There was no argument to be made. Simply stating a fact.

10/23/2007 12:41:57 AM

Actually, saving energy and incorporating 'green' energy into energy use saves money. You know why? Because shit like solar is free and you have to pay an energy bill every month. Dumbasses. If you use a lightbulb that uses less energy... you use less energy and don't pay as much money. That shit is true. Don't try to discredit the fact that many environmentally friendly practices actually cost less money just because Erios blew his load all over your face. I don't know if you realized it. But oil has been hitting record highs for about 5 out of the past 7 trading days. When oil hits $120 a barrel, alternative energy becomes an economical player. And alternative energy keeps getting cheaper and cheaper while oil gets more expensive.

10/23/2007 1:17:24 AM

Quote :

"^^ LOL! PWNT! GG, mathman."

10/23/2007 1:21:07 AM

^ Ooo. . .suspend.

10/23/2007 1:23:00 AM

clearly tsb is cordial and well structured when i dont post

10/23/2007 1:23:14 AM

Quote :

"Because shit like solar is free and you have to pay an energy bill every month."

While I am sympathetic to your motives I can already tell you what the other side is going to rebut with. They will say that it take 10x (or more) energy to create a solar panel than it will ever produce in its lifetime. It is exceedingly difficult to get through to those whom see the would only in terms of dollar signs and are blinded by their own greed. Much like they will have an insurmountable task of persuading me that the earth was meant purely for harvesting by humans to fulfill their own egotistical desires.

10/23/2007 1:39:25 AM

I am subscribed to a few technology and stock feeds. Solar is getting TONS of invest at the moment, AND not so surprisingly getting big breakthroughs in efficiency and as economies of scale begin to work, it is going to get cheaper and cheaper to make the panel.

10/23/2007 7:53:14 AM

Quote :

"^^ LOL! PWNT! GG, mathman."

Might have been, except the only thing mathman said in response to my post was:

Quote :

"problem is by in large what passes for your 1-4 is either not physically practical or is not cheap."

Kudos for summarily dismissing my suggestions without elaborating on WHY. I guess I'll do it for you:

1) Make progress on renewable energy - Not a new concept. Solar energy is not at all likely to replace mainstream energy sources like coal, oil, or nuclear power. It DOES however have great potential in "niche" markets. Use them on street lights. They can recharge during the day and be on during the night. Use them on roofs. Let people partially power their houses to reduce consumption. In short, use them for small scale energy needs that, when added together, make a very big difference.

2) Reducing emissions - No, it's not cheap. However, the technology does exist to significantly reduce emissions. Why isn't it being implemented? Because the effects of air pollution don't have direct costs associated with them. Paying more for cleaner air makes sense to the people near the smoke stacks. They're the ones that are truly "paying" for the energy industry's "savings."

3) Improving efficiency - I don't know how anyone in principle is against this. Improving efficiency is the hallmark of good business. It also reduces energy consumption. Too bad the Bush Administration elected instead to just build more dirty, inefficient coal-fired plants. Yeah, that makes sense

4) Reducing consumption - Conservatives always get their panties in a wad over this. Reducing consumption =/= legislating how much you can use. Reducing consumption DOES mean reducing lost/wasted value. Give incentives and credits to companies that replace, fix, and improve upon energy systems. 80% of the energy we generate is lost due to the limits of current technology in transporting it to our homes, businesses, etc. Making a dent on that figure could have a HUGE impact on energy consumption.


And the next time you whine about these measures being "impractical and expensive," consider the state of our energy demand and supply, and remind me again why we've been meddling in the Middle East for the past 60 years. Remind me why OPEC has so much power over our economy. Remind me we can't leave those "Islamofacists" to themselves.

Oh yeah, we need their oil. Maybe those options aren't so "impractical and expensive" after all.


Now THAT is a PWNT job, bitch

[/crayon writing]



[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 2:01 PM. Reason : bitch = hooksaw]

10/23/2007 1:58:55 PM

Quote :

"I am subscribed to a few technology and stock feeds. Solar is getting TONS of invest at the moment, AND not so surprisingly getting big breakthroughs in efficiency and as economies of scale begin to work, it is going to get cheaper and cheaper to make the panel."

LOL, welcome to 1975.

The solar industry has been saying the same shit for more than 30 years now.

10/23/2007 2:02:57 PM

^^ STFU.

10/23/2007 5:42:16 PM

^^ Care to back any of that up.

I'm just telling you what I see. The solar industry hasn't been "saying" anything. Industry blogs are reporting on the investments. I've been subscribed to these blogs for going on 2 years now, and it has been in the last few months that I am seeing TONS of activity regarding both efficiency improvements and investors apparently very interested in solar companies now.

10/23/2007 5:59:54 PM

WASHINGTON - The White House severely edited congressional testimony given Tuesday by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the impact of climate change on health, removing specific scientific references to potential health risks, according to two sources familiar with the documents.

Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Atlanta-based CDC, the government's premier disease monitoring agency, told a Senate hearing that climate change "is anticipated to have a broad range of impacts on the health of Americans."But her prepared testimony was devoted entirely to the CDC's preparation, with few details on what effects climate change could have on the spread of disease. Only during questioning did she describe some specific diseases that likely would be affected, again without elaboration.

Her testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee had much less information on health risks than a much longer draft version Gerberding submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review in advance of her appearance."It was eviscerated," said a CDC official, familiar with both versions, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the review process.

The official said that while it is customary for testimony to be changed in a White House review, these changes were particularly "heavy-handed," with the document cut from its original 14 pages to four. It was six pages as presented to the Senate committee.

The OMB had no comment on Gerberding's testimony.

"We generally don't speculate and comment on anything until it is the final product," said OMB spokesman Sean Kevelighan. He added that OMB reviews take into consideration "whether they ... line up well with the national priorities of the administration."The CDC is part of the Department of Health and Human Services and its congressional testimony, as is normal with all agencies, is routinely reviewed by OMB.

But Gerberding, who could not be reached late Tuesday for comment, was said to have been surprised by the extensive changes. Copies of the original testimony already had been sent to a number of associated health groups representing states, county and city health agencies that the CDC routinely coordinates with, a CDC official said.

CDC spokesman Tom Skinner sought to play down the White House changes. He called Gerberding's appearance before the Senate panel "very productive" and said she addressed the issues she wanted during her remarks and when questioned by the senators.

"What needed to be said as far we're concerned was said," said Skinner in a telephone interview from Atlanta. "She certainly communicated with the committee everything she felt was critical to help them appreciate and understand all the issues surrounding climate change and its potential impact on public health."

The deletions directed by the White House included details on how many people might be adversely affected because of increased warming and the scientific basis for some of the CDC's analysis on what kinds of diseases might be spread in a warmer climate and rising sea levels, according to one official who has seen the original version.

Gerberding seems to have tried to address some of those issues during questioning from senators.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the committee's chairman, produced a CDC chart listing the broad range of health problems that could emerge from a significant temperature increase and sea level rise

They include fatalities from heat stress and heart failure, increased injuries and deaths from severe weather such as hurricanes; more respiratory problems from drought-driven air pollution; an increase in waterborne diseases including cholera, and increases vector-borne diseases including malaria and hantavirus; and mental health problems such as depression and post-traumatic stress.

"These are the potential things you can expect," replied Gerberding when asked about the items listed. "... In some of these areas its not a question of if, it's a question of who, what, how and when."

Peter Rafle, a spokesman for Boxer, said the senator knew nothing about changes that might have been made to Gerberding's testimony by the White House.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071023/ap_on_re_us/global_warming_health

10/23/2007 10:24:06 PM

^ if you don't love bush you're not american

10/24/2007 12:00:53 AM

Quote :

"Erios 1) Make progress on renewable energy - Not a new concept. Solar energy is not at all likely to replace mainstream energy sources like coal, oil, or nuclear power. It DOES however have great potential in "niche" markets. Use them on street lights. They can recharge during the day and be on during the night. Use them on roofs. Let people partially power their houses to reduce consumption. In short, use them for small scale energy needs that, when added together, make a very big difference. "

Sure, I've no problem with this so long as the solar power industry pulls its own weight. If it was actually cheaper and reasonably convenient to use solar power I'd say sign me up. I don't see it, I mean the solar water heaters have been around since I was a kid, they must not be that good otherwise more people would use them. Just an example, but I think it is wishful thinking to say that solar power can do anything but address a small fraction of the overall energy need. Obviously if it were otherwise then Progress energy and their ilk would be out of business tomorrow.

Quote :

"Erios 2) Reducing emissions - No, it's not cheap. However, the technology does exist to significantly reduce emissions. Why isn't it being implemented? Because the effects of air pollution don't have direct costs associated with them. Paying more for cleaner air makes sense to the people near the smoke stacks. They're the ones that are truly "paying" for the energy industry's "savings." "

As I mentioned in my last post Nuclear power is the way to go. However, you should be careful not to slander the coal fired plants in this country verses say China, from what I understand they are generally much dirtier old-fashioned plants. Here we have already put expensive scrubbers on the plants. You of course want even more expensive scrubbers, well fine, whatever. This is all stupid, we should go nuclear it is the cleanest. period.

Quote :

"Erios 3) Improving efficiency - I don't know how anyone in principle is against this. Improving efficiency is the hallmark of good business. It also reduces energy consumption. Too bad the Bush Administration elected instead to just build more dirty, inefficient coal-fired plants. Yeah, that makes sense "

Wait? Are you arguing that the plants with extra new super expensive scrubbers are more energy efficient? I doubt this, it seems to me that the physical consequence of more polution controls is likely to require us to burn more coal to get the same energy output. Take a car for example, I'm pretty sure if you take all the filtering stuff like catalytic converters and mufflers off then you could get more horsepower for the same gas. Granted you spew more garbage into the air, but pollution control and efficiency are not tied together. They are separate goals.

I'm not against improving efficiency. I'm against the government over regulating it. I'm against
the government mandating their own idea of "efficiency" on the private sector. There is no need for the reasons you mentioned, efficiency is in the interest of good business.

What is really too bad is that NIMBY folks across America have stood in the way of nuclear power for as long as I can remember and Democrats and some republicans have stood in the way of easing these obstacles as well (Yucca Mountain for example). A single nuclear plant could do more in the way of real environmental progress than all your solar panels combined. It's just a matter of physics and scale, nuclear power is fantastically more abundant in its energy product then any of your "renewable sources". You know you still have to replace the solar panels and batteries to go with them etc... there is a lot of hidden environmental cost in such.

Quote :

"Erios 4) Reducing consumption - Conservatives always get their panties in a wad over this. Reducing consumption =/= legislating how much you can use. Reducing consumption DOES mean reducing lost/wasted value. Give incentives and credits to companies that replace, fix, and improve upon energy systems. 80% of the energy we generate is lost due to the limits of current technology in transporting it to our homes, businesses, etc. Making a dent on that figure could have a HUGE impact on energy consumption. "

Are you talking about losses in the power lines, in the transmission system? Or are you talking about the technologies used in homes and factories? I can't tell. Perhaps you mean both.
Again, there is no need to do this, energy costs $. The businesses will change to the new technology w/o government eco-welfare.

Quote :

"Erios And the next time you whine about these measures being "impractical and expensive," consider the state of our energy demand and supply, and remind me again why we've been meddling in the Middle East for the past 60 years. Remind me why OPEC has so much power over our economy. Remind me we can't leave those "Islamofacists" to themselves. Oh yeah, we need their oil. Maybe those options aren't so "impractical and expensive" after all. "

If congress would let us drill for the oil that we already have off shore and in Alaska we could be merrily isolationist for what, 50 years even on current methods of extraction? The real obstacle is the NIMBY crowd. And again our energy problems could be greatly eased if we actually used nuclear power as the main staple of our electricity. You folks want electric cars but you don't want to do what is needed to fix the shortfall of our current power grid.

[Edited on October 24, 2007 at 12:07 AM. Reason : .]

10/24/2007 12:06:05 AM

Harry Reid blames California fires on global warming--then cuts and runs.

Quote :

"'One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming,' Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday, stressing the need to pass the Democrats' comprehensive energy package. Moments later, when asked by a reporter if he really believed global warming caused the fires, he appeared to back away from his comments, saying there are many factors that contributed to the disaster."

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/wildfires-get-personal-for-lawmakers-2007-10-24.html

Un-fucking-believable.

[Edited on October 25, 2007 at 2:22 AM. Reason : .]

10/25/2007 2:22:09 AM

That's more desirable than dogmatically sticking to a belief, until it's too late, like a certain sitting president.

10/25/2007 2:26:40 AM

^ So, do you agree with Reid--yes or no?

10/25/2007 2:28:05 AM

Do I agree that many factors contributed to the fire? Yes.

10/25/2007 2:28:28 AM

ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT GLOBAL WARMING

10/25/2007 2:38:51 AM

^^ Yeah, you sound like a Reid devotee.

Quote :

"Reid's attempted denial flowed from his quick realization that he had embarrassed himself. But instead of admitting he committed a gaffe, he made himself look sillier by protesting moments later that 'I didn't say the reason the fires were burning in Southern California was global warming,' which is exactly what he did say."

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=278119564469549

Jesus.

10/25/2007 2:42:17 AM

Haha, how does that make me sound like a devotee?

You have no idea what my opinion of Reid is. AFAIK, i've never even hinted at one.

In that little quote there, Reid sounds a lot like Bush though.

[Edited on October 25, 2007 at 2:51 AM. Reason : ]

10/25/2007 2:51:35 AM

Quote :

"Just an example, but I think it is wishful thinking to say that solar power can do anything but address a small fraction of the overall energy need."

Agreed, especially in the short-term. Long-term there's always hope. It's like rooting for the Pack in football this year. Hoping for a win, but definitely not betting the farm on it.

Quote :

"you should be careful not to slander the coal fired plants in this country verses say China, from what I understand they are generally much dirtier old-fashioned plants. Here we have already put expensive scrubbers on the plants. You of course want even more expensive scrubbers, well fine, whatever. "

First, saying we have cleaner coal plants than China is like saying NC State is better in football than NCCU.

Quote :

"Here we have already put expensive scrubbers on the plants."

That's a big fat negative Houston. It's true that current regulations have high pollution standards, but it wasn't until recently that major grandfather loopholes were shut to force current coal-fired plants from evading those standards:

http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/nsr.asp

Quote :

"Avoidance and Enforcement In an effort to limit the abuse of the "grandfathering" loophole and protect Americans from vast increases in pollution, Congress created a key provision in the Clean Air Act known as "New Source Review" (NSR).... NSR is triggered only when plants expand capacity or significantly modify their facilities. Engaging in routine maintenance does not trigger this provision. In an attempt to illegally bypass NSR requirements, many plants have claimed that they are engaging in routine maintenance when in fact they are making significant modifications or expanding capacity. These changes result in pollution that would have otherwise been avoided. In the 1990s, EPA realized that although coal consumption at power plants had significantly increased since the late 70s, virtually no power plants had applied for permits under new source review.2 [They] discovered that 70% of coal fired power plants across the nation were in violation of the NSR standards. These power plants have, without exception, made modifications that were anything but "routine."6 The modifications were often the largest capital projects ever undertaken at the plants. These projects involved years of planning and usually enabled the plants to operate more hours and produce more electricity. Without this so-called "routine maintenance" many of the power plants would have been retired. In 2001, the Clean Air Task Force estimated that 51 plants targeted for NSR violations at that time would shorten the lives of as many as 9,000 people and cause as many as 170,000 asthma attacks each year.9 In the report, the group argued that installing the modern pollution control technology required by NSR would avoid between 4,300 and 7,000 of these deaths and up to 120,000 asthma attacks... Located in Tennessee and North Carolina, where several power plants have been investigated for NSR violations, Great Smoky Mountains National Park provides an alarming example of environmental threats from air pollution. In 1999, this park recorded 52 days where air pollution levels were unhealthy and violated the federal health standard.14 As a result, the air in the park was unhealthy to breathe one out of every three summer days. The National Park Service considers the park the most at risk from air pollution, and has already observed many detrimental effects like reduced plant growth and leaf damage."

This is an excellent example how industry is NOT always self-regulating. As I said, pollution costs typically don't show up on a stat sheet. Industry saves money by not upgrading their facilities, but it's the public that pays the true costs via respiratory problems. I don't consider this fact to be "slander" to coal power plants. To be fair, I'm not playing the "evil industry card." I am saying that what is inexpensive is not always right. You can't ask the locals to accept more asthma attacks simply because it "costs more."

Quote :

"but pollution control and efficiency are not tied together. They are separate goals. "

You're kidding right?

Quote :

"Wait? Are you arguing that the plants with extra new super expensive scrubbers are more energy efficient? I doubt this"

Stick with your first impression.

Quote :

"I doubt this, it seems to me that the physical consequence of more polution controls is likely to require us to burn more coal to get the same energy output. "

You'd be wrong. I've yet to find a source arguring that scrubbers reduce energy efficiency. The main drawback with scrubbers relates to the waste they create.

Quote :

"I'm not against improving efficiency. I'm against the government over regulating it. I'm against the government mandating their own idea of "efficiency" on the private sector."

In principle, I agree. Government regulations work best when they promote practices that improve efficiency AND protect the general welfare of the public.

Quote :

"Are you talking about losses in the power lines, in the transmission system? Or are you talking about the technologies used in homes and factories? I can't tell. Perhaps you mean both."

I do.


And FTW!

Quote :

"If congress would let us drill for the oil that we already have off shore and in Alaska we could be merrily isolationist for what, 50 years even on current methods of extraction? "

Oh I knew that 50 year figure was bullshit, and I was right:

Quote :

"The U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels daily. If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil reserves were used to supply 5% of the U.S. daily consumption... the reserves, using the low figure of 4.3 billion barrels, would last approximately 4300 days, or almost 12 years. Using the high estimate, the reserves would last approximately 11800 days, or 32 years. If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was used to meet 100% of U.S. demand, it would last for 215 days under the low estimate, and 525 days or just 1.4 years if it contained 10.4 billion barrels. "

Look mathman, I see where you are coming from. I respect the time and diligence you spent responding to my post(s). I'm more than happy to continue this lively debate.

But 50 years? This is the biggest piece of bullshit I've seen in a while. Don't insinuate that NIMBY folk, Democrats, and radical environmentalists are responsible for our energy dependence on foreign oil.

Pwnt

10/25/2007 6:48:44 PM

Quote :

" LOL, welcome to 1975. The solar industry has been saying the same shit for more than 30 years now."

http://sst.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=ONART&PUBLICATION_ID=5&ARTICLE_ID=310294&C=BIZNW

Quote :

"October 25, 2007 - US-based wafer supplier MEMC Electronic Materials says it has signed a 10-year, $7-$8B deal to supply solar grade silicon wafers to Germany's Conergy, billed as the worlds' largest installer of photovoltaic systems. "

10 yrs, 8 billion isn't LOL, nor the same shit they've been saying since '75.

10/25/2007 10:39:23 PM

^^ I forgot to post the link to the wiki article regarding the oil reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy

Also, I failed to include the % of oil imported to the US:

Quote :

"In 2002, the U.S. imported 54 percent of its supply, and by 2025, the U.S. will need to import more than 70 percent at current demand projections. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Oil_watch/Oil_Dependence_Military.html"

By 2002 figures, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge reserves could supply 46% of our current demand for only 1130 days, or 3.1 years.

50 >> 3.1

10/26/2007 12:38:32 PM

Climate Change and the 'Politics of Fear'

Quote :

"Is the environmental movement, like the war on terror, premised on a 'politics of fear'? In other words, does it try to unify people by scaring them with threats to their basic survival? That was the provocative thesis advanced by Alex Gourevitch, a doctoral candidate in political theory at Columbia University, at a panel discussion on Tuesday evening at the New York Public Library. He was confronted by vigorous dissent from his fellow panelists and from some members of the audience. The panel discussion was organized by n+1, a political and literary journal published twice a year, begun in 2004. A. O. Scott, a film critic for The Times, wrote in 2005 that the journal 'is explicitly and without embarrassment devoted to the idea that thought can advance.'"

Quote :

"Mr. Gourevitch explained his thesis: 'Let’s say it: Environmentalism is a politics of fear. It is not a progressive politics. When I say it is a politics of fear, I don’t mean that it just deploys hysterical rhetoric or that it exaggerates threats, which I think it does. I mean it in a much deeper sense.' Mr. Gourevitch did not portray himself as a skeptic of climate change, but he argued, 'What the science cannot tell you is what our political and social response should be.' Science cannot determine whether humans should focus on mitigation or adaptation, he said. Mr. Gourevitch quoted Al Gore as describing the climate change not only as the most urgent issue of our time, but also as a unique opportunity for current generations to affect the course of history. Mr. Gourevitch summarized this approach as “the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict that so often stifle the human need for transcendence.” He added: 'Environmentalism is not just some politics. It’s a political project, a full-bodied ideology, and one that presents itself in terms of progress and aspiration. But when you look at what this ideology is built on, it’s built on the idea that a collective threat that makes security the basic principle of politics and makes the struggle for survival the basic and central aim of our social and political life. This, to me, is not a progressive politics at all.' Most provocatively, Mr. Gourevitch compared the environmental movement to the war on terror, which he said relies on a unity based on fear. He continued: 'What is it that moves us? It’s not actually ideals. We’re not stirred to action by ideals. We’re compelled by the force of circumstances. It’s the sheer spur of necessity that drives us forward. What’s more, this ostensible politics is really an antipolitics, because the idea is that we should put to one side the conflicts of interest and ideals that are the real cut and thrust of politics.'"

Quote :

"Mark Greif, a co-editor of n+1, who recently received his Ph.D. in American studies from Yale, spoke next. He said he agreed with Mr. Gourevitch that 'the politics of global warming produces the possibility of left-wing fantasies of a state of emergency in which we wouldn’t have to go through normal politics in order to get things done.' Mr. Greif said he had indulged in these same fantasies [emphasis added]."

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/climate-change-and-the-politics-of-fear/?hp

And such fantasies crystallize what the battle against the global warming fanatics is all about.

11/1/2007 12:29:22 PM

Oh wow, some authors talking about politics.

Another crushing blow to science provided by hooksaw

11/1/2007 12:35:13 PM

^ Another meaningless Boone-Tard post that doesn't address the issue. GG!

11/1/2007 12:39:04 PM

Quote :

"some authors talking about politics."

was the issue you brought up.

11/1/2007 1:28:55 PM

^ So, your position is that the politics of the global warming debate is irrelevant?

11/1/2007 2:22:19 PM

ARE PEOPLE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS SHIT??????????????

11/1/2007 2:27:18 PM

^ Obviously. Did you feel compelled to post here or what?

11/1/2007 2:31:30 PM

^ I just think it's ridiculous when 20 years ago, before global warming became a "political issue", 99% of scientists researching global warming would have agreed that it was a real thing. And now that there's government money backing half of them to find anything that will point towards the contrary, it's a giant issue. Regardless, when there's a democratic President and a democratic Legislature (in 2008), I'm sure we'll see a change in the government's stance.

11/1/2007 2:49:15 PM

Quote :

"So, your position is that the politics of the global warming debate is irrelevant?"

Your entire argument in regards to the fear mongering l3ft is moot if climate change is in fact a real issue.

Which is what scientists have been telling us for years.

11/1/2007 3:31:49 PM

^

Quote :

"if"

PS:

Quote :

"in regards to [sic]"

[Edited on November 1, 2007 at 3:39 PM. Reason : .]

11/1/2007 3:38:08 PM

Quote :

"Which is what scientists have been telling us for years."

ROLLY EYES LOLOLOL

I guess that went over your head, though.

I was taking the science behind climate change as a given, which would mootify your politicizing the issue.

[Edited on November 1, 2007 at 3:51 PM. Reason : .]

11/1/2007 3:48:51 PM

To an extent, I actually agree with hookssssssss... with hookssssssssss... with that dude I normally can't fucking stand

In fact, I think we've got another perfect example of this same phenomena:

Quote :

""Mark Greif, a co-editor of n+1, who recently received his Ph.D. in American studies from Yale, spoke next. He said he agreed with Mr. Gourevitch that 'the politics of global warming produces the possibility of left-wing fantasies of a state of emergency in which we wouldn’t have to go through normal politics in order to get things done.' "

1) Replace "global warming" with "terrorism"
2) Replace "left-wing" with "right-wing"

11/1/2007 4:41:56 PM

But omg they flew planes into our buildings and are blowing up eachother zomg!!!1 So now let me oversaturate this thread with pictures of the USS Cole and dead babies to show that turrisms is fo REALS! You hate America first moonbat communist tree hugging hippy nutjobs are trying to equate a warming climate to turrists trying to steal our white womens so you can destroy our economy with your 'save the rainforest' leftest agenda!!!1

11/1/2007 5:27:55 PM

^ Yes--now you have it.

11/1/2007 5:34:34 PM

There actually is a very strong similarity between 9/11 and climate change...

The lame arguments coming from the wingnuts who deny the facts about what actually happened/is happening.

11/1/2007 10:19:59 PM

^ Indeed, the similarities are striking. In each case the issue is either overblown or discounted entirely... to the detriment of course of the legitimate problems at hand

11/2/2007 11:04:04 AM

I remember when climate change killed 3,000+ American citizens...

11/2/2007 11:12:32 AM

Because that's what we were discussing.

Way to be on the ball!

11/2/2007 11:26:33 AM

that is whats been discussed over the last few posts

but i appreciate you jumping in with no other reason than to troll me...flattering as usual

also nice strawman

11/2/2007 11:29:09 AM

^^
1. TreeTwista10 didn't initiate the global warming-9/11 comparison.

2. Since the comparison had already been made, it was fair for him to point out the difference in lethality of the events at issue.



[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 11:32 AM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 11:31:34 AM

^ True, but that's why I said that "the similarities are striking."

Differences aside, both issues are exceptionally controversial, so the extremes get the bulk of the attention.

Global Warming - We are having an impact, but it's next to impossible to predict how much, and how bad the consequences are. In the short term we should focus on the better defined environmental issues with regards to energy. I think regulating the energy industry based solely on GW is a poor decision, b/c the justification can be debated ad naseum without a better understanding of how the climate works.

Terrorism - 3,000 people dead, national icons destroyed, getting hit on your own turf... 9/11 shook the nation in ways we've not previously known in our brief history. The resulting emotional tidal wave however has been used to justify things like torture, suspending habeous corpus, unsupervised wiretapping and spying, and an unjust war. The problem - "You're either with us or against us." Either you support the war or you hate the troops. Lost in the conversation is the legitimate concern that staying in Iraq may be a poor decision, but that terrorism is a real threat that we cannot ignore.

In both cases the extreme get the lionshare of the attention. The truth is muddled, and compromise becomes increasingly difficult. Both have seen a lack of progress for this exact reason.

11/2/2007 12:04:19 PM

We discussed how the politics were similar.

We discussed how the deniers were similar.

Never discussed how the causalities were similar, though.


Huh, it seems Sir Twistalot jumped in with an unrelated low blow.

how uncharacteristic

11/2/2007 12:08:37 PM

unrelated? you compare two things using multiple criteria...but when i compare THE SAME TWO THINGS with a different criterion its apparently not relevant...

i mean why should it be relevant that one of the things being compared has tangible, concrete casualties as a direct result and the other doesnt...clearly theres no place to point out something as straight forward and impossible to misconstrue as direct casualties

but i guess calling me Sir Twistalot is your way of changing the subject since its clear you have no legitimate response for my point that terrorism is much more deadly

11/2/2007 12:24:18 PM

Quote :

"I remember when climate change killed 3,000+ American citizens..."

Is not a comparison. It's a sarcastic response to a comparison that was never made.

11/2/2007 12:28:42 PM

clearly you wouldnt have had such a PMS fit if you didnt realize it WAS a comparison of the casualities of terrorism versus the lack of casualties of climate change

but since you are now choosing to change the subject to arguing the definition of 'comparison', its clear that you still have no legitimate response to my point

11/2/2007 12:32:45 PM

I don't need to change the subject.

Sure, let's ignore that it was just a sarcastic remark. Let's pretend that it was an actual comparison.

How was it at all relevant to the discussion of the politics of climate change?


90% of your posts are not only cheap shots, but really dumb cheap shots that are not at all clever. Then you call us elitists when we mock you.

11/2/2007 12:40:14 PM