--- On Wed, 12/9/09, RandallM <[email protected]> wrote:
> tip of a giant iceberg . http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=118432
You can't seriously quote Weird Net Daily. The National Enquirer has more
solid sourcing.
I can't see why this topic is such a politically-polarized one. Either mankind
is capable of effecting the environment or it isn't, and the answer has nothing
to do with political liberalism or conservatism. However, the lines form along
purely political fronts...
My friends who are solidly on the Left are shocked that I question any of it.
They tick off the Litany of Evils of Mankind (particularly capitalists) and
accuse their political opposition of not caring about anything but themselves.
Frankly, I think they are largely correct (we certainly are capable, and
probably are in range), but we are talking massively complex systems and
forecasting precise outcomes is troublesome (and we could be in a natural trend
counter to our induced effects). The topic is at least debatable as far as
exactly where we are at the moment.
My friends who are solidly on the Right are determined that we are either
incapable of impacting climate, that these is no such thing or that it's all a
Communist Plot. They vomit data (even WND "data", shame on you Randy) and
opinions and shake angry fingers to prove their points - which are mostly about
a Coming Socialist Takeover. Frankly I think they have some points as far as
questioning the extent of human impact and our ability to forecast, but the
wild paranoid conspiracy ranting makes it hard to take seriously.
I guess I get the basic political alignment - since we are all embedded in it,
"climate" tends towards group-oriented politics: since it triggers
group-oriented politics, it triggers counter-groupism responses - but the
stridency and dedication to the points along political boundaries still puzzle
me. Doesn't anyone care what the real answer(s) is/are? What would happen to
the political Losing Side if/when this is more definitively answered? If (as
seems majority opinion) mankind is having an effect on climate does it mean the
complete collapse of political conservatism - even though it would mean we
really do need to do something about it? If it turns out that we can double
our carbon output four more times without harm (as Martin suggests), would the
liberals throw themselves off cliffs in droves - even though it would mean a
reprieve from looming disaster?
I'm just interested in seeing that we continue to increase our understanding of
(climate, biology, etc). My political opinions aren't threatened no matter
what researchers discover or propose. I don't understand the eagerness of
either side to find proof that the world is either ending any minute or that we
should be free to pollute without restriction.
It's more than a little creepy from both sides.
-chris
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
