 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
debeest
|
|
Straybow, I certainly agree with you that McCarthyism (with its censorship, loyalty oaths, propaganda, House Un-American Activities Committee, blacklists, and persecution and deliberate destruction of the lives of hundreds of innocent American citizens, out of a misguided fear of reduced American power) can't really be compared with advocating control of global warming (which might cost a lot of money, out of a possibly misguided fear of massive environmental havoc encompassing the entire planet). Especially in terms of "political correctness," which is what I was discussing, there's no comparison at all. The right wing required, with draconian penalties, that everyone toe the political line. The left wing discusses the issue and urges action. I'm glad you agree.
I was interested to find the following in today's San Jose Mercury, taken from the New York Times (probably at least a day earlier):
"U.S. acknowledges ills of global warming:
In report to U.N., Bush administration proposes no remedies
"In a stark shift for the Bush administration, the United States [the EPA, I believe] has sent a climate report to the United Nations detailing specific and far-reaching effects that it says global warming will inflict on the American environment.
"In the report, the administration also for the first time places most of the blame for recent global warming on human actions -- mainly the burning of fossil fuels that send heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the air.
"But while the report says the United States will be substantially changed in the next few decades -- "very likely" seeing the disruption of snow-fed water supplies, more stifling heat waves and the permanent disappearance of Rocky Mountain meadows and coastal marshes, for example -- it does not propose any major shift in administration policy on greenhouse gases.
"…
"Yet the new report's predictions present a sharp contrast to the administration's previous statements on climate change, in which Bush always spoke in generalities and stressed the need for much more research to resolve scientific questions.
"The new report puts a substantial distance between the administration and the energy industry and related companies, such as automakers, many of which have continued to run publicity and lobbying campaigns questioning the validity of the science pointing to damaging outcomes from global warming. …"
I think it's safe to say that Bush administration environmental appointees such as Christie Whitman (EPA) and Gale Norton (Interior) have ready access to lots of people who (1) are better informed on global warming issues than you and I are, (2) are likely to be better suited to evaluate the data on this subject than you and I are, and (3) are desperately eager to determine that global warming isn't happening, isn't caused by humans, and isn't harmful.
Let's have a show of hands:
How many people here believe that the Bush administration, in spite of a massive corporate lobbying, advertising, and research program, has allowed itself to be bamboozled and helplessly led around by the nose, by a bunch of flaming liberals with no regard for sound science?
And how many believe that the dismissal of global warming concerns as nothing but "political correctness" is, itself, nothing but political correctness -- which is the only point I'm trying to make.
I rest my case.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
GP, if you read more carefully, you will understand better. I've consistently argued, not that global warming is a pending disaster caused by humans, but that there is a "possible danger." My main point, again, is that those who dismiss the concern as entirely political and with no scientific basis are in fact dismissing it on a political rather than scientific basis. When I quote a story about the Bush administration acknowledging that there is a concern, I'm not expressing any "strong believer" stance of my own; I'm pointing out that even a conservative driven by an overwhelming deference to corporate goals can no longer deny that there is a reasonable concern.
Are you claiming that the New York Times described the report inaccurately? Have you seen the report yet? "Get a bit more info before making the jump..."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
SG[1], yours is not the first Kermit reference in this thread, I think, but I haven't a clue what you're referring to. Can you enlighten me?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
La Fayette
|
|
albi, france
Oct 2000
time: 06:19
|
|
You would also enlighten me...
I suspect that Kermit has something to do with Ming and multiplayer, since rah mentioned it once IIRC. That leaves it perfectly unclear.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
La Fayette
|
|
albi, france
Oct 2000
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GP
Re Kermit: Check out Ming's avatar.
|
Could you be more specific? The word 'Kermit' is not in my dictionary.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Campo
|
 |
Buffalo, NY, USA
Oct 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
From CNN.com, dated today 6/4/02:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan has ratified the Kyoto protocol on global warming that it signed at a United Nations climate conference in 1997...
With Russia seen likely to comply by the end of the year, the protocol is now just one step away from coming into effect.
Thirty-nine nations that have signed the treaty have yet to ratify it while the United States, the biggest producer of greenhouse gases, has rejected it altogether.
The pact would have required the United States to cut emissions by seven percent from 1990 levels, a condition the Bush administration argued would harm the U.S. economy.
The European Union, which ratified the treaty as a bloc on Friday, took the opportunity to criticize the U.S. stance.
In a U.S. government report issued on Friday, however, the administration acknowledged for the first time that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would increase significantly over the next two decades, due mainly to human activities.
It forecast that its total greenhouse gas emissions would increase 43 percent between 2000 and 2020.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entire article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiap...reut/index.html
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Marquis de Sodaq
|
 |
... no, a Marquis.
Jul 2000
time: 23:19
|
|
I wholeheartedly agree with debeest. Dismissing global warming as a chimera is politically, not scientifically, motivated. Straybow and GP, you are right to question how great the impacts of human influence may become; However, the scientific community generally agrees that it is a factor. Will we lose mountain meadows and coastal marshes, will New York look like Venice? Who knows, it's just a possibility, and at the extreme at that. I tend to agree that the news reports on extreme scenarios. After all, an article showing somebody's estimate that wheat's northern limits may shift 100 miles southward in 20-30 years hardly perks up the public attention.
[on topic] Coastal marshes are cleansing ecosystems, who keeps swamp along the coast in CivII? Or do you irrigate it into plains? I will always keep spice, peat if the city needs shields. [/on topic]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
Precisely. And yet Straybow has definitively pronounced that there is really no scientific basis for concern, only a political "correctness" issue manufactured by those crazy liberals. Is his statement based on science, or is it just a politically correct statement of his own?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bloody Monk
|
 |
austin, tx
May 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by debeest
Precisely. And yet Straybow has definitively pronounced that there is really no scientific basis for concern, only a political "correctness" issue manufactured by those crazy liberals. Is his statement based on science, or is it just a politically correct statement of his own? |
DeBeest
Straybow has said quiet a lot over the past 7 pages. Do you think maybe this reduction of yours is a bit "radical"???
My own view is that this whole discussion is not about science anyway. Something is going on with the Earth's climate, that's observable. But the Science has yet to be settled. All these words are philosopy, bordering on religion, and supported by beliefs and sometimes facts that might or might not be important. We don't know. Yet.
For every claim that the problem is factories or autos or cow farts there are other voices saying it is natural processes, vulcanism, or sunspots and solar radiation flux. Still others say it is some of both. And all of them make models with assumptions that 'prove' what they are looking for.
So do we do something now because it would make us feel good??...or do we keep our collective wallet on the hip in the name of not disturbing the status quo before we are forced to??? (I can play at radical reductionism too) Either choice has huge potential costs and unintended consequences if wrong.
I say again, this arguement is about philosopy, not science. Until the science gets settled maybe it would be good to chill a bit. Whether anyone agrees with any particular viewpoint won't make it right, more right, or wrong.
****
What ever flavor of this arguement everyone personally holds I hope we can all agree that we don't want to find out if the effects of nuclear war in Civ are accurate. Please join me in sending a prayer (or strong wish) for peace in South
Asia. If an exchange between India and Pakistan brought about GW, I don't
think 'we' have enough Engineers....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
GP,
"are you defending exaggeration on one side by citing the other sides? It's ok for me to lie about the republicans since they lied about the Democrats?"
What the heck are you talking about? Who's lying about Republicans and Democrats? No one. I'm not defending anyone's exaggerations. I'm pointing out that Straybow, in scoffing at the whole issue as nothing but "political correctness," is ignoring the science and taking an extreme position that I believe is based on his own "political correctness." I've already said that I myself am in no position to take a position on global warming. Reputable scientists studying the subject cannot agree on an interpretation; what, other than politics, makes Straybow so sure of his extremist position?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
Bloody Monk,
No, I don't think I'm misstating Straybow's position. Yes, he's said a lot, but he started with a political dismissal of the issue and he's been more than clear in saying that there's no scientific basis for concern. That puts him in an extreme position that even the Bush administration apparently can no longer support.
As you say, "this whole discussion is not about science anyway." Right! I thought I had made this clear already: my point is not about the science of global warming. I'm talking about Straybow's dismissal of the whole scientific question with a glib "political correctness" label. I'm saying, as you said, "chill a bit"; don't dismiss the issue with an insult. As you say, "Either choice has huge potential costs and unintended consequences if wrong." I'm saying that that doesn't mean it's a fabricated only-political issue, it means it's an issue deserving of serious study rather than polemics. (My polemics in this thread are directed not toward the global warming question but towards the dismissal of the question as only political.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
Solar plants eliminate all pollution that comes from shield production, and help to "slow the onset of global warming by absorbing atmospheric heat." Now there, indeed, is a silly modeling in the game.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-06-2002 06:13
Did I ever say I am a human?
Yes, he said it.
) - I'm frightened by this change in position by the Bush administration - what do they know that we don't?
Attachment: 
|