I'm starting to believe that the government is using global warming as a proxy to get people to start dealing with the consequences of peak oil. While I'm all for saving the earth, it does seem like science seems to indicate that we're NOT the main cause of global warming. Getting people to feel good about using less energy because it saves polar bears, etc... is a lot easier than leveling with them about the dire consequences of running out of fossil fuel before we've come up with a feasible alternative.

Keeping people believing that we're the main cause of global warming (and that it's within our power to fix it), is a useful tool for preparing for peak oil scenarios, because the symptoms of both are treated by the same activities...

Yes and No. If it gets us on the right track dealing with the real issue at hand, then yes.

Unfortunately, I don't think fixing global warming is big enough motivation for most people to get serious about changing their ways; and the consequences of a post-peak oil scenario are more severe than those of a warming scenario, so it might be better to just level with people and tell them what we're really facing.

oh, and rich bachelor:

my point in commenting in the first place was that being skeptical about global warming doesn't make someone a piece of shit. While the CEO of whole foods might certainly be a piece of shit, this blogtown post is pretty weak support for the idea.

I enjoy Dan Savages sex column, but I wish the Mercury would limit his contribution to just that. Every time he posts on blogtown, I like him less. I agree with his causes, but he uses this as a forum to make personal attacks against people he doesn't agree with, and instead of furthering his cause, he just comes off as petty and uninformed.

Stick with what you're good at Dan.

Let's not forget another somewhat recent example of his douchebaggery; their attempt to subpoena boatloads of highly-sensitive business information from local Oregon supermarket chain New Seasons:

http://newseasonsmarket.blogspot.com/2008/…

Jeff,

How, exactly, is calling someone a piece of shit -- mind you, someone who has proven time and again that he *is* a piece of shit -- uninformed?

blownspeakers:

I never said he was uninformed for calling the guy a piece of shit.

He comes off as uninformed by suggesting that skepticism over the causes of global warming equates to him being a piece of shit.

Because he doesn't agree with your views makes him a piece of shit?

What ever happened to tolerance and understanding and being respectful of another person's views and opinions?

No, IseWise -- the fact the dude filed a lawsuit against New Seasons in order to look over their business model and financial projections, as well as going all out to bust up any attempts at unionization among Whole Foods employees -- not mention the fact that Whole Foods pushes the whole "green," "pro-environment," "pro-local" thing when the CEO obviously sees it as nothing more than a cash grab -- that, IseWise, makes the dude a piece of shit.

@ Jeff:

quoting you -- "he uses this as a forum to make personal attacks against people he doesn't agree with, and instead of furthering his cause, he just comes off as petty and uninformed."

blownspeakers:

I still don't see your point.

MINE is that while Dan may or may not be correct with his premise "so and so is a piece of shit", his post is petty and uninformed because of the link he uses to support it.

Someone could randomly make a post on blogtown saying "hitler was a piece of shit" and link to a story about his fondness for chocolate to support the claim.

While most people would agree that hitler was a piece of shit, his fondness for chocolate really had nothing to do with it.

If dan wanted to prove that "hitler was a piece of shit" he could have listed any number of reasons that were relevant to his opinion.

By posting a link to this story about him agreeing with a book he read about the origins of global warming, I think he dilutes his case by offering support for his claim that is way less relevant and convincing than other things he could have linked to.

Replying to your latest comment, if Dan wanted to further a cause against someone he didn't agree with in this forum, I wouldn't automatically call it petty and uninformed.

I call it that because of how much he failed at his attempt.

The CEO reserves the right to keep his company employees from unionizing. It is his company after all, the employees work for him, not the other way around. The other stuff you listed blownspeakers sounds like the typical actions of a lot of CEO's. If you don't like his actions, political views or the way he runs his company, there are plenty of other grocery stores around.