If We Could Convert Stupid To Electricity, We’d Be Set [Updated]
Given how much energy the Breitbartians are devoting at the moment to stretching the bounds of idiocy (no links or I’d just fill the page) while still keeping a hand free for the old racebaiting, the rest of the pack is having to up its game.
Bob Cesca just nominated Town Hall’s David Hoyt (“Hoyt?! I’ll show you Hoyt!”) for “Stupid Quote of the Day” thanks to a little gem I’ll share in a minute that deserves wider celebration, but first there’s the rest of Hoyt’s screed that isn’t much less daft.
David sets out to review Sen. Jim Inhofe’s new book, The Greatest Hoax. If I tell you it’s a diatribe about environmentalism, you can probably imagine its gist just from the title. And it certainly seems to have fired young David up. Kermie’s comin’ for ya, gas-guzzlin’ Americans:
... the greenies on the left are relentless in their pursuit of global control of everything related to the environment. Which is to say, everything.
Well, yeah. The thing about the environment is its kind of everythingness, David. You’re surrounded.
David’s obviously easily impressed:
It features no less than 408 footnotes and a useful index.
Woo—408 footnotes! That’s almost as impressive as that time Al Franken demolished Ann Coulter for her “extensive footnoting” onstage via the dastardly liberal ploy of actually checking them out, then illustrating that “never mind the quality, feel the width” is a maxim that applies to mendacious rightwing demagogic screeds as much as tailoring.
I’ll cherrypick some more:
Admittedly, the debate over climate change should focus on data, not anecdotal evidence such as a day of snowfall. However, the priestly knights of the green temple get extra fussy on hot days, and Inhofe cites numerous examples of greenies arguing that a hot day is evidence of global warming.
I’ll bear that in mind next time there’s an unseasonal cold snap and the TownHallitariat start chortling “Huh, global warming, eh? Nyuk nyuk.” In fact, as a closet “greenie,” I’m more exercised about climate change, and if I was to get “extra fussy,” I might with some justification cite the eight months or so of near-relentless high (and I mean HIGH) winds and unprecedented sustained rainfall my own neck of the woods has recently been through, but yadayadayada, anecdotal evidence and all that.
The green movement goes back over a century, but it saw jumps in activity in the seventies, nineties, and two thousands. The green movement of the seventies presumably dressed poorly, had a bad haircut, and it was mostly relegated to academic discussion. Inhofe takes great joy in pointing out that climate change alarmism of the seventies ironically foretold global cooling disasters.
Well, now. I was around in the 1970s, and my sartorial shortcomings aside, since they’re entirely fucking irrelevant (though from the look of him, I suspect young David wasn’t even a glimmer in his daddy’s eye at the time, let alone in a position to serve as fashion police, though he may be preternaturally youthful-looking, in which case I’m sure he rocked a fine pair of diapers), there were all sorts of effects we were alarmed about at the time. See, climate change is unpredictable in its effects in a highly complex interconnected system like that there environment that’s creepin’ up on ya, David. You may fry while I freeze. Sorry, I’m fantasizing here. Anyway, that “alarmism” saw a few things happen, like addressing the issue of ozone depletion once it became obvious that it really was happening. And what do you know? Governments across the world eventually took concerted action to ban CFCs etc., and the rate of depletion has been slowing over the last decade or two, so that’s one I’ll chalk up to us and our “academic discussion” for now.
The green movement of the nineties had more angst, flannel, and grassroots activism than in the seventies, but it wasn’t until the two thousands that the army of obnoxious do-gooders canvassed America. Inhofe rightly attributes this rise of modern green fascism to Al Gore.
Yeah, those fascists tried to come for your lightbulbs, didn’t they David? Never did like that Bush the younger much myself. Turn another light on for me.
Ugh. There’s a lot more of this and it’s not really worth reading, let alone poking with a pointy stick, so I’ll cut to that Stupid Quote of the Day Bob picked out, then you can decide for yourselves if David “Mr. Science” Hoyt is a man with his finger on the pulse of the sci-zeitgeist. Here it comes, hope you feel it’s been worth the wait:
An international carbon tax program is one of the most hideous ideas forged in the minds of men. Since all known life forms are carbon-based, it is a proposal to control all life.
“Stupid Quote of the Day”? I dunno, Bob. It’s early in the century, but that’ll take some beating.
MikeJ in the comments points us to this excellent article from Jeffrey Masters that I think deserves a wider airing. Masters gives a neat overview of the struggle between deniers and “greenies” over the issue of depletion of the ozone layer, and the concerted efforts by rightwingers and lobbyists to discredit and suppress the science and thwart efforts to address the problem:
... Unfortunately, it appears that we have not learned our lesson from the past 30 years’ experience with the ozone-CFC debate. Once again, we find a theory that has wide support in the scientific community being attacked by a handful of skeptics, publishing outside of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, their voices greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations and politicians sympathetic to them. The skeptics have trotted out the same bag of tricks used in the CFC-ozone depletion debate, this time to delay any response to the threat of global warming. And once again, it will likely take a disaster to change things—unless we wise up to their tricks.