And more of the same theme…

I am more old school when it comes to us not using fossil fuels. I still believe we need to change what energy sources we use because gasoline and it’s by products are just poison to the human body. I do not join in the climate change debate very often, however, there was an article by John Tamny in FORBES titled “Global Warming Hype is Mocked by the World’s Most Powerful Market Signal” that just left me flabbergasted.

And I am outraged for a few reasons, but the main reason is (and I hope I read his premise right) the premise is completely ludicrous. He goes on and on trying to act like he is giving the climate warming side some degree of respectability and even in doing so it seems a bit hyperbolic. And after a semi long round about discussion he makes this concluding statement:

“Repeat the above again: 44% of the world’s humans live in coastal communities. Conversely, 97% of scientists think humans cause global warming, the causes of global warming by seemingly all accounts are not being corrected, and according to scientists of varying certainty, if the causes are not corrected the world’s coastal cities face a fairly bleak future; possibly one under water. Interesting about the latter is while scientists apparently believe one thing, where people live is the most information pregnant market signal of all. Nothing else comes close. Facts are stubborn things, head counting is seen as perfectly valid among warming believers when it comes to client science, so while 97% of scientists believe in human-caused global warming much to the delight of warmist head counters, nearly half of the world’s population presumably thinks all the hand wringing about warming is much ado about nothing. What else could explain much of the world’s residential choices? Can scientists really be so smart as to see what nearly half of the world’s population apparently does not?”

Final paragraph:

“Whom to believe? No scientist here, but if “science” is correct with its predictions, then a microscopic sliver of the world’s population would have to know more than nearly have of the world’s inhabitants. That’s very unlikely. Simply put, the purest market signal of all—where people live is plainly mocking the scientific consensus about global warming. “

If I read the above correctly he is basically stating humans will make intelligent choices about where they live based on a known or potential looming disaster that would destroy their homes.

I tried to read through some of the comments and the author’s responses, but my mobile “smart” phone sucks (somewhat old now) so hopefully there was a discussion to this point.

If his premise is true than how does he explain everyone living in California, Japan, or anywhere else on the Pacific Rim. Really Mr. Tamney based on your thoughts no one in their right mind would live in areas where fault lines intersect because where people live would be plainly mocking the concept of tectonic plates. Or how about coastal areas subject to hurricanes, or rebuilding cities where rivers flood without building cities better able to adapt to the flooding.

We can do better, we are highly intelligent people, We just don’t, so using this as an argument against the idea that global warming exists is fundamentally flawed.

And finally will someone explain to me, how this premise can be published and someone be paid for putting out this insane dribble.

And below is Forbes Thought of the day that came up on my mobile phone when I accessed this article

“Ideas are the mightiest influence on earth. One great thought breathed into a man may regenerate him.” William Ellery Channing

Seemingly one huge contradiction in thought here Forbes. What does one idiotic thought do to a man?


Inbreeding is insane, it is immoral, it is illegal, and it is rampant. And not necessarily only on the right.


And on a completely different note, but with all the dating sites advertising like heck, maybe some people need to think about this quote.

“Until you get comfortable with being along, you will never know if you are choosing someone out of love or loneliness.” Mandy Hale

And others have also noted, you have to be able to love yourself before you can love others. Sorry I do not remember where that came from, but that thought is around also. And just as important to a person having a successful relationship with another person as above.