You know what bothers me the most about the global warming issue...

[pepperbear]

There's another thread about Ann Coulter and her completely predictable take on GW. The thread reminded me that I've been viewing this ongoing debate with blinders on and now I see what the problem is. It's the same problem with all of these issues and it ticks me off:

Conservatives won't even allow for the fact that there could be a shred of truth ALL BECAUSE IT'S US LIBERALS WHO ARE BRINGING THE ARGUMENT. All credible evidence is dismissed only because a liberal presents them. It's by rote, like the memo was written 40 years ago and kept in a glass case with the sign "Emergency: in case of liberalism, break glass!" attached.

In other countries, the argument would be how best to handle the situation, but not here! Nosiree, our oh so informed population argues whether there is even anything wrong at all and whether we are to blame or not, and how GAY the people are who are pro environment. What saddens me is this has to be profit motivated.

The RW's main talking points are that environmentalism hampers business and that the environmental lobby profits immensely from their efforts. Personally I can't speak to that, but it does make one think: which is a better way to make money? Stripping away every natural resource so that future generations can no longer use them while overpaid executives retire with huge paydays, OR coming up with renewable energy resources and evening the playing field a little more.

It's definitely a :banghead: situation.

:rant:

[donsu]

1. no, it's because the neo cons want to make as much money as

possible before GW forces them to stop.

[bryant69]

2. Not exactly - I know Neo-Cons are a convenient boogie man

But not everything that happens is exclusively their fault. There's plenty of big businesses and moderate capitalists who might well think what we are doing in the middle east is boneheaded but who continue to ignore global warming because it would cut into their bottom line.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[donsu]

8. and you don't think they are neo cons too?

nt

[bryant69]

11. What a stupid response

Unless we mean "Neo-Con" to mean anybody we don't like, than no - they aren't Neo-Cons. Neo-Conservativism is a specific philosophy/movement (a very wrong-headed one), not a catch-all phrase for people on DUs shitlist.

Bryant

[The2ndWheel]

3. Stripping away every natural resource

Nothing comes for free. You get the most money by the most stripping.

Alright, that's just dirty.

[riverdeep]

4. Turn it around

If we were actually allowed into the mainstream, besides the occasional Gore, there are many effective arguements against global warming deniers, uh, besides reality.

Risk management- a theory developed in the business world that states basically you take less risks with items that are more precious to you. Take two children, give one 5 pieces of candy, the other 100. Tell them if you can toss a piece of candy into a box 30 ft. away you will get three pieces. The theory says the one with 100 pieces should participate in the game much more often, because each piece is less valuable.

Now think of our planet. It's the only one in the entire known universe to hold life. The only one. Even if global warming is overhyped, if anything it's the opposite, but assume it is-it still would be irrational to take the risk.

There are plenty of simple common sense arguements that could be conveyed to the public if we had a budget like Exxon-Mobile.

[unpossibles]

5. modern corporatism is s short sighted it seems

the corporations (and thus American/international business in general) are addicted to immediate profits, and do not really care about long-term sustainability. I partially blame the whole Golden Parachute mentality, where an executive will be handsomely rewarded for a quick profit, regardless of the long term cost and often rewarded for failure as well. This is ridiculous. They get in, stomp around for a bit, make a metric-assload of cash, and get out. Why should they care about a company that they are going to bail from anyway?

The rest of the blame is the same idea, but the sad truth that it is a part of our culture, and not just because of executives being grossly overpaid. We want things now and won't wait for improvement. People like Anne Coulter and her ilk complain that renewable resources are not efficient enough or won't do the trick, which means they won't give it a chance. Was the first automobile as efficient as a modern car? I seriously doubt it. The technology needs to be in practice to see true advancement in design and reduction in cost. It's just the way it works.

But people like Ann would rather do nothing and keep going down the road to destruction because why should they care? She's out to make a quick buck. Hell, I don't even think she believes the crap she peddles.

Their scheme has been quite brilliant, in an "evil heartless motherfucker" sort of way:

1 - they spent years getting Americans to distrust the media, school, and other sources of information (despite the fact that many sources of media are very corporate and conservative).

2 - they got us to distrust being intelligent in general by playing the elite vs. "everyman" card (despite the fact that most of the real elite, the ones with real power, were in their camp).

3 - when enough people distrust information/intelligence, they get a few mouthpieces who claim to be fair and balanced and common folks to beat a bunch of angry, hyped up lies into the public's heads which have been adequately softened by steps one and two. Ye haw! Lather, rinse, repeat.

Now you find middle class blue collar types who, in the hopes that they too will someday win the lottery and join the ranks of the elite, are defending the richest people on earth for stealing everything in sight. It's crazy.

[Forkboy]

6. History will prove them wrong...if there is one.

Just a message from Professor Positive :)

[LanternWaste]

7. We shut 'em up and then we shut 'em down

And every time I come across the talking point that attacks the messenger, I use the Third Rule of Critical Thought: "The weight of proof lies with the critic."

Two of my poker buddies used to do this every time their intellectual honesty was cornered.

"Well, guys-- that may or may not be true, but the burden of proof always lies with the critic. So much like you used to ask me to "prove" there were no WMD's in Iraq, you're now going to have to prove to me that global warming does not exist... hey, guys-- I'm waiting.... guys?"

It may not get them to believe the truth, but it shuts them down and then shuts them up-- which is really all I want from them anymore.

[riverdeep]

9. Same as it ever was

This is nothing new, we shouldn't be blindsided or surprised by this sort of tactic. This is absolutely par for the course for U.S. industry.
Take a look at lead.

"Even though most of the industrialized world moved to control white lead paint by the turn of the century and curtailed its use soon after World War I, U.S. policymakers ignored medical and industrial labor reports from home and abroad. The lead industry proceeded to gain control over the conduct of medical research, the setting of public health priorities, and the dissemination of information to warn the public. Through a trade association, the nation's lead producers, refiners, and manufacturers disputed claims of lead poisoning and worked actively to discount such reports and thwart regulation. <11> When competition from non-toxic paints became a problem in the 1930's, the association by-passed the marketplace and worked to assure that lead paint would be required in public housing projects and other public buildings."

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/246_The%20Hour%20of%20Lead.htm

In the 1960's evidence was mounting for mental retardation due to lead paint, but did industry say, my god-thank you for telling us, we don't want our customers kids, maybe our future customers being harmed. Uh, no. They fought tooth and nail against any connection.

When well known libertarian tool says the industry will regulate itself, ask him-'so why hasn't it when it had a chance?'

Same thing with lead in gasoline, disturbing history.

[riverdeep]

10. Stossel

Should have read-'When well known libertarian tool John Stossel...

He was speaking the other day about how global warming probably wasn't happening, but also peddaling the latest industry talking point, that there are benefits to GW and we shouldn't be so quick to judge that it's a bad thing, that certain regions will have longer growing seasons,etc.

Bastard.

[Lisa]

12. I also suspect that it won't take long for them to turn around and blame ...

"those wishy-washy libruls for not warning decent folks instead of fiddling around with their science stuff while the floods/fires/storms were increasing".

It's happened before. I had to listen to one guy whining about how much more alert and responsive the private sector would have been to the dangers of smog, than the "huge cumbersome government bureaucracy and all those public service unions who didn't want to risk their jobs by supporting venture capitalists who could have developed superior technology faster".