I was a teen-aged, would-be leftist revolutionary in 1968 when I read "The Fountainhead" -- knowing nothing about Rand's background or political philosophy. The romanticism, individualism and anti-bureaucratic fervor spoke to me. I saw the novel as an apt celebration of anti-establishment values -- not so much about money. I loved it. I was a fan. Then one night I stayed up late to watch her in a late TV interview. She was old, bitter, ranting against the environmental movement. Oh, well ... such are the dashed ideals of youth!

Snark, snark, snark. Yes, another left winger's sweet words.

Environmentalism has been shown to be a completely anti-man movement, which runs in the face of the scientific evidence. Ayn Rand has been proven 100% right on that. Once again, she sees further than anyone else. For example, for global warming I recommend you google Richard Lindzen and read what he has to say about it.

*** "According to Ross Gelbspan in a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Lindzen "... charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,[28] was underwritten by OPEC." *** Who gives a fuck what Lindzen has to say? You're a pathetic tool.

Ayn Rand was 0% right about anything. Drug addled old twat.

That is the technique you guys use. Smear Ayn Rand, smear Lindzen, smear Rush Limbaugh, smear anyone who disagrees with you. It's a tired act. We've figured you out.

Lindzen is as top flight scientist, who is completely honest. I've read his actual work. And, to be sure, there are HUNDREDS of top flight scientists who are not on board with the whole catastrophic, AGW theory. Actually, thousands, going by the Oregon Petition. Indeed, any rational man who has been following the science will know that there is no there there.

Just to give you a brief education, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. It covers a very small window of the em-spectrum, and thus can only have a very small effect even if it completely covers it's region of the spectrum. Furthermore, water vapor overlaps CO2 in the spectrum, thus making CO2s all the less important as a green house gas.

The earth has been cooling, anyway. Stick that in your "pathetic tool" pipe and smoke it.

Just as an aside, Gelbspan claimed he won a Pulitzer, yet he did not.

snark, snark, snark. Typical left winger through and through are you. We should just call you snark wingers.

Muffy, Are you double dippin' here? Are you Smores and Othane? You are the livin' end my friend! I particularly like the threads where you back yerself up when someone rebuts you! You have got the moves, friend! Keep up the good fight you silly bastard!

"OThales wrote the following post at 11/03/2009 12:25 PM: Snark, snark, snark. Yes, another left winger's sweet words. Environmentalism has been shown to be a completely anti-man movement, which runs in the face of the scientific evidence. Ayn Rand has been proven 100% right on that. "

For someone supposedly committed to reason and logic, you don't seem to have much familiarity with its application. "For example, for global warming I recommend you google Richard Lindzen and read what he has to say about it."

Lindzen's iris hypothesis has not played out. In fact if the climate had significant strong negative feedbacks we would never have seen the onsets or ends of ice ages, which were caused by relatively small changes in radiative balance as the earth's orbit varied.

The fact that you later cite the Oregon Petition as demonstrative of anything further undermines your credibility. Scientific American said "Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers‐a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community." Which agrees with recent surveys showing ~97% of those who study the climate accept AGW. For a more entertaining take on the petition see here (video).

Oh well, more of the same.

No no, OThales, remember, you're supposed to accept rational ideas, even if they conflict with your emotional responses. That's what Ayn said. Even though you disagree with what blueshift is saying, just like Dagny disagreed with John Galt when he told her about his idea to stop the world, you know both of them were right. Get over that pathetic, animalistic emotional response.

Hmm, he seems to have run off. You point out exactly why Objectivism is flawed though. Nobody ever makes a purely rational decision, we all evaluate ideas with at least a tinge of emotion. Cognitive dissonance is scary especially for Othales apparently.