God dammit, yesterday's comments were awesome, but there is so much there worthy of righteous indignation and garment-rending anger.
Stop me if I'm misrepresentin', but did some of you really say there is a meaningful cadre of industries that stand to benefit from global warming hysteria, and THAT'S how the pro-environment agenda gets its energy? You have GOT TO BE KIDDING.
For every one small company that sells backpacks that recharge your cell phone, there are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of companies that benefit from things going the way they always have (McDonalds, Union Carbide, Halliburton, Unilever, etc etc etc.). British Petroleum has a nice solar department, but it accounts for... what, .0001% of their revenue?
To even hint that there are a powerful group of industries that stand to benefit from lying - or exaggerating - the threat of global warming takes a staggering lack of perspective. It's like the elephant claiming an ant blocks his view.
As for Democrats seizing it as a wedge issue, first of all, that's mostly crap, and second of all, Republicans can never blame any other political entity for exploiting a wedge issue again, given the utterly shameful way they've gone after homosexuals, people of color, and 9/11 widows. "Democrats needed something scary"? This is coming from the people that brought us Saddam's "mushroom cloud" and telling us that if Kerry was elected, "we'd get hit again"? Do you guys have any idea of the murderous hypocrisy at work here?
Climate change transcends politics, and is quite simply a matter of survival. The wave of black water doesn't give a shit if you're liberal or conservative, and while you send for whom the bell tolls, your estate is being washed away. For those of us trying to do something about it, why can't you just say thank you?
Posted by Ian Williams at July 25, 2006 9:30 PM
seriously, Lucy and I are wondering what your problem is
i agree climate change transcends politics, and so should the solution.
i actually hadn't really thought about the idea of profiting from green politics, until the democrats and others started promoting "sustainability" investing. although i think al gore and david blood distinguish their fund from the mainstream sustainability crowd by saying profit is their FIRST concern and they invest in sustainability BECAUSE it is profitable in the long term, not because of the morality of it (god forbid).
for me personally, i simply resent the idea that i have to be down with the democratic party political machine in order to be pro-conservation and renewable energy sources, pro-affirmative action and anti-discrimination, or hold any other so-called "left wing" or "liberal" point of view. the democratic party doesn't own those ideas, and fuck them for dangling them over us in their political spin whenever they think that it will serve them at election time.
i don't mean to make this so personal, i just have real issues with the democratic party and with al gore's credibility and i consider myself pretty "left wing". in fact, next time i move it's probably going to be about 30 seconds away from where i live now, right up into the heart of the republic of berkeley.
Hypocracy? What does that have to do with anything. I'm just analyzing politics (it was my major!) since you mentioned Al Gore, politician.
9/11 was real scary. Terrorists are real scary. Remember anthrax? Bush and Repubs clearly benefited politically from 9/11 (see 2002 and 2004 elections) for a number of reasons but mostly because they addressed it aggressively. For decades Repubs usually win when the issue is national security. Dems have not done well on this issue and know they will not take this issue away from Repubs.
So if there is to be a big threat to security that Dems can take the lead on, it has to be something other than conventional national security. They would need their own threat issue. GW theory as presented by Gore is a big threat to America -- and the whole world. GW has and will mobilize the left Dem base (about 15 or 20% of voters) at a minimum, and who knows it might get another 10 or 20% to follow to some extent. The GW issue works to vindicate so many of the left's long-existing beliefs about human nature, environmental theory, capitalism, patriarchy...
The difference is that terrorism and 9/11 are established facts to all voters (well I'm sure someone out there thinks it was the Jews or Dick Cheney) while global warming leading to some catastrophe is something a lot less than that.
Many of us know that we can't simply believe the left on this issue because we know they want to believe it too badly. The left loves GW! It's like Germany and David Hasselhoff.
Ian, I must come clean and apologize for telling you to look on the bright side and see the glass as half full. Seems the highly recruited basketball star, Kevin Love, chose UCLA over UNC.
That's the 8th sign of the apocalypse . . . just after #7 which reads: "And a Rat shall lead the mighty superpower in athletic games."
With coach k running the USA men's basketball team, Carolina getting spurned by Love, on top of all this global warming stuff, things are looking bleak.
To quote the thespian Bill Paxton, from his breakthrough performance in ALIENS:
"Game over, man!"
Salem, love that reference to George Carlin. His entire bit on the environment was awesome.
OK, Matt. Point for point:
The author, Bob Carter, is a member of the "Institute of Public
Affairs" -- a conservative, corporate funded think tank. The Telegraph
is a conservative paper, which doesn't mean they out and out lie, but
they definitely have a dog in this fight.
Alan Wood, columnist for the Murdoch paper The Australian.
Ruth Lea, director of the Centre for Policy Studies, a conservative
think tank founded by Margeret Thatcher. Oh, and she cites Bob Carter
as an authority, author of the first article you cited.
Association Manufacturers. They have a dog in this fight, too. And
the article's lede quotes Stephen Hayward, who compiles the "Index of
Leading Environmental Indicators" put out every year by the Pacific
Research Institute, a corporate-funded conservative think tank.
During the Clinton Administration, PRI was a charter member of the
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (aka The Arkansas Project
Oh, a blogger. Who quotes the article in Link 2.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001682.html Quoting an
open letter by a bunch of scientists. I don't have time to go through
the whole list, but hey! There's Bob Carter again! And Owen McShane
who directs the "Centre For Resource Management Studies," -- you
guessed it, another corporate-funded think tank.
Look, I'm not an idiot: One lesson I have learned in 48 years is that
things will never be as awful as the pessimists say, and never as
wonderful as the optimists say. But the climate change skeptics you
cite all seem to be exactly what I said they were: A bunch of people
who have formed their own circle jerk, funded handsomely by corporate
interests who want to resist change.
Oh, and of all the things these articles were fulminating about, the
one substantive thing they said was that the 'Hockey Stick' graph of
global temperatures was flawed, or even a hoax. So I went looking for
references on this debate:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3569604.stm -- Apparently the
conservative-think-tankies using their own junk statistics to try and
refute the hockey stick.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11 -- good, scientifically
grounded refutation of the Hockey-Stick-Deniers.
Look, Matt, I hope you're right, because I have a dog in this game
too: my children. But all this 'evidence' you cite to support your
beliefs on climate change is pretty one-sided, partisan, and suspect.
"for me personally, i simply resent the idea that i have to be down with the democratic party political machine in order to be pro-conservation and renewable energy sources, pro-affirmative action and anti-discrimination, or hold any other so-called "left wing" or "liberal" point of view. "
And there you have the one thing the Republicans throw in my face that I can't satisfactorily answer: "Yeah, well, your party sucks as bad as we do! Ha-ha! I win!"
Actually, since the Bushies took office, no, the Democrats DON'T suck just as bad bad any more. But they do suck, and their machine does not address environmental issues either. They remind me of the pigs in "Animal Farm", who contribute to the problem, and when their companions complain, they'd say, "Well, we're not as bad as the humans, at least. If you don't support us, the human farmers will come back, and you don't want that, so suck it up."
Those Democrats and liberals who DO address the problem are pretty much people who are no longer inside the beltway, or never were. In case you hadn't noticed, Al Gore ain't holding no office these days, and Michael Moore never did. They don't have any power. Who's still in power among the Democrats? Wishy-washy moderates like Kerry and Hillary who take so many sides of every issue that you can't ever tell what they really think.
But if Democrats are failing to address the problem, the Republican party is actively moving full steam backwards. I've heard some folks argue that the Republicans actually WANT global warming and everything it entails, because it's part of the loony religious right "We want the End Times" goals. That they're actively seeking to bring about the end of the world so that they can supposedly get Raptured. I'm not sure I'd go that far (see what I said yesterday about cognitive dissonance and the tragedy of the commons)...but, you know, if it were true, it would be completely consistent with this Administrations behavior around global warming. Completely consistent. Think that over, you who laugh at the mote in the Democrats' eye despite entire lumberyards in your own.
Yes, Chaircrusher annihilates the cause for skepticism of the anthropogenic cause of global warming by... attacking the messengers as bought-and-paid-for cranks. Except, of course, for the hundreds of Canadien scientists who you can't be bothered to look up. (And those who believe humans are the primary cause of GW do their work for free, have no conflict of interest, have nothing but our best interests at heart and are never to be questioned! Never mind the systematic bias against researchers who don't tow the line.)
Even a majority of those who believe the way Mann does about global warming now admit the hockey stick chart is deeply flawed statistically. But hey, you found someone who doesn't!
With all due respect, crusher, your beliefs, like Al Gore's movie, are pretty one-sided, partisan, and suspect as well.
Matt, whatever. The reason I looked through your links was because I was curious as to whether they really did justify skepticism about human input into climate change. I'm willing to consider it, really I am.
I was frankly surprised when they turned out to be articles by bought hacks, in conservative newspapers, or conservative bloggers, who sourced the same bought hacks. Not only that, those articles had the unmistakeable taint of Talking Points -- they all said basically the same things, quoted each other as authorities, and put forth the same "Hockey Stick" refutation that doesn't hold up to even cursory examination.
In other words, this is the standard conservative "Big Lie" school of propaganda. Not only that, with only the simplest of web searches, they're plausibly refuted by the writings of actual scientists. I found two sources at the top of the list when I searched on "Climate Change Controversy," and there were hundreds more.
Please dig up some actually convincing, substantive links that show that there's no human input into climate change. Oh and while you're at it, contrast and compare what Exxon and other multinationals stand gain short-term versus what a few hundred climate scientists will gain in grant money. Exxon pays more for PR -- not even advertising, just PR -- than the sum total of funds available for climate research from governments. The idea that there's someone out there flogging the hockey stick to win big somehow fails the laugh test.
But heck I won't convert you. This is an article of faith for you. Good luck with that.
A few months back, after scanning Michael Crichton’s ‘State of Fear,’ feeling dumbfounded, I spent hours online reading about global warming (mostly .org and .edu sites) and in the end, I came to the conclusion (was initially leaning hard the other way) that there isn’t enough evidence to pin it down as a legitimate threat.
If I’m wrong, would someone please point me to several web sites where at least four or five bona fide scientists, (not speaking through the media, environmental organization or think tank) states otherwise?
An aside: on another thread I commented that my energy bill stayed the same when I switched over to Con Ed’s Power Your Way. Actually the new plan was reflected on my subsequent bill, which went up ten dollars. I think it’s a real shame that people are punished dollar-wise when they go green. Ten dollars may not be much, and even though it’s tax deductible, I think it would be a hard sell for most people in my building/neighborhood.
Ah, ok, Tim. I forgot that the left never brings up Kyoto. And I wrote that I hope you weren't gullible, not on Doha, but on the financial incentives and pressure on researchers to tow the politically correct line on GW. Look, the Protocol collapsed, not over subsidies, but over the absence of scheduled commitments by developing countries. If you want to know whether I think business media are being gullible, and assuming you're right that "EVERY NEWS ARTICLE" blames the collapse on subsidies, which I highly doubt as a literal matter, I don't know. Are they wrong? If they mean subsidies were the sole or primary cause of Kyoto's failure, then yes, they are most definitely wrong. I hope that is clear enough. And didn't I say I oppose subsidies?
Ok, Kent. A few of them have ties to conservative think tanks and the like. One would never find such links or political leanings in experts such as, say, Helen Caldicott. I'm sure they're all apolitical and the Sierra Club has never funded environmental research. There are billions of dollars at stake not just for oil companies, but in regulatory schemes and grants for the hysterical side also. There's ample cause for skepticism for any curious person. You haven't refuted anything, and I think you're being led by the nose, but then you're free to think the same about me.
I'm ready to put this one right next to abortion and religion on debates that are a waste of time.