Hairy Buddah,
Let’s start with a quote of your earlier quote:
>> You seem to forget that I said "The right is denying reality
>> as well out of political, social and financial fear."
I didn’t think you were writing purely from a rightie perspective, but I admit I missed that line when I read your initial post. If I based a judgment upon blowing past that line, I stand corrected.
>> there is no geological evidence that more CO2 in the atmosphere
>> is a cause of global warming. Rather it is a trailing indicator. That
>> does not mean that burning lots of fossil fuels is good, it just doesn't
>> mean that we are having a significant impact on the earth's temperature
>> through CO2 emissions.
The earth warms and the earth cools, and I agree, in the grand scheme there isn’t a whole lot we can do about it if the planet decides to cool down, heat up, swap poles, or start spinning on another axis. In the planet’s history, it’s all happened before. I just don’t think we should aggravate the situation by pretending the problem of our adding to the already warming planet through fossil fuel emissions, poor environmental choices, etc., isn’t there. This is why I was agreeing with Slick Kicker, who was detailing in his post how right-wing talk show hosts ~ and they are most certainly right-wing, not moderates ~ work in tandem in an attempt to make the problem go away or discredit the science.
If the science and facts are there, and they seem to be, and mankind is aggravating a problem which over the course of many years (yes, much longer than a human or polar bear’s) is slowly strangling the planet, why would we choose not to act or pretend the problem isn’t there? That’s the basic point of my last post. If that makes me an extremist, I’d love to know how.
Look, I wouldn’t go to your yard and dump my trash in it, the same way you wouldn’t do that to me. So why do we insist on continuing to use the sky and our oceans ~ which all of us use and rely upon as part of the planet's ecosystem ~ as a giant sewer? Doesn’t cleaning up the planet and taking the initiative to minimize or stop mankind’s effect on global warming, as I pointed out in my initial post, ultimately benefit everyone in the long run? This is extreme?
>> Your apparent ability to only see one set of drums
>> suggests extremism.
What I see and hear is a lack of consensus about how to act on something which will ultimately affect everyone, and a deliberate decision to ignore sensible courses of action (as you pointed out by “denying reality as well out of political, social and financial fear”) aggravated by one set of drums beating louder than the other by way of a large-scale media apparatus. You’ll have to pardon me if I find this troubling. Please explain how this is an extreme position.
>> In my initial statement I said "We should progress to electric
>> cars, lower wattage forms of light bulbs, etc."
I admit I also blew past this statement in your initial post. Again, I stand corrected.
>> You seem to require that if I don't entirely agree with you that
>> I must entirely agree with the other side.
That is certainly not the case.
>> I bet you are a loud critic of Bush for his "you are either with
>> us or against us" philosophy. Consider purchasing a mirror.
I am a critic of the President’s “you are either for or against us policy.” What realistic person isn’t? But I am mostly a critic of that stance because I can’t stand black and white side-taking and the loss of nuance, which sadly, rightie talk takes out of the equation because it’s bad for their business. While it makes for sexy radio theater, it makes for bad social responsibility on the people’s airwaves.
It’s disappointing you’d imply that because I have a concern about the right’s willingness to go to such lengths to discredit well-founded science, etc., in order to maintain a status quo (still not sure how this benefits folks like Rush, etc., beyond ratings and show longevity), I’m somehow endorsing a “with us or against us” stance in kind. Perhaps you are projecting some of right-wing radio’s, or maybe your own, approach to discrediting an argument. Judging from what I blew past in your initial post which you brought to my attention in your most recent one, it looks to me like we’re both somewhere in the middle on this, just maybe different 40 yard lines. Maybe even the 45.
>> we don't need to shut down our economy or nationalize
>> our businesses to do that.
And where in my post did I suggest we do so?
As any entrepreneur can tell you, there’s more money to be made in combating global warming, pollution, etc. than trying to ignore reality and making believe it’s still 1970.
>> And we don't need to make drastic sudden changes, we can
>> do them deliberately over time.
What needs to change is leadership. That’s the drastic change that needs to happen immediately. Right or wrong, when the U.S. does something, the rest of the world pays attention, and even uses us as a template. Even after all the insanity of the past four years, we still have a preeminent place on the world stage to effect positive change. So why not lead, and lead in a positive, effective way, where other nations will be inclined to follow suit, both diplomatically and economically.
Just look at the mayors of this country; they’re leading in combating pollution, greenhouse gas emission, etc., in lieu of leadership at the federal level. In the middle of the country you’re finding more available ethanol and bio-diesel. The will to change is there, from the cities to the country on up, but not at the federal level where the impact of decisions is on a world stage. Someday this will eventually change, but sooner rather than later would be a good thing for everyone.
>> The Polar Bears will still be there. It's OK.
You’re being condescending.
>> Do you actually bother to read the Drudge Report before
>> slamming it? The vast majority of weather related articles
>> on that site are alarmist in nature emphasizing extremes or
>> records in weather.
No, I don’t read it every day, but you know as I well as I do Drudge caters to right-wingers by using misleading headlines skewed toward so-called conservative tastes and selectively pointing readers to news that puts anything vaguely progressive in a bad light, even when those news items are poorly sourced. An opponent of climate change from some podunk college gets higher billing and a more sympathetic treatment than a Nobel laureate who supports it. Hey, that’s the flavor and timbre people come to expect when they go to Drudge’s website, just like talk radio, but that wouldn’t be my first place to go to find a reasonable confirmation source for one’s opinion. Likewise, neither is Daily Kos, even though they both may be entertaining reads. You can’t come to a consensus by talking to people in a vacuum.
I wrote: “Don't they have to breathe clean air too? And if not them, what about their kids?”
And you wrote:
>> Oh come ON, anyone who doesn't see it exactly your
>> way just CAN'T care about their children and must be
>> allied with BushMcChimpyCheneyHitler? You will gain
>> a lot more credibility with me if you challenge the arguments
>> rather than demonizing the proponents.
Where did this come from? Who is demonizing? Who is throwing everyone in with Hitler?
Are you saying I’m demonizing because I’m wondering why people wouldn’t be for leadership in combating global warming, pollution, etc. even though they surely know these issues will ultimately affect their children? Who have I tried to demonize? Is that not a reasonable question to ask someone attempting to discredit science? That equates demonization to you? Come on.
Look, think about it this way. You stay at someone’s house, you leave it in better condition than when you arrived, right? That’s just polite. If you use the dishes you clean up after yourself. If you borrow a friend’s car you bring it back with a full tank. So then why would anyone willfully leave the world in crappier shape to their kids than not? We don’t own anything here, we’re just borrowing it. The land and the earth will be here after we’re gone. If it’s not one’s duty, it’s at least polite to leave it in better condition than we found it.
You’re right, however, the sky will not fall down on us in the next 30, 40 years just because you’re driving your car. I get it. But that “so what” approach gets you into the mode of saying “don’t worry, the polar bears will still be here” and snickering about hippies and granola at the country club. But the problem remains. You seem to realize this. I think Rush and Medved do too, but they choose to willfully ignore the facts and the science and instead use their positions to discredit it. I don’t know why, but that was the point Slick Kicker was making. I agree.
Eventually this is going to affect humanity, the world, everyone. So what kind of legacy are we leaving to, yes, our kids, if we decide not to give a s--- and leave the problem for someone else because we’re too lazy to recycle, or too cool to get behind pollution control initiatives. The consequences are much further reaching than tomorrow or the next fiscal year. So at the risk of sounding like a public service ad, why not do something proportional that helps in your own backyard, etc., instead of behaving like Rush and Medved trying to make believe the problem is all nonsense and hysteria.
>> It is clear that the earth is being damaged and we should
>> work to mitigate that.
Great. So where’s the disconnect?
>> Is the air and water in the US getting cleaner or more
>> polluted?
Polluters have had a declawed EPA and a business-enabling Interior Department on their side the past six years. We may have been slowly cleaning up our act, but things stalled earlier this decade. We seem to be getting back on the right track, however, but only because environmentalism has become temporarily fashionable again.
>> We are cleaning up a lot of the country. More needs to be
>> done internationally.
Agreed, absolutely. So what is one way to effect international change? For the U.S. to quit making excuses and quit playing favorites and demonstrate strong anti-pollution leadership which targets mankind’s effect on global warming at the international level. I don’t have specific specifics and I’m not a policy wonk, but man, this isn’t hard stuff to get behind.
I realize India and China are the world’s biggest polluters. Judging from the kind of crap they put in our dog food and the junk they make tires with, you have to wonder how much more toxic junk is being shipped back over here and sold to us in Wal-Mart in the form of toys and TVs. So let’s show some diplomatic and economic leadership to them and the rest of the world: rampant industrial polluting and small-scale polluting is unacceptable. You don’t have to close down the whole world economy to show some leadership muscle on that front.
>> And while some on the right are ignoring the science to
>> mindlessly defend business interests, there are those on the
>> left who are using environmentalism as a tool to try to weaken
>> the US politically.
If so and this is an accurate pretense, I will agree. But who on the left is trying to weaken the U.S. politically via environmentalism? Certainly not the old ladies at the Sempervirens Club.
