m.b. wrote:yeah, only problem with that argument is the little inconvenient fact the statement "in the face of 98% of the scientific community involved in the fields related to the environment behind the evidence showing significant impact by man and industrialization" is false. it's hardly 98%.
I don't think that's the problem, in fact I think it's nearly irrelevant. Realistically, there is a majority of the scientific community- those working in the fields related to environmental science- who are in the camp of climate change. The 98% was my imperfect memory of a remark made by a behavioral scientist who was interested in the behavior related to it, not the #. I do often see people arguing against the idea often grab a number like that to refute the argument. I don't think it matters whether it's 98, 78 or 58. Enough believe it that I think it bears consideration and funding.
m.b. wrote:it's an agenda designed for a power grab that is bought-into and endorsed whole-heartedly by the gullible and those who favor big-government and big-government control of the private sector.
I disagree with you, but I don't see us convincing one another. I do think there are plenty of opportunist fucks looking to influence governmental policy for their own benefit- seen by the actions of the last several admins (starting with Reagan) loosening control of the banking/credit/investment/insurance industries and the hosing we've all taken as a result. From what I have read, the whole corn-'based ethanol program is much the same- not a good energy program, but money in the pockets of a lot of well funded special interests
m.b. wrote: having said that, those who bought into it love to scream that those who don't agree with the agenda are not for conservation and alternative energy. that is hardly the case, it's just that trying to switch to alt. energy and away from oil before the alt. energy technologies are viable is a fast-track to losing our placed as the dominant superpower in the world. creating legislation to tax and control it is an even faster track. believe me, i'd love to be able to tell every camel jockey in the middle-east to fuck off/we don't need their oil and they aren't getting another dime from us, but unfortunately that isn't going to happen till new tech. is viable and can support our economy like oil can.
A agree with you on the screaming aspect of the protests- although I think protest is fair and valid. I also think the screaming and contemptuous tone of some of the commentators on the right are of the same value (none), and it is not unusual to have someone get really heated about their position, and upon 2 minutes of engagement, you find out they have no idea what they are talking about. Both sides.
I also agree that we are no where near done with oil, but I'd love to see coal reduced then eliminated. I realize nuclear may be the best short term alternative, but I have severe misgivings about the long term impact (storage dumped on the next several generations). A hot button issue in the PNW are the dams, particularly those on the Columbia. Studies (granted studies are not reality), have shown there is enough alternative energy available or soon could be to replace the energy generated there, but it would probably increase expense to a minimal degree. I personally think the argument against should be tossed, as I think the bigger issue is that our country - and possibly the world- need the salmon stocks of the PNW restored for food, way more than we need to save a few dollars on a power bill. But entrenched industrial/political interests won't allow that to happen anytime soon, and possibly not in time to save the salmon, and possibly ourselves. Yes, I do think we are fully capable of fucking up the place so much we make it in hospitable to most or all. And I think all these issues are interrelated and need to be weighed and evaluated that way- something our government should be able to do if it served us, the population, and not the business interests that would win/lose with various options.
I do think we are on our way to losing our place as the dominant superpower in the world, which is one reason I think we are on a better path with foreign policy. I wish we had taken a more diplomatic approach to the middle east over the last 60 years, rather than the more WWF approach I think we did. I also think it is interesting how rarely it is pointed out the same players with close ties to the oil industry, have been involved in shaping those policies over so many years.
At any rate, we may never agree, but if things could be kept civil, I think there are potential long term solutions. I have three kids, and a good share of my concerns are for the country and world we leave them with.
I thought for years I was a liberal, til I met some real liberals. Then visiting with a brother in law who is more conservative than most I've ever met, we were both surprised on how much we agree on. The only label I claim is independent.
It's funny MB, my guess is if we met and fished, we'd probably have fun. If it ever happens, we probably need to keep politics out of the day.
It's lime the battles between sperm whales and giant squid half a mile below the surface of the ocean. Only it happens in the palm I your hand.- thndr
when I fall, I am still cold and wet, but much more stylishly dressed. as my hat disappears in the riffle- flybug.pa
"Sugar? No thank you Turkish, I'm sweet enough."