<p>I could alert on this one, Brew.</p>
<p>It is really distateful to poke fun at the ■■■■■■■■. I find it repugnant, to say the least.</p>
<p>Lines that could have been uttered by Al “the extra chromosome right wing” Gore aren’t really helpful. You don’t want to be part of their crowd.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.traditionalvalues.org/images/BushOlympics.JPG[/url]”>http://www.traditionalvalues.org/images/BushOlympics.JPG</a></p>
![http://www.traditionalvalues.org/images/BushOlympics.JPG[/url]](http://www.traditionalvalues.org/images/BushOlympics.JPG%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
<p>edad, what is the downside in assuming that we are contributing to global warming? Why would you NOT assume we were, and act accordingly? I think you just cannot stand the idea that Gore may be right.</p>
<p>56forceout,</p>
<p>I cannot speak for eDad but the problem I have isn’t with global warming but with the solutions offered for global warming, especially the Kyoto Treaty. Briefly, even if we did everything Al Gore wants, we might not accomplish anything of value to the environment and we will undoubtedly destroy the world’s economies and standard of living (and I’m not talking about SUVs and caviar). There are several resources that discuss in detail why this is so, but the best one I’ve read is The Skeptical Environmentalist by Lomberg.</p>
<p>Like you, I want to live in a world that has clean air, abundant water, and plentiful food. I want my children and grandchildren to have the same environment or one that is even better. That’s why it’s important that when we do things to or for the environment, we don’t do something just for the sake of doing it. In the short run, it may make us feel better to “do something” but, in the long run, we will be better off if we do something that works.</p>
<p>Of course, DRJ4, that can be a convenient justification for doing nothing when doing nothing is in the short-term financial interest of influential parties. (Don’t take this personally - it’s not meant to be.) There’s a saying: “Perfect is the enemy of good.” </p>
<p>There’s a huge body of data out there - far too large for a person with a day job that isn’t “global warming studies” to master. So you have to do information triage. The problem is that so much of the day-to-day infopinions which are slipped into our mix of beliefs are inserted subtly, under our conscious radar. If you get most of your information from a source which is “corporate profit friendly” - as most are - you will not get a balanced diet of information. Which means that you’ll be susceptible to plausible arguments which favor short-term profitability, and disposed to be skeptical of views which threaten short term profits - even if objective criteria favor the latter. (Incidentally, this explains why a majority of Republicans whose primary news source was Fox News believed that WMD’s had actually been found in Iraq in 2003, well after the Bush Administration had acknowledged that none were there.)</p>
<p>I don’t claim to have the expertise to form a critically valid opinion on global warming. I doubt that anyone reading this does. On a subject as complex and murky as this we’re all acting, to one degree or another, on faith. The fact is, there is very little actual controversy among those who actually do have that expertise. Global warming skeptic scientists are a very small minority – of not particularly prominent or peer-respected guys. The fact that their opinons get as much promotion as they do - well, see paragraph 2, above. But there are still those who confidently sneer at global warming - not because they actually understand the theory, not because they have reviewed the data (or have the expertise to critically analyze it) but because they are predisposed as to the kinds of things they are willing to believe and the kinds of things they instictively reject. Pop science writing like that by a (political) scientist like Lomberg is meat and potatoes to this crowd. </p>
<p>Every argument against doing anything that might slow the process of global warming which involves a threat to short-term profits will be repeatedly and skillfully injected into the public dialog by corporate interests, and repeated by people who are used to agreeing with the usual sources of corporate-friendly infopinion. I don’t necessarily disagree with anything you said in post #327, taken in the abstract, except the part about “undoubtedly destroy[ing] the world’s economies”, which is alarmist claptrap. You pose a lot of “mights” and tacitly suggest doing nothing unless we’re sure it’s “something that works.” The problem is that while we “might” not accomplish anything, and we can’t be absolutely sure that any one act will necessarily help, if we do nothing - which is pretty much what we’re doing now - there is a high probability that our children will suffer consequences far greater than the short-term disruptions which might result from trying various means of attacking the problem. </p>
<p>I can’t guarantee that using a crash helmet on a motorcycle will save your life. It might not. And there is a very real cost to the laws which require them, and they were opposed on that basis. But the data’s good enough for me that the net result of the laws has been beneficial. I have no reason to be predisposed to believe in global warming (does anyone?) I haven’t even seen the movie. But I can recognize a reworded recitation of a clever, superficially plausible argument against doing anything which shortens short-term corporate profits, and am old enough not to be surprised to see one. It may make you “feel better” to have us do nothing, but in the long run, our children will be worse off if we continue to take that course.</p>
<p>Guess who.</p>
<p>Kluge says:
He or–even more–anyone lacking such leisure as is required to spend a life engaged in Hollywood or the physical sciences cannot understand the mystery that is Global Warming, as do, for instance, the Warm Earth First-ers [WEFer’s]. But that, even in our honest ignorance, we should begin to demand the regulating of the industries that ‘look’ suspicious and, well, swarthy and profitable. </p>
<p>[He goes on:] This is because we are, in the main, one & all, ignorant-as-hell by both nature and disposition and should therefore trust the big-thinkin’ do-gooders amongst us–important people, like the sexless and big-headed Al Gore (he once wrote a book…put up on the BIG Screen by his castrati ensemble) and those other neutered smart guys with 3 days facial hair and a grim demeanor–that is to say, we should trust the WEFer’s slacker heroes: after all, the WEFer’s do–and their the good-guys.</p>
<p>DRJ4 argues:
We should not do something just for the sake of doing it, just to feel engaged and “part of the solution; not part of the problem” as a particularly ‘fav’ bumper sticker of the castrati choir goes. DRJ4 is atuned beyond the aria that implores: “You’re either fer um, or agin ‘em” and avers, shouldn’t we-the-people know what we are doing before we overhaul our industries and consumer habits? How engaged do we need to be to fit the image of ourselves as righteous? Just how bad are profits, anyway? Should we proudly distrust those deep-throated cigar-smokers who make ‘em?</p>
<p>Which way to go? Leap and look or look and leap?
What’s a school-girl to do?</p>
<p>One way to reduce emissions: double the price on gas.
But for this some peeps will be much chafed. See thread: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=233249[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=233249</a></p>
<p>count me in for voting for doubling the price of gas (hey, I just bought a hybrid, and I walk most places, anyhoo.)</p>
<p>Betcha it’d cut down on SUV sales–excellent idea, FS.</p>
<p>Still, it must be considered that those living in poverty may neither be able, or inclined, to leverage their impoverished resources to pony-up to a shiny new hybrid, like ccer’s. </p>
<p>Sounds regressive, but I’m open-minded on the point.</p>
<p>On August 9th, USA Today did a nice article on Mr. Gore and how he incorporates being green into his own life. A few tidbits…</p>
<p>“Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000 square-foot, 20 room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000 square-foot home in Arlington, VA.”</p>
<p>“the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents. But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences.”</p>
<p>“As executor of his family’s trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas”.</p>
<p>“Gore’s home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.”</p>
<p>Don’t you hate inconvenient truths.</p>
<p>You’re right, FS, and I think an income-driven gas subsidy would be in order, in that case. (I would’ve still voted for doubling it two months ago, when I was still driving my 12 year old CAravan.)</p>
<p>This is my take on hybrids–they’re a little more expensive than similar cars, but the price is coming down. The more those who can afford them can buy them, the quicker the technology will get cheaper. Meanwhile, your air is a little cleaner, and a little less oil is drilled, so everyone gains. And as they get more popular, and get cheaper, we will all gain that much more.</p>
<p>It’s kinda like organic and locally grown food. Buying it may be good for oneself, but the more important reasons are that it’s good for society–health of farmworkers, environmental degradation, transportation costs. Right now, it’s a premium that many families can’t afford, but I can, so I feel I have an obligation to support it. And the more people do, the more widespread and cheaper its availability will be, so that everyone can reap both the individual and societal advantages. Which is already happening, as the availability is much greater than it has been, and the price differential is in fact decreasing.</p>
<p>So, FountainSiren and DRJ4, just how thorough is your understanding of the science and data behind the global warming issue? And how much proof do you need? Remember, the tobacco companies were quite successful in selling the “no actual scientific proof that cigarettes cause cancer” theme to many members of the public long after the proof was accepted by, well, about the same degree of expert consensus that global warming now has. (I don’t know how tobacco causes cancer, either - do you?)</p>
<p>(And FS, if you are overcome again by a need to engage in another forced effort at arch “wit” - i.e. elaborate and childish name-calling - I’ll assume you have nothing cogent to say on the subject and be happy to leave it at that.)</p>
<p>Just checking back on this post again and it hasn’t changed… “can you believe what he says… look at how he lives… and he has the nerve to tell us the earth isn’t flat…” Nice going fellas, history does repeat itself.</p>
<p>Kluge doesn’t like my kind of writing; In fact, I might be hurt if it wasn’t his normal duck-n-cover. The same old harrumpety-dump… </p>
<p>As for style, you outta stick to your little dust-ups with *ILoveGoodBrew<a href=“btw,%20how’s%20that%20working%20out?”>/i</a>. </p>
<p>As for global warming, here’s the problem: I claim not to know–because I don’t; you claim to know…but, well…, you get the picture.</p>
<p>Again, I am not demanding that the world reorder itself to my thinking-- to rearrange its industries and policies to my liking; you on the other hand, it seems, will go hook, line and sinker to take a bite at that wily worm–but let’s be honest, fish bites worm is no real story, is it. </p>
<p>I’m kinda, if it is not broken……{…} because most often fixin’ what you don’t fully understand amounts to breakin’ what you should of kept your hands off of–these angry solutions only sound good on bumper stickers, or when sung by the castrati in the comédie mêlée d’ariettes --you shouldn’t actually do them for god’s sake… “Nuke the Whales” for instance…: it’s a terrible idea.</p>
<p>The only point you seem to make is that smoking causes cancer; therefore global warming is caused by bad-guys. I’m sure you know why one directly leads to the other…but my mind is not so subtle and Byzantine as that. But…</p>
<p>Could be…</p>
<p>KLUGE-WORLD</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>The inconvenient truth is that he’s a hypocrite. That’s the point. Amongst other blemishes that he has, one can also point out that he’s a hypocrite. He’s no stranger to hypocrisy either. Recall the year when he was the Veep that his tax returns showed hardly any charitable contributions. “Hot air” is no stranger to Mr. Gore.</p>
<p>And since Kluge brought up tobacco, let’s not forget that Mr. Gore professed during previous campaigns to being a proud cultivator of the evil weed.
Inconvenient truths, indeed.</p>
<p>So you guys hate gore…fine. Is the message or the messenger flawed? </p>
<p>If you only believe those you like to listen to or agree with, you only know half the truth. </p>
<p>After you get through the I hate Gore rant, what about the message? is it true or not? and explain why. Thanks.</p>
<p>
It was Gore who arrogantly (and incorrectly) declared the debate over.</p>
<p>Opie, based on the above, attacking the messenger(s) is the only “message” these folks have.</p>
<p>“the only “message” these folks have”…that takes a lotta gall, but Dylan said it much better. I blogged a little something about it yesterday, here: <a href=“404 | The New Criterion”>404 | The New Criterion; simply scroll down till you see my name (it’s in the last line).</p>
<p>“Now, little boy lost, he takes himself so seriously. He brags of his misery, he likes to live dangerously . . . He’s sure got a lotta gall, to be so useless and all . . .” </p>
<p>Harsh, but prophetic! Dylan was no soprano; he really hated the whole group-think bumper-sticker mentality. Seems to have aged gracefully as well.</p>