very liberally-minded film, I think it's amusing that the same folks who accuse the religious right of being so completely arrogant about putting a stake in the ground about their beliefs can be so equally arrogant when it comes to what, for many of them, is their own religion of choice: environmentalism.

Environmentalism is like a religion? Yes. Because just like a religion, you buy into it and simply stop thinking. I've been both a Christian and an eco-freak and I can tell you that, boy, did the two feel a whole lot alike. Why did I stop being them? I started thinking, honestly.

Back to the trailer, though: it says that there is a scientific consensus about global warming? For God's sake, when was the last time you heard a scientific consensus about anything? The heliocentric model? We live in a world where science can't even make up its collective mind about whether or not coffee will kill you, much less the causes of global warming. When somebody says, "Everyone agrees…" or "Scientists agree…"–whoever they are–then beware. They're urging you to not think.

I'm not just talking about how there are some scientists who will argue that evolution is bunk–you can always find somebody to disagree. After all, that's what the tenth dentist is for, right? Somebody, somewhere thinks something different. But, I mean, just a freaking Google news search will show you there's a wide variety of theories about global warming: the causes, how long it's going to last, what the effects are, and so forth and so on. There is no consensus it's even happening, as opposed to the consensus that, yes, mankind had to come from somewhere, be it from a divine hand or a monkey.

Do I claim to know everything there is to know about global warming? Hell no. I'm no expert–I'm a shmoe. What I do know, however, is that it is the height of human arrogance to assume that we can do anything to harm the planet. The planet's like a corporation. It doesn't love you or hate you or even give a shit about you. It's totally indifferent to the fact you're on it. This Gaia world-spirit nonsense is just that–nonsense.

I also know it is the height of hubris to assume that, when you look at what we do know about climate change versus what we don't know about it, well, it simply must be mankind's fault that things are getting hotter. Why? Because we're mankind, of course, and it scares the hell out of us when we consider that, in the cosmic view of things, we matter about as much as a housefly's fart. Because we can't deal with how insignificant we actually are, we have to go and claim hyperbolic nonsense like "We're killing the planet!"

And if you say, well, even before we have enough facts to figure out what the hell needs to be done, we have to do something–then be wary of how that can quickly lead down the path of not-thinking defined as "1) Something must be done. 2) This is something. 3) Therefore, it must be done." If you go that route, then, congratulations–you're fully qualified to become a lawmaker.

Anyway, as I said, there's no even a consensus the planet is getting hotter–I heard a scientist on the radio at one point talking about how the very concept of global warming is incorrect since not every place on the global is warming up! Some freaking consensus, folks.

So don't come and tell me that "Everybody knows" global warming is happening. That's a sure sign that you're not thinking and you're buying into whatever else they tell you. And if you're not a religious person and the concept of that Bible-thumping "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" rhetoric drives you apeshit…then exchange "God" for "Gore" in that idea. Think about how much like a televangelist Gore was acting in the trailer and ask yourself: how are you any different than the non-thinkers on the other side of the fence? Did you question anything he said? Or did you just accept it, like a good little member of the congregation?