Yesterday's stupidity today

The Boston Globe's comment sections attract a slightly better class of total idiot buffoon wingnuts than, say, the MetroWest Daily News. But they're still pretty nutzo. Here are a few examples of their self-righteous blithering about global warming:

and that somebody is sunspots. Out spot! --globeisatrocious

Ah, straight from the Fox "News" playbook. There's some unsupported theory out there that might keep us in the status quo. It has to be true if it means that no conservative is ever required to conserve anything. Policy by tantrum, my personal favorite.

First we had global cooling... that because [sic] Man-Made global warming... then the oceans would dry up by 1999... then our world will burn up by 2050... then they discovered that the models were 100% wrong... and our planet has not warmed for 10 years.

So now it is called "Climate Change" so that no matter if it gets warmer or cooler ... the alarmists get funding and can claim victory. In other words, they are betting for and against global warming with our money.

Sound like a scam? It is. Every single man-made global warming alarmist financially benefits by spewing his nonsense. And the country has been fooled. Ignore these bozos... --Oscarbozach

Count the lies. No, they're not innocent mistakes; they're bullshit intended to advance the cause of getting everyone to stick their head up their asses - all to keep Oscarbozach from having to change his mind or adjust the way he lives, especially if that might involve a carbon tax.

Here's my count:

1. Global cooling? In the 1960s, there was concern, but there was never sufficient evidence or consensus. Scientists looked further, which is what they do, and found out something. Oscar refuses to learn anything not in his McGuffy's Reader.
   
2. Dried up oceans? Where, on Pokémon?
3. World burning up? Hollywood? Will Oscar blame environmentalists for their peer-reviewed paper that was the script for "The Day After Tomorrow"?
4. Models 100% wrong? Only if by 100% he means a little bit.
5. No warming for ten years? Sure, but not the last ten years, which have seen a huge proportion of the hottest years on record.
   
6. Betting for and against global warming? Uh, is there anyone who now thinks the globe is cooling?
7. Financial benefits for scientists? Well, if you mean that they continue to get grants to research it, o.k., but that's about 3 seconds of Exxon-Mobil's annual profits.
   

At what cost are we saving fish? Why not just kill em and eat em. Man is the dominant species, not animals.

As far as environmental issues, I just don't accept all of the doom and gloom tales we read and hear about. Why aren't we questioning these radicals? It's far easier to attack our leaders than to question an environmentalist.

I for one would like to know how much is spent on "environmental" issues. This money could and should be spent putting people back to work in this country.

Everyday, as I read and listen to the news, citizens of this country are being forced to leave their homes where they were born because of job loss. I never hear of any move to spend monies to keep them home. However, we have all the money in the world to save a rat, roach or some bug no one has ever seen.

Sorry, watching all my fellow citizens lose their jobs, being forced to move from their homes makes it extremely difficult for me to care whether a fish has "cool" water.

Seeing the dozer do it's thing for these 'poor' fish costs approx. $200-300 an hour. This money could be better spent buying food for poor people. --Fred6060

Yah, food is something that comes from a supermarket. Who cares whether fish can, y'know, spawn and grow to maturity. Almighty Stop'n'Shop will provide.

Oh, and the money spent on the environment is such a huge amount that a year's worth wouldn't pay for a week in Iraq.

The weird aspect of this is that environmentalists are reported as accepting that global warming is here and trying to mitigate its ill effects. These wingnut commenters don't even want that. They want to kill everything - and their appeal to concern for the poor is just convenient concern trolling; they don't really give a shit about the poor.

The fundamental motivation of the conservative in the street is to keep everything the same as it used to be, when they were (chronological) children, didn't have to pay taxes, and everything was taken care of by daddy. Change? Ooooh, bad. No wonder they can't stand Obama.