So now that Al Gore can add “Nobel Prize” winner to his resume, is he going to reconsider a run at the White House?
I’m still convinced that Hillary is unelectable, but I don’t think the slate that the GOP is offering is anything special. Al Gore, on the other hand, already won the popular vote once, and that was when he was doing everything wrong. Nothing teaches the way experience does. I have to think that the older, wiser Gore could take the White House in a walk. The only question is whether it’s a walk he wants to take. Because he’d be taking a hëll of a chance: Right now he’s a respected elder statesman with major cred toward getting the job done in terms of reversing global warming. If he runs and loses, then it’s not only a step back personally, but it’s a step back for the interests of the world environmental situation because he’ll be just another failed presidential candidate.
Personally I hope he goes for it, but then again, that’s easy for me to say.
PAD
• 
If by “[unique] aspects of interactions with Mike” you mean “Mike simply holding people to what they say,” well, good for me.
Mike wrote on Oct. 13 at 12:24 p.m.: “Just as the space race sparked an interest in science in education, and combined thermos and rocket technology to put man on the moon, a race to reduce emissions could renew an interest in science in education, and nurture a new industry that won’t end from an American planting a flag anywhere. Please put the protectionist sniveling down.”
No, Mike.
See above. It was you who first used the term “protectionist sniveling” — referring to me, responding to my comment about Global Warming alarmists who think is acceptable to twist the truth or lie outright.
Hey, I’m making a brief retirement from Mike appearance because I’ve had it with him…again…
Mike says
“If by “[unique] aspects of interactions with Mike” you mean “Mike simply holding people to what they say,” well, good for me.”
He also says “Well, look at you attributing to me a term you introduced into the thread yourself, and you will only find in my posts where I’ve cited something you’ve said. Your bad, indeed.”
And here’s the third charmer: “I have literally abstained from name-calling. So much for you giving instruction on honesty.”
Let’s just take all that on it’s face. Mike, you can’t go around repeating names, then claim to not be calling names, on the excuse that you didn’t start it. That doesn’t fly on the playground, and it doesn’t fly here.
Besides which, you’re wrong. The first use of “protectionist” and “sniviling” are by you. You introduced those terms to the thread, and didn’t deny their use directed toward R. Maheras.
Not only are you a name-caller…a sound debating technique, to be sure…you’re a LYING name-caller.
For the record, I’m not debating you. I’m attacking you. Name calling is thus an acceptable tact to use.
“If by “[unique] aspects of interactions with Mike” you mean “Mike simply holding people to what they say,” well, good for me.”
I don’t.
That’s nice.
What does he say in the peer-reviewed literature?
I don’t get how AlGore wins the Nobel PEACE prize. Even if you believe what he is saying it is a PEACE prize. What does his movie have to do
with PEACE?
The list below includes people that are more deserving
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010732
“What does his movie have to do with PEACE?”
The concept is that by causing people to be prepared now, it will head off the conflicts created by emergency migrations of entire populations or countries. Take England as an example.
If the warmer currents that flow North from warmer waters South of England were to shift due to changes in the water temperature creating a new current patter, then the colder waters from the North would then be the waters surrounding England’s shores. The warmer Southern waters are a major reason that England’s climate is livable. Remove that warmer current and the average temperature drops quite a bit. Food production is damaged and the general livability of the area for the native population goes down.
If this were to happen to an unprepared nation of people, the theoretical possibilities are mass migration and greater competition amongst themselves and with others for resources. Both of these things are causes for conflict with other nations.
The explanation for Gore’s win of the Peace prize is that his creating more awareness creates more preparedness and thus helps to avert the doomsday scenario on several levels. Not sure I agree with that myself, but you can kinda see where the concept could be wedged in there.
And if the religious right makes good on their threats to run a third party candidate and they get someone of even the slightest ability to look good…might as well start asking Hillary what color she wants the drapes.
I doubt the religious right/social conservatives will carry out that threat. Dobson is a professional whiner who will never be happy no matter who gets the nomination. He’ll whine and pout and make sure that the eventual GOP nominee kisses his, er, ring and makes the appropriate sound bytes. If the nominee doesn’t, though, he’ll just sit at home and count all the fundraising money a Hillary presidency will bring in to his movement.
What does he say in the peer-reviewed literature?
Well, according to the realclimate.org link I provided above, Gray hasn’t submitted his work to any peer-reviewed journal. Now, whether that’s because his hypothesis isn’t “PC” or because his science is faulty is a question that will be debated, but I recommend reading the realclimate article before accepting his view as gospel. They don’t attack Gray for his politics or his personality, but they do discuss in detail the fact that his hypothesis lacks any supporting data that has been collected and subjected to peer review.
The list below includes people that are more deserving
And Fox News is, of course, crying that Petraeus didn’t win. I’m amazed at all the outrage over Gore winning. If you thought any of those people were more deserving, did you nominate them? Did you even think of who was more deserving until you found out Gore won? The committee is entitled to choose whom they want. But all this bile over Gore getting the prize is just sour grapes.
If I had to guess, I would suspect that 90% of the global climate change denial from conservatives stems from the fact that liberals have embraced it.
[i]Micha:
It seems Nowadays each political point of view can havve its own scientists, its own historians, its own military experts, its own news sources, its own internet sites, its own terminology, its own comedians, etc. It makes it very difficult for people who are not experts or ideologically affiliated to form informed opinions.[/i]
I blame the corporations and Republicans. This “buying your own science” goes back to Big Tobacco trying to protect the legality of cigarettes, with the GOP jumping on to preserve their chief source of campaign money. Studies of the 1970s exposed the dangers of pollution, etc. and the corporations needed “counter-studies.” It didn’t matter if they were true, only that they create UNCERTAINTY. (This is also the time that the news became labeled as “liberal” because all the stories were going against big business and GOP corruption.)
Because of these manipulations, I have avoided seeking absolute certainty. Now I go with the legal standard of “reasonable doubt.”
R. Maheras v. Mike
Maybe Mike thought R. has hay fever and meant to type ‘sniffling’, a descriptive word, not an attack.
Maybe.
….
I’d urge everyone to take polls with a grain of salt in this election. I say that because ballots are secret and polls are not. Someone might not be inclined to state publically to a pollster’s face that they wouldn’t vote for a woman or a black man but would be less ashamed to let that prejudice influence their decision in the ballot box.
For that reason, I think the election might prove surprising.
My instinct is that Sen. Clinton will win the nomination easily but lose the general election and that Edwards and even Obama would stand a better chance in a general election that is the Democratic nominee’s to lose.
Dobson is a professional whiner who will never be happy no matter who gets the nomination.
Unless, of course, Den, he himself gets the nomination.
Frightening thought, that.
To see why Gore was considered a qualified candidate by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, all one has to do is look at what by Geir Lundestad, Secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, 1990-1999, wrote about how the peace prize has evolved:
“The future is always difficult to forecast. But I feel quite confident that the Nobel Peace Prize will continue to approach the same problem areas in the 21st century as it tackled in its first hundred years. The connections between the environment and peace look like offering the next area into which the concept of peace will be extended.”
You don’t seriously think Dobson has any chance of that, do you? It’s like someone claiming they are afraid that George Soros will be the Democratic nominee for president.
In honor of Mike’s latest relapse:
CHILDREN SHOULDN’T PLAY WITH DEAD THINGS
1972
Wow.
This is one of those movies that probably had a more interesting story behind it than the one in the movie itself. This minor but incredibly memorable flick has been puzzling movie goers for years.
For most of it’s 87 minutes it’s a badly done comedy about a troup of bad actors, played by a troup of bad actors, being pushed around on a deserted island by director and all around jerk Alan Ormsby (who wrote the screenplay and did the makeup). Most of the characters use the actual names of the actors, which helps when your cheap talent keeps blowing their lines.
This part is mighty slow going and many will give up. Don’t. It’s all a set up for the last 20 minutes or so when it turns into a balls to the wall GREAT zombie movie. The same cheapness that has worked against the movie up to then suddenly becomes part of its creepy charm. The shift in tone is something only those old grindhouse movies could get away with. It’s what Tarantino tried to do with FROM DUSK TILL DAWN, where he wanted the audience to not be aware that they were watching a vampire movie until the vampires appeared. Good luck on that one, the trailer, poster, reviews and internet leave little opportunity for anyone to walk in unaware.
Anyway, Bob Clark, the director, was one of thsoe guys who could hack out total crap (Baby Geniuses 2, Rhinestone) to total awesomeness (Black Christmas, Dead of Night) to A Christmas Story (A Christmas Story). He was recently killed in an auto accident just as he was planning to remake some of his earlier films, including this one.
CHILDREN SHOULDN’T PLAY WITH DEAD THINGS
When I was in my early twenties, we had a great drinking game set up on that thing.
If someone reads their lines like they’re actully reading their line for the first time and off off a posterboard: Take a shot.
If you can see signs of the crew in the shot: Take two shots.
If you can make the argument that the line wasn’t just read badly, but was actually a flubbed line left in the final cut: Take two shots.
etc.
We had to revise the rules. Everyone was passed out before we had a chance to get to any of the zombie rules.
I was going to say something along the standard line of, “I miss those days,” but, on further thought… No I don’t.
Oh god… I think I’ve actually hit the point in my life that I don’t foundly recall the days when I could from time to time get blitzed out of my mind.
$&!^, I’ve gotten old.
I blame the corporations and Republicans.
I’m sure there’s plenty of blame to go around. Part of the problem is that there is a fundamental disconnect from the way that scientists and pundits/activists think. In the punditry class, arguments are all about who can get the best sound byte. Or, if you Sean Hannity, who can rudely talk over your token liberal guest the most. There is no right or wrong. Just My Side and Your Side and it’s all about who can get the most zingers in. They don’t understand that in science, you have to actually show factual data to support your idea in order to get published in peer reviewed journals. They think academic journals work like the National Review or Rolling Stone: They all have an “agenda” and not interested in what the actual numbers say.
Unless, of course, Den, he himself gets the nomination.
He won’t because if he actually ran for office, he’d have to do more than just complain about how nobody is worthy of his endorsement. He’d actually have to put his money where his mouth was.
R. Maheras v. Mike
Isn’t that like Aliens vs. Predator?
Kidding! Kidding!
I’d urge everyone to take polls with a grain of salt in this election.
I agree. It is still early in the election and, even though Hillary has this aura of inevitability about her, she could still have a “Macaca moment” and tank herself. Or Obama or Edwards could really surprise every with a late surge and win key states. I’m not going to try to predict will be the nominee of either party or who will win the general election. This is the democrat’s race to lose, but they are masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
All debates are inherently adversarial, which I haven’t denied being. Not all attacks qualify as name-calling, and I haven’t resorted to attributing any quotes to anyone they haven’t said. I’m the one who plays by rules, and your inability to handle that isn’t my problem.
ROGER TANG: Actually, there are quite a few scientists who don’t agree with the “consensus” of the eco-left. Dr. William Grey of Colorado State University is quoted in the Sydney (Australia) news paper as being completely opposed to the Gore powerpoint presentation.
ROB HANSEN: Interesting that you would consider someone who wants to institute socialized medicine into this country as a conservative. Now granted, we’ve only been on the socialist road to wreckage and ruin for about 73 years or so. You folks over in western Europe have been at it much longer..to the point where some are actually coming to the conclusion that it doesn’t work. As for your observations on our political spectrum it appears you are so far to the left that the center looks like right wing radicalism to you. Here in the U.S. we tend to think of such an outlook as the radical socialist kook fringe.
C. Schwehr –
… institute socialized medicine…
…on the socialist road to….
…radical socialist…
“Second verse, same as the first…”
C. Schwehr: Are you even capable of writing a sentence without calling anyone who disagrees with you a socialist? Actually, I’d like you to explain exactly how global climate change = socialism? One is a scientific theory shared by scientists, most of which are not “socialist kooks” or “eco-left”. The other is an economic theory. I know you may find this hard to believe, but the two are completely unrelated.
This just in: Steven Colbert announced that he’s throwing his hat into the ring and will run for president.
Chris
This just in: Steven Colbert announced that he’s throwing his hat into the ring and will run for president.
Anyone who gets an endorsement from Aragorn has my vote.
“This just in: Steven Colbert announced that he’s throwing his hat into the ring and will run for president.”
But just in South Carolina….
A television comic who hosts a satirical news program runs for President.
I could swear I’ve seen this movie…
PAD
Heh.
“Reversing global warming”.
That’s hilarious.
Tell me another.
DEN: Yes, I do have the pleasure of conversing with many people without a socialist mindset, many of which I dissagree with on quite a few subjects. I haven’t seen any of them on this site though. As for the connection between global warming and leftist thoought, for many people the two are almost the same subject. The number of scientists who support global warming is large, yes because it is a fact. The questions should be how much warming, and what causes it? That’s where the divide is. Leftists tend to rely on data proven to be faulty (the Gore presentation for one), and blame mankind for a potential huge increase which just isn’t supported by the facts. Others (conservatives, moderates, libertarians, etc) state that the facts support the theory that the present slight warming cycle is a natural occurence which has happened many times before, and that mankind has little or no effect on it. The number of scientists who support this view outnumber those vocal few who support the “chicken little” version.
DEN: One last correction to your posting. Socialism is not just an economic theory. It is a belief system which not only controls people economically, but can control their very lives if allowed. It comes in several different flavors..nazi (national socialism), communist (international socialism), and fascist (democratic socialism). It is also found to a greater or lesser degree in almost every developed country in the world today. In the United States, the party which overtly supports socialism is the democratic party. The republican party also buys into the concept to a lesser degree.
C. Schwehr: “Yes, I do have the pleasure of conversing with many people without a socialist mindset, many of which I dissagree with on quite a few subjects. I haven’t seen any of them on this site though.”
Don’t worry about that. We’ll just chalk that up to your reading comprehension skills. Or rather, your lack thereof.
It’s not lack of reading comprehension. C. Schwehr is another fascinating example of a person looking at the world through very thick ideological glasses. This is something he has in common with his communist and anarchist counterparts on the extreme left. When you live inside your ideological base, read the e-mails, newsletters, books and lectures provided by that base, and understand everything with terms provided by this ideology, everybody who is not part of that ideology is perceived as extreme or deluded or a vocal minority and so on.
“A television comic who hosts a satirical news program runs for President.
I could swear I’ve seen this movie…”
I didn’t see the movie. When I saw the first commercials I thought, “Wow, I like the idea that America gets so fed up with politicians that they elect Jon Stewart.” I thought the idea was that he ran as a joke and was surprised when everyone in the country liked the joke better than the real candidates.
Then I saw a little more about it. When I found out that he won because of a computer glitch, I completely lost interest. It just didn’t seem to have any bite after that.
MICHA: I see that you have totally miscatagorized me as either a complete control freak (communist) or one without any controls whatsoever (anarchist), neither of which is anywhere near the truth. Extreme left is also completely off base for me. So it appears you have no idea at all where I’m coming from. Do you know what a libertarian is? A libertarian is one who trys to live without sucking at the public teat. Their credo is to live and let live, to not initiate violence (but be ready to stop it if/when needed), to provide grass roots help for those in need (not a “top down big brother” which spends billions on bureaucrasy, and acknowledges the need for some government. I also note that those who accuse me of being blind to any other than my own core belief usually are blind themselves since they casually toss my observations into the trash, pull out their white canes, and stumble on their merry way. JERRY CHANDLER: Thank you for the dismissive insult. I expect ad hominem from time to time as those I verbally parry with on other venues do the same when no logical retort is forthcoming. I dare say that my reading comprehension skills are quite good since I go through at least one book of novel length every week when possible. Most is reading for entertainment, but an occaisional tome by Murray Rothbard, or a re-read of “Atlas Shrugged” is good too. For a laugh, I’ll also read Time magazine, or even the New York Times. The slanted editorials serving as news are a real hoot sometimes. But in order to get to the truth, I also question everything I watch, listen to or read unlike many who blindly accept the news they are spoon fed each day. I know that the socialists out there would prefer I call them “progressives” or “liberals” but I like to cut out the BS and just call them what they really are but can’t see in themselves because their own ironclad ideology prevents them.
C. Schwehr it’s hard to take you seriously if you honestly believe that everyone on this board has a socialist mindset. I’ve been called many things but…
Now if by “socialist mindset” you mean anyone who doesn’t buy a strict objectivist mindset, well then yeah. Personally, I think that making the definition of “socialist” so broad that it includes 90% of all the people out there is no way to fight socialism.
Meh. Reminds me of all those parochial folks who think either of the Clintons are far-left moonbats. (They aren’t in the great scheme of things…i.e., the rest of the world. It just reflects an extremist view of the world and a total lack of worldly experience).
C. Schwehr, I know reasonably well what a liberterian is, having conversed with liberterians in the past. In fact, I had you pegged as a liberterian pretty much from the first sentence you posted. That alone tells you something. I prefer to talk to people who are not that easy to peg, and whose view of the world is less monochrome, since being inundated in heavy political rhetoric is not very conductive to constructive political discussion.
what I was trying to say is that the kind of attitude you’ve exhibited on this board is very similar to the attitude I’ve witnessed in my encounters and conversations with communists and anarchists. You are at the far right edge of the political spectrum as they are on the left, but it seems to me that the right and left edges of the political spectrum develop certain similar states of mind. I find the similarities and differences of the liberterians and anarchists (each occupying one edge of the spectrum) very interesting. In any case, if I wasn’t clear enough I apologize.
“acknowledges the need for some government”
I’m surprised. The liberterian I talked to the most seemed to oppose any government. I wonder if there are liberterians out there who consider you too moderate, even coming close to ‘socialism’. Is the extreme right as prone to internal fighting as the left?
“I also note that those who accuse me of being blind to any other than my own core belief usually are blind themselves since they casually toss my observations into the trash,”
Not exactly. As I said in a previous thread I find even ideas emerging from your part of the political spectrum interesting, to a degree — I am certainly aware that there are different views on global warming, and I’m not that quick to dismiss them. what I reject is the kind of outlook that paints all political opinions other than your own (i.e. 90% of society) as socialist kooks, and rejects them without thought, and then goes on to pretend that your view is a majority view (very similar to the communists who talk about the ‘massesw but would find themselves lost if they left their ideological reservation).
I’m not willing to dismiss either the proponents or the opponents of global warming as lefties/corporate stooges. Nor am I going to pretend that only one side is committed only to facts. To the best of my knowledge the majority of scientists, but not complete consensus, think that global warming is influenced by human interference. This, combined with other negative aspects of the dependence on oil and coal, should be enough to take the issue of global warming seriously. It would be foolish to ignore a possible threat only because it is unappealing. It is better to deal with a possible threat and be pleasantly surprised if it does not manifest itself, than the opposite. But in order to assess the threats and the ways to deal with them we need people who will not dismiss anything that does not fit their ideological preconseptions. This is true in this case as in others.
C. Schwehr: “Extreme left is also completely off base for me. So it appears you have no idea at all where I’m coming from.”
Micha did not place you in the extreme left. Micha said that you had the same failings of your counterparts on the extreme left. If one compares you to your counterpart of such and such a group, they are talking about how you are your side’s equivalent of a member in a group or organization that you are not actually a part of and may be on the other side of a debate and/or conflict. You are not a lefty who debates irrationally because of your viewing the world through your deeply leftist ideological glasses. You are the guy who debates irrationally because of your viewing the world through your sides ideological glasses. Thus, you are that lefty’s counterpart. Sorry if you didn’t quite comprehend what you where reading in Micha’s post there. Hope I cleared that up for you.
C. Schwehr: “I also note that those who accuse me of being blind to any other than my own core belief usually are blind themselves since they casually toss my observations into the trash, pull out their white canes, and stumble on their merry way.”
It wasn’t your observations that got tossed into the trash, it was your stupidity. You came into the debate firing away with ideological slogans, stupidity and insults/name-calling.
Your first post in this thread:
Posted by: C. Schwehr at October 12, 2007 04:33 PM
First of all, Gore didn’t WIN anything, he was GIVEN these awards for being the PC darling of the year. It was a shoo in that he would get the Academy award just so the socialists in Hollywood could crow a bit. Same with the Dynamite award. It was a slap in the face to the scientists who point out time and time again the errors and outright lies being told by those who wish to blame the current slight warming of our planet on evil human technology.
Secondly, there’s not much of a choice for the next President out there to speak of. Mrs Clinton isn’t qualified for the job, but will probably get it because she seems to be the anointed one of the democratic/socialists this time around. It’s either a result of her supporting Bill in the White House for 8 years, or else the Clintons managed to hold on to those FBI files and are using them to some effect on their own party. And Mrs Clinton CAN’T be “swiftboated” as you socialists call it. She didn’t use the U.S. Navy and fraudulent war stories as a stepping stone to the nominee’s position. She’s doing it the old fashioned way, bribes, illegal campaign contributions and lying her teeth off. Just like Bush I and II did.
Now, did you really expect to be treated like anything less then a first class, grade-a loony bird here? That wasn’t a statement of core beliefs or ideas. That was a borderline incoherent screed at best and masterful display of ignorance at worst.
C. Schwehr: “JERRY CHANDLER: Thank you for the dismissive insult. I expect ad hominem from time to time as those I verbally parry with on other venues do the same when no logical retort is forthcoming.”
Well, had there been anything resembling a logical statement in…
“Yes, I do have the pleasure of conversing with many people without a socialist mindset, many of which I dissagree with on quite a few subjects. I haven’t seen any of them on this site though.“
… then I would have been happy to respond in kind. There was no logical point there to disagree with, so I simply pointed out the obvious. You either can’t comprehend what you’re reading, you’re the ideologue that Micha believes you to be or you’re simply an idiot.
There are a number of people on this site who do not have the alleged “socialist mindset” that you attributed to them and who post quite frequently here. There are Republicans, conservatives and Libertarians here. Some have even posted on this thread. The fact that you can’t comprehend what they’re saying well enough to understand that backs either Micha’s point or mine quite clearly.
Even my posts in this thread have been far and away less then socialist to someone who can comprehend what they’re reading or who isn’t so ideologically blinded by their own agenda that they can’t see straight. I’ve pointed out why I believe Gore won’t run for office, pointed out that I think that Hillary will be, barring a huge blunder, elected the next President due to the failings of the other nominees, stated that I didn’t feel that every Peace Prize winner or the prize itself was as bad as some are making it out to be, explained how Gore’s win could be wedged into the “peace” category and stated that I didn’t entirely agree with that and said that I thought mankind could and should create much better “green” technology. None of that really screams out “SOCIALISM” to anyone but the stupidly ideological or the simply stupid.
And even if someone here posted something on this thread that seems “socialist” to even a normal mind, that doesn’t mean that they’re socialists. There are political ideas that all of us agree and disagree with from both sides of the isle. Some things we don’t mind the hand of government in. Some things we want the government to stay out of. It depends on what we think the government is capable of doing well VS screwing up. There are ideas that we agree with in principal, but not in the degree of scope that a proponent addresses. That’s not Socialism. Hate to break it to.
C. Schwehr: “I dare say that my reading comprehension skills are quite good since I go through at least one book of novel length every week when possible. Most is reading for entertainment, but an occaisional tome by Murray Rothbard, or a re-read of “Atlas Shrugged” is good too. “
Yeah, you go ahead and tell us all about the occasional masterpieces of literature that you consume so veraciously all you want. The simple fact that you couldn’t understand the simple point of what Micha meant by saying that you were the counterpart of some on the extreme left tends to make believe that you’re either exaggerating your reading list wildly or that you likely don’t understand what your reading anyhow.
C. Schwehr: “I know that the socialists out there would prefer I call them “progressives” or “liberals” but I like to cut out the BS and just call them what they really are but can’t see in themselves because their own ironclad ideology prevents them.”
You mean like when we point what a pretentious, idiotic and apparently unrepentant ášš you are? Seriously, it seems that in your mind anybody who doesn’t agree with you is a socialist, you’re a master of intellectual literature, you know so much better who and what people are and what they believe then they do and you see your name calling and screeds as some form of logical debating rather then the backed up toilet load that it really is. Whereas others here might be good people to debate with and who can have their minds changed or change my or other peoples’ minds about topics, you’re just a bad joke with a broken down punchline.
Believe whatever you want to in life, just promise us one thing. Whatever your on, keep it away from kids. Thanks.
“an occaisional tome by Murray Rothbard, or a re-read of “Atlas Shrugged” is good too”
That’s exactly my point. The liberterian reads the liberterian idelogues that reaffirm his beliefs and provide him with the idelogical framework. And all the way in the extreme left they read their ideologues. And when you talk to them you get quotes from the books they read. Marx said, Von Miss (?) said, Bukanin said…
A small piece of advice, to no one in particular. And if that makes me a socialist, so be it. Don’t become so engrossed in attaching labels to the people around you that you don’t actually see the people around you. Attach any title to a person, one tends to only see that label.
A libertarian is one who tries to live without sucking on any teat other than his or her own. As far as criticizing socialism shelters corporate-protectionism, anti-socialism furthers no libertarian agenda. Sheltering a fixed game is not libertarian canon.
DEN: Yes, I do have the pleasure of conversing with many people without a socialist mindset, many of which I dissagree with on quite a few subjects. I haven’t seen any of them on this site though.
Wha-huh? I assume this was an attempt to answer the question I posed to you, which was: “Are you even capable of writing a sentence without calling anyone who disagrees with you a socialist?”
But the rest of your post clearly indicates that the answer is “no”. Which of course just proves that you’re just another troll who is less interested in actually discussing the merits of the issue than you are in dengrating anyone who disagrees with your dogmatic view of the world.
For the record, I am not a socialist. I am actually very moderate in the my political views. (My disdain for Bush is less about ideology than it is about the fact that he’s a corrupt man-child who should never have been put in charge of a walking a dog, much less the most powerful nation on Earth). Of course, I realize that for you, everyone is either a liberatarian or a socialist, so I won’t bother trying to convince you otherwise.
As for global warming, I am one of those scientists who acknowledges that there are warming and cooling periods throughout Earth’s history, however, all of the data collected so far indicates that this time, human activity is playing a strong roll, meaning that this warming cycle is likely to be different. Are some of the “chicken little” scenarios, as you called them exaggerated? Sure, but that doesn’t mean that the only other alternative is to ignore all potential negative consequences.
Ok, one last comment before leaving here. I don’t apologize for comments made. I am sorry for any misunderstandings about some people’s points of view. On the other hand, I don’t think I went to the extent of personally insulting anyone here with such descritions as “grade A-looney bird, stupid, simply a bad joke, etc. However, I did see that both Den and Micha were gracious in their corrections of my perceptions. You many be correct in that some here are of a more independent mindset..and perhaps I do need to loosen up a bit. I think that comes from locking horns with too many other people of the diametrically opposed persuasion on other sites. DEN: You mentioned something about all the potential negative consequences. The question I pose is…what ARE the negative consequences other than the average temp climbing a few degrees, and a small rise in the ocean levels? And the warming cycle is likely to be different. HOW different, and how much of a difference. So far, all I’ve seen and read tends to indicate nothing like the catastrophes predicted in the much ballyhooed computer models. I just can’t buy in to the extreme change, end of the world scenario if we don’t change our consumption of fossil fuels NOW. Even the folks who brought us the Kyoto treaty have admitted that “it’s too late” to bring the sort of change that we supposedly need to negate man’s effect on the enviroment.
“As for global warming, I am one of those scientists who acknowledges that there are warming and cooling periods throughout Earth’s history, however, all of the data collected so far indicates that this time, human activity is playing a strong roll, meaning that this warming cycle is likely to be different. Are some of the “chicken little” scenarios, as you called them exaggerated? Sure, but that doesn’t mean that the only other alternative is to ignore all potential negative consequences.”
What would you consider to be a sober assessment of the situation Den?
“Even the folks who brought us the Kyoto treaty have admitted that “it’s too late” to bring the sort of change that we supposedly need to negate man’s effect on the enviroment.”
See, this is the problem with people from the right or left who approach problems with a set ideological objective. If you can’t dismiss the scientists who claim that global warming is a real threat as socialist kooks you then say that even if global warming is real there’s nothing to be done so why bother. It hurts your credibility because it seems you’d use any argument just to protect the continued use of fossil fuels. It hurts the possibility of real examination of the possibilities: namely trying to reverse global warming vs. trying to find ways to deal with it if and when it occurs. because caricaturizing the concerns of people whose politics is not yours is not a good way to start a serious discussion of the threats and options. People need to realize that politics is not an argument between geniuses and idiots but a process of evaluating very real concerns presented by various points of view. Taking these concerns and the people who make them seriously is a necessary step to examining them even if you ultimately decide to dismiss them. And I’ve said the same to people in the left and extreme left (that from your position in the spectrum might seem indistinguishable).
I may be wrong about this, but am I to understand that I may not even question the extent of global warming? I do intend to protect the continued use of fossil fuels because in the real world, we will continue to use them until it becomes economically untennable to do so. History shows us that as one resource reaches it’s practical limits, another more technically advanced resource has appeared to take it’s place. I also asked those questions in the hope of sparking a conversation about what we really do know, not just blindly accepting one side of the arguement and possibly proceeding down a path caused by a false dilemma. Not all scientists have climbed on to the global warming bandwagon in the sense that they have seen any information which indicates a large shift in our climate. There was a highly touted list of scientists who wholeheartedly supported the radical shift theory. I believe the total number of scientists was around 1600 members at the time it was first trotted out for the media. What was not mentioned was there was another list of scientists, many of them involved with climate change, weather patterns, etc that did not at that time agree with the first group. They agreed that the available information didn’t indicate a radical shift in global temps at all, but some also stated that there might be something to the data and further investigation was needed before a definitive answer could be determined. THAT group was approximately 10 times larger than the group which made the papers. Note, I did not say that there was NO global warming. There’s been about a .7 degree increase in the last 100 years, with the majority of it between 1900 and 1940. The question these days is HOW MUCH and over HOW LONG. And I didn’t DISMISS any scientists. The statement of “it’s too late” was a quote by the same people who drew up the Kyoto treaty. Along with the statement, they said that even more stringent curtainments on carbon emissions would be needed in order to stop the current global warming threat. I thought I could have a logical discussion with you on this subject but evidently questioning your preconceived ideas is not a good thing to do if all I can do is defend my right to question. It’s really sad.
“I may be wrong about this, but am I to understand that I may not even question the extent of global warming?”
You are wrong. The problem is not with asking questions but with the way you ask them — it does not seem like you seek answers as much as to tout the answers that will fit your political preconceptions while casting the other voices as socialist kooks.
“I do intend to protect the continued use of fossil fuels because in the real world, we will continue to use them until it becomes economically untennable to do so.”
Or if there is another good reason not to use it. There are few today who completely oppose market economy as the better economic system, but that does not mean it should be deified as the only and absolute force to control the lives of people.
“History shows us that as one resource reaches it’s practical limits, another more technically advanced resource has appeared to take it’s place.”
That sounds like a fairy tale — that the replacement of fossil fuels will wonderously present itself just when fossil fuels become depleted, not one moment earlier or later, and that until that happy occasion we must content ourselves with using fuels that have so many negative aspects ecological and otherwise.
“I also asked those questions in the hope of sparking a conversation about what we really do know, not just blindly accepting one side of the arguement and possibly proceeding down a path caused by a false dilemma.”
If your intention was really to spark a serious conversation you have failed miserably.
“Not all scientists have climbed on to the global warming bandwagon in the sense that they have seen any information which indicates a large shift in our climate.”
I’m aware of that, but in order to examine the claims for or against this theory we can’t go around automatically treating either group of scientists as liars and stooges while heeding only the ones that fit a convenient political position (unless there is a very good reason to dismiss one of the groups).
“There was a highly touted list of scientists who wholeheartedly supported the radical shift theory. I believe the total number of scientists was around 1600 members at the time it was first trotted out for the media. What was not mentioned was there was another list of scientists, many of them involved with climate change, weather patterns, etc that did not at that time agree with the first group. They agreed that the available information didn’t indicate a radical shift in global temps at all, but some also stated that there might be something to the data and further investigation was needed before a definitive answer could be determined.”
That’s how we get to a situation in which each political faction picks the experts that fit their preconceived notions. Since my opening position — until proven otherwise — is that neither groups is made of fools, I have no choice but to take both claims seriously and then weigh tthe question. You seem to have found an easier solution: take only the opinions I like seriously.
“THAT group was approximately 10 times larger than the group which made the papers.”
This claim does not seem to correspond with my very general knowledge on the subject. But here is the thing, I’m not an expert on the science or on the positions held in the scientific community. You can come here and say anything, pulling numbers out of nowhere, and I would find it very difficult if not impossible to assess the verasity of your claims or the credibility of the scientists you present who just happen to fit your ideological needs. That’s the difficult position lay people like me find themselves in these days. Perhaps one of the more scientifically minded people on this thread, or ones who are less lazy than me and willing to do the necessary research can provide a better answer. For now all I can apply is common sense and general awareness of the world around me.
“Note, I did not say that there was NO global warming. There’s been about a .7 degree increase in the last 100 years, with the majority of it between 1900 and 1940. The question these days is HOW MUCH and over HOW LONG.”
Some other question would be: what is the causes for the warming effect? what will be the effects of global warming on life on the planet? and what is the best way to handle these effects if the need arrises?
“And I didn’t DISMISS any scientists.”
Sure you did. You said that scientists who support global warming are all leftists who have no commitment to facts.
“The statement of “it’s too late” was a quote by the same people who drew up the Kyoto treaty. Along with the statement, they said that even more stringent curtainments on carbon emissions would be needed in order to stop the current global warming threat.”
Among people on the right or left who believe that global warming is a threat the discussion seems (based on my limited knowledge) to have shifted to what is the best way to approach this threat, by reducing carbon emissions or by developing ways to deal with the effects of global warming when they occur. Unfortunatly here too we see the discussion brake down along political lines.
However, your statement seems to be in contradiction. If they believe it is too late, what’s the point in putting even stringent restrictions on carbon emissions. Perhaps what they said is that it would be too late unless more stringent restrictions were put in place. That would be more consistent.
“I thought I could have a logical discussion with you on this subject”
Based on the way you presented your case when you entered this thread I didn’t not have much hope for a logical discussion nor did it seem to me that you were interested in one as much as in blasting a few slogans. If your intention was a logical discussion then the method you chose to initiate it wasn’t very effective.
“but evidently questioning your preconceived ideas”
I have no preconceived notions. As a layman I was aware that there were scientists who held different views on the subject. What I didn’t know is how to evaluate between them. Based on the little I did know it seems more prudent to take steps to reduce carbon emissions than hope that the optimistic scientists were the ones who got it right, especially considering there are other reasons to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels.
I am prejudiced against people who speak in simplistic slogans, regardless of whether they belong to the right, the left or the center. Although the reason for my prejudice is a certain bitterness toward extreme leftists I had dealings with.
“is not a good thing to do if all I can do is defend my right to question.”
Your right to question is not in doubt. PAD is a very strong defender of freedom of speech, and he would never curtail your right to question these issues, nor would I even if i had the power to do so, which I don’t. However, although you have the right to question, I am not obligated to take your questioning seriously if I do not consider it serious. Your conduct on this thread has not given me reason to take your questioning seriously. But I do take the people who question global warming seriously.
“It’s really sad.”
It is sad. The subject requires a serious discussion. But you only yourself to blame for your failure to initiate such a discussion.
C. Schwehr, I dispute your statement that the .7 increase…the figures I’ve seen most reliably touted are higher, and put the majority of the increase in the last 50 years, attributed not to the industrial age your 1900-1940 figure would indicate, but instead attributed to the age of the automobile in every driveway.
And parade as many meteorological scientists as you want claiming to see no evidence of drastic climate change, but you’re still looking to a group of people that professionally are only correct less than 30 or 40% of the time.
What can’t be denied are the climatological changes we’ve seen over the past 20 years. Just over a decade ago, scientists started warning of mass declines in frog populations, knowing that amphibians are often the most sensitive of the larger lifeforms to climate change. Just over a decade later, and large apex predators like the polar bear are finding critical habitat totally absent during breeding season, putting that entire species in jeopardy. We’re experiencing more frequent, and more powerful, storms every year..the US just had one that spawned several powerful tornadoes across a large portion of the midwest.
These are real, current, serious impacts. Talking about overall temperature increase of X number of years is such an abstract concept that it’s no wonder people legitimately doubt the existence of a climate crisis. But the warning signs, and the warnings, have been around for far longer.
As for fossil fuels being used only as long as they’re economically tenable…we’re currently operating with external costs that we never knew to factor into the cost. Some would say that because of those costs, fossil fuels are already untenable. But because corporations don’t realistically work to capture externalities like this, they keep working to burn more.
We’re like a frog, sitting in a pot of water slowly being heated to boiling. The rate of temperature increase that we can barely detect it, but sooner or later the pot’s going to hit a critical temp. and we’re just going to expire.
That’s a poltiical way of doing things.
The scientific way of doing things is to look at the data. That’s harder to do, but you can always cherry pick scientists or quote mine statements to make the debate what you want it to look like.
I think it’s more interesting to watch the scientific debate as opposed to the political one.
Throw into the mix the massive decrease in the krill population that pretty much supports a big section of the food chain and the picture gets really ugly really fast.
And perhaps I’m being oversensitive, but I see the same tactics used by a lot of global warming denialists as I do that are used by creationists. That’s the wrong way to approach this…I think a better way is to not to stay a step removed, but to get down and dirty with the data….
what ARE the negative consequences other than the average temp climbing a few degrees, and a small rise in the ocean levels?
I don’t think it’s the actual change in temperature that should worry us, it’s the effect it might have on the weather.
The difference of a few degrees here and there can be the difference between getting rain and not getting rain in a specific region.
Now it’s logical to say well, if one place gets less rain might not another place get more rain? And that’s quite reasonable. But if we suddenly get less rain in Nebraska, Nebraska ceases to be good farmland. Unfortunately, the opposite may not apply–if it rain in death valley…we get wet sand. It will take hundreds, if not thousands of years to turn a desert into usable farmland, while it only takes a few rainless years to turn farmland into desert. Climate is not fair but there you are.
It isn’t even that the weather has to get worse for it to affect us in a negative way–we have a system now set up in place that uses specific locales for food production. Any alteration in weather that messes with this system will probably cause us harm. At the very least, during the shift from one food production system to another we can expect mass starvation–our species is ill equipped at the present time for lean times.