A: I posted the part of the entire article that I thought was interesting and relevant to the idea of technological progress and surprise.

B: I linked to the whole article, most of which was apparently on global warming and other such--I actually didn't read the whole damn thing end to end--because that's what you do when you quote someone. The rest of the article was not germane to the original point I was making.

C: As for "respect," I'm not the one who put "asinine, even for you" in the header, and then spent several paragraphs reaming me out IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.

D: "Most global warming activists" was not specifically aimed at you. I already know that shoe doesn't fit. It's not like this is the first time you've brought the subject up. I know what you think.

E: Motivation matters. It doesn't matter if the issue is a real one, or overblown. If those pushing it (and again, this isn't aimed at you) have a different agenda in mind than just protecting the environment, that's important. If I was discussing an issue that was up the liberal alley, it would be easy to see.

If someone in 1950s Alabama brought up voting fraud and the need to make sure all voters were legitimate and eligible to vote, would you assume that he was really concerned about keeping fraudulent voters out? Or would it have been something else? A real issue, but used to camouflage other things. A huge amount of the modern-day environmental movement falls into that category, and more rational environmentalists have to admit that before we can arrive at reasonable solutions.