Therein lies the largest fallacy of the environmental movement.
Our scientists are smart people, and our government officials often do have good intentions. However, we have way too much faith in humanity if we think we can actually control this planet's environment. We know much less than we claim to. The earth is much more complex than what we think we can sum up in theories and computer models.
Actually that is not a "fallacy of the environmental movement." The environmental movement is not specifically tied to pro-government initiatives per se, it is tied to people and businesses simply acting responsibly and using real science to evaluate real ecological issues.
It just so happens that even though both the private sector (business, religion, non-profits, etc.) and public (government) means are necessary to do so, the public policies can be more rapidly installed and are not dependent upon board members or stock holders ... they just need active democratic representation of citizens.
Environmentalism is not by definition pro-gov or anti-business, it is just pro-democracy.
Environmentalism is not by definition pro-gov or anti-business, it is just pro-democracy.
... and conservation of the planetary gifts we were provided (by whatever origin definition one feels comfortable with); with the universal belief in all things being interconnected. Without active environmentalism, we wouldn't have uncommercialized national parks, or their very existence (if one checks both the Congressional Record and John Muir's decades of lobbying at the behest of preservation).
I agre with the premise, but what really matters? Apple cares about their affect about the environment, but they are a bit player in the market, Good luck\
Maybe, but they are a media whore. In this regards anything that Apple does will get real attention and make news. The more they look like they are doing a good thing, the more companies like Dell will appear pathetic. Good environmental actions work just as well as any other form of marketing.
Insult and denigrate you? There is no need for it.
(Do you also hear voices coming from your molars?)
I'm not even going to comment on this, since you outright dismiss and try to personally discredit someone else's opinion you don't agree with- and do so in a haughty way.
Moving on here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CurtisEMayle
At a minimum, your statement sounds remiss of the knowledge of multiple categories of Nobel prizes. Obama's the Peace prize for, "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples, ... vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons ... hope for a better future ... diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population"; Chu's the Physics prize for cooling and trapping of atoms with laser light.
The emphasis on hope was mine, but I'd suspect it to be key to the Committee's judgement versus actual accomplishments of the efforts which will be judged in time.
As Lech Walesa, the 1983 Peace prize winner and Poland?s president from 1990 to 1995, ?... sometimes the Nobel Committee awards the prize to encourage responsible action."
EDIT: I later read the Nobel Committe statement. The last paragraph reads, "For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world?s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama?s appeal that ?Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.?"
I'm pretty sure that most people expect some REAL accomplishment to have been done in order to achieve such a prestigious prize like the Nobel Peace. Preaching HOPE is a far cry from attaining peace or any kind, and his receiving the prize was a joke among the Mideast and Eastern Europe today. Even Lech Walesa, whom you quoted, flat out said that it was "too soon, too early" for Obama to have received the prize (or even at all). That, and the NPP committee is known to be blatantly biased in favor of liberals, and the Norwegian parliament particularly despised the Bush Admin. Obama's selection was done purely for political reasons. It has cheapened the NPP, in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
What about all of us conservative tree huggers? I'm in favor of market-based solutions, and I'm in favor of any company that leaves things in better shape than the time before they arrived on the scene. I'm not really in favor of top-down government solutions.
My original post was about Chu, a liberal, and so the post centered on liberals. Of course there's conservative tree-huggers. I'm a conservative, and although I wouldn't necessarily call myself a tree-hugger, I do believe there is a lot we can do towards cutting down our consumption of natural resources and such, and a lot of that can be realized with our advances in technology. That said, I'm in favor of practical solutions, however, not stifling government regulations and costly mandates.
There is an opportunity for the great minds in the US to lead the world to a green energy revolution. It is pathetic that neocons don't wanna grow up and keep feeding the military industrial complex instead. Talk is cheap. Apple has done the right thing by exiting the chamber of commerce.
Well, considering that Chu is a nut job, (Seriously, have you heard/read some of the wacky left-field things he has said while being Energy Secretary? He's an enviro-nazi and a global warming kool-aid drinker.), and Greenpeace is a bunch of tree hugging liberals, I don't think their praise for Apple should be painted in a good light.
I may not agree with the tactics of Greenpeace, but thank God there are groups like them around or else we would all still be driving around with gas guzzling and air polluting vehicles. For the most part, governments only listen to the loudest voices and that usually means big business lobby groups. I say Hooray to Greenpeace for being our lobby group.
I'm pretty sure that most people expect some REAL accomplishment to have been done in order to achieve such a prestigious prize like the Nobel Peace. Preaching HOPE is a far cry from attaining peace or any kind, ... That, and the NPP committee is known to be blatantly biased in favor of liberals, and the Norwegian parliament particularly despised the Bush Admin. Obama's selection was done purely for political reasons. It has cheapened the NPP, in my opinion.
..
Yes, the obvious liberal nature of the award is a deplorable action .... for our president to be tossed a Nobel Prize instead of shoes (to paraphrase Hillary Clinton). Absolutely disgusting.
Yes, the obvious liberal nature of the award is a deplorable action .... for our president to be tossed a Nobel Prize instead of shoes (to paraphrase Hillary Clinton). Absolutely disgusting.
At least the target of the shoe perhaps deserved it.
If it's happening and we're a factor, then not changing our behavior is guaranteed to make it worse. So the question isn't just "Is it a problem" but "When will it be a problem" and "When will we have to change our behavior to avoid multiplying our own suffering from the problem?"
Therein lies the call to action.
What we've got is analogous to dumping toxic waste onto the tundra and calling it 'not a problem' just because not many people would be directly and adversely affected. But if we just kept dumping waste there, it certainly would grow into a problem so large in scope that it is unavoidable, undeniable and untenable.
So do you wait until half the tundra is glowing, the melt water is irradiated and then start cleaning things up at massive expense? Or do you recognize the inevitability of the situation and choose an ounce of prevention over a pound of cure?
I don't think you can honestly argue that it's happening, we're causing/contributing/exacerbating things and we shouldn't do anything.
Pollution is toxic substances..... like what goes into most landfills in nearly every community every day. Some more deleterious than others....Hawaii is a good example of such a time bomb.
Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide can hardly be defined as pollutants since they make up most of the stuff animals have been breathing (and plants "use")for millions of years before man appeared.
Man must do everything to make sure the tundra stays frozen and that Seattle stays cold and Hawaii stays warm just like in 1947 or maybe 1847. Those were the best of time for desirable earth temps, nicht wahr? Heavens, we don't want to see most of Florida under water again as it has been many times in the past hundreds of thousands of years. Pass an international law now mandating standard temperatures for all regions of the earth and tax any country that allows temperatures to rise or fall beyond limits set by the UN Climate Preferences Committee!
Chu isn't a person anymore, he's the United States Department of Energy. No matter whether it was a good decision for Apple or not, it was unbefitting his office to make these comments. You leave your personal feelings at the door.
... it was unbefitting his office to make these comments. You leave your personal feelings at the door.
Since when have leaders done that, or been expected to do that ... or, are you stating your personal expectations? And, are your expectations for appointed officials, elected officials, the Dept. of Energy, or specifically on these matters? Seems to me that when interviewed, all officials are questioned and pressed for both policy and personal positions for as long as history records. Tune in to CSPAN sometime for unprovoked comments from the floor. Your position seem specious to me.
Pretty well agreed upon by who? Yes climate change is occurring, but most rational scientist who are not on a Govt pay packet agree that an odourless, Colourless gas (IE CO2) cannot act as a greenhouse gas. In fact plants need it to survive.
True we have to limit and reduce the amount of other pollutants, but to say the sky is falling then say the solution is to tax the crap out of society. Is only rational if you stand to benefit from the billions of tax dollars that will be raised from taxation of carbon and carbon trading.
The Earth has been heating up an cooling down long before man got here. How else did massive ice ages disappear before the dawn on the industrial revolution. It's called cycles friends and the earth has gone through them for millennia.
As for the chamber of commerce arguing against the Govt stance on global warming. They're probably not doing it for the same reasons I've stated, and only have their own members vested interests at hand. That said, it's still childish for companies like Apple to run off like little childrens just because they don't agree with the a stance and are blinded by the Govt's rhetoric.
If I knew nothing else about climate science and the political debates that surround it, I would conclude from exactly this kind of "reasoning" that the folks arguing against the necessity for action are to be ignored.
Each and every time climate change is discussed there is an immediate upwelling of utter nonsense, apparently the result of chain emails, Rush Limbaugh, and God knows what kind of subterranean gibberish spring that apparently feeds the minds of the nation's wingers.
Do the people repeating these bizarre misconceptions ever think to double check anything they've been told? It's like "debating" heliocentrism with angry medieval villagers who keep shouting "Witch!" I can't even begin to imagine what kind of bubble of impervious ignorance one has to inhabit to go around making the "CO2 can't be bad, it sustains life!" argument, much less to imagine that "odorless and colorless" are somehow synonyms for "benign." Water is pretty ubiquitous and useful as well, does it therefore follow that if sea levels rise 10 feet there can be no cause for alarm?
Just to save time, everyone who's planning to mention, say, "the hockey stick" or whatever, go ahead and take a look at Global Warming Skeptic Bingo. It was put together four and a half years ago, but the caveats never really change. No matter how many times one explains the science.
I'm pretty sure that most people expect some REAL accomplishment to have been done in order to achieve such a prestigious prize like the Nobel Peace. Preaching HOPE is a far cry from attaining peace or any kind, and his receiving the prize was a joke among the Mideast and Eastern Europe today. Even Lech Walesa, whom you quoted, flat out said that it was "too soon, too early" for Obama to have received the prize (or even at all). That, and the NPP committee is known to be blatantly biased in favor of liberals, and the Norwegian parliament particularly despised the Bush Admin. Obama's selection was done purely for political reasons. It has cheapened the NPP, in my opinion.
Nope, stop.
Your original point was the Chu's status as a Nobel laureate did not confer authority or status because of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, which apparently suggested to you that "Nobel Prizes" are debased and political.
It was then pointed out that Chu won his Physics prize for work in the cooling and trapping of atoms with laser light.
You respond by further amplifying your opinions about Obama's prize.
So is it your contention that there is something "liberal" about being given a Nobel Prize for the cooling and trapping of atoms with laser light?
BTW, do you have any links for the notion that "receiving the prize was a joke among the Mideast and Eastern Europe today", whatever that even means?
I know that Rush told you that was the case, but here's a pro tip: Rush lies to you every day. It's a great gig, because he knows you'll never check, and he'll never be short of things that leave you indignant and eager to hear more.
If I knew nothing else about climate science and the political debates that surround it, I would conclude from exactly this kind of "reasoning" that the folks arguing against the necessity for action are to be ignored.
Each and every time climate change is discussed there is an immediate upwelling of utter nonsense, apparently the result of chain emails, Rush Limbaugh, and God knows what kind of subterranean gibberish spring that apparently feeds the minds of the nation's wingers.
Do the people repeating these bizarre misconceptions ever think to double check anything they've been told? It's like "debating" heliocentrism with angry medieval villagers who keep shouting "Witch!" I can't even begin to imagine what kind of bubble of impervious ignorance one has to inhabit to go around making the "CO2 can't be bad, it sustains life!" argument, much less to imagine that "odorless and colorless" are somehow synonyms for "benign." Water is pretty ubiquitous and useful as well, does it therefore follow that if sea levels rise 10 feet there can be no cause for alarm?
Just to save time, everyone who's planning to mention, say, "the hockey stick" or whatever, go ahead and take a look at Global Warming Skeptic Bingo. It was put together four and a half years ago, but the caveats never really change. No matter how many times one explains the science.
Why is that?
llusory "free-thinkers" employ denialism through rhetorical tactics (conspiracy, selectivity, false experts, impossible expectations, moving goalposts, argument from metaphor, violations of informal logic) to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there are none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are only effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.
A contrarian is one who takes a contrary view or action, especially an investor who makes decisions that contradict prevailing wisdom. Contrarians may have a good strategy for making money in the stock market, but how many have a hidden agenda to undermine faith in the stock market itself? Moreover, if the scientific consensus somehow reversed itself, the deniers wouldn't suddenly reverse themselves. They aren't contrarians.
All scientists are skeptics. Hence the motto 'Take nobody's word.' Skeptics can be convinced by the facts; deniers cannot. Skeptics do not continue repeating arguments that have been discredited. Deniers do. Deniers are not driven by a need to know the truth.
Behaviorally, climate denialism attracts a certain mind-set. They are delighted to be among the select few who have discovered the Big Secret - the Great Scientific Conspiracy. Only they can see through the lies. It's what sets them apart from the sheep around them.
An accepted scientific "consensus" is that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Therefore, according to junk science rationale, and the possible existence of any "free-thinkers" who may believe otherwise – it doesn't. That's precisely why it's futile to engage in rational debates with climate change deniers – the quality of their thought processes doesn't reward scrutiny. It's energy wasted that could otherwise be applied to solutions.
For those who feel that they have a valid scientific argument or uncertainties, I suggest taking them, along with supporting evidence, to a place where they can be held up to scrutiny with climate scientists ... e.g., RealClimate or SkepticalScience. Forewarning, noise will not be tolerated, but serious valid arguments, sound reasoning, and respectful questions to expand your knowledge are encouraged and will be accorded a professional response. For those who can't resist anonymous bloviating amongst the close-minded, link to junk science sites like ClimateAudit, Wattsupwiththat, or ClimateResistance ... many of whom are funded by special interests often under the cover of "think tanks", e.g., here, here, here, and here, to manufacture uncertainty rather than the pursuit of truth and solutions. They're known not for debate, but for the cloistering of the scientifically illiterate to keep each other warm by propagating their myths unthinkingly and uncritically by the willing media and those on blogs seeking their self-deluded genius moments. However, these diatribes serve no constructive purpose in a safe, unrelated forum, e.g., AI, with endless streams of techy-sounding gobbledegook, discredited junk science, emotionally charged accusations/innuendo, and/or noisy nonsense aimed at an audience who doesn't understand complex statistics and who are thought to be impressed by jargon, liberal-baiting, and/or ad hominem snarky asides.
Please don't obstruct those who passionately care and are enthusiastically willing to do more than engage in rhetorical gamesmanship. To be a responsible citizen and global neighbor, our call-to-action is to productively contribute and lead with dignity in "building a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. (Obama)"
With the aforementioned in mind, I sincerely hope that everyone can get onboard and join a worthwhile cause ... something larger than oneself.
I'm pretty sure that most people expect some REAL accomplishment to have been done in order to achieve such a prestigious prize like the Nobel Peace. Preaching HOPE is a far cry from attaining peace or any kind, and his receiving the prize was a joke among the Mideast and Eastern Europe today. Even Lech Walesa, whom you quoted, flat out said that it was "too soon, too early" for Obama to have received the prize (or even at all). That, and the NPP committee is known to be blatantly biased in favor of liberals, and the Norwegian parliament particularly despised the Bush Admin. Obama's selection was done purely for political reasons. It has cheapened the NPP, in my opinion.
...
So you've professed to partisan-based ignorance, imagine that? I suggest migrating your bias towards reality. Commence by reading Alfred Nobel's Peace Prize intentions here, rather than simply reinforcing your worldview with inane commentary.
For perspective, here it is summarized, with additional subjective commentary on partisanship relative to past award winners, by Juan Cole:
Quote:
Alfred Nobel outlined in his will the grounds on which the Peace Prize was to be given, saying it should go annually to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses." The modern committee considers work toward the reduction of nuclear arsenals in the same light as the reduction of standing armies, hence its award to Linus Pauling.
The American right wing would not have approved of Woodrow Wilson getting the prize for helping found the League of Nations. They do not believe in international cooperation or multilateralism in the first place. They think America should cowboy it. They are the tribe of "bring'em on" and "wanted dead or alive." They are about trapping the country in quagmires so as to throw cash to their cronies in the military-industrial complex. They like wars, not peace. They don't care how many people they kill in the global south. A million Iraqis dead? They deny it or justify it or blame it on someone else. They are bottom feeders.
They would have considered Frederic Passy, the first peace Nobelist, as a woolly-headed dreamer and laughed at a Universal Peace Conference organized just a little over a decade before the mass slaughter of World War I. They would have dismissed Jane Addams as a "socialist." And what would have provoked them to more gales of laughter than the 1935 award to the German pacifist Carl von Ossietzky. How'd that work out, they'd snicker as they elbowed each other. If there is anyone they find more laughable than Barack Obama, it is Jimmy Carter, the 2002 awardee. Mohammad Elbaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency repeatedly got in the way of the American right's war plans, so presumably they didn't rejoice at his 2005 prize. They don't believe in climate change or global warming and want us to switch to the dirtiest coal possible, so Al Gore's 2007 prize set them giggling, as well.
Barack Obama was given the prize because he is a game changer. Obama has dedicated himself to reducing and ultimately scrapping the nuclear arsenals that threaten the world with nuclear winter or a destruction of the ozone layer; either event would be catastrophic for human beings' existence on the planet. Obama has already made a substantial change in relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world. Two years ago we were talking about whether Cheney could convince Americans to go to war on Iran. Now Washington is engaging in direct talks with Tehran that have easied tensions.
Whether she or he actually achieves peace or not is unpredictable, but game changers are clearly visible to everyone. The handshake between Rabin and Arafat in the early 1990s was potentially a game changer, and the Oslo deal would have profoundly enhanced world peace if it had worked (it might even have averted 9/11 and the subsequent wars). Al Gore's campaign for the environment was a game changer. Shirine Ebadi's dedication to a rule of law in Iran is a game changer, and she gives hope to many otherwise cynical youth and women.
For those who are giggling and demanding concrete improvements, it is worth noting that most of the recipients have been idealists rather than practical persons. Obama is both, and therefore he has a real shot at vindicating the social worth of his policies in the future. Right-wing policies were tried for eight years and they failed. Miserably.
Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide can hardly be defined as pollutants since they make up most of the stuff animals have been breathing (and plants "use")for millions of years before man appeared.
If you think carbon dioxide isn't toxic see how long you last in a room full of it.
This kind of garbage talking point is part of the astroturfing by the anti-environment industry that's going around the net. The idea is to plant nonsensical arguments to create the impression that the science is hotly debated. This is a tactic invented by the tobacco industry and taken up by the fossil fuel interests. Why? Because they have no plausible scientific backing for their position.
Think about it. Why would they need to do this if the mainstream science was genuinely flakey?
The Chamber is actually not being out in front on this issue, but taking a step back in time. Every time a true forward thinker like TeddyRoosevlt set aside more land for national parks and monuments, he had to do it against the self-serving business interests of his day. He did it anyway and we are all now beneficiaries of TRex's foresight.
Congratulations to Steve Jobs for his progressive stance on the environment.
Therein lies the largest fallacy of the environmental movement.
Our scientists are smart people, and our government officials often do have good intentions. However, we have way too much faith in humanity if we think we can actually control this planet's environment. We know much less than we claim to. The earth is much more complex than what we think we can sum up in theories and computer models.
To see the fallacy in your simplistic anti-government position, just think of this ... over the last 30 years the population of LA has nearly doubled, including the number of cars, etc. And yet the air quality now is better than it was in the 1970's. How is that possible?
...
are you thinking?
...
Well it is because of the people asking the government to regulate air pollution emissions via the EPA and the DEQ. Auto emissions and industrial emissions are now lower than they were with half the population. Yes this cost some money and yes it costs some loss of some freedoms, but it is the way a society acts responsibly. Government is necessary at times and it is successful more often than you may notice. It is like referees at a ball game, you only notice them when they make mistakes.
So act like an adult and balance your skepticism of government with skepticism for the chamber of commerce.
To see the fallacy in your simplistic anti-government position, just think of this ... over the last 30 years the population of LA has nearly doubled, including the number of cars, etc. And yet the air quality now is better than it was in the 1970's. How is that possible?
...
are you thinking?
...
Well it is because of the people asking the government to regulate air pollution emissions via the EPA and the DEQ. Auto emissions and industrial emissions are now lower than they were with half the population. Yes this cost some money and yes it costs some loss of some freedoms, but it is the way a society acts responsibly. Government is necessary at times and it is successful more often than you may notice. It is like referees at a ball game, you only notice them when they make mistakes.
So act like an adult and balance your skepticism of government with skepticism for the chamber of commerce.
Good example!
I'm assuming that your question between the ellipses was rhetorical.
Comments
Our government can keep this world habitable?
Therein lies the largest fallacy of the environmental movement.
Our scientists are smart people, and our government officials often do have good intentions. However, we have way too much faith in humanity if we think we can actually control this planet's environment. We know much less than we claim to. The earth is much more complex than what we think we can sum up in theories and computer models.
Actually that is not a "fallacy of the environmental movement." The environmental movement is not specifically tied to pro-government initiatives per se, it is tied to people and businesses simply acting responsibly and using real science to evaluate real ecological issues.
It just so happens that even though both the private sector (business, religion, non-profits, etc.) and public (government) means are necessary to do so, the public policies can be more rapidly installed and are not dependent upon board members or stock holders ... they just need active democratic representation of citizens.
Environmentalism is not by definition pro-gov or anti-business, it is just pro-democracy.
...
Environmentalism is not by definition pro-gov or anti-business, it is just pro-democracy.
... and conservation of the planetary gifts we were provided (by whatever origin definition one feels comfortable with); with the universal belief in all things being interconnected. Without active environmentalism, we wouldn't have uncommercialized national parks, or their very existence (if one checks both the Congressional Record and John Muir's decades of lobbying at the behest of preservation).
I agre with the premise, but what really matters? Apple cares about their affect about the environment, but they are a bit player in the market, Good luck
Maybe, but they are a media whore. In this regards anything that Apple does will get real attention and make news. The more they look like they are doing a good thing, the more companies like Dell will appear pathetic. Good environmental actions work just as well as any other form of marketing.
Actions speak louder than words.
Insult and denigrate you? There is no need for it.
(Do you also hear voices coming from your molars?)
I'm not even going to comment on this, since you outright dismiss and try to personally discredit someone else's opinion you don't agree with- and do so in a haughty way.
Moving on here...
At a minimum, your statement sounds remiss of the knowledge of multiple categories of Nobel prizes. Obama's the Peace prize for, "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples, ... vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons ... hope for a better future ... diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population"; Chu's the Physics prize for cooling and trapping of atoms with laser light.
The emphasis on hope was mine, but I'd suspect it to be key to the Committee's judgement versus actual accomplishments of the efforts which will be judged in time.
As Lech Walesa, the 1983 Peace prize winner and Poland?s president from 1990 to 1995, ?... sometimes the Nobel Committee awards the prize to encourage responsible action."
EDIT: I later read the Nobel Committe statement. The last paragraph reads, "For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world?s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama?s appeal that ?Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.?"
I'm pretty sure that most people expect some REAL accomplishment to have been done in order to achieve such a prestigious prize like the Nobel Peace. Preaching HOPE is a far cry from attaining peace or any kind, and his receiving the prize was a joke among the Mideast and Eastern Europe today. Even Lech Walesa, whom you quoted, flat out said that it was "too soon, too early" for Obama to have received the prize (or even at all). That, and the NPP committee is known to be blatantly biased in favor of liberals, and the Norwegian parliament particularly despised the Bush Admin. Obama's selection was done purely for political reasons. It has cheapened the NPP, in my opinion.
What about all of us conservative tree huggers? I'm in favor of market-based solutions, and I'm in favor of any company that leaves things in better shape than the time before they arrived on the scene. I'm not really in favor of top-down government solutions.
My original post was about Chu, a liberal, and so the post centered on liberals. Of course there's conservative tree-huggers. I'm a conservative, and although I wouldn't necessarily call myself a tree-hugger, I do believe there is a lot we can do towards cutting down our consumption of natural resources and such, and a lot of that can be realized with our advances in technology. That said, I'm in favor of practical solutions, however, not stifling government regulations and costly mandates.
Well, considering that Chu is a nut job, (Seriously, have you heard/read some of the wacky left-field things he has said while being Energy Secretary? He's an enviro-nazi and a global warming kool-aid drinker.), and Greenpeace is a bunch of tree hugging liberals, I don't think their praise for Apple should be painted in a good light.
I may not agree with the tactics of Greenpeace, but thank God there are groups like them around or else we would all still be driving around with gas guzzling and air polluting vehicles. For the most part, governments only listen to the loudest voices and that usually means big business lobby groups. I say Hooray to Greenpeace for being our lobby group.
...
I'm pretty sure that most people expect some REAL accomplishment to have been done in order to achieve such a prestigious prize like the Nobel Peace. Preaching HOPE is a far cry from attaining peace or any kind, ... That, and the NPP committee is known to be blatantly biased in favor of liberals, and the Norwegian parliament particularly despised the Bush Admin. Obama's selection was done purely for political reasons. It has cheapened the NPP, in my opinion.
..
Yes, the obvious liberal nature of the award is a deplorable action .... for our president to be tossed a Nobel Prize instead of shoes (to paraphrase Hillary Clinton). Absolutely disgusting.
Yes, the obvious liberal nature of the award is a deplorable action .... for our president to be tossed a Nobel Prize instead of shoes (to paraphrase Hillary Clinton). Absolutely disgusting.
At least the target of the shoe perhaps deserved it.
If it's happening and we're a factor, then not changing our behavior is guaranteed to make it worse. So the question isn't just "Is it a problem" but "When will it be a problem" and "When will we have to change our behavior to avoid multiplying our own suffering from the problem?"
Therein lies the call to action.
What we've got is analogous to dumping toxic waste onto the tundra and calling it 'not a problem' just because not many people would be directly and adversely affected. But if we just kept dumping waste there, it certainly would grow into a problem so large in scope that it is unavoidable, undeniable and untenable.
So do you wait until half the tundra is glowing, the melt water is irradiated and then start cleaning things up at massive expense? Or do you recognize the inevitability of the situation and choose an ounce of prevention over a pound of cure?
I don't think you can honestly argue that it's happening, we're causing/contributing/exacerbating things and we shouldn't do anything.
Pollution is toxic substances..... like what goes into most landfills in nearly every community every day.
Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide can hardly be defined as pollutants
Man must do everything to make sure the tundra stays frozen and that Seattle stays cold and Hawaii stays warm just like in 1947 or maybe 1847. Those were the best of time for desirable earth temps, nicht wahr?
... it was unbefitting his office to make these comments. You leave your personal feelings at the door.
Since when have leaders done that, or been expected to do that ... or, are you stating your personal expectations? And, are your expectations for appointed officials, elected officials, the Dept. of Energy, or specifically on these matters? Seems to me that when interviewed, all officials are questioned and pressed for both policy and personal positions for as long as history records. Tune in to CSPAN sometime for unprovoked comments from the floor. Your position seem specious to me.
Pretty well agreed upon by who? Yes climate change is occurring, but most rational scientist who are not on a Govt pay packet agree that an odourless, Colourless gas (IE CO2) cannot act as a greenhouse gas. In fact plants need it to survive.
True we have to limit and reduce the amount of other pollutants, but to say the sky is falling then say the solution is to tax the crap out of society. Is only rational if you stand to benefit from the billions of tax dollars that will be raised from taxation of carbon and carbon trading.
The Earth has been heating up an cooling down long before man got here. How else did massive ice ages disappear before the dawn on the industrial revolution. It's called cycles friends and the earth has gone through them for millennia.
As for the chamber of commerce arguing against the Govt stance on global warming. They're probably not doing it for the same reasons I've stated, and only have their own members vested interests at hand. That said, it's still childish for companies like Apple to run off like little childrens just because they don't agree with the a stance and are blinded by the Govt's rhetoric.
If I knew nothing else about climate science and the political debates that surround it, I would conclude from exactly this kind of "reasoning" that the folks arguing against the necessity for action are to be ignored.
Each and every time climate change is discussed there is an immediate upwelling of utter nonsense, apparently the result of chain emails, Rush Limbaugh, and God knows what kind of subterranean gibberish spring that apparently feeds the minds of the nation's wingers.
Do the people repeating these bizarre misconceptions ever think to double check anything they've been told? It's like "debating" heliocentrism with angry medieval villagers who keep shouting "Witch!" I can't even begin to imagine what kind of bubble of impervious ignorance one has to inhabit to go around making the "CO2 can't be bad, it sustains life!" argument, much less to imagine that "odorless and colorless" are somehow synonyms for "benign." Water is pretty ubiquitous and useful as well, does it therefore follow that if sea levels rise 10 feet there can be no cause for alarm?
Just to save time, everyone who's planning to mention, say, "the hockey stick" or whatever, go ahead and take a look at Global Warming Skeptic Bingo. It was put together four and a half years ago, but the caveats never really change. No matter how many times one explains the science.
Why is that?
I'm pretty sure that most people expect some REAL accomplishment to have been done in order to achieve such a prestigious prize like the Nobel Peace. Preaching HOPE is a far cry from attaining peace or any kind, and his receiving the prize was a joke among the Mideast and Eastern Europe today. Even Lech Walesa, whom you quoted, flat out said that it was "too soon, too early" for Obama to have received the prize (or even at all). That, and the NPP committee is known to be blatantly biased in favor of liberals, and the Norwegian parliament particularly despised the Bush Admin. Obama's selection was done purely for political reasons. It has cheapened the NPP, in my opinion.
Nope, stop.
Your original point was the Chu's status as a Nobel laureate did not confer authority or status because of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, which apparently suggested to you that "Nobel Prizes" are debased and political.
It was then pointed out that Chu won his Physics prize for work in the cooling and trapping of atoms with laser light.
You respond by further amplifying your opinions about Obama's prize.
So is it your contention that there is something "liberal" about being given a Nobel Prize for the cooling and trapping of atoms with laser light?
BTW, do you have any links for the notion that "receiving the prize was a joke among the Mideast and Eastern Europe today", whatever that even means?
I know that Rush told you that was the case, but here's a pro tip: Rush lies to you every day. It's a great gig, because he knows you'll never check, and he'll never be short of things that leave you indignant and eager to hear more.
If I knew nothing else about climate science and the political debates that surround it, I would conclude from exactly this kind of "reasoning" that the folks arguing against the necessity for action are to be ignored.
Each and every time climate change is discussed there is an immediate upwelling of utter nonsense, apparently the result of chain emails, Rush Limbaugh, and God knows what kind of subterranean gibberish spring that apparently feeds the minds of the nation's wingers.
Do the people repeating these bizarre misconceptions ever think to double check anything they've been told? It's like "debating" heliocentrism with angry medieval villagers who keep shouting "Witch!" I can't even begin to imagine what kind of bubble of impervious ignorance one has to inhabit to go around making the "CO2 can't be bad, it sustains life!" argument, much less to imagine that "odorless and colorless" are somehow synonyms for "benign." Water is pretty ubiquitous and useful as well, does it therefore follow that if sea levels rise 10 feet there can be no cause for alarm?
Just to save time, everyone who's planning to mention, say, "the hockey stick" or whatever, go ahead and take a look at Global Warming Skeptic Bingo. It was put together four and a half years ago, but the caveats never really change. No matter how many times one explains the science.
Why is that?
llusory "free-thinkers" employ denialism through rhetorical tactics (conspiracy, selectivity, false experts, impossible expectations, moving goalposts, argument from metaphor, violations of informal logic) to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there are none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are only effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.
Joseph Romm has stated:
A contrarian is one who takes a contrary view or action, especially an investor who makes decisions that contradict prevailing wisdom. Contrarians may have a good strategy for making money in the stock market, but how many have a hidden agenda to undermine faith in the stock market itself? Moreover, if the scientific consensus somehow reversed itself, the deniers wouldn't suddenly reverse themselves. They aren't contrarians.
All scientists are skeptics. Hence the motto 'Take nobody's word.' Skeptics can be convinced by the facts; deniers cannot. Skeptics do not continue repeating arguments that have been discredited. Deniers do. Deniers are not driven by a need to know the truth.
Behaviorally, climate denialism attracts a certain mind-set. They are delighted to be among the select few who have discovered the Big Secret - the Great Scientific Conspiracy. Only they can see through the lies. It's what sets them apart from the sheep around them.
An accepted scientific "consensus" is that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Therefore, according to junk science rationale, and the possible existence of any "free-thinkers" who may believe otherwise – it doesn't. That's precisely why it's futile to engage in rational debates with climate change deniers – the quality of their thought processes doesn't reward scrutiny. It's energy wasted that could otherwise be applied to solutions.
For those who feel that they have a valid scientific argument or uncertainties, I suggest taking them, along with supporting evidence, to a place where they can be held up to scrutiny with climate scientists ... e.g., RealClimate or SkepticalScience. Forewarning, noise will not be tolerated, but serious valid arguments, sound reasoning, and respectful questions to expand your knowledge are encouraged and will be accorded a professional response. For those who can't resist anonymous bloviating amongst the close-minded, link to junk science sites like ClimateAudit, Wattsupwiththat, or ClimateResistance ... many of whom are funded by special interests often under the cover of "think tanks", e.g., here, here, here, and here, to manufacture uncertainty rather than the pursuit of truth and solutions. They're known not for debate, but for the cloistering of the scientifically illiterate to keep each other warm by propagating their myths unthinkingly and uncritically by the willing media and those on blogs seeking their self-deluded genius moments. However, these diatribes serve no constructive purpose in a safe, unrelated forum, e.g., AI, with endless streams of techy-sounding gobbledegook, discredited junk science, emotionally charged accusations/innuendo, and/or noisy nonsense aimed at an audience who doesn't understand complex statistics and who are thought to be impressed by jargon, liberal-baiting, and/or ad hominem snarky asides.
Please don't obstruct those who passionately care and are enthusiastically willing to do more than engage in rhetorical gamesmanship. To be a responsible citizen and global neighbor, our call-to-action is to productively contribute and lead with dignity in "building a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. (Obama)"
With the aforementioned in mind, I sincerely hope that everyone can get onboard and join a worthwhile cause ... something larger than oneself.
...
I'm pretty sure that most people expect some REAL accomplishment to have been done in order to achieve such a prestigious prize like the Nobel Peace. Preaching HOPE is a far cry from attaining peace or any kind, and his receiving the prize was a joke among the Mideast and Eastern Europe today. Even Lech Walesa, whom you quoted, flat out said that it was "too soon, too early" for Obama to have received the prize (or even at all). That, and the NPP committee is known to be blatantly biased in favor of liberals, and the Norwegian parliament particularly despised the Bush Admin. Obama's selection was done purely for political reasons. It has cheapened the NPP, in my opinion.
...
So you've professed to partisan-based ignorance, imagine that? I suggest migrating your bias towards reality. Commence by reading Alfred Nobel's Peace Prize intentions here, rather than simply reinforcing your worldview with inane commentary.
For perspective, here it is summarized, with additional subjective commentary on partisanship relative to past award winners, by Juan Cole:
Alfred Nobel outlined in his will the grounds on which the Peace Prize was to be given, saying it should go annually to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses." The modern committee considers work toward the reduction of nuclear arsenals in the same light as the reduction of standing armies, hence its award to Linus Pauling.
The American right wing would not have approved of Woodrow Wilson getting the prize for helping found the League of Nations. They do not believe in international cooperation or multilateralism in the first place. They think America should cowboy it. They are the tribe of "bring'em on" and "wanted dead or alive." They are about trapping the country in quagmires so as to throw cash to their cronies in the military-industrial complex. They like wars, not peace. They don't care how many people they kill in the global south. A million Iraqis dead? They deny it or justify it or blame it on someone else. They are bottom feeders.
They would have considered Frederic Passy, the first peace Nobelist, as a woolly-headed dreamer and laughed at a Universal Peace Conference organized just a little over a decade before the mass slaughter of World War I. They would have dismissed Jane Addams as a "socialist." And what would have provoked them to more gales of laughter than the 1935 award to the German pacifist Carl von Ossietzky. How'd that work out, they'd snicker as they elbowed each other. If there is anyone they find more laughable than Barack Obama, it is Jimmy Carter, the 2002 awardee. Mohammad Elbaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency repeatedly got in the way of the American right's war plans, so presumably they didn't rejoice at his 2005 prize. They don't believe in climate change or global warming and want us to switch to the dirtiest coal possible, so Al Gore's 2007 prize set them giggling, as well.
Barack Obama was given the prize because he is a game changer. Obama has dedicated himself to reducing and ultimately scrapping the nuclear arsenals that threaten the world with nuclear winter or a destruction of the ozone layer; either event would be catastrophic for human beings' existence on the planet. Obama has already made a substantial change in relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world. Two years ago we were talking about whether Cheney could convince Americans to go to war on Iran. Now Washington is engaging in direct talks with Tehran that have easied tensions.
Whether she or he actually achieves peace or not is unpredictable, but game changers are clearly visible to everyone. The handshake between Rabin and Arafat in the early 1990s was potentially a game changer, and the Oslo deal would have profoundly enhanced world peace if it had worked (it might even have averted 9/11 and the subsequent wars). Al Gore's campaign for the environment was a game changer. Shirine Ebadi's dedication to a rule of law in Iran is a game changer, and she gives hope to many otherwise cynical youth and women.
For those who are giggling and demanding concrete improvements, it is worth noting that most of the recipients have been idealists rather than practical persons. Obama is both, and therefore he has a real shot at vindicating the social worth of his policies in the future. Right-wing policies were tried for eight years and they failed. Miserably.
Apple has appeased the Chicken Little demographic. Way to go, Apple.
They did? I don't recall seeing them pandering to the crowd who say the world economy will collapse if we switch to clean energy.
Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide can hardly be defined as pollutants since they make up most of the stuff animals have been breathing (and plants "use")for millions of years before man appeared.
If you think carbon dioxide isn't toxic see how long you last in a room full of it.
This kind of garbage talking point is part of the astroturfing by the anti-environment industry that's going around the net. The idea is to plant nonsensical arguments to create the impression that the science is hotly debated. This is a tactic invented by the tobacco industry and taken up by the fossil fuel interests. Why? Because they have no plausible scientific backing for their position.
Think about it. Why would they need to do this if the mainstream science was genuinely flakey?
Congratulations to Steve Jobs for his progressive stance on the environment.
Our government can keep this world habitable?
Therein lies the largest fallacy of the environmental movement.
Our scientists are smart people, and our government officials often do have good intentions. However, we have way too much faith in humanity if we think we can actually control this planet's environment. We know much less than we claim to. The earth is much more complex than what we think we can sum up in theories and computer models.
To see the fallacy in your simplistic anti-government position, just think of this ... over the last 30 years the population of LA has nearly doubled, including the number of cars, etc. And yet the air quality now is better than it was in the 1970's. How is that possible?
...
are you thinking?
...
Well it is because of the people asking the government to regulate air pollution emissions via the EPA and the DEQ. Auto emissions and industrial emissions are now lower than they were with half the population. Yes this cost some money and yes it costs some loss of some freedoms, but it is the way a society acts responsibly. Government is necessary at times and it is successful more often than you may notice. It is like referees at a ball game, you only notice them when they make mistakes.
So act like an adult and balance your skepticism of government with skepticism for the chamber of commerce.
To see the fallacy in your simplistic anti-government position, just think of this ... over the last 30 years the population of LA has nearly doubled, including the number of cars, etc. And yet the air quality now is better than it was in the 1970's. How is that possible?
...
are you thinking?
...
Well it is because of the people asking the government to regulate air pollution emissions via the EPA and the DEQ. Auto emissions and industrial emissions are now lower than they were with half the population. Yes this cost some money and yes it costs some loss of some freedoms, but it is the way a society acts responsibly. Government is necessary at times and it is successful more often than you may notice. It is like referees at a ball game, you only notice them when they make mistakes.
So act like an adult and balance your skepticism of government with skepticism for the chamber of commerce.
Good example!
I'm assuming that your question between the ellipses was rhetorical.