|
HunterCA -> RE: I know Global Warming Again (6/13/2015 2:07:17 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:
ORIGINAL: HunterCA
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:
I don't buy into all of the hype surrounding man-made global warming.
I really wish people would buy less into the far more massive hype surrounding the denial of global warming.
First off, Peon, a little semantics. The leftist Green Movement abandoned "Global Warming" some years ago. So, that's a dinosaur you're beating. It's now "Climate Change". Nobody I know denies the climate changes. It's done that for ever and will continue to do so. The thing about that is, we fucking haven't a clue about what drives it. So the entire idea that man is now driving it and we have to make power so expensive the industrial nations have to become third world in nature and transfer untold wealth to current third world countries, to make things "equal" for them is what we are discussing.
Frankly, I'm willing to have that discussion if its an honest one. But, currently it's not. I will resist massive economic wealth transfer in the name of something we don't understand until there is an honest discussion, and/or we actually understand the science.
Firstly, it isn't a 'leftist' movement. This is poppycock. Modern environmentalism started, in the late 1960s, as a movement that implied authoritarian, basically right wing solutions that flew in the face of libertarianism and progressivism. Secondly, 'global warming' is in fact still a current phrase amongst environmentalists. It's not been done away with in favour of the phrase 'climate change' just in order to be 'politically correct', as I suspect you believe. It's just been taken up because it's a more accurate phrase. Secondly, yes, we do indeed have more than a clue about what's driving it. The vast majority of climatologists agree that anthroprogenic global warming is creating the danger factor. Only a few extremists - on the *very* far right deny this.
So, let's have a discussion, by all means. But before we do this, you'll have to accept that the 'denying' position is an *extreme* position. It is *not* a 'moderately conservative', eschew-the-trendy-ideology, 'let's be balanced between two equal scientific positions' view. Amongst all first world countries, only in the USA has the deniers' propaganda been so highly-financed, loud and downright bellicose that AGW-denying has come to be seen as 'moderately conservative'. Having accepted that, you'll understand why I could only have the briefest of patience with your views which, as I have said, are those of an *extremist*. Because, of course, it does not matter that they're considered just 'moderately conservative' in your country: in the context of the world as a whole they're loopily right wing.
So, all that said, Hunter, go ahead and defend your extremist position, by all means - but, in so doing, and re your demand for 'honesty' in this discussion, you'll have to, in the process, make it clear that you're *at the very least* able to accept that that your view is, in fact, an extreme one. Because, if you can't even do that, then I'll have no choice but to assume that you're so stuffed full of rightist propaganda of a peculiarly American flavour that's there's no point in talking to you.
I hope we're clear on the ground rules here. [:)]
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/earthdays/
June 30, 1948: The Postwar Period
quote:
The first piece of legislation to lay down federal regulation of water quality, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, is passed by Congress. This act, known as the FWPCA , will go through amendments in 1956, 1965, and 1972 to broaden the government’s authority in water pollution control.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal
quote:
New Deal as an enemy of business and growth, and liberals accepting some of it and promising to make it more efficient. The realignment crystallized into the New Deal Coalition that dominated most presidential elections into the 1960s, while the opposition Conservative Coalition largely controlled Congress from 1937 to 1963. By 1936 the term "liberal" typically was used for supporters of the New Deal, and
quote:
Public Domain
A worker sprays DDT to kill mosquitoes.
September 1949
Paul Ehrlich (future author of The Population Bomb) enters the University of Pennsylvania and studies zoology. He notes the disappearance of butterflies in New Jersey, which he attributes to the spraying of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) during the building of subdivisions. The shrinking population of butterflies leads Ehrlich to think about potential similar repercussions in the human population.
quote:
February 1953: A Growing Public Awareness
The Silent World by Jacques Cousteau introduces the world to underwater adventure, and ushers in a new global interest in oceanic life. In 1956, Cousteau’s documentary film of the same title will win the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature.
quote:
July 14, 1955
The Air Pollution Control Act passes Congress, becoming the first piece of legislation to address air pollution. Despite its declaration to combat air contamination, the act puts regulation largely in the hands of individual states and gives no means of enforcement to the federal government.
As an aside, Eisenhower is now president and you see the act was not authoritarian because it gave the Federal Government no power and allowed the States all of the power.
quote:
Getty Images
Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring.
June 1962: "Silent Spring"
Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring is published. Acclaimed as the catalyst of the modern environmental movement, Silent Springcondemns the overuse of pesticides. Between 1950-1962 the amount of DDT found in human tissue had tripled.
After the chemical industry denounces Carson’s book as a “gross distortion of actual facts,” President John F. Kennedy charges his Science Advisory Committee to review the book’s claims. The Committee reports that the conclusions in Silent Spring are generally correct, and by 1972 DDT will be banned in the U.S.
Where is that authoritarianism Peon?
|
|
|
|
