Healthy Skepticism Toward Climate Crisis Denial

Today, I noticed an article in The Register warning of YET ANOTHER HEAT WAVE striking us in Orange County this week. maybe for some people, this just means another chance to go to the beach or to throw a “BBQ by the Pool” party. But for me, I see more than just that. I see yet more evidence of a global climate in crisis that has already begun to affect us locally.

Yet Jubal/Matt Cunningham somehow had the nerve to post this a week ago on OC Blog:

It goes without saying that injecting any degree of skepticism toward the figures and findings wafting from the climate change industry will likely lead to being branded a “traitor” by the Mahdi of Climate Change, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — but it’s still a free country in which we can voice such skepticism. In the old Soviet Union, dissent was treated as a form of mental disease — which isn’t too different from the way the EnviroLeft views any who don’t unquestioningly follow the party line.

And that’s my point — we ought to be skeptics on this issue, especially since the policy solutions being pushed by the Left involve the expansion of government power over our lives. Barbara Boxer flies over a glacier and to her that’s “proof” of climate change — as if she needs proof — the aggrandizement of government power inherent in the Left’s “save the planet” strategies is enough for her to believe in global warming.

HUH?! What on earth is happening to those folks at OC Blog? I guess they haven’t been able to wake up and smell the inferno the way the rest of us in the reality-based community already have.

Follow me after the flip for more…

 

OK, first off… When did the far right begin to value dissent? After all, Matt has called all of us who oppose this disastrous occupation of Iraq “defeatists“. So when did it become acceptable to question known science, but not bad foreign policy? Now I’d never want to take away Matt’s right to question known science, but I’m just wondering why he has a problem with people like me who don’t see any value in continuing Bush’s failed war.

Next off, when did the real science of climate change become “a matter of controversy”? And when did it become “anti-business” to recognize that in finding solutions to this crisis, that new opportunities may arise? The science is real: Nearly all scientists agree that climate change is happening, and that we humans are contributing to this. Oh yes, and even most businesses today recognize that they need to be a part of the solution not only to survive on this planet, but to also survive in the global marketplace. I guess these right-wingers who want to continue denying reality are the ones who are truly “anti-business”, as they don’t want our economy to remain competitive against other nations’ economies that have already adapted to the new environmental reality.

And finally, why must all of us who believe scientific reality be branded as “EnviroLeft extremists”? When did reason become “extreme”? When did science become “extreme”? And when did science denial become “normal”? I just don’t get that.

Maybe I’ll never be able to enlighten the folks at OC Blog who aspire to become the next Flat Earth Society in their extreme denial of scientific reality. Whatever… If they want to deny reality, let them. I just hope that we, as a society, never base public policy on the denial of reality. That’s all.

  140 comments for “Healthy Skepticism Toward Climate Crisis Denial

  1. August 13, 2007 at 2:25 pm

    Andrew:

    You make my point for me. Anyone who exhibits any skepticism about global warming/climate change and towards the Left’s policy responses to it is treated as if they must be insane.

    What are you going to do next time we have a cold snap? Start panicking that we’re entering a new Ice Age?

    The Left tolerates absolutely no dissent or debate on this issue.

  2. Andrew Davey
    August 13, 2007 at 2:42 pm

    Matt-

    I’m not trying to “silence” you and your anti-science “dissent”. You have every right to your opinion, and I’d never try to force you to change it. I’m just saying that your opinion on “climate change skepticism” sounds a lot like the skepticism of the Flat Earth Society toward the 3-D nature of our planet…

    Both you and the Flat Earth Society are WRONG on the science.

    So please, go ahead and say your opinion. Just don’t expect us rational people to believe it. Oh yes, and PLEASE don’t expect us to base public policy on the rejection of science.

    That’s all I said. ;-)

  3. Dan Chmielewski
    August 13, 2007 at 2:45 pm

    Matt —
    do yourself a favor and buy last week’s issue of Newsweek which has tons of informaiton on global warming and the organized and well funded effort to refute it.

    And you know your quip about a cold snap is out of line. Global warming gradually increases the temperatures of the earth’s oceans and land masses creating conditions that make habitats that can no longer sustain the life there for hundreds of years; we’re talking fish kills on amassive scale, melting of polar ice caps, droughts, lack of snow that snowmelt contributes to water table development.

    And the Right has been telling us for the past several years that dissent against the president (and his far -right wing policies) was unpatriotic. What did Ari Fliescer warn us about: we better watch what we say?

    There is a general war with conservative ideology and science in general. Creationism, evolution, global warming, stem cell research, and even birth control, conservatives are always on the wrong side of science. Which is wht you get facilities like the Creationsim Museum in Kentucky.

    But where you depart from the president is that he now actually agrees that global warming is a problem.

  4. August 13, 2007 at 3:37 pm

    So please, go ahead and say your opinion. Just don’t expect us rational people to believe it. Oh yes, and PLEASE don’t expect us to base public policy on the rejection of science.

    Again, Andrew, you prove my point, as with your “had the nerve” comment in your original post. If one is skeptical about the existence or extent of global warming/climate change/whatever-the-Left-calls-it-today, or if one disagrees or is skeptical of the concomitant policy prescriptions of the Left, then one is simply dismissed as irrational, against science, compared to a Flat-Earther.

    Ah, the tolerant comrades of the Left.

  5. August 13, 2007 at 3:40 pm

    nd you know your quip about a cold snap is out of line.

    Really, Dan? Andrew cited the heat wave hitting OC as evidence of global warming — but that’s not out of line?

    Selective outrage, comrade.

  6. Andrew Davey
    August 13, 2007 at 3:46 pm

    Ah, the tolerant comrades of the Left.

    How very true, Matt! We are quite tolerant of your opinion, which is why we allow it to stay here on The Liberal OC. See how we don’t just erase it, just because we don’t agree with it?

    Still, just because we tolerate what you have to say doesn’t mean that we must accept your denial of science as truth. Sorry, but since nearly the entire scientific community has reached a consensus on climate change, I’d rather believe them than believe some political pundits who may or may not be paid by the fossil fuel industry t inject “doubt” into the supposed “debate” on whether or not we should believe science.

    Again, should we not believe the earth is round because a few Flat Earthers won’t accept scientific reaity?

  7. joe shaw
    August 13, 2007 at 3:53 pm

    Healthy skepticism is always a good thing. It keeps us on our toes, it keeps our brains from atrophying and it’s just a good intellectual practice.

    That said, the science on global warming is fairly settled, as much as anything scientific can be, because science changes as knowledge increases.

    Anyway, there is nothing wrong with adopting policies that conserve energy, that encourage the development of new energies, and generally save our resources.

    Even if global warming is a blip on the radar screen, we’ll still make the world a better place.

  8. Aunt Millie
    August 13, 2007 at 3:58 pm

    There are two very sad aspects to Cunningham and the partisan set who reject the preponderance of evidence of global climate change.

    First is their paranoid view that this is some type of lefitst conspiracy, rather than the preponderance of evidence that has been accreting continuously for twenty years, with the scientific method, a community of scientists, and an evolving understanding. While there are definitely lots of questions about how quickly change is occurring, even the Reason expert who had been a skeptic for years finally accepted that climate change was real and man made.

    Second is the way that they grasp factoids and then hang their worldview on some new wingnut fantasy, without attempting to do even the most rudimentary checking to see if there is any eviidence. The big brouhaha about the climate stations, with pictures and the volunteers driving around the country to photograph these stations is typical, and is easily checked with a little research. It turns out that climatologists have been well aware of these issues for years, and have been checking the results of urban islands against rural stations, normalizing the results, and discontinuing stations where the data is meaningless.

    At a certain point, you just have to give up listening to them on any subject because they continue to reject mainstream science in favor of some lame, misguided political philosophy. It’s all a bizarre paranoia that just becomes incredible.

    The most appalling example is Dana Rohrabacher, who is panicked over asteroid attacks while ignoring NASA meteorolgists.

  9. Andrew Davey
    August 13, 2007 at 4:00 pm

    Healthy skepticism is always a good thing.

    Very true, Joe! Still, you are totally right that the science on climate change is settled. After all, how often do about 98% of scientists agree on ANYTHING? Yet now that they’re agreeing on climate change, the far right wants to dismiss them as “EnviroLeft extremists”?

    Again, when did belief in science become “extreme”?

    Oh yes, and good point on being smarter with our energy policy! Ya know, climate change isn’ t the only reason why we need a better energy policy. After all, why are we in Iraq?

    Just sayin’…

  10. Publius
    August 13, 2007 at 4:03 pm

    I believe Global Warming is a proven theory.
    And I agree with Joe that even if not, it can’t hurt to conserve energy and reduce our pollution and use of non-renewable fossil fuels.
    But I think that by using this week’s mini heat wave to try to prove his point, Andrew opens himself up to criticism. So far this August has been pretty cool by my observation. More like June, with clouds and fog reaching pretty far inland.

  11. Aunt Millie
    August 13, 2007 at 4:05 pm

    And Andrew, thanks a lot for this post. It’s so important that someone calls Cunningham on this bullshit.

  12. Jason Bensley
    August 13, 2007 at 4:09 pm

    I don’t care if climate change is a natural phenomenon or man-made. Does it really matter? If the average global temperature rises, won’t glaciers and ice-caps melt regardless of whether its natural or not?

    Bottom line is, who cares if its us doing it? Humans should be adopting measures to mitigate the rise of global temperatures. And if that means that the federal government has to give a little nudge to corporate America to speed that process along, then so be it. Last time I checked, Big Oil has been doing pretty well, enough to invest billions in alternative energy, which they will make a transition to providing for everyone when the oil runs out, right?

    When south Florida is under water, are we still going to be provided with studies from Conservative think tanks saying climate change isn’t real?

    I’m so sick of the debate about this topic, can’t we just move on to what to do about the consequences already?

  13. Andrew Davey
    August 13, 2007 at 4:14 pm

    Publius-

    I didn’t use the heat wave to “try to prove my point”. I was just noticing that, and other weird weather occurrences that happen more and more often, and wonder WHY this is happening. No, I actually used ALL THOSE OTHER SCIENTIFIC REPORTS later in the thread to prove my point. Still, thanks for taking my side today! ;-)

    Aunt Millie-

    You’re most welcome! After all, someone should take pleasure in calling out OC Blog’s BS! ;-)

  14. Flowerszzz
    August 13, 2007 at 4:16 pm

    So lemme get this straight…..it is mid August and the weather is HOT…like usual….but Andrew you are saying that this is global warming? lol. It is ALWAYS 100 degrees in August you nut! Just wait until the end of Aug begining of Sept…..it will be really hot then too. Just like it is every single year here. LOL…you crack me up.

  15. Dan Chmielewski
    August 13, 2007 at 4:19 pm

    Andrew, Matt is correct on one thing, we cannot tie a single heat wave nor a single cold wave to global warming.

    Matt — I am skeptical of the “scientists” who are bought and paid by the petroleum industry who say Global warming is a hoax.

    The comrade comment is especially funny. My 15 year old just came by with an ice-tea and he was wearing a hammer & sickle shirt I bought him this summer; worn as a symbol of a failed political system.

  16. Andrew Davey
    August 13, 2007 at 4:30 pm

    Dan and Flowerszzz-

    Yes, on that point, Matt is right. I guess my first paragraph is being misunderstood. I was NOT saying that this heat wave means we’re in for a global meltdown. All I was saying is that as we see MORE extreme weather MORE often, I just look at that and see that we’re seeing climate change take effect in our community NOW.

    Yes, it’s August. Yes, it’s normally hot this year. However, remember how many heat waves we’ve had so far this year, and for the last three or four years. Is this “normal”? That was all I was pointing out.

    I know weird weather happens. That’s just the way the world works. But is all this weird weather happening increasingly often “normal”?

    Just sayin’…

  17. Dan Chmielewski
    August 13, 2007 at 5:11 pm

    Flowerzz, any explanation for the meting polar ice caps or why there is a huge drop off in the Bee population? Without pollenation, a process humans and technology cannot replicate, the survival of mankind itself is at serious risk.

  18. Flowerszzz
    August 13, 2007 at 5:37 pm

    Did any of you live here in the early 80’s??? We had horrible heat waves, no rain, horribly hot falls into winter…it is where the saying “If it is brown flush it down , if it is yellow leave it mellow” came from. I am not saying that Global warming does not exist…but what I am saying is that the temperatures here and everywhere move back and forth, about ona 20 year cycle. This area has always been subject to heat waves, drought and summer tropical storms. I just dont want everyone running around OC like chicken little…they sky is falling….is all. LOL!

    Should we do all we can to slow the warming….ABSOLUTELY.

  19. Andrew Davey
    August 13, 2007 at 6:16 pm

    Flowerszzz-

    Nice to know that you’re angrily agreeing with me. ;-)

    Yes, you’re right about weather fluctuations. They happen. I know that. All I was trying to say is that we’re having MORE extreme weather MORE often, and that this may be a sign that we’re already feeling the effects of climate change.

    OK, Flowerszzz, can you answer this: When you lived here in the early 80s, how often did SoCal bear extreme heat (as in 90s and 100s in OC)? And did these extreme heat waves occur THROUGHOUT the year (as in February AND April AND August AND November)? What concerns me is that we’re having more heat waves and more “drought” more often in SoCal while the Atlantic Seaboard and Gulf of MX get more hurricanes AND the rest of the world gets more bizarre weather more often?

    Get my drift now? Is this all just “weird weather”? Or is this the start of a changing climate?

  20. Publius
    August 13, 2007 at 6:33 pm

    Andrew, I think what Flowerzz and I are trying to say is that to look at weather trends you have to step back and look at the big picture. Not just years, but decades and centuries.
    A few years ago, with record rainfall, some would say SoCal’s drought years were over. But looking at last year, the drought is back.
    A few brief heat waves do not make a warming trend.
    We experience these most years..
    But we do have a powerful effect on the environment. When I was a kid here in the 70s and 80s we had numerous smog alerts – 1st stage, 2nd stage (where we weren’t allowed to play outside at recess) and an occasional 3rd (where eyes stung). Haven’t heard of one of those in many years. Thanks to AQMD, unleaded gas, smog check, etc..

  21. Andrew Davey
    August 13, 2007 at 6:54 pm

    Publius-

    Yes, I get it. Maybe I didn’t make it easy for all of you to get what I meant in that first paragraph, but I’m trying to look at that long-term perspective. When was the last time SoCal had so many heat waves and so little rain for so many years? When was the last time Europe had heat wave after heat wave several years in a row? When was the last time the Arctic Icecap was melting away so quickly? When was the last time Mount Kilimanjaro was losing all its snow?

    Get it now? THAT’S where I’m coming from. We’ve never seen all this “weird weather” happen. Maybe we’ve had a few hot summers in a row before, but have we ever had SO MANY HEAT WAVES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, several years in a row? Looking that the “big picture” of all this “weird weather” happening everywhere, I see the effects of climate change happening NOW.

  22. Flowerszzz
    August 13, 2007 at 7:35 pm

    Andrew – the 80’s like I said before. It was a series of I would say 5 years or so of heat waves. We had to conserve water, everyones laws were dead….etc. I was born in the late 60’s so someone older then me will have to go back further then I can. IMO this is normal and not odd for OC.

  23. August 13, 2007 at 7:43 pm

    how often do about 98% of scientists agree on ANYTHING?

    98% agree? And where would that astounding figure come from, Andrew? And even assuming it is true, what does that really mean? Do all scientists possess equal credibility on this issue? Do the botanists and etymologists and zoologists have the same level of expertise as atmospheric scientists. The Left uses the term scientist as if there were only one kind and they all possess the same knowledge and expertise as each other in every area. That’s like someone saying “98% of medical professional agree with this finding about brain function.”

  24. August 13, 2007 at 7:44 pm

    How very true, Matt! We are quite tolerant of your opinion, which is why we allow it to stay here on The Liberal OC. See how we don’t just erase it, just because we don’t agree with it?

    Directness suits you better than being snide and coy, Andrew. Why not just say what you mean.

  25. August 13, 2007 at 7:52 pm

    And Andrew, thanks a lot for this post. It’s so important that someone calls Cunningham on this bullshit.

    Again, Commissars Davey and Millie view any dissent as irrationality or “bull-s–t.”

    Perhaps you all need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I’ll say it again: the Left view any skepticism — that’s S-K-E-P-T-I-C-I-S-M, not disbelief — regarding the existence OR EXTENT of global warming/climate change AND toward their concomitant policy nostrums as evidence of irrationality or blockheadedness. Lefties can’t admit even the slightest possibility that they are wrong on any of those counts.

    And it’s condescending “move along and be quiet because we know what’s best for you” paternalism exhibits by Lefties like Andrew that make you folks the last people to whom I want to entrust any regulatory power. Utopians make the worst tyrants.

  26. Andrew Davey
    August 13, 2007 at 8:06 pm

    Matt-

    You lost me here. That last comment on utopians and tyrants was WAY over the top. I don’t know why I even want to respond to what you’re saying, but I’ll give it a try.

    I remembered that “98% of scientists” figure off the top of my head. But when you challenged me on that, I figured I might as well try to confirm that. Well, I guess you found me saying something that may be wrong…

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

    Of all the 928 scholarly papers written by CLIMATE EXPERTS on climate change, NONE of them challenged the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it. Sorry, Matt. I guess there may be JUST ABOUT NO ONE who knows his/her stuff on climatology that disagrees with the reality of climate change.

    So please, go ahead and call me a “utopian”. However, all the rest of us who live in the real world know who’s REALLY living in a fantasy world. But sooner or later, those who are preventing real action on climate change from being taken will have to wake up and smell the pending disaster… Or their descendents will be lucky to live to regret it.

  27. August 13, 2007 at 8:25 pm

    Andrew:

    Of course no one disagrees with climate change. It’s been happening since the Earth’s creation. For example, we’d have an Ice Age, and then the climate would change and the Earth would warm and the Ice Age would end, and then the climate would change again and we’d have another Ice Age, etc.

    The Left acts as if it is something new, as if there’s this “right” climate we can maintain through human manipulation, and the Left is willing to embrace an enormous expansion in government’s size, scope and control in order to combat this.

    Saying the climate is changing is humans are contributing to it is meaningless. How much is it changing? Is the change bad or good? Of what duration? Is the contribution of human activity decisive or merely present?

    God forbid one should ask such questions, or the Lefties come unglued and denounce you as “living in a fantasy world.”

  28. August 13, 2007 at 8:47 pm

    Andrew:

    You really didn’t accurately characterize the author’s findings:

    The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

    Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

    This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

    The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

    Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

  29. Andrew Davey
    August 13, 2007 at 8:52 pm

    Matt-

    We already ARE manipulating the climate. That’s the problem. We’re accelerating the natural warming cycle by emitting all these greenhouse gases.

    Oh, and when did this change become “good”? I guess you don’t share the concerns of all those in low-lying coastal plains who may lose their homes to rising sea levels in the coming years. I guess you don’t share the concerns of all those living in the Sahel region of Africa who are worrying about losing their farms to desertification. Oh yes, and I guess you don’t share the concerns of people HERE in the Western US who wonder where they’ll get their water in the future.

    I guess it may be easy for you to ignore scientific reality now…
    But will it be easy for all of us to keep ignoring it once we REALLY start to see our world changing (and not for the “better”)?

  30. Flowerszzz
    August 13, 2007 at 8:59 pm

    Andrew – now I see…you were not actually looking for others opinions…you just wanted to spar with Matt>>>

    Dammit I fell for it!

  31. August 13, 2007 at 9:47 pm

    I guess you don’t share the concerns of all those living in the Sahel region of Africa who are worrying about losing their farms to desertification.

    I can Google, too!

    I’ll see your “the Sahara is expanding” claim

    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2811

    and raise you a “Global warming could end Sahara droughts” article

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1571446,00.html

  32. August 13, 2007 at 9:50 pm

    Oh, and when did this change become “good”?

    You know, the article you eagerly cited to back your claim of scientific consensus also had this to say:

    Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open.

    Maybe she is irrational and “living in a fantasy world” too.

  33. d'Anconia
    August 13, 2007 at 10:59 pm

    I was simply going to stand by and watch this debate but I can stand this ignorance no longer.

    – Climate change happens, no one is arguing against that.

    – Median global temperatures have NOT INCREASED over the past 10 years:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

    – Andrew Davey: I am new to this blog but I can already tell you’re the village idiot. Your argument for global warming is one of the weakest I’ve heard yet, and I’ve been blogging about it for two years. You think that by being a liberal you’re suddenly an expert in climatology. I’m sure you and your enviro-wacko friends carry around a copy of “Silent Spring” and treat it like the Bible. News to you Andrew, RACHER CARSON WAS WRONG, AND SO WERE ALL THE OTHER IGNORANT ENVIRONMENTALISTS. I can’t believe you’re claiming that we have more CO2 in our atmosphere now than we’ve ever had before. You’re CLEARLY not on the side of science:

    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide_png

    (Notice a long time ago CO2 levels were up to 15 times higher than they are now)

    – Jubal, I also don’t know you but I commend you for your efforts. I have tried to reasonably argue with these global warming idiots for years. I have found that the most efficient way of exposing their ignorance and their hipocrisy is by changing the subject of the argument. Since it is POINTLESS to try and convince these morons that the Earth’s climate has changed on its own for billions of years, recently I’ve begun to ask them for solutions. I tend to think we can actually persuade some of the more clear headed liberals that higher taxes and draconian regulations on businesses are not the way to go.

    – FOR ALL OF YOU:

    Skeptic: “Well if these guys can’t predict tomorrow’s weather right, how can they predict global warming?”

    Kool-Aid Drinker: “Well those are different scientists, the guys who predict the weather are meteorologist and they’re not very good, BUT the guys who are predicting global warming are climatologists, and they’re ALWAYS right.”

    Skeptic: “Oh ok, so the guys who predict global warming are the same ones who predict hurricane seasons though right?”

    Kool-Aid Drinker: “Yes, exactly.”

    Skeptic: “But they were wrong last year…”

    Kool-Aid Drinker: “Yeeah, but that was just an anomaly.”

    Skeptic: “Uhhhh….they were wrong this year too though….”

    *Kool-Aid Drinker runs away*

  34. Andrew Davey
    August 14, 2007 at 6:08 am

    d’Anconia-

    Give me a break! I guess since you can’t dispute the real facts of the coming climate crisis, you must resort to name-calling and pointing me to OPINION articles by political pundits. I guess that’s all you have for me. Typical far-right BS.

    Matt-

    You can also give me a break. How sad that you can dish out the “dissent”, but you can’t take any from people who disagree with OC GOP Machine approved talking points. Again, when did it become OK to express “dissent” on climate change, but NOT Bush’s failed occupation of Iraq?

    Talk about selective application of our free speech rights!

    Flowerszzz-

    No, I really wasn’t doing this just to get Matt to bite us over here. I really DO want to hear what all of YOU have to say. But when Matt does bring his spin here, I just can’t help but to try to unspin the spin! ;-)

  35. Flowerszzz
    August 14, 2007 at 6:42 am

    Andrew – it is not spin – it is HIS opinions. History tells us that the earth goes through climate changes just as he said. You base your opinions on scientists and he on history. People are allowed not to agree with you or any others who think like you, arent they?

    You talk about the liberals being open to all, and yet I have never met more closed minded people. It is funny because I am a Republican and I seem more tolerant of others opinions and thoughts then most of the liberals who post here.

    I enjoy hearing others opinions on things because it gives me a moe broad perspective on things. There is no need to bash someone for thinking differently then me….unless they are so far out there that they are just crazy and so far I do not see any of that here sans your opening that the heat wave in OC is global warming! :-)

  36. August 14, 2007 at 6:58 am

    Talk about selective application of our free speech rights!

    Talk about not knowing what you’re talking about! Please show where I have said it is not OK to express dissent from the Iraq War?

    But when Matt does bring his spin here, I just can’t help but to try to unspin the spin!

    Were those two articles I posted “spin” juts because you don’t agree with them?

    How sad that you can dish out the “dissent”, but you can’t take any from people who disagree with OC GOP Machine approved talking points.

    Can you please enlighten me as to what those talking points are, Andrew?

  37. Aunt Millie
    August 14, 2007 at 7:02 am

    Getting back to the beginning of this conversation, which started with Matt Cunningham’s gleeful and Orwellian attack on enviro-jihadists, he cited a http://www.surfacestations.org/

    I thoroughly recommend this excellent article by actual climate scientists that discusses this newest triumph of the Hugh Hewitts, talk radio blowhards, and partisans who somehow have decided that science is a liberal plot.

    It doesn’t take much research to get past the bullshit of these partisans and figure out where the scientific consensus lies and what the short and long term solutions are. Even Newsweek can figure out that the Global Warming Deniers are a well-funded group of reactionaries.

    The important thing is to first call bullshit on people like Cunningham and the other blowhards who have been brainwashed by the mighty Wurlitzer of the radical right.

  38. Flowerszzz
    August 14, 2007 at 7:10 am

    Millie – thanks for proving my point in the post above. LMAO….you are about as closed minded as they come.

  39. Aunt Millie
    August 14, 2007 at 7:33 am

    Millie – thanks for proving my point in the post above. LMAO….you are about as closed minded as they come.

    If it looks like bullshit, smells, like bullshit, and I saw it come out of a cow’s rear end, I call it bullshit.

    The Global warming deniers lost me when the Reason science reporter admitted that global warming is real and it’s man-made.

  40. Andrew Davey
    August 14, 2007 at 7:36 am

    Flowerszzz-

    Believe me, I appreciate your tolerance of “controversial” bloggers like me. And if you noticed, I haven’t called YOU any names, or said that what you’re saying is spin. I was just calling Matt out for his spin because he’s trying to spin belief in science into “EnviroLeft utopian tyranny”. Now who’s being irrational here?

    Matt-

    You’re losing me here. I’ve tried to keep this thread about the facts. But the more you try to spin my MAINSTREAM belief into science into “EnviroLeft extremism”, the more I get tempted to just call you out on the spin. Now don’t get me wrong: YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO YOUR OPINION. Just don’t expect me to take it as credible fact. ;-)

    Millie-

    Again, that was PERFECT! If these far-right folks can’t accept science, then that’s their problem. They have every right to believe whatever they want, but they shouldn’t expect the rest of us to base our public policy on hocus pocus sophistry magic. We should base our public policy on SCIENTIFIC FACTS whenever possible, which is why we should come up with a rational policy to deal with climate change. :-)

  41. Flowerszzz
    August 14, 2007 at 7:44 am

    I just heard the huge door slam! No one is saying that the scientist are not right or are definately wrong…..just adding to the point that the earth has throughout history had climate changes. Ice age, dinosoars, etc…..long before man was even involved. ALL information should be taken into account…not just what YOU want to believe.

    I realize that for you to take history into account blows your whole theory that all Republicans hate the earth and will do all we can to destroy it.

  42. Andrew Davey
    August 14, 2007 at 8:01 am

    I realize that for you to take history into account blows your whole theory that all Republicans hate the earth and will do all we can to destroy it.

    No, not exactly. I understand that quite a few Republicans, whether they be Huntington Beach and Laguna Beach City Council Members OR Senators John McCain and John Warner, now understand the real threat of climate change. That’s why they’re agreeing with Democrats that action must be taken at a local AND a national level.

    So please, Flowerszzz, don’t twist my words. I WELCOME Republicans who believe in science, and want real-world solutions to this VERY REAL problem. I only have a problem with far-right anti-environment folks who can’t support action on climate change because they don’t want to support ANYTHING that the “EnviroLeft” supports.

    Again, who’s being irrational here? Just sayin’… ;-)

  43. August 14, 2007 at 8:11 am

    But the more you try to spin my MAINSTREAM belief into science into “EnviroLeft extremism”, the more I get tempted to just call you out on the spin.

    Andrew, what was spin about those two articles I posted? You still haven’t commented on them, not even so much as a “I hadn’t read that, I’ll have to give it some thought.”

    As for spin, you have become quite adept at the spinning arts. Appending “mainstream” to your beliefs while dismissing opposing viewpoints as mere “spin is how campaign flacks talk. You may have a career ahead of you.

    Millie-

    Again, that was PERFECT!

    If saying bulls–t over and over again is all it takes to impress you, well…

  44. Flowerszzz
    August 14, 2007 at 8:36 am

    Andrew – as a kid in the 70’s I can remember attending school in NMUSD and there were always tidal wave warnings…we had drills etc. There was a tremendous amount of rain in the 70’s as well. I used to have nightmares that a huge wave was chasing me….sometimes still have them..lol. We had to conserve water like crazy in the drought laden 80’s and then we had el nino’s. My point is that we have had and always will have climate changes on about a 20 year cycle…again like I posted above. And again like I posted above, the earth had many climate changes before man. We have made many strides and improvements in the environment, both rep & dem alike…..working together. I can remember the smog alerts when I was a kid…not being able to leave the house.

    By discounting what another persons opinions are…you set the entire movement to clean up the earth back to the pre 70’s. It is much more valuable to the cause to consider ALL options and opinions and make decisions based on that then to just discount one or the other.

  45. d'Anconia
    August 14, 2007 at 8:44 am

    Andrew-

    I would like to debate you on these “facts” that you claim you have on climate change. Please post a COHERENT, SCIENTIFIC argument as to why you believe we are in the middle of a climate change crisis and what you believe the solutions should be.

    If you come back at me with anything but science I will refuse to continue this debate. As Jubal pointed out, you are well versed in the rhetorical liberal “talking points” on climate change, but I have yet to read anything relevant.

    Even your co-bloggers have pointed out to you the failure of your arguments. That should show you how weak it is.

    I challenge you to a debate on the FACTS Andrew, and by FACTS I don’t mean the “98% concensus” you pulled out of god knows where, or your characterization of a recent heat wave as evidence of man-made global warming.

    In other words, I challenge you to a duel.

  46. Andrew Davey
    August 14, 2007 at 8:51 am

    Flowerszzz-

    Again, I understand that the earth goes through natural climate cycles. THAT’S precisely the problem I’m talking about. We’re screwing up the earth’s natural cycle by emitting all these greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

    Have you looked at the chart following the level of carbon in the atmosphere for the last FEW THOUSAND YEARS, and the corresponding chart detailing how the average global temperature has fluctuated over the same amount of time. I’ll try to look for it online for you, as this is relevant to what we’re talking about.

    But anyways, these charts would show you that as carbon levels rise, so does temperature. And as we’ve been emitting record amounts of carbon over the last 150 years, TEMPERATURE HAS RISEN FAR ABOVE WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED “NATURAL WARMING”. Again, that’s the problem. We screw with Mother Nature, and eventually Mother Nature will return the favor.

    Matt-

    Cheese louise! I just tried to give some hard evidence, and you seem to not like it. Sorry. I guess actual science hurts. And again, you have every right to believe whatever you want. Just don’t expect us to base public policy on political posturing.

    That’s all. :-)

  47. Flowerszzz
    August 14, 2007 at 8:58 am

    why do I get the feeling i am talking to a brick wall? Explain the ice age….what happend to the dinosoars?

  48. August 14, 2007 at 9:54 am

    Joe Shaw already touched on this and the thread is getting stale but it’s my first opportunity to post something.

    Let’s pretend it’s 2030. Twenty years ago we started taking steps to reduce climate change, and now we find out that climate change wasn’t really happening, or is caused by something else, or isn’t a bad thing. What have we lost?

    I think we haven’t lost much. The steps we have taken include being more energy efficient (no real downside to that), planting more trees (no downside to that), using cleaner fuels (which gives us better air quality), and using more renewable sources of energy (a good thing since petroleum depletion is a fact of life even for those who dispute the fact of climate change).

    Therefore I believe that, even if you think climate change isn’t real, or isn’t a big deal, it still makes sense to do the stuff recommended by the folks who DO think it’s real. Most of the actions are either pretty neutral or are beneficial even if they don’t reduce the impact of climate change.

  49. Jason Bensley
    August 14, 2007 at 9:54 am

    Do you mean dinosaurs? Well, they were killed off about 65 million years ago by what is widely accepted in the scientific community as a large asteriod impacting the Earth around the Yucatan Peninsula off the coast of Mexico. Check it out… http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/dinosaur_death_040526.html
    As for the ice age, we’ve had several of them over the Earth’s history with the most recent one ending about 10,000 years ago.

    Again, I don’t care if the Earth is heating up because of man or because of some natural cycle. But if we can somehow mitigate the temperature change by releasing less CO2 into the atmosphere, why not? I’d much rather pay a little bit more now than a lot later. If South Florida is under water, does anyone think that all those people won’t file a claim with FEMA?

  50. Andrew Davey
    August 14, 2007 at 10:03 am

    Jason-

    Great point! Do we even want to risk what will happen if we don’t take action NOW? I know I’d rather prepare now than be caught unprepared later.

  51. d'Anconia
    August 14, 2007 at 10:10 am

    Gila-

    You make a good point, although you fail to consider the ramifications of the public policy that would go hand-in-hand with these earth-friendly steps that you speak of.

    To use your example:

    Let’s pretend it’s 2030. Twenty years ago we invented a new tax (carbon tax) and imposed strict emission regulations on American industry, which drove more and more of our business to other nations like China. By 2000 we already knew the United States was due to lose its stature as the economic hegemon, but after we imposed those regulations it only became worse. China, India, Japan, Brazil, and the European Union all promised equivalent policies and practices, but never delivered. China and India were forecasted to take over the United States’ role as global economic leaders by 2050 but because of global warming policy decisions this is actually taking place now, and Brazil is coming barking at our doorstep. The Euro and the Yen are now the preferred international methods of currency, and the NYSE and the NASDAQ have become stagnant and weak. We find out that global warming wasn’t real but eh, what the hell right?

    I’m not saying, I’m just saying….

  52. d'Anconia
    August 14, 2007 at 10:14 am

    Andrew-

    Did you miss my challenge to a debate or are you just avoiding the inevibility of being caught empty-handed of empirical evidence to support your statements?

    Better yet, I bet you’re trying to find that evidence. Keep looking.

  53. joe shaw
    August 14, 2007 at 10:19 am

    “””China and India were forecasted to take over the United States’ role as global economic leaders by 2050 but because of global warming policy decisions this is actually taking place now, and Brazil is coming barking at our doorstep. The Euro and the Yen are now the preferred international methods of currency, and the NYSE and the NASDAQ have become stagnant and weak.”””

    This is happening already because of globalization, not because of any steps we have or haven’t taken on global warming.

    The fact of the matter is none of those countries will do anything of the sort, because there will be much less oil for them to grow with. China and India will have to begin planning for a world with limited oil supplies, just as we all will, but as of this date, aren’t.

  54. d'Anconia
    August 14, 2007 at 10:32 am

    Great method of reasoning Joe:

    “It’s happening already, so what the hell?”

    I wonder if your environmentalist friends would agree with that statement if “it” meant “global warming” instead of the decline of the United States economy.

  55. Jason Bensley
    August 14, 2007 at 10:39 am

    d’Anconia:

    China’s fuel efficiency standards were higher than ours back when they were first introduced in 2005 with this goal in mind, “regulate gas consumption and curb [China's] growing dependence on oil” check it out… http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=9128

    Yeah, we’re not doing so good on the fuel efficiency thing. Check this out too…
    http://wap.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N30249598.htm?=amp&_lite_=1

    We’re already behind Canada, South Korea, Australia, China, the European Union and Japan.

  56. Andrew Davey
    August 14, 2007 at 10:41 am

    Joe-

    Great point! The US economy is already falling behind, and part of that reason is BECAUSE we aren’t investing enough in renewable energy and energy conservation measures as we should be… WHETHER OR NOT we want to factor in climate change. However, IT’S NOT TOO LATE. We can still invest in a clean energy future, and we can still find new American jobs AND new opportunities for American businesses.

    d’Anconia-

    Why even bother? If you won’t even trust the IPCC or NONPARTISAN NGO reports on climate change, then how else can you be convinced? Oh yes, and why must investing in clean energy be so “bad” for the economy? What about the new jobs that can be created, and all the new money invested in US companies working on new energy solutions? If we were smart about it, we’d turn this climate crisis into a BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY by investing in a clean energy future that’s good for the earth AND the economy!

    Just sayin’… ;-)

  57. August 14, 2007 at 10:52 am

    d’Anconia — You’re right, there are public policy matters to be decided as we deal with climate change. But is “denial” or “do nothing” good public policy? I think it is not.

    Let’s at least acknowledge that climate change may be occurring, that it may have some very bad effects on our lives, and that there are some things we can do to lessen these effects. Then we go forward from there. I think that position is more sensible than denial.

  58. August 14, 2007 at 11:52 am

    why do I get the feeling i am talking to a brick wall?

    Because you are, Flowerszz.. Andrew states, as if it is fact, that the Sahara is expanding because of global warming.

    I point him to a couple of articles pointing out there is evidence the opposite is happening, and that global warming may have a beneficial impact on the Sahara.

    And all he can do is accuse me of spinning.

  59. August 14, 2007 at 11:54 am

    I’d much rather pay a little bit more now than a lot later.

    Can you be more precise? How much is “a little bit now” in terms of economic costs?

  60. August 14, 2007 at 12:05 pm

    China and India will have to begin planning for a world with limited oil supplies, just as we all will, but as of this date, aren’t.

    Joe, with all due respect, we’ve been hearing predictions that we will imminently run out of oil for almost 40 years. But we haven’t, because we keep finding more.

    It reminds me of those “scientific” forecasts that the Earth population growth rate was going to deplete our natural resources before the end of the century, destroy our environment and reduce everyone to poverty and rationing.

    The planet’s population kept on growing, and none of those dire predictions came to pass.

    Maybe you can understand my skepticism towards those who want to dramatically expand government, constrict our liberty, control and re-order our way of life based on some evidence of a change in global temperatures when the effects, duration and ultimate causes are not certain.

  61. August 14, 2007 at 12:06 pm

    The US economy is already falling behind, and part of that reason is BECAUSE we aren’t investing enough in renewable energy and energy conservation measures as we should be…

    Andrew, can you please substantiate that?

  62. August 14, 2007 at 12:08 pm

    Oh yes, and why must investing in clean energy be so “bad” for the economy?

    Andrew, maybe you can go beyond the sound bite and explain what “investing in clean energy” actually means to you in nuts-and-bolts policy terms. Until you do that, people can’t have a rational discussion about costs and benefits, etc.

  63. Dan Chmielewski
    August 14, 2007 at 12:14 pm

    Matt —
    Actually the closing of the George’s Bank off of New England was due to overfishing; they are hoping an extended break will bring the fish populations back. Oil is a fiinite resource; how long are you going to hand on to the “they keep finding more” mantra.

    Matt, are you at all skeptical of the anti-global warming guys, or do you buy they they say lock, stock and barrel?

    Skeptisim is a 2 way street isn’t it?

  64. Aunt Millie
    August 14, 2007 at 12:19 pm

    Finally have time to locate and link to this piece, by Reason’s long-term science reporter http://www.reason.com/news/show/118479.html .

    Details like sea level rise will continue to be debated by researchers, but if the debate over whether or not humanity is contributing to global warming wasn’t over before, it is now. The question of what to do about it will be front and center in policy debates for the next couple of decades. How strongly humanity may want to mitigate future climate change and at what cost depends on how likely the worst case projections turn out to be.

  65. Jason Bensley
    August 14, 2007 at 12:26 pm

    In response to Jubal,

    An example of ‘a little bit more now’ could include raising the federal gas tax and using that extra money to directly fund an “Apollo program” for alternative energy so we can raise fuel efficiency standards and thus, use less gas. If you added 10 cents to the cost of every gallon of gasoline being sold in America, you would raise $14,041,550,000 in one year.

    Just in case, this is where I got the consumption figure from…
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html

  66. Andrew Davey
    August 14, 2007 at 1:06 pm

    Jason and Aunt Millie-

    Thanks for all that good info! You make my job SO much easier! ;-)

    Matt-

    So you want specifics? Start here:

    http://www.ea2020.org/

    This is a truly grassroots projects of concerned citizens who are working on energy solutions that end our dependence on fossil fuels, reduce our carbon footprint, AND provide great jobs for American workers. Read some of the smart proposals over there, and then just try to call of us “job-killing, economically ignorant EnviroLeft extremists”.

  67. d'Anconia
    August 14, 2007 at 1:20 pm

    Jason-

    You misrepresent your own sources: “When completed it will make China’s fuel-consumption standards overall more strict than the United States’, the World Resources Institute said in a report.”

    Key word is WHEN COMPLETED, which is very ambiguous especially considering we’re taking the Chinese government’s word for it.

    Gila-

    I am hardly arguing on the side of denial. I tend to believe that you wish me to do so because it makes it easier for the ones on the left to argue against me. Matter of fact is that there is NO DOUBT that climate change is ocurring, there is NO DOUBT humans impact our environment, and there is NO DOUBT that living in a more enviro-friendly way is better than not.

    The point I’m trying to make is that a lot of your comrades are arguing for further restricting the American economy by imposing draconian emission regulations (that can NOT be met) and raising taxes! (e.g. Jason Bensley)

    I believe in allowing the free market to adapt to the changes and move towards more enviro-friendly practices because the PUBLIC demands it, not because the GOVERNMENT requires them to.

    Andrew-

    Your response is not worthy of a rebuttal. I challenged you to a debate on the facts of the issue and you declined. Game over.

  68. August 14, 2007 at 1:21 pm

    An example of ‘a little bit more now’ could include raising the federal gas tax and using that extra money to directly fund an “Apollo program” for alternative energy so we can raise fuel efficiency standards and thus, use less gas.

    And this is where you and I would part company. No one really against developing alternative fuels. Crash government programs sound great when one invokes the Apollo project, but that’s much different than developing alternative fuels that people will use.

    The Apollo program was straightforward get from Point A to Point B by Dec. 31, 1969.

    But a crash government program to develop alternatives is wholly different. It involves government picking winners and losers among competing technologies, and whether the best technologies win out will have more to do with politics and lobbying than with which technologies are cost-efficient enough to be embraces by consumers.

    Just look at ethanol. And you may too young to remember the Synthetic Fuels Corp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_Fuels_Corporation.

    It was a crash government program spawned from the 1979 oil crisis to develop alternative fuels to wean us off our dependence on foreign oil.

  69. d'Anconia
    August 14, 2007 at 1:30 pm

    Jason-

    Thank you, you just made my point.

    Jubal-

    Ditto.

  70. Jason Bensley
    August 14, 2007 at 1:41 pm

    I guess I my opinion is based on my belief in the federal government’s ability to achieve drastic results in specific technological areas when the necessity to do so arose, WWII, the Space Program/ballistic missile program, etc…I am not discounting that the private sector won’t ever take the necessary steps to make a transition away from the fossil fuel economy, I just think that they won’t do it fast enough without the government aggressively raising fuel efficiency standards and emissions standards.

    Its the basic liberal vs. conservative economic argument, less regulated free market vs. more regulated free market.

  71. Aunt Millie
    August 14, 2007 at 2:03 pm

    I hope everyone noticed how assiduously Cunningham and the Deniers ignored the very substantive information in the http://www.realclimate.org/ link that refuted the cherry-picked weather station stuff that Jubal posted with his overblown rhetoric and the link to the long-time skeptic and excellent science journalist from Reason who now has acknowledged that the data regarding man-made global warming is settled.

    As to where we go from here, people who have taken a look at where we are now, and how we might change our energy consumption have come up with some fairly comprehensive ideas. I lean very strongly towards market-based incentives with some modest government based competitive R & D investment and measurable goals. I sure don’t want to see more of the Bush era non-competitive bidding that rewards cronies, or support for corporate farmers in the ethanol program.

    I’m somewhat optimistic that Peak Oil and rising fuel costs will provide much of the market incentive that we need. Without too much effort, my family has cut our electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and water usage by 40%.

    I really hope that California passes the container tax so we can start generating the revenue that will help with an energy-efficient way of moving cargo inland with less externalities displaced onto our highway network and less pollution.

    There’s plenty of information out there based on data and science. I apologize if I get angry when the no-nothings continue with their bullshit after the rest of the world has moved past their denial and begun to look at the opportunities and challenges that we need to face openly and honestly, with active participation from every element of society.

  72. August 14, 2007 at 2:23 pm

    Aunt Millie:

    It’s “Know-Nothing” and they are an antebellum anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant political party.

    You might take a break from blurting profanities to pay attention to the point I originally made: the Left has no tolerance for those who express skepticisim about:

    1) the existence of climate change/global warming

    or

    2 )the extent of global warming

    3) the Left’s heavy-handed, command-and-control approach to dealing with it.

    It’s a very simple point, and you and Andrew have proven it over and over again with your various over-the-top, condescending or vitriolic comments.

    As for that website: I’m not avoiding, but I haven’t looked at it yet. I’d like to devote more than just a few minutes to it, so excuse me if my schedule isn’t accommodating your demand for immediate response.

  73. Aunt Millie
    August 14, 2007 at 2:31 pm

    Jubal,

    YEs, I have no tolerance anymore for ideologues who express skepticism about the existence of man-made global warming. It’s proven science.

    As to 2, there’s a wide range of opinions, as evidenced in the link to the Reason institute journalist

    As to your third point, where you accuse me of agreeing with some mythical leftist command and control viewpoint, that;s just more of your delusional paranoid partisan bullshit.

    There’s plenty of intelligent discourse on the subject, but you apparently have never found time to read any of it

    And you are the one who began with nonsensical talk of jihadist enviros, whatever that means. More bullshit.

  74. August 14, 2007 at 2:34 pm

    I guess I my opinion is based on my belief in the federal government’s ability to achieve drastic results in specific technological areas when the necessity to do so arose, WWII, the Space Program/ballistic missile program, etc…

    But those had definitive ends. Germany and Japan surrendered. We landed on the Moon.

    But when is climate change “defeated”? At what point do we land that man on the global warming moon and call it a day?

    During WWII the federal government acquired massive powers over every aspect of life. Our success in turning the U.S. into the Arsenal of Democracy understandably created the popular belief that government was in many ways superior to the free market for organizing the economy. Many, if not most, Americans believed that if you focused the federal government on solving a problem, then it would succeed. After all, we did it in WWII, didn’t we?

    But as it turns out, that model isn’t very applicable outside of trying to win a world war, or on a smaller scale with the space program , developing BMD or a weapon system.

    I remember the SynFuels Corporation issue when I was a abnormally political teenager. I thought it made perfect sense…in theory, at least. After all ,the South Africans were doing that as a hedge against world isolation, and the Germans did it in WWII to compensate for being cut off from oil supplies.

    If you just gave the scientists the money and set them to work, they’d figure it out. But like a lot of ideas that sound good in theory, it didn’t work. SynFuels just sucked down billions until being shuttered in 1985.

  75. Aunt Millie
    August 14, 2007 at 2:38 pm

    And Cunningham, thanks for correcting me on Know-nothings – that’s an appalling lack of editing on my part, and one I would have called anyone else on. As you are well aware, it’s tough to multi-task sometimes.

    Perhaps I should have referred to the Denialists as Plug-Uglies.another criminal conspiracy that got involved in electoral politics, not dissimilar to Bush’s corrupt Republican party.

  76. August 14, 2007 at 2:42 pm

    Aunt Millie: I didn’t accuse you specifically, because you obviously don’t belong in the command-and-control camp of draconian emissions controls, more taxes and regulations. But that’s the predominance of what I see coming out of the Left, and that’s what I was referring to.

    As for the enviro-jihadists, I’ll remember that next time the icon of the Environmental Left, RFK Jr., describes anyone who disagrees with the Left on climate change as a “traitor.”

    I do try to make time to read it. And when I found some interesting items on global warming and the Sahara and brought them to Andrew’s attention, he can only respond by accusing me of spinning. And you can’t seem to muster up much more than the word “bulls–t.”

    Other wise, you are your usual eloquent self.

  77. August 14, 2007 at 2:43 pm

    d’Anconia:

    The point I’m trying to make is that a lot of your comrades are arguing for further restricting the American economy by imposing draconian emission regulations (that can NOT be met) and raising taxes! (e.g. Jason Bensley)

    Personally, I have no problem with “the other side” arguing the need to be careful WRT policy that can negatively impact the economy. As I see it, it’s my job to raise the alarm and propose changes and it’s your job to make sure the changes don’t have unforeseen negative consequences. As I say, it’s the denial that bothers me. That and the “it’s happening but we can’t do anything because 1 rich guy will suffer” approach.

    I believe in allowing the free market to adapt to the changes and move towards more enviro-friendly practices because the PUBLIC demands it, not because the GOVERNMENT requires them to.

    To illustrate the problem I see with that I like to use the example of smoking in public. Not so many years ago people could smoke almost anywhere: airplanes, retail stores, public buildings, offices. Non-smokers hated it but “smokers’ rights” were championed. Finally laws were passed that restricted smoking in most public places.

    These days I think almost everyone, including a fair number of smokers, agree that people shouldn’t smoke in most public places. The free market didn’t cause us to have a secondhand smoke-free environment. Laws did.

    I would like it very much if the free market really did take care of problems like exposure to secondhand smoke, climate change, etc. But I see little evidence that it does.

  78. Andrew Davey
    August 14, 2007 at 2:47 pm

    Aunt Millie-

    Matt may call your comments “profane”, but I find them to be PROFOUND. You’ve really been rocking this thread with common-sense, fact-based knowledge on climate change. Thanks for injecting some reality into this debate! :-)

    Matt-

    Again, I have no problem tolerating your comments. I just don’t accept them as realistic and fact-based. And guess what? Just as you have the right to say whatever you want here, I have the right to decide for myself what to think of what you say.

    And sorry, but you still haven’t come up with any fact-based argument to refute what Aunt Millie, Dan, Jason, Gila, AND I have said. So while you may still be debating in your head whether or not the climate crisis is real, all the rest of us will actually be thinking of ways to SOLVE IT. And hopefully soon, the nation will join the rest of the world (AND the State of California) in moving beyond the “debate” on whether or not the crisis is “real”, and toward solutions that keep our economy strong and our planet alive. :-)

  79. Jason Bensley
    August 14, 2007 at 3:07 pm

    Jubal,

    You’re right, we need a specific goal, some way of “winning” One way to “declare victory” would be to first become completely energy independent as a nation. And from there, become completely free of fossil fuels altogether.

    Right now we are 60% dependent on foreign oil, if we cut our gasoline consumption in half by doubling our fuel efficiency, which accounts for 45% of our petroleum consumption, then we’d be 37.5% dependent, right?

    Say we use 100 barrels of petroleum a day. We get 60 from foreign producers and we produce 40. We use 45 of these to run our automobiles. If we only used 22.5, then we’d only be using 77.5, and thus we’d only need to import 37.5.

  80. Andrew Davey
    August 14, 2007 at 3:40 pm

    Jason-

    Those are quite impressive “achievable goals”. Good job. Mission accomplished!

    Matt-

    Any more excuses as to why you still want to call all of us reality-based people “EnviroLeft extremists”? I think we just shattered your imposed stereotype of us into smitherines. ;-)

  81. d'Anconia
    August 14, 2007 at 4:00 pm

    Gila-

    While I understand your frustration with the “denialists”, you have to understand that much of THEIR frustration is rooted on the extreme nature of the argument made by the “alarmists”.

    I agree that living in a more environment-friendly way should be a goal to strive for, but I absolutely dismiss any claim that sea levels could rise by 30 ft in the next century or that global warming spells the end of the world as we know it. You and I both know those are bogus claims.

    You have to understand that one of the reasons this argument becomes so heated is because “denialists” are disgusted and offended by the hysterical propaganda that is “An Inconvenient Truth” and such.

    I strongly disagree with lying to the public in order to convince them on bad public policy. All jokes about the War in Iraq aside, the public does not need to be oversold on global warming, and that’s what a lot of the folks on your side seem to be ok with.

  82. d'Anconia
    August 14, 2007 at 4:05 pm

    Jason-

    “One way to “declare victory” would be to first become completely energy independent as a nation. And from there, become completely free of fossil fuels altogether. ”

    Those are not bad goals, although I doubt we would agree on a timeline or how to achieve them.

    How about this, you want a solution?

    Make ALL research in alternative fuel and energy efficiency tax exempt.

    You choose taxes, I choose incentives.

  83. Aunt Millie
    August 14, 2007 at 4:08 pm

    Andrew,

    Jubal drives me nuts. Based on many of his comments at OCBlog, he’s a smart and decent guy. After six and a half years, he’s finally getting angry about the fiscal mess that Republicans have created in Washington. Yet he is so remarkably behind the curve on Bush’s failed war, Peak Oil, and Global Climate Change that it provokes unseemly language.

    I hope that you will also follow some of the dialogue about this issue and look at the incredibly fertile opportunities that lie beyond partsanship.

    For me this is the moral crisis of our time, and one where we need to take action.

    My spouse and I are sending, as a charitable contribution, 25 shares of Cheveron/Tecaxo to Greenpeace to fund their informational efforts on Global warming. It’s our penance for using our “liberal” knowledge as a very successful investment hypothesis.

    Meanwhile, we have loved ones on active duty in Iraq. Would everyone here take a second to include them in their praryers?

  84. Aunt Millie
    August 14, 2007 at 4:17 pm

    And let me comment briefly about Anconia’s comments about the exaggerations by “your side”. There are lots of stupid things said by individuals, but I really hope that when it comes to the future of the planet, we’re all on the pro-life side.

  85. Andrew Davey
    August 14, 2007 at 4:22 pm

    Aunt Millie-

    Agreed. If we ever want to get something done on important issues like climate change, we need to get beyond the bitter partisan politics that has characterized the Bush-Cheney-Rove era, and begin working together as ONE NATION to find common-sense solutions. Now I know this sounds weird coming out of the mouth of a VERY partisan Democrat, but ultimately we ALL will need to put our differences aside, and begin doing what’s best for our nation and our planet.

    Oh, and thank you for contributing that Chevron stock to Greenpeace. Now THAT is what I call “paying it forward”! Oh yes, and I’m always thinking about the troops. I hope we can bring them all back home safely and soon, and I hope we will remember to take care of them as they’ve taken care of us in their military service.

    Thanks for putting it all into perspective, Aunt Millie.

  86. Aunt Millie
    August 14, 2007 at 4:24 pm

    Andrew,

    Whenever you post, an angel gets his wings.

  87. Aunt Millie
    August 14, 2007 at 4:26 pm

    Excuse me Andrew. I miswrote,

    Whenever you post, an angel gets her wings.

  88. Andrew Davey
    August 14, 2007 at 4:30 pm

    Aunt Millie-

    Thanks! I’m blushing! And no, that’s NOT BS! ;-)

    No really, you’re the best. Keep those PROFOUND comments coming. :-)

  89. August 14, 2007 at 6:05 pm

    Matt may call your comments “profane”, but I find them to be PROFOUND.

    Andrew: you find the word “bulls–t” to be profound?

  90. August 14, 2007 at 6:10 pm

    And sorry, but you still haven’t come up with any fact-based argument to refute what Aunt Millie, Dan, Jason, Gila, AND I have said.

    You stated the Sahara is expanding because of global warming. I pointed you to two articles indicating the opposite may well be true. They were not from political or conservative outlets. Yet you’ve completely ignored them. Is it because they cast serious doubt on your claim? I don’t know, because you ignore them.

  91. August 14, 2007 at 6:22 pm

    Jason:

    I wish it were as simple as that. But we can’t simply ignore the economic costs of the kinds of approaches that say “cars will get X mile-per-gallon by 2010″ or “emission will be rolled back to 1990 levels by 2012.”

    Back in the 1960s, liberals thought the problem of solving poverty was simply a matter of spending enough money. Leading liberal lights honestly thought, “if you have X number of poor people, and it takes Y dollars per person to lift them out of poverty, then multiply X times Y and that’s how much it will cost to eradicate poverty.” It makes sense on paper — give every poor person a check that will lift them out of poverty and bammo! no more poverty. But it ignores human nature and the reality of poverty, and so doesn’t work.

    I understand the attraction of plans like “if we just raise CAFE standards by this much and cut oil consumption by this much, etc.”, but the trick, I think, is coming up with solutions that are consonant with individual liberty and limited government.

  92. Aunt Millie
    August 14, 2007 at 6:30 pm

    the trick, I think, is coming up with solutions that are consonant with individual liberty and limited government.

    Exactly, Jubal, the kind of solutions that progressives are advocating and that the Bush Republicans have defiled.

  93. August 14, 2007 at 6:33 pm

    Based on many of his comments at OCBlog, he’s a smart and decent guy.

    Thank you. Even my wife would agree with you — most of the time.;)

    After six and a half years, he’s finally getting angry about the fiscal mess that Republicans have created in Washington.

    No, I’ve been angry about it much longer than that. I just don’t write much about it because try to limit my OC Blog postings to OC issues, and only occasionally break out into national issues.

    The last few years were a depressing exercise in the corrupting nature of being in power too long. I mean, what was the point of having a Republican Congress and a GOP Prez if they Presdient refused to exert fiscal discipline on a Republican Congress that acted like Democrats.

    Yet he is so remarkably behind the curve on Bush’s failed war, Peak Oil, and Global Climate Change that it provokes unseemly language.

    I beg to differ on the Iraq War. It is the anti-war Left that is so blinded by their “Bush Lied” mantra they refuse to acknowledge the reality of military progress in Iraq, or if they do they say it doesn’t matter because the political situation is still precarious. I believe that no amount of progress, military of political, will change minds on the Anti-War Left.

    I don’t know what you mean by Peak Oil, and I don’t differ so much the existence of climate change as I am skeptical of those who want to just “do something, anything!” when so much is not understood about the whole phenomenon. I’ve been critical of the Left for their vitriol and condescension towards those who disagree with them in whole or in part on climate change, and that is somehow taken as denying the existence of climate change..

  94. August 14, 2007 at 6:36 pm

    but ultimately we ALL will need to put our differences aside, and begin doing what’s best for our nation and our planet.

    That sounds strange coming fro a guy who brands anyone who disagrees with him on this issue as irrational and living in a fantasy world. Who exactly will have to put aside their differences, Andrew?

  95. Aunt Millie
    August 14, 2007 at 6:56 pm

    Matt Cunningham, in his Heinleinian persona, sez,

    >i>I beg to differ on the Iraq War. It is the anti-war Left that is so blinded by their “Bush Lied” mantra they refuse to acknowledge the reality of military progress in Iraq, or if they do they say it doesn’t matter because the political situation is still precarious. I believe that no amount of progress, military of political, will change minds on the Anti-War Left.

    Wrong again, bub, but I can’t respond to this because we have loved ones on active duty in Iraq, and their safety is all we pray for when the topic arises.

  96. Andrew Davey
    August 14, 2007 at 8:23 pm

    Matt-

    Give it up. Your spin is wearing us all out! Again, you’re pushing this excuse that it’s OK to speak “dissent” against climate change, but NOT on the Iraq occupation. Puh-leese!

    Aunt Millie-

    Keep telling it like it is! We progressives support the troops. THAT’S WHY WE WANT TO BRING THEM HOME SAFELY AND SOON. And come on now, “support the troops” doesn’t mean voting for Republicans and sticking a yellow ribbon on one’s SUV. It means making sure our troops have the equipment they need to succeed, and it means that they are ONLY sent out to take on real threats. Thanks for reminding us of that, Aunt Millie.

  97. Andrew Davey
    August 14, 2007 at 8:32 pm

    And Everyone-

    Thanks for the discussion! Most of you (you know who you are) have been great in creating this fantastic and VERY informative discussion. You all rock! Bask in the glow of breaking all Liberal OC records in most responses to a story! :-)

  98. Flowerszzz
    August 14, 2007 at 8:38 pm

    yeah but Andrew half of them were your replies to mille asking for high fives…lol. ;-)

  99. RHackett
    August 14, 2007 at 8:45 pm

    I beg to differ on the Iraq War. It is the anti-war Left that is so blinded by their “Bush Lied” mantra they refuse to acknowledge the reality of military progress in Iraq, or if they do they say it doesn’t matter because the political situation is still precarious. I believe that no amount of progress, military of political, will change minds on the Anti-War Left.

    Considering that opposition to the war is now in the 70% range I would say it is more than than the anti-war left that believes this foreign policy nightmare is exactly that.

    You are going to tell us with a straight face that Bush and Co. used massaged intel to gain public support for the war? Are you?

    That’s quite a stretch given what is known now and how folks like Powell are trying to put as much distance as possible between them and Bush.

    You speak of progress in Iraq. What is the goal where we can all say “we landed on the moon” and now we can leave Iraq? More importantly how much are we willing to pay for it? Wars are expensive. Our fiscally conservative president in coordination with a fiscally conservative congress ran up the national card to the point where we are now vulnerable to Chinese hegemony influencing our fiscal and trade policy. All this after inheriting a surplus with a plan to pay off the national debt in ten years.

    Something else that a Dem president will have to clean up.

  100. You GO Pat Benatar!
    August 14, 2007 at 9:00 pm

    I’ve been trying to figure out why Andrew replies to just about every comment made to one of his posts.
    Turns out he was trying to set some sort of record.
    Explains the comments that served no real purpose and failed to advance or defend any sort of argument.
    Congratulations on your new record, Andrew.
    SAD!!

Comments are closed.