Quote:
Originally posted by eple
I guess the fanatic would be the one signing petitions in mobs trying to deny science as soon as it becomes uncomfortable. Oh noes, reducing emissions with 60-80 % will hurt us, it can't be!
|
Ah, much better. Thank you for remaining civil. It is interesting you define a fanatic as one signing petitions in mobs denying science. In this case, aren't the ones in the 19,500 strong mob scientists themselves, in part sponsored by the National Academy of Scientists? This puts them in an ironic paradox, scientists trying to deny science.
Quote:
Originally posted by eple
Sorry, but we need to be safe, not sorry, end of arguement as far as I, and the UN are conserned. The fanatics would be the ones with their heads in the sand and their ears covered who proceed to launch attacks on those with care and engagement for the future of our speices. Climate change could prove very damaging to human culture and civilization. I would rather see us spending what it takes to reduce the emissions, and find that all we got was some non-polluting non-short range damaging energy, than just ignore the data baceuse of fear and find ourselves threatened by global warming. The war in Iraq was way more expensive than creating ecological sources of power would be, and the consequenses of climate change may be much worse than some Muslim with some gas, as I have previously said.
|
I agree. Safe, not sorry. I would rather we take reasonable, measured responses to curb environmental damage and find that we saved people's jobs and livelihoods rather than ignore the data because of fear and find ourselves in economic disaster. As I mentioned in my post discussing the Democratic candidates for president in 2004 (my blind fanaticism again), history is always the best teacher.
In the 1990s, there was a huge campaign against fur, and the result of the backlash was a massive drop in demand for fur worldwide. The hardest hit was small village in Canada who for decades, by all accounts, as humanely as possible, made their lives trapping and selling fur. The drop destroyed their livelihood and just recently they were debating allowing an oil company to lay an oil pipeline through their village, possibly disrupting the natural wildlife. This is described in the New York Times, a lesson in making reasonable, measured responses instead of foisting impulsive, emotional ideology on others.
The New York Times also recently featured the wind energy battle; sure it is clean and renewable energy, but the massive windmills (having seen many in person, they truly are wondrously large) disrupt local wind patterns and quite often hit and kill birds just passing through. What helped solve one environmental problem created another. What should have been a practical and acceptable solution to all parties ended up being ramrodded into law in the name of the "environment" and creating a bigger mess than before. Again, too much politics, not enough science.
Quote:
Originally posted by eple
And don't come bragging about Clinton to me, American democrats are the political match of Norwegian extreme right-wingers, while republicans blow the scale. And we have a way higher rate of living than you as well. Clinton was anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, I don't believe he has any more to add to the enviromental debate than Bush.
|
Don't come bragging to me about Europe. I will never return to Europe for good reason. Perhaps Europeans, in general, are too far left for their own good? I have participated in politics in almost every continent in the world and I find it rather selfish and conceited to automatically think that Europeans are the "centrists" and Americans are right wing extremists. But that is another discussion.
Europeans do not have a higher rate of living; ask your neighbors the Swedes what their government says of the relative rate of living amongst the opprossed and poorest third of Americans (African-Americans) and middle class Swedes.
I am off on a tangent, though. Originally, you called me Bush-boy, and I merely pointed out that I consistenly supported his opponents, a fact of which I have announced in these forums many times. It would be an oxymoron to be an Bush-opponent-supporter-yet-Bush-fanatic, now wouldn't it?
-- Alvin