Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 57

Thread: Climate of Denial - by former President Al Gore

  1. #1
    Master of the Universe
    ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

    FORD's Avatar
    Member No
    32
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:27 PM
    Location
    Snake Mountain
    Posts
    57,952
    Status
    Online
    Thanks
    3,362
    Thanked 6,204 Times in 4,645 Posts


    Rep Power
    141

    Climate of Denial - by former President Al Gore

    Climate of Denial
    Can science and the truth withstand the merchants of poison?
    By Al Gore
    June 22, 2011 7:45 AM ET



    The first time I remember hearing the question "is it real?" was when I went as a young boy to see a traveling show put on by "professional wrestlers" one summer evening in the gym of the Forks River Elementary School in Elmwood, Tennessee.

    The evidence that it was real was palpable: "They're really hurting each other! That's real blood! Look a'there! They can't fake that!" On the other hand, there was clearly a script (or in today's language, a "narrative"), with good guys to cheer and bad guys to boo.

    But the most unusual and in some ways most interesting character in these dramas was the referee: Whenever the bad guy committed a gross and obvious violation of the "rules" such as they were like using a metal folding chair to smack the good guy in the head, the referee always seemed to be preoccupied with one of the cornermen, or looking the other way. Yet whenever the good guy after absorbing more abuse and unfairness than any reasonable person could tolerate committed the slightest infraction, the referee was all over him. The answer to the question "Is it real?" seemed connected to the question of whether the referee was somehow confused about his role: Was he too an entertainer?

    Photo Gallery: 11 extreme-weather signs the climate crisis is real

    That is pretty much the role now being played by most of the news media in refereeing the current wrestling match over whether global warming is "real," and whether it has any connection to the constant dumping of 90 million tons of heat-trapping emissions into the Earth's thin shell of atmosphere every 24 hours.

    Admittedly, the contest over global warming is a challenge for the referee because it's a tag-team match, a real free-for-all. In one corner of the ring are Science and Reason. In the other corner: Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues.

    How Obama gave up on climate change legislation

    The referee in this analogy, the news media seems confused about whether he is in the news business or the entertainment business. Is he responsible for ensuring a fair match? Or is he part of the show, selling tickets and building the audience? The referee certainly seems distracted: by Donald Trump, Charlie Sheen, the latest reality show the list of serial obsessions is too long to enumerate here.

    Photo Gallery: 12 politicians and executives blocking progress on climate change

    But whatever the cause, the referee appears not to notice that the Polluters and Ideologues are trampling all over the "rules" of democratic discourse. They are financing pseudoscientists whose job is to manufacture doubt about what is true and what is false; buying elected officials wholesale with bribes that the politicians themselves have made "legal" and can now be made in secret; spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year on misleading advertisements in the mass media; hiring four anti-climate lobbyists for every member of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. (Question: Would Michael Jordan have been a star if he was covered by four defensive players every step he took on the basketball court?)

    How oil and gas companies have blocked progress on global warming

    This script, of course, is not entirely new: A half-century ago, when Science and Reason established the linkage between cigarettes and lung diseases, the tobacco industry hired actors, dressed them up as doctors, and paid them to look into television cameras and tell people that the linkage revealed in the Surgeon General's Report was not real at all. The show went on for decades, with more Americans killed each year by cigarettes than all of the U.S. soldiers killed in all of World War II.

    This time, the scientific consensus is even stronger. It has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged "unequivocal."

    But wait! The good guys transgressed the rules of decorum, as evidenced in their private e-mails that were stolen and put on the Internet. The referee is all over it: Penalty! Go to your corner! And in their 3,000-page report, the scientists made some mistakes! Another penalty!

    And if more of the audience is left confused about whether the climate crisis is real? Well, the show must go on. After all, it's entertainment. There are tickets to be sold, eyeballs to glue to the screen.

    Part of the script for this show was leaked to The New York Times as early as 1991. In an internal document, a consortium of the largest global-warming polluters spelled out their principal strategy: "Reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact." Ever since, they have been sowing doubt even more effectively than the tobacco companies before them.

    To sell their false narrative, the Polluters and Ideologues have found it essential to undermine the public's respect for Science and Reason by attacking the integrity of the climate scientists. That is why the scientists are regularly accused of falsifying evidence and exaggerating its implications in a greedy effort to win more research grants, or secretly pursuing a hidden political agenda to expand the power of government. Such slanderous insults are deeply ironic: extremist ideologues many financed or employed by carbon polluters accusing scientists of being greedy extremist ideologues.

    After World War II, a philosopher studying the impact of organized propaganda on the quality of democratic debate wrote, "The conversion of all questions of truth into questions of power has attacked the very heart of the distinction between true and false."

    Is the climate crisis real? Yes, of course it is. Pause for a moment to consider these events of just the past 12 months:

    Heat. According to NASA, 2010 was tied with 2005 as the hottest year measured since instruments were first used systematically in the 1880s. Nineteen countries set all-time high temperature records. One city in Pakistan, Mohenjo-Daro, reached 128.3 degrees Fahrenheit, the hottest temperature ever measured in an Asian city. Nine of the 10 hottest years in history have occurred in the last 13 years. The past decade was the hottest ever measured, even though half of that decade represented a "solar minimum" the low ebb in the natural cycle of solar energy emanating from the sun.

    Floods. Megafloods displaced 20 million people in Pakistan, further destabilizing a nuclear-armed country; inundated an area of Australia larger than Germany and France combined; flooded 28 of the 32 districts that make up Colombia, where it has rained almost continuously for the past year; caused a "thousand-year" flood in my home city of Nashville; and led to all-time record flood levels in the Mississippi River Valley. Many places around the world are now experiencing larger and more frequent extreme downpours and snowstorms; last year's "Snowmaggedon" in the northeastern United States is part of the same pattern, notwithstanding the guffaws of deniers.

    Drought. Historic drought and fires in Russia killed an estimated 56,000 people and caused wheat and other food crops in Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan to be removed from the global market, contributing to a record spike in food prices. "Practically everything is burning," Russian president Dmitry Medvedev declared. "What's happening with the planet's climate right now needs to be a wake-up call to all of us." The drought level in much of Texas has been raised from "extreme" to "exceptional," the highest category. This spring the majority of the counties in Texas were on fire, and Gov. Rick Perry requested a major disaster declaration for all but two of the state's 254 counties. Arizona is now fighting the largest fire in its history. Since 1970, the fire season throughout the American West has increased by 78 days. Extreme droughts in central China and northern France are currently drying up reservoirs and killing crops.

    Melting Ice. An enormous mass of ice, four times larger than the island of Manhattan, broke off from northern Greenland last year and slipped into the sea. The acceleration of ice loss in both Greenland and Antarctica has caused another upward revision of global sea-level rise and the numbers of refugees expected from low-lying coastal areas. The Arctic ice cap, which reached a record low volume last year, has lost as much as 40 percent of its area during summer in just 30 years.

    These extreme events are happening in real time. It is not uncommon for the nightly newscast to resemble a nature hike through the Book of Revelation. Yet most of the news media completely ignore how such events are connected to the climate crisis, or dismiss the connection as controversial; after all, there are scientists on one side of the debate and deniers on the other. A Fox News executive, in an internal e-mail to the network's reporters and editors that later became public, questioned the "veracity of climate change data" and ordered the journalists to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."

    But in the "real" world, the record droughts, fires, floods and mudslides continue to increase in severity and frequency. Leading climate scientists like Jim Hansen and Kevin Trenberth now say that events like these would almost certainly not be occurring without the influence of man-made global warming. And that's a shift in the way they frame these impacts. Scientists used to caution that we were increasing the probability of such extreme events by "loading the dice" pumping more carbon into the atmosphere. Now the scientists go much further, warning that we are "painting more dots on the dice." We are not only more likely to roll 12s; we are now rolling 13s and 14s. In other words, the biggest storms are not only becoming more frequent, they are getting bigger, stronger and more destructive.

    "The only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change," Munich Re, one of the two largest reinsurance companies in the world, recently stated. "The view that weather extremes are more frequent and intense due to global warming coincides with the current state of scientific knowledge."

    Many of the extreme and destructive events are the result of the rapid increase in the amount of heat energy from the sun that is trapped in the atmosphere, which is radically disrupting the planet's water cycle. More heat energy evaporates more water into the air, and the warmer air holds a lot more moisture. This has huge consequences that we now see all around the world.

    When a storm unleashes a downpour of rain or snow, the precipitation does not originate just in the part of the sky directly above where it falls. Storms reach out sometimes as far as 2,000 miles to suck in water vapor from large areas of the sky, including the skies above oceans, where water vapor has increased by four percent in just the last 30 years. (Scientists often compare this phenomenon to what happens in a bathtub when you open the drain; the water rushing out comes from the whole tub, not just from the part of the tub directly above the drain. And when the tub is filled with more water, more goes down the drain. In the same way, when the warmer sky is filled with a lot more water vapor, there are bigger downpours when a storm cell opens the "drain.")

    In many areas, these bigger downpours also mean longer periods between storms at the same time that the extra heat in the air is also drying out the soil. That is part of the reason so many areas have been experiencing both record floods and deeper, longer-lasting droughts.

    Moreover, the scientists have been warning us for quite some time in increasingly urgent tones that things will get much, much worse if we continue the reckless dumping of more and more heat-trapping pollution into the atmosphere. Drought is projected to spread across significant, highly populated areas of the globe throughout this century. Look at what the scientists say is in store for the Mediterranean nations. Should we care about the loss of Spain, France, Italy, the Balkans, Turkey, Tunisia? Look at what they say is in store for Mexico. Should we notice? Should we care?

    Maybe it's just easier, psychologically, to swallow the lie that these scientists who devote their lives to their work are actually greedy deceivers and left-wing extremists and that we should instead put our faith in the pseudoscientists financed by large carbon polluters whose business plans depend on their continued use of the atmospheric commons as a place to dump their gaseous, heat-trapping waste without limit or constraint, free of charge.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  2. Thanked FORD for this KICKASS post:

    jhale667 (06-23-2011)


  3. #2
    Master of the Universe
    ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

    FORD's Avatar
    Member No
    32
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:27 PM
    Location
    Snake Mountain
    Posts
    57,952
    Status
    Online
    Thanks
    3,362
    Thanked 6,204 Times in 4,645 Posts


    Rep Power
    141
    The Scorched Earth

    How will climate change affect the planet? A new study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research warns that based on current projections of global-warming pollution, vast swaths of the world’s most populated areas could begin suffering from extreme drought within decades. The increasingly dry soil would threaten water and food for hundreds of millions.



    Areas in darkest red represent most extreme drought, while those in blue indicate wetter areas. No data was available for areas in white.


    2000 - 2009

    Although periodic dry spells have always been normal, the new study suggests that global warming is already causing more serious droughts, which have more than doubled since the 1970s. (Drier areas are indicated in red, wetter areas in blue.) The extra heat in the atmosphere evaporates more water and dries out the land, which in turn fuels devastating fires. Extreme droughts in China and France are currently drying up reservoirs and killing crops, while the fire season in the American West has increased by 78 days over the past 30 years.


    2090 - 2099

    Using 22 computer models of the climate, the study indicates that the extent and severity of droughts could soon be unprecedented. While some areas of the northern latitudes may grow wetter, much of the U.S. and Latin America – along with central China and most of Europe, Africa and Australia – could be hit by extreme and prolonged drought. “If the projections come even close to being realized,” says climate scientist Aiguo Dai, who conducted the study, “the consequences for society worldwide will be enormous.”



    Source: University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
    Data Visualizations by Joe Zeff Design

    The truth is this: What we are doing is functionally insane. If we do not change this pattern, we will condemn our children and all future generations to struggle with ecological curses for several millennia to come. Twenty percent of the global-warming pollution we spew into the sky each day will still be there 20,000 years from now!

    We do have another choice. Renewable energy sources are coming into their own. Both solar and wind will soon produce power at costs that are competitive with fossil fuels; indications are that twice as many solar installations were erected worldwide last year as compared to 2009. The reductions in cost and the improvements in efficiency of photovoltaic cells over the past decade appear to be following an exponential curve that resembles a less dramatic but still startling version of what happened with computer chips over the past 50 years.

    Enhanced geothermal energy is potentially a nearly limitless source of competitive electricity. Increased energy efficiency is already saving businesses money and reducing emissions significantly. New generations of biomass energy — ones that do not rely on food crops, unlike the mistaken strategy of making ethanol from corn — are extremely promising. Sustainable forestry and agriculture both make economic as well as environmental sense. And all of these options would spread even more rapidly if we stopped subsidizing Big Oil and Coal and put a price on carbon that reflected the true cost of fossil energy — either through the much-maligned cap-and-trade approach, or through a revenue-neutral tax swap.

    All over the world, the grassroots movement in favor of changing public policies to confront the climate crisis and build a more prosperous, sustainable future is growing rapidly. But most governments remain paralyzed, unable to take action — even after years of volatile gasoline prices, repeated wars in the Persian Gulf, one energy-related disaster after another, and a seemingly endless stream of unprecedented and lethal weather disasters.

    Continuing on our current course would be suicidal for global civilization. But the key question is: How do we drive home that fact in a democratic society when questions of truth have been converted into questions of power? When the distinction between what is true and what is false is being attacked relentlessly, and when the referee in the contest between truth and falsehood has become an entertainer selling tickets to a phony wrestling match?

    The "wrestling ring" in this metaphor is the conversation of democracy. It used to be called the "public square." In ancient Athens, it was the Agora. In the Roman Republic, it was the Forum. In the Egypt of the recent Arab Spring, "Tahrir Square" was both real and metaphorical — encompassing Facebook, Twitter, Al-Jazeera and texting.

    In the America of the late-18th century, the conversation that led to our own "Spring" took place in printed words: pamphlets, newsprint, books, the "Republic of Letters." It represented the fullest flower of the Enlightenment, during which the oligarchic power of the monarchies, the feudal lords and the Medieval Church was overthrown and replaced with a new sovereign: the Rule of Reason.

    The public square that gave birth to the new consciousness of the Enlightenment emerged in the dozen generations following the invention of the printing press — "the Gutenberg Galaxy," the scholar Marshall McLuhan called it — a space in which the conversation of democracy was almost equally accessible to every literate person. Individuals could both find the knowledge that had previously been restricted to elites and contribute their own ideas.

    Ideas that found resonance with others rose in prominence much the way Google searches do today, finding an ever larger audience and becoming a source of political power for individuals with neither wealth nor force of arms. Thomas Paine, to take one example, emigrated from England to Philadelphia with no wealth, no family connections and no power other than that which came from his ability to think and write clearly — yet his Common Sense became the Harry Potter of Revolutionary America. The "public interest" mattered, was actively discussed and pursued.

    But the "public square" that gave birth to America has been transformed beyond all recognition. The conversation that matters most to the shaping of the "public mind" now takes place on television. Newspapers and magazines are in decline. The Internet, still in its early days, will one day support business models that make true journalism profitable — but up until now, the only successful news websites aggregate content from struggling print publications. Web versions of the newspapers themselves are, with few exceptions, not yet making money. They bring to mind the classic image of Wile E. Coyote running furiously in midair just beyond the edge of the cliff, before plummeting to the desert floor far beneath him.

    The average American, meanwhile, is watching television an astonishing five hours a day. In the average household, at least one television set is turned on more than eight hours a day. Moreover, approximately 75 percent of those using the Internet frequently watch television at the same time that they are online.

    Unlike access to the "public square" of early America, access to television requires large amounts of money. Thomas Paine could walk out of his front door in Philadelphia and find a dozen competing, low-cost print shops within blocks of his home. Today, if he traveled to the nearest TV station, or to the headquarters of nearby Comcast — the dominant television provider in America — and tried to deliver his new ideas to the American people, he would be laughed off the premises. The public square that used to be a commons has been refeudalized, and the gatekeepers charge large rents for the privilege of communicating to the American people over the only medium that really affects their thinking. "Citizens" are now referred to more commonly as "consumers" or "the audience."

    That is why up to 80 percent of the campaign budgets for candidates in both major political parties is devoted to the purchase of 30-second TV ads. Since the rates charged for these commercials increase each year, the candidates are forced to raise more and more money in each two-year campaign cycle.

    Of course, the only reliable sources from which such large sums can be raised continuously are business lobbies. Organized labor, a shadow of its former self, struggles to compete, and individuals are limited by law to making small contributions. During the 2008 campaign, there was a bubble of hope that Internet-based fundraising might even the scales, but in the end, Democrats as well as Republicans relied far more on traditional sources of large contributions. Moreover, the recent deregulation of unlimited — and secret — donations by wealthy corporations has made the imbalance even worse.

    In the new ecology of political discourse, special-interest contributors of the large sums of money now required for the privilege of addressing voters on a wholesale basis are not squeamish about asking for the quo they expect in return for their quid. Politicians who don't acquiesce don't get the money they need to be elected and re-elected. And the impact is doubled when special interests make clear — usually bluntly — that the money they are withholding will go instead to opponents who are more than happy to pledge the desired quo. Politicians have been racing to the bottom for some time, and are presently tunneling to new depths. It is now commonplace for congressmen and senators first elected decades ago — as I was — to comment in private that the whole process has become unbelievably crass, degrading and horribly destructive to the core values of American democracy.

    Largely as a result, the concerns of the wealthiest individuals and corporations routinely trump the concerns of average Americans and small businesses. There are a ridiculously large number of examples: eliminating the inheritance tax paid by the wealthiest one percent of families is considered a much higher priority than addressing the suffering of the millions of long-term unemployed; Wall Street's interest in legalizing gambling in trillions of dollars of "derivatives" was considered way more important than protecting the integrity of the financial system and the interests of middle-income home buyers. It's a long list.

    Almost every group organized to promote and protect the "public interest" has been backpedaling and on the defensive. By sharp contrast, when a coalition of powerful special interests sets out to manipulate U.S. policy, their impact can be startling — and the damage to the true national interest can be devastating.

    In 2002, for example, the feverish desire to invade Iraq required convincing the American people that Saddam Hussein was somehow responsible for attacking the United States on September 11th, 2001, and that he was preparing to attack us again, perhaps with nuclear weapons. When the evidence — the "facts" — stood in the way of that effort to shape the public mind, they were ridiculed, maligned and ignored. Behind the scenes, the intelligence was manipulated and the public was intentionally deceived. Allies were pressured to adopt the same approach with their publics. A recent inquiry in the U.K. confirmed this yet again. "We knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence," Maj. Gen. Michael Laurie testified. "To make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence, the wording was developed with care." Why? As British intelligence put it, the overthrow of Saddam was "a prize because it could give new security to oil supplies."

    That goal — the real goal — could have been debated on its own terms. But as Bush administration officials have acknowledged, a truly candid presentation would not have resulted in sufficient public support for the launching of a new war. They knew that because they had studied it and polled it. So they manipulated the debate, downplayed the real motive for the invasion, and made a different case to the public — one based on falsehoods.

    And the "referee" — the news media — looked the other way. Some, like Fox News, were hyperactive cheerleaders. Others were intimidated into going along by the vitriol heaped on any who asked inconvenient questions. (They know it; many now acknowledge it, sheepishly and apologetically.)

    Senators themselves fell, with a few honorable exceptions, into the same two camps. A few weeks before the United States invaded Iraq, the late Robert Byrd — God rest his soul — thundered on the Senate floor about the pitiful quality of the debate over the choice between war and peace: "Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent — ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing."

    The chamber was silent, in part, because many senators were somewhere else — attending cocktail parties and receptions, largely with special-interest donors, raising money to buy TV ads for their next campaigns. Nowadays, in fact, the scheduling of many special-interest fundraisers mirrors the schedule of votes pending in the House and Senate.

    By the time we invaded Iraq, polls showed, nearly three-quarters of the American people were convinced that the person responsible for the planes flying into the World Trade Center Towers was indeed Saddam Hussein. The rest is history — though, as Faulkner wrote, "The past is never dead. It's not even past." Because of that distortion of the truth in the past, we are still in Iraq; and because the bulk of our troops and intelligence assets were abruptly diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq, we are also still in Afghanistan.

    In the same way, because the banks had their way with Congress when it came to gambling on unregulated derivatives and recklessly endangering credit markets with subprime mortgages, we still have almost double-digit unemployment, historic deficits, Greece and possibly other European countries teetering on the edge of default, and the threat of a double-dip recession. Even the potential default of the United States of America is now being treated by many politicians and too many in the media as yet another phony wrestling match, a political game. Are the potential economic consequences of a U.S. default "real"? Of course they are! Have we gone completely nuts?

    We haven't gone nuts — but the "conversation of democracy" has become so deeply dysfunctional that our ability to make intelligent collective decisions has been seriously impaired. Throughout American history, we relied on the vibrancy of our public square — and the quality of our democratic discourse — to make better decisions than most nations in the history of the world. But we are now routinely making really bad decisions that completely ignore the best available evidence of what is true and what is false. When the distinction between truth and falsehood is systematically attacked without shame or consequence — when a great nation makes crucially important decisions on the basis of completely false information that is no longer adequately filtered through the fact-checking function of a healthy and honest public discussion — the public interest is severely damaged.

    That is exactly what is happening with U.S. decisions regarding the climate crisis. The best available evidence demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that the reckless spewing of global-warming pollution in obscene quantities into the atmospheric commons is having exactly the consequences long predicted by scientists who have analyzed the known facts according to the laws of physics.

    The emergence of the climate crisis seems sudden only because of a relatively recent discontinuity in the relationship between human civilization and the planet's ecological system. In the past century, we have quadrupled global population while relying on the burning of carbon-based fuels — coal, oil and gas — for 85 percent of the world's energy. We are also cutting and burning forests that would otherwise help remove some of the added CO2 from the atmosphere, and have converted agriculture to an industrial model that also runs on carbon-based fuels and strip-mines carbon-rich soils.

    The cumulative result is a radically new reality — and since human nature makes us vulnerable to confusing the unprecedented with the improbable, it naturally seems difficult to accept. Moreover, since this new reality is painful to contemplate, and requires big changes in policy and behavior that are at the outer limit of our ability, it is all too easy to fall into the psychological state of denial. As with financial issues like subprime mortgages and credit default swaps, the climate crisis can seem too complex to worry about, especially when the shills for the polluters constantly claim it's all a hoax anyway. And since the early impacts of climatic disruption are distributed globally, they masquerade as an abstraction that is safe to ignore.

    These vulnerabilities, rooted in our human nature, are being manipulated by the tag-team of Polluters and Ideologues who are trying to deceive us. And the referee — the news media — is once again distracted. As with the invasion of Iraq, some are hyperactive cheerleaders for the deception, while others are intimidated into complicity, timidity and silence by the astonishing vitriol heaped upon those who dare to present the best evidence in a professional manner. Just as TV networks who beat the drums of war prior to the Iraq invasion were rewarded with higher ratings, networks now seem reluctant to present the truth about the link between carbon pollution and global warming out of fear that conservative viewers will change the channel — and fear that they will receive a torrent of flame e-mails from deniers.

    Many politicians, unfortunately, also fall into the same two categories: those who cheerlead for the deniers and those who cower before them. The latter group now includes several candidates for the Republican presidential nomination who have felt it necessary to abandon their previous support for action on the climate crisis; at least one has been apologizing profusely to the deniers and begging for their forgiveness.

    "Intimidation" and "timidity" are connected by more than a shared word root. The first is designed to produce the second. As Yeats wrote almost a century ago, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

    Barack Obama's approach to the climate crisis represents a special case that requires careful analysis. His election was accompanied by intense hope that many things in need of change would change. Some things have, but others have not. Climate policy, unfortunately, is in the second category. Why?

    First of all, anyone who honestly examines the incredible challenges confronting President Obama when he took office has to feel enormous empathy for him: the Great Recession, with the high unemployment and the enormous public and private indebtedness it produced; two seemingly interminable wars; an intractable political opposition whose true leaders — entertainers masquerading as pundits — openly declared that their objective was to ensure that the new president failed; a badly broken Senate that is almost completely paralyzed by the threat of filibuster and is controlled lock, stock and barrel by the oil and coal industries; a contingent of nominal supporters in Congress who are indentured servants of the same special interests that control most of the Republican Party; and a ferocious, well-financed and dishonest campaign poised to vilify anyone who dares offer leadership for the reduction of global-warming pollution.

    In spite of these obstacles, President Obama included significant climate-friendly initiatives in the economic stimulus package he presented to Congress during his first month in office. With the skillful leadership of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and committee chairmen Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, he helped secure passage of a cap-and-trade measure in the House a few months later. He implemented historic improvements in fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles, and instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to move forward on the regulation of global-warming pollution under the Clean Air Act. He appointed many excellent men and women to key positions, and they, in turn, have made hundreds of changes in environmental and energy policy that have helped move the country forward slightly on the climate issue. During his first six months, he clearly articulated the link between environmental security, economic security and national security — making the case that a national commitment to renewable energy could simultaneously reduce unemployment, dependence on foreign oil and vulnerability to the disruption of oil markets dominated by the Persian Gulf reserves. And more recently, as the issue of long-term debt has forced discussion of new revenue, he proposed the elimination of unnecessary and expensive subsidies for oil and gas.

    But in spite of these and other achievements, President Obama has thus far failed to use the bully pulpit to make the case for bold action on climate change. After successfully passing his green stimulus package, he did nothing to defend it when Congress decimated its funding. After the House passed cap and trade, he did little to make passage in the Senate a priority. Senate advocates — including one Republican — felt abandoned when the president made concessions to oil and coal companies without asking for anything in return. He has also called for a massive expansion of oil drilling in the United States, apparently in an effort to defuse criticism from those who argue speciously that "drill, baby, drill" is the answer to our growing dependence on foreign oil.

    The failure to pass legislation to limit global-warming pollution ensured that the much-anticipated Copenhagen summit on a global treaty in 2009 would also end in failure. The president showed courage in attending the summit and securing a rhetorical agreement to prevent a complete collapse of the international process, but that's all it was — a rhetorical agreement. During the final years of the Bush-Cheney administration, the rest of the world was waiting for a new president who would aggressively tackle the climate crisis — and when it became clear that there would be no real change from the Bush era, the agenda at Copenhagen changed from "How do we complete this historic breakthrough?" to "How can we paper over this embarrassing disappointment?"

    Some concluded from the failure in Copenhagen that it was time to give up on the entire U.N.-sponsored process for seeking an international agreement to reduce both global-warming pollution and deforestation. Ultimately, however, the only way to address the climate crisis will be with a global agreement that in one way or another puts a price on carbon. And whatever approach is eventually chosen, the U.S. simply must provide leadership by changing our own policy.

    Yet without presidential leadership that focuses intensely on making the public aware of the reality we face, nothing will change. The real power of any president, as Richard Neustadt wrote, is "the power to persuade." Yet President Obama has never presented to the American people the magnitude of the climate crisis. He has simply not made the case for action. He has not defended the science against the ongoing, withering and dishonest attacks. Nor has he provided a presidential venue for the scientific community — including our own National Academy — to bring the reality of the science before the public.

    Here is the core of it: we are destroying the climate balance that is essential to the survival of our civilization. This is not a distant or abstract threat; it is happening now. The United States is the only nation that can rally a global effort to save our future. And the president is the only person who can rally the United States.

    Many political advisers assume that a president has to deal with the world of politics as he finds it, and that it is unwise to risk political capital on an effort to actually lead the country toward a new understanding of the real threats and real opportunities we face. Concentrate on the politics of re-election, they say. Don't take chances.

    All that might be completely understandable and make perfect sense in a world where the climate crisis wasn't "real." Those of us who support and admire President Obama understand how difficult the politics of this issue are in the context of the massive opposition to doing anything at all — or even to recognizing that there is a crisis. And assuming that the Republicans come to their senses and avoid nominating a clown, his re-election is likely to involve a hard-fought battle with high stakes for the country. All of his supporters understand that it would be self-defeating to weaken Obama and heighten the risk of another step backward. Even writing an article like this one carries risks; opponents of the president will excerpt the criticism and strip it of context.

    But in this case, the President has reality on his side. The scientific consensus is far stronger today than at any time in the past. Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real. It is time to act.

    Those who profit from the unconstrained pollution that is the primary cause of climate change are determined to block our perception of this reality. They have help from many sides: from the private sector, which is now free to make unlimited and secret campaign contributions; from politicians who have conflated their tenures in office with the pursuit of the people's best interests; and — tragically — from the press itself, which treats deception and falsehood on the same plane as scientific fact, and calls it objective reporting of alternative opinions.

    All things are not equally true. It is time to face reality. We ignored reality in the marketplace and nearly destroyed the world economic system. We are likewise ignoring reality in the environment, and the consequences could be several orders of magnitude worse. Determining what is real can be a challenge in our culture, but in order to make wise choices in the presence of such grave risks, we must use common sense and the rule of reason in coming to an agreement on what is true.

    So how can we make it happen? How can we as individuals make a difference? In five basic ways:

    First, become a committed advocate for solving the crisis. You can start with something simple: Speak up whenever the subject of climate arises. When a friend or acquaintance expresses doubt that the crisis is real, or that it's some sort of hoax, don't let the opportunity pass to put down your personal marker. The civil rights revolution may have been driven by activists who put their lives on the line, but it was partly won by average Americans who began to challenge racist comments in everyday conversations.

    Second, deepen your commitment by making consumer choices that reduce energy use and reduce your impact on the environment. The demand by individuals for change in the marketplace has already led many businesses to take truly significant steps to reduce their global-warming pollution. Some of the corporate changes are more symbolic than real — "green-washing," as it's called — but a surprising amount of real progress is taking place. Walmart, to pick one example, is moving aggressively to cut its carbon footprint by 20 million metric tons, in part by pressuring its suppliers to cut down on wasteful packaging and use lower-carbon transportation alternatives. Reward those companies that are providing leadership.

    Third, join an organization committed to action on this issue. The Alliance for Climate Protection (climateprotect.org), which I chair, has grassroots action plans for the summer and fall that spell out lots of ways to fight effectively for the policy changes we need. We can also enable you to host a slide show in your community on solutions to the climate crisis — presented by one of the 4,000 volunteers we have trained. Invite your friends and neighbors to come and then enlist them to join the cause.

    Fourth, contact your local newspapers and television stations when they put out claptrap on climate — and let them know you're fed up with their stubborn and cowardly resistance to reporting the facts of this issue. One of the main reasons they are so wimpy and irresponsible about global warming is that they're frightened of the reaction they get from the deniers when they report the science objectively. So let them know that deniers are not the only ones in town with game. Stay on them! Don't let up! It's true that some media outlets are getting instructions from their owners on this issue, and that others are influenced by big advertisers, but many of them are surprisingly responsive to a genuine outpouring of opinion from their viewers and readers. It is way past time for the ref to do his job.

    Finally, and above all, don't give up on the political system. Even though it is rigged by special interests, it is not so far gone that candidates and elected officials don't have to pay attention to persistent, engaged and committed individuals. President Franklin Roosevelt once told civil rights leaders who were pressing him for change that he agreed with them about the need for greater equality for black Americans. Then, as the story goes, he added with a wry smile, "Now go out and make me do it."

    To make our elected leaders take action to solve the climate crisis, we must forcefully communicate the following message: "I care a lot about global warming; I am paying very careful attention to the way you vote and what you say about it; if you are on the wrong side, I am not only going to vote against you, I will work hard to defeat you — regardless of party. If you are on the right side, I will work hard to elect you."

    Why do you think President Obama and Congress changed their game on "don't ask, don't tell?" It happened because enough Americans delivered exactly that tough message to candidates who wanted their votes. When enough people care passionately enough to drive that message home on the climate crisis, politicians will look at their hole cards, and enough of them will change their game to make all the difference we need.

    This is not naive; trust me on this. It may take more individual voters to beat the Polluters and Ideologues now than it once did — when special-interest money was less dominant. But when enough people speak this way to candidates, and convince them that they are dead serious about it, change will happen — both in Congress and in the White House. As the great abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass once observed, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will."

    What is now at risk in the climate debate is nothing less than our ability to communicate with one another according to a protocol that binds all participants to seek reason and evaluate facts honestly. The ability to perceive reality is a prerequisite for self-governance. Wishful thinking and denial lead to dead ends. When it works, the democratic process helps clear the way toward reality, by exposing false argumentation to the best available evidence. That is why the Constitution affords such unique protection to freedom of the press and of speech.

    The climate crisis, in reality, is a struggle for the soul of America. It is about whether or not we are still capable — given the ill health of our democracy and the current dominance of wealth over reason — of perceiving important and complex realities clearly enough to promote and protect the sustainable well-being of the many. What hangs in the balance is the future of civilization as we know it.

  4. #3
    Fear the Elf
    ROTH ARMY SUPREME
    Unchainme's Avatar
    Member No
    12680
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Last Online
    08-29-2021 @ 06:13 PM
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Age
    34
    Posts
    7,741
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    2,016
    Thanked 532 Times in 375 Posts


    Rep Power
    31
    Professor at a major university: "oh, shit..I need some major funding somehow someway or else I'll be stuck teaching these college kids for only 50k, I know that I have some statistics around here that show some fluctuation in the earth's climate, maybe I can spin it in a way that it's all in the fault of mankind and "big business", and get some grant money to further study this!"

    I would be more apt to believe this, if say, there wasn't multiple incidents of actual climate change during a time period when there was next to nothing in terms of human pollution on the planet. But, it's kinda been going for a shit ton longer than that. People also tend to conveniently forget that things like Solar Flares, Volcanic Eruptions have FAR more impact on the climate of the US, than some jackass driving a hummer.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  5. #4
    Banned
    Member No
    5226
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Last Online
    06-13-2016 @ 10:02 PM
    Location
    .
    Posts
    12,707
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1,428
    Thanked 1,438 Times in 1,119 Posts


    Rep Power
    0
    For the love of fuckin' J. C. on a fuckin' tricycle!

    Humans have been around for half a dozen days & they're already convinced they know how the Earth & the Universe work.

    All we know is based on our limited perception of things, fer fuck's sake. I still argue that we may or may not be surrounded by things we can't see and/or feel. Even if we could/can feel them, we'd've felt them all our lives so we couldn't even tell. Supposing they're there, of course.

    No one ever could accurately predict climate changes, though they've had some success in the limited time frame they've been studying such things. But believing that the Earth's climate would stay put from now on when it's been changing for millions of billions of trillions of years is not only madness but sheer stupidity!

    Fuck it, I'm outta here. You guys can go on convincing yourselves you're intelligent & environmentally aware all you like, but remember - like the fat kid who was cuntvinced he'd look kewl doing acrobatics with a lightsaber or the african-american who nunchak'oed his way to a failed backflip, someone somewhere is watching you & laffing at the retardedness.

    Cheers! :bottle:
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  6. Thanked Anonymous for this KICKASS post:

    Unchainme (06-23-2011)


  7. #5
    Professional Smartass
    ROTH ARMY SUPREME
    Guitar Shark's Avatar
    Member No
    307
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    04-05-2021 @ 07:55 PM
    Location
    Hawaii
    Age
    52
    Posts
    7,576
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1,475
    Thanked 1,577 Times in 878 Posts


    Rep Power
    44
    I am just laughing at the unintended irony of the thread title!
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  8. #6
    ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

    Seshmeister's Avatar
    Member No
    11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:27 PM
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    34,432
    Status
    Online
    Thanks
    2,712
    Thanked 9,063 Times in 5,840 Posts


    Rep Power
    10
    Thanks for the idiot in the street view there Ima.

    Personally I've got a bit fed up arguing with sheep who have bought the BS propaganda from big oil.

    See that little green bit at the top middle that's totally fine? That's where I live.

    You amateur climate scientists go knock yourself out, I'll believe the people with the PHDs.

    Last edited by Seshmeister; 06-23-2011 at 04:10 PM.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  9. 3 users say thank you to Seshmeister for this KICKASS post:

    bueno bob (06-24-2011),FORD (06-23-2011),jhale667 (06-23-2011)


  10. #7
    ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

    Seshmeister's Avatar
    Member No
    11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:27 PM
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    34,432
    Status
    Online
    Thanks
    2,712
    Thanked 9,063 Times in 5,840 Posts


    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Shark View Post
    I am just laughing at the unintended irony of the thread title!
    The funny thing is that he never mentions the Nile once in the article...

  11. #8
    ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

    Seshmeister's Avatar
    Member No
    11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:27 PM
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    34,432
    Status
    Online
    Thanks
    2,712
    Thanked 9,063 Times in 5,840 Posts


    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Unchainme View Post
    Professor at a major university: "oh, shit..I need some major funding somehow someway or else I'll be stuck teaching these college kids for only 50k, I know that I have some statistics around here that show some fluctuation in the earth's climate, maybe I can spin it in a way that it's all in the fault of mankind and "big business", and get some grant money to further study this!"
    One of the reasons that's a very silly argument is that it's much easier to get funding from oil and coal companies to do research but they want a certain result from you.

    Another reason it's silly is that the best way to make a name for yourself as a scientist would be to show that there is no climate change.

    Maybe the biggest reason it's a silly argument though is the evidence. Thousands and thousands of pages of evidence. Millions and millions of measurements. Hundreds of satellites constantly updating this data in incredible detail.

    We'll ignore all that though because you don't like it. All you need to do is wish it away. If you don't 'believe' in it then it will all just go away because the climate of the planet will take a poll of Americans, find out they don't want climate change and will stop changing.

  12. #9
    Cunning Linguist
    DIAMOND STATUS
    jhale667's Avatar
    Member No
    7379
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    04-07-2016 @ 01:20 AM
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    20,929
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    8,152
    Thanked 4,109 Times in 2,873 Posts


    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Seshmeister View Post
    Thanks for the idiot in the street view there Ima.

    Personally I've got a bit fed up arguing with sheep who have bought the BS propaganda from big oil.

    See that little green bit at the top middle that's totally fine? That's where I live.

    You amateur climate scientists go knock yourself out, I'll believe the people with the PHDs.


    I too am over arguing with idiots about this. When in the history of weather study (or fucking history in general) have there been MILE-wide tornadoes, why are winters and summers getting increasingly more drastic (and deadly)? Hurricane season the last few years, anyone? There's literally mountains of evidence tying this to humanity's industrial revolution and the increased greenhouse gas output. You can at best (barely) argue the EXTENT to which we're contributing to climate changes , but you're beyond a moron to argue that we're NOT.

    I got into it with some Rethugs on one of my guitar-buddies pages when some kook said "Global Warming has been accepted as a hoax" (implied some liberal media bullshit) and I responded "Accepted by whom, viewers of FAUX News?" The deniers really got in a tizzy when a guy going for his PhD in Botany chimed in "Jay is correct". His frustration was palpable.

    Someone brought up an interesting point regarding people dismissing science due to silly religious beliefs that could also apply here - Since WHEN is OK to deny empirical data? Has anyone ever graduated from any learning institution that SKIPPED science classes? I mean, WTF.... You only place you get a pass to dismiss FACT is religion class, sorry. It's even more maddening because we're quickly approaching the "tipping point" most reputable scientists have spoken about...where we'll have caused irreversible damage to the atmosphere. Six years or so the experts agreed that point was roughly 10 years in the future if nothing was done. Well, here we are - still DEBATING it and little to nothing has been done to reverse it. All because of greed and outright stupidity.
    Last edited by jhale667; 06-23-2011 at 04:41 PM.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  13. #10
    Perpetually Befuddled
    DIAMOND STATUS
    chefcraig's Avatar
    Member No
    3871
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    03-01-2017 @ 12:20 PM
    Location
    "A Confederacy Of Dunces"
    Posts
    12,172
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    2,724
    Thanked 4,052 Times in 2,583 Posts


    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Seshmeister View Post
    One of the reasons that's a very silly argument is that it's much easier to get funding from oil and coal companies to do research but they want a certain result from you.
    Pretty much brings to mind the "studies" performed by tobacco companies in the early sixties that concluded that smoking was actually good for you.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  14. #11
    Cunning Linguist
    DIAMOND STATUS
    jhale667's Avatar
    Member No
    7379
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    04-07-2016 @ 01:20 AM
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    20,929
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    8,152
    Thanked 4,109 Times in 2,873 Posts


    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by chefcraig View Post
    Pretty much brings to mind the "studies" performed by tobacco companies in the early sixties that concluded that smoking was actually good for you.
    Exactly.

  15. #12
    ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

    Seshmeister's Avatar
    Member No
    11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:27 PM
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    34,432
    Status
    Online
    Thanks
    2,712
    Thanked 9,063 Times in 5,840 Posts


    Rep Power
    10
    It's such a fucked up argument.

    I don't trust the scientists of the world, they are obviously biased.

    Instead I'll trust the polluters who have most to lose.

    The funny thing is that for once there actually is a bit of a conspiracy going on. Scientists working on the problem are constantly being bombarded with inane but regimented requests for information that they have to give out under freedom of information laws. This is an organised campaign by forces unknown which constantly disrupts their work.

  16. #13
    Cunning Linguist
    DIAMOND STATUS
    jhale667's Avatar
    Member No
    7379
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    04-07-2016 @ 01:20 AM
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    20,929
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    8,152
    Thanked 4,109 Times in 2,873 Posts


    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Seshmeister View Post
    It's such a fucked up argument.

    I don't trust the scientists of the world, they are obviously biased.

    Instead I'll trust the polluters who have most to lose.

    The funny thing is that for once there actually is a bit of a conspiracy going on. Scientists working on the problem are constantly being bombarded with inane but regimented requests for information that they have to give out under freedom of information laws. This is an organised campaign by forces unknown which constantly disrupts their work.
    Which is despicable.
    Trying to think of the one Congressman (who should resign for making such an idiotic statement) who dismissed Climate Change because "The Bible says only God can destroy the earth"'s name...fucking tool. Doesn't say anywhere his plan isn't to let humanity do it FOR him, does it there, Mr. Bible Mcthumpy-Thumperson? Anyone whose beliefs are that twisted isn't qualified for public office IMO, because he's clearly got the church-state separation thing WRONG...

  17. #14
    Master of the Universe
    ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

    FORD's Avatar
    Member No
    32
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:27 PM
    Location
    Snake Mountain
    Posts
    57,952
    Status
    Online
    Thanks
    3,362
    Thanked 6,204 Times in 4,645 Posts


    Rep Power
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by chefcraig View Post
    Pretty much brings to mind the "studies" performed by tobacco companies in the early sixties that concluded that smoking was actually good for you.
    Exactly......


  18. #15
    The Menace Is Loose Again
    TOASTMASTER GENERAL
    sadaist's Avatar
    Member No
    6381
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Last Online
    04-08-2015 @ 12:58 AM
    Location
    So CA
    Age
    51
    Posts
    11,625
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1,789
    Thanked 2,934 Times in 1,875 Posts


    Rep Power
    60
    I don't believe in global warming.


    But I (as a Republican) still believe we should be taking better care of our environment. They need to stop with all the bullshit radical scare tactics and falsified numbers, and just find a common sense way to get people to do a little more. They want us to be good to the environment, yet make it difficult to do so.

    Example - In my area I could probably find 1,000 establishments where I can buy a can of 7-UP. From 7-11, to the grocery store, mexican fast food place, liquor store, vending machines, school cafeterias, etc, etc, etc....... And we pay $0.05 deposit basically on every can. To get us to recycle. We save up our trash bags full of cans and once a month or so we drive to turn them in and get our $8 and feel good about the environment. But what the state doesn't want you to know....THEY DON'T WANT YOU RETURNING THOSE CANS.

    They want to keep you $0.05 per can deposit. This is why out of hundreds & hundreds of places to buy a can of soda.....there are TWO places within 10 miles to return them for refund. TWO! With shitty hours and machines that are broken down 50% of the time. This is on purpose my friends. They don't truly want us to come back for that money. It's all warm & fuzzy but in honesty it's a way for them to squeeze extra money from us. They are thrilled when you just crush the can & throw it away.

    Fucking bullshit.



    *sorry. I take my cans in diligently and it really pisses me off how fucking hard it actually is to return them for the CRV $$ that they took from me.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  19. Thanked sadaist for this KICKASS post:

    Unchainme (06-23-2011)


  20. #16
    Master of the Universe
    ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

    FORD's Avatar
    Member No
    32
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:27 PM
    Location
    Snake Mountain
    Posts
    57,952
    Status
    Online
    Thanks
    3,362
    Thanked 6,204 Times in 4,645 Posts


    Rep Power
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by jhale667 View Post
    Which is despicable.
    Trying to think of the one Congressman (who should resign for making such an idiotic statement) who dismissed Climate Change because "The Bible says only God can destroy the earth"'s name...fucking tool. Doesn't say anywhere his plan isn't to let humanity do it FOR him, does it there, Mr. Bible Mcthumpy-Thumperson? Anyone whose beliefs are that twisted isn't qualified for public office IMO, because he's clearly got the church-state separation thing WRONG...
    The Bible also says that God will Destroy those who destroy the Earth (Revelation 11:18). Funny how the 'thumpers always forget that.

  21. Thanked FORD for this KICKASS post:

    jhale667 (06-23-2011)


  22. #17
    ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

    Seshmeister's Avatar
    Member No
    11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:27 PM
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    34,432
    Status
    Online
    Thanks
    2,712
    Thanked 9,063 Times in 5,840 Posts


    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by sadaist View Post
    I don't believe in global warming.
    Why not?

    What other things don't you believe in that science says is fact?

  23. Thanked Seshmeister for this KICKASS post:

    jhale667 (06-23-2011)


  24. #18
    roth beer pest
    DIAMOND STATUS
    PETE'S BROTHER's Avatar
    Member No
    22706
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Last Online
    06-02-2022 @ 11:33 PM
    Location
    arizona
    Age
    52
    Posts
    12,682
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    4,273
    Thanked 2,377 Times in 1,853 Posts


    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Seshmeister View Post
    Why not?

    What other things don't you believe in that science says is fact?
    gravity, it's bullshit
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  25. Thanked PETE'S BROTHER for this KICKASS post:

    sadaist (06-23-2011)


  26. #19
    Perpetually Befuddled
    DIAMOND STATUS
    chefcraig's Avatar
    Member No
    3871
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    03-01-2017 @ 12:20 PM
    Location
    "A Confederacy Of Dunces"
    Posts
    12,172
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    2,724
    Thanked 4,052 Times in 2,583 Posts


    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by PETE'S BROTHER View Post
    gravity, it's bullshit
    Not only that, it sucks...

  27. #20
    Feeding My Addiction
    DIAMOND STATUS
    binnie's Avatar
    Member No
    20165
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    12-27-2016 @ 08:33 AM
    Location
    Here, there, every fucking where
    Age
    41
    Posts
    19,144
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1,809
    Thanked 1,785 Times in 1,252 Posts


    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Seshmeister View Post
    Why not?

    What other things don't you believe in that science says is fact?
    Do scientists actually accept the term 'fact' as in 'absolutely true'? Wouldn't most of them prefer 'infinitely probable' in the era after Einstein?

    (And, no, I'm not trying to deny global warming - I'm just very interested in the whole notion of 'truth').
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  28. #21
    Feeding My Addiction
    DIAMOND STATUS
    binnie's Avatar
    Member No
    20165
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    12-27-2016 @ 08:33 AM
    Location
    Here, there, every fucking where
    Age
    41
    Posts
    19,144
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1,809
    Thanked 1,785 Times in 1,252 Posts


    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by chefcraig View Post
    Not only that, it sucks...
    Bwahaaahahahahahaha!

  29. #22
    roth beer pest
    DIAMOND STATUS
    PETE'S BROTHER's Avatar
    Member No
    22706
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Last Online
    06-02-2022 @ 11:33 PM
    Location
    arizona
    Age
    52
    Posts
    12,682
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    4,273
    Thanked 2,377 Times in 1,853 Posts


    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by binnie View Post
    Do scientists actually accept the term 'fact' as in 'absolutely true'?
    FACT,sammy hagar sucks. a dierct quote from the scientific academy of earth.
    Last edited by PETE'S BROTHER; 06-23-2011 at 05:37 PM. Reason: boobs

  30. Thanked PETE'S BROTHER for this KICKASS post:

    jhale667 (06-23-2011)


  31. #23
    Cunning Linguist
    DIAMOND STATUS
    jhale667's Avatar
    Member No
    7379
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    04-07-2016 @ 01:20 AM
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    20,929
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    8,152
    Thanked 4,109 Times in 2,873 Posts


    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by sadaist View Post
    I don't believe in global warming.


    But I (as a Republican) still believe we should be taking better care of our environment. They need to stop with all the bullshit radical scare tactics and falsified numbers, and just find a common sense way to get people to do a little more. They want us to be good to the environment, yet make it difficult to do so.

    Example - In my area I could probably find 1,000 establishments where I can buy a can of 7-UP. From 7-11, to the grocery store, mexican fast food place, liquor store, vending machines, school cafeterias, etc, etc, etc....... And we pay $0.05 deposit basically on every can. To get us to recycle. We save up our trash bags full of cans and once a month or so we drive to turn them in and get our $8 and feel good about the environment. But what the state doesn't want you to know....THEY DON'T WANT YOU RETURNING THOSE CANS.

    They want to keep you $0.05 per can deposit. This is why out of hundreds & hundreds of places to buy a can of soda.....there are TWO places within 10 miles to return them for refund. TWO! With shitty hours and machines that are broken down 50% of the time. This is on purpose my friends. They don't truly want us to come back for that money. It's all warm & fuzzy but in honesty it's a way for them to squeeze extra money from us. They are thrilled when you just crush the can & throw it away.

    Fucking bullshit.



    *sorry. I take my cans in diligently and it really pisses me off how fucking hard it actually is to return them for the CRV $$ that they took from me.
    Uh, it says you live in SoCal ...isn't there a recycling station at pretty much every store in the Ralph's supermarket chain? There's one right down the street from me...not that I buy cans of soda, but...

    OK, as a Republican though, do you agree it's RETARDED for your party to be even thinking about dismantling the EPA (you said you want to protect the environment, right?), much less saying it out loud?? :eek: That's some powerful stupid, right there.

  32. #24
    ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

    Seshmeister's Avatar
    Member No
    11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:27 PM
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    34,432
    Status
    Online
    Thanks
    2,712
    Thanked 9,063 Times in 5,840 Posts


    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by binnie View Post
    Do scientists actually accept the term 'fact' as in 'absolutely true'? Wouldn't most of them prefer 'infinitely probable' in the era after Einstein?

    (And, no, I'm not trying to deny global warming - I'm just very interested in the whole notion of 'truth').
    If you say infinitely probable then idiot holes use that to insert a false wedge of bullshit in the same way that the creationists say evolution is just a theory.

    Humans causing climate change is highly probable, that the climate of the planet is changing relatively and very very rapidly is fact.

    Anyway I don't think its likely at all that my house will burn down never mind highly probable but I still pay for an insurance policy for it.

  33. #25
    Feeding My Addiction
    DIAMOND STATUS
    binnie's Avatar
    Member No
    20165
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    12-27-2016 @ 08:33 AM
    Location
    Here, there, every fucking where
    Age
    41
    Posts
    19,144
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1,809
    Thanked 1,785 Times in 1,252 Posts


    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Seshmeister View Post

    Anyway I don't think its likely at all that my house will burn down never mind highly probable but I still pay for an insurance policy for it.
    It's amazing what we do out of anxiety, isn't it?

  34. #26
    Master of the Universe
    ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

    FORD's Avatar
    Member No
    32
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:27 PM
    Location
    Snake Mountain
    Posts
    57,952
    Status
    Online
    Thanks
    3,362
    Thanked 6,204 Times in 4,645 Posts


    Rep Power
    141
    Recycling really shouldn't be about a 5 or 10 cent deposit on a bottle or a can, but rather just because it's the fucking right thing to do. My parents were hardly hippies, not by a long shot, but I knew what recycling was all about by the time I was 7 years old. Aluminum cans, Tin cans, Glass, newspaper, my family recycled all that shit. Of course back then, they didn't pick it up at curbside like the garbage, you had to actually take it to a recycling center, so that left the lazy people with an excuse not to do it, and arguably even the apartment dwellers who didn't have room for the stuff. (we had all the shit in old 50 gallon drums out in the woodshed, so there was plenty of room)

    But now there's no excuse to not do it. No matter if you're lazy, a climate change denying teabagger, or whatever. The fucking trash man left a recycling bin outside your house. They made it simple enough for even Sarah Palin to understand.


  35. #27
    Perpetually Befuddled
    DIAMOND STATUS
    chefcraig's Avatar
    Member No
    3871
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    03-01-2017 @ 12:20 PM
    Location
    "A Confederacy Of Dunces"
    Posts
    12,172
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    2,724
    Thanked 4,052 Times in 2,583 Posts


    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Seshmeister View Post

    Anyway I don't think its likely at all that my house will burn down never mind highly probable but I still pay for an insurance policy for it.
    Try living in Florida. You insure your home against hurricane damage every year, but when one eventually does hit your area, the companies either:

    A. Refuse to pay
    B. Pay roughly one tenth of what you need to make the repairs
    C. Pay what they owe you, but drag their feet while doing so.
    D. Declare bankruptcy and flee the state.

    The insurance industry and our state's ineptitude in handling it is one of the top reasons for leaving. Another of course is rampant stupidity. Oh yeah, and hurricanes.

  36. #28
    ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

    Seshmeister's Avatar
    Member No
    11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:27 PM
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    34,432
    Status
    Online
    Thanks
    2,712
    Thanked 9,063 Times in 5,840 Posts


    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by binnie View Post
    It's amazing what we do out of anxiety, isn't it?

    It's to do with risk management. If my house burns down I'm completely fucked. Although that's say a 1 in 10 000 risk it's too devastating to take even a very small chance on it so it's worth paying a couple of hundred a year to remove that financial risk.

    To get close to solving or greatly alleviating the risk of climate change is 2% of GDP, a fair amount but nothing compared to the cost of half the planet being a desert.

  37. #29
    The Menace Is Loose Again
    TOASTMASTER GENERAL
    sadaist's Avatar
    Member No
    6381
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Last Online
    04-08-2015 @ 12:58 AM
    Location
    So CA
    Age
    51
    Posts
    11,625
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1,789
    Thanked 2,934 Times in 1,875 Posts


    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by jhale667 View Post
    Uh, it says you live in SoCal ...isn't there a recycling station at pretty much every store in the Ralph's supermarket chain? There's one right down the street from me...not that I buy cans of soda, but...

    OK, as a Republican though, do you agree it's RETARDED for your party to be even thinking about dismantling the EPA (you said you want to protect the environment, right?), much less saying it out loud?? :eek: That's some powerful stupid, right there.


    I'm in Murrieta (next to Temecula). One station at the Ralphs & one at an Albertsons the next exit up the freeway. Used to be 2 others but they shut down. I can go 10 minutes up the freeway to Sun City to get to another, but damn. They really need to make it easier.

    As far as the EPA, I honestly don't know. We need something that does what the EPA is supposed to be doing. But all of these current bureaucracies are over-sized, wasteful, and get very little accomplished. You'd think we could have a government bureau just once that was streamlined & efficient and did what it was originally intended to do.

  38. #30
    The Menace Is Loose Again
    TOASTMASTER GENERAL
    sadaist's Avatar
    Member No
    6381
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Last Online
    04-08-2015 @ 12:58 AM
    Location
    So CA
    Age
    51
    Posts
    11,625
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1,789
    Thanked 2,934 Times in 1,875 Posts


    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by chefcraig View Post
    Try living in Florida. You insure your home against hurricane damage every year, but when one eventually does hit your area, the companies either:

    A. Refuse to pay
    B. Pay roughly one tenth of what you need to make the repairs
    C. Pay what they owe you, but drag their feet while doing so.
    D. Declare bankruptcy and flee the state.

    The insurance industry and our state's ineptitude in handling it is one of the top reasons for leaving. Another of course is rampant stupidity. Oh yeah, and hurricanes.

    I work in the insurance industry, and my advice to all of you....

    Don't just get any policy just because their commercial promises they can beat the other guys by 15% or whatever. Go with a name we all know & trust. There are a handful of great insurance companies that have been around a very long time because they are honest & take great care of their customers. You know which names I mean.

    And when they don't pay or don't pay as much as people thought, typically there is a valid reason for it. Always check your coverages and especially replacement cost vs actual cash value. Thats where most get screwed. Example....a 8 year old bed is worth $75 at the thrift store. If you are insured at actual cash value, that's what you will be reimbursed for. If you are insured for replacement cost, now you get the $1000 it takes to actually go out & buy a new bed. Same goes for everything else. TV's, stereos, kitchen stuff, clothing, everything. So just educate yourself a little bit on the different options and cover your asses.

    Not saying there aren't a lot of insurance crooks out there. Just saying be careful and you should be fine.

  39. Thanked sadaist for this KICKASS post:

    jhale667 (06-24-2011)


  40. #31
    The Menace Is Loose Again
    TOASTMASTER GENERAL
    sadaist's Avatar
    Member No
    6381
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Last Online
    04-08-2015 @ 12:58 AM
    Location
    So CA
    Age
    51
    Posts
    11,625
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1,789
    Thanked 2,934 Times in 1,875 Posts


    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Seshmeister View Post
    Why not?

    What other things don't you believe in that science says is fact?


    Shutup.




  41. #32
    ROTH ARMY ELITE
    ThrillsNSpills's Avatar
    Member No
    168
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    04-12-2014 @ 11:20 AM
    Location
    NE
    Posts
    6,626
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    448
    Thanked 1,202 Times in 757 Posts


    Rep Power
    39
    Right.

    Science has never falsified data due to payoffs.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  42. #33
    ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

    Seshmeister's Avatar
    Member No
    11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:27 PM
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    34,432
    Status
    Online
    Thanks
    2,712
    Thanked 9,063 Times in 5,840 Posts


    Rep Power
    10
    Name an example where a whole branch of science has 'falsified data' because that's what your conspiracy would need.

    This climate change denial in the US is the equivalent of pretending that all the doctors in the world have got together and invented an imaginary disease called AIDS in order to get money for treating it.

    If you don't 'believe' in science maybe you shouldn't be using a computer on the internet since they obviously don't exist either.

  43. #34
    Candy Girl
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Seshmeister View Post
    Name an example where a whole branch of science has 'falsified data' because that's what your conspiracy would need.
    Quote Originally Posted by Seshmeister View Post

    This climate change denial in the US is the equivalent of pretending that all the doctors in the world have got together and invented an imaginary disease called AIDS in order to get money for treating it.
    So now it would be your turn for naming an example of that quote, yes?
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  44. Thanked Candy Girl for this KICKASS post:

    Dan (06-23-2011)


  45. #35
    ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

    Seshmeister's Avatar
    Member No
    11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:27 PM
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    34,432
    Status
    Online
    Thanks
    2,712
    Thanked 9,063 Times in 5,840 Posts


    Rep Power
    10
    I don't understand the confusion here.

    I guess it would have been even clearer if I had said 'This climate change denial in the US would be like pretending...'

    Anyway I'm getting dragged in again arguing this when I don't care enough either way about your children being in a desert after I'm dead.

    This brainwash of about half of the otherwise seemingly sensible population of America is quite odd and interesting though.

    It really makes me fear for your future in the USA for a number of reasons. Without science the US is fucked and it seems about 50% of Americans don't know enough about science to know how little they know.

    Here's a thought, in the middle ages in the middle East the Arabs were a way ahead of us technologically. This went on for hundreds of years so how did we end up more advanced?

    Free markets, embracing the scientific method and not having religions in the workplace is what made the West overtake them and allows you to post here or anywhere else.

    Do the people who have decided not to believe in climate change have any evidence at all or is it just a superstition thing?
    Last edited by Seshmeister; 06-23-2011 at 11:06 PM.

  46. #36
    Cunning Linguist
    DIAMOND STATUS
    jhale667's Avatar
    Member No
    7379
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    04-07-2016 @ 01:20 AM
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    20,929
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    8,152
    Thanked 4,109 Times in 2,873 Posts


    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Seshmeister View Post
    Do the people who have decided not to believe in climate change have any evidence at all or is it just a superstition thing?
    I had a (yet another, fucking tiring) debate with a friend tonight when the subject came up, and all he could point to is the single publicized case of evidence-tampering, against the otherwise Mt. Kilimanjaro of non-tampered-with evidence STILL supporting the theory...mind-boggling, I tell ya.

  47. #37
    Internetmaimment*TM
    Crazy Ass Mofo
    SunisinuS's Avatar
    Member No
    25313
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    02-12-2017 @ 06:39 PM
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,302
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    2,458
    Thanked 638 Times in 487 Posts


    Blog Entries
    10
    Rep Power
    23
    Just sit your Republican Friend down and ask them an old saying: Don't Shit in your own Nest. Does that resonate with them? So, ask them to put their kids in a gymnasium and allow me to put a car's tailpipe shunted into the closed gymnasium. See the closed system? So apparently....Republicans LIKE to shit in their own nest.
    Last edited by SunisinuS; 06-24-2011 at 02:07 AM. Reason: Sorry. I don't.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  48. #38
    ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

    Seshmeister's Avatar
    Member No
    11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:27 PM
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    34,432
    Status
    Online
    Thanks
    2,712
    Thanked 9,063 Times in 5,840 Posts


    Rep Power
    10
    And on their secret boyfriends chest...

  49. #39
    Candy Girl
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Seshmeister View Post
    I don't understand the confusion here.

    I guess it would have been even clearer if I had said 'This climate change denial in the US would be like pretending...'

    Anyway I'm getting dragged in again arguing this when I don't care enough either way about your children being in a desert after I'm dead.

    This brainwash of about half of the otherwise seemingly sensible population of America is quite odd and interesting though.

    It really makes me fear for your future in the USA for a number of reasons. Without science the US is fucked and it seems about 50% of Americans don't know enough about science to know how little they know.

    Here's a thought, in the middle ages in the middle East the Arabs were a way ahead of us technologically. This went on for hundreds of years so how did we end up more advanced?

    Free markets, embracing the scientific method and not having religions in the workplace is what made the West overtake them and allows you to post here or anywhere else.

    Do the people who have decided not to believe in climate change have any evidence at all or is it just a superstition thing?
    I actually do believe in science and there is something to the climate change, whether natural or not. All I am trying to show you is that you are coming across like a pompus ass and therefore people are going to tune you out whether or not you have a valid point.

  50. #40
    ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

    Seshmeister's Avatar
    Member No
    11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:27 PM
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    34,432
    Status
    Online
    Thanks
    2,712
    Thanked 9,063 Times in 5,840 Posts


    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Girl View Post
    I actually do believe in science and there is something to the climate change, whether natural or not. All I am trying to show you is that you are coming across like a pompus ass and therefore people are going to tune you out whether or not you have a valid point.

    That's not how you spell pompous you silly little woman.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Climate Denial Crock of the Week
    By Seshmeister in forum The Front Line
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 10-08-2009, 01:47 PM
  2. Former/Future President Gore WINS Nobel
    By LoungeMachine in forum The Front Line
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 10-13-2007, 05:50 PM
  3. 4 reasons al gore should not ever be president
    By ace diamond in forum The Front Line
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 07:37 PM
  4. Al Gore Needs to be President
    By Baby's On Fire in forum The Front Line
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 05-24-2007, 09:26 PM
  5. Gore: I Don't Plan to Run for President
    By ELVIS in forum The Front Line
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 10-14-2005, 08:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •