Originally posted by normbenignI have already posed the ironic question, and now you're posing the same ironic question to me - why? I should be flattered I suppose.
A cow craps in central Wisconsin!!! This happens world wide a few hundred million times a day. What are right and left wing responses to cow crapping?
An iceberg twice the size of Manhattan breaking away from the Petermann Glacier in northern Greenland does not happen a few hundred million times a day, obviously. Is it cause for legitimate concern in any way to your way of thinking?
Originally posted by FMFSo what should be done about this FMF? Pass cap and trade worldwide? What exactly are the answers here and what are the concerns? Maybe they could tow it back in place and reattach it or something. Would that make you feel better?
I have already posed the ironic question, and now you're posing the same ironic question to me - why? I should be flattered I suppose.
An iceberg twice the size of Manhattan breaking away from the Petermann Glacier in northern Greenland does not happen a few hundred million times a day, obviously. Is it cause for legitimate concern in any way to your way of thinking?
Originally posted by FMFLet it melt and live your life the best you can. Oh yea, and send all your money and support to the demogogues in government who proport that they can save the world from the melting iceburgs. I forgot that bit.
That is the question the OP poses. Do you have any suggestions?
Originally posted by whodeyAccording to a BBC report this A.M N.A.S.A are calling the event 'unprecedented', apparently such an event has not occurred for 150yrs at least.
Let it melt and live your life the best you can. Oh yea, and send all your money and support to the demogogues in government who proport that they can save the world from the melting iceburgs. I forgot that bit.
The biggest concern seems to the seasonal loss of 100% of the surface ice thus exposing the permanent ice sheet to warming by the sun.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18901068.
Originally posted by whodeyWell there is a series of Right wing responses.
Let it melt and live your life the best you can. Oh yea, and send all your money and support to the demogogues in government who proport that they can save the world from the melting iceburgs. I forgot that bit.
1. Deny it is happening. Call it a left wing or secular humanist conspiracy. A variation on this is to quibble indefinitely about specifics.
2. Deny that it matters / trivialise it. This requires living in a time bubble - anything over the horizon does not exist. It also requires appeals to magical thinking, such as the idea that "we" can adapt to the changes as we have adapted in the past. Everything changes - everything will stay the same. Ignore the evidence that "we" probably cannot adapt and probably will be hit very hard indeed. Ignore the extent to which our lives still revolve around very fundamental facts of life, which we are led to believe are no longer real.
3. Deny that anything can be done about it. In particular, make it hard to reduce the factors causing climate change, since these are the very activities that are making their lives so comfortable. Any effort to tackle climate change can be branded a left wing conspiracy or secular humanist interference with ..
4. Deny the evidence that corporations and wealthy individuals actively promote false information because they have a direct financial interest in sustaining their environmentally unsustainable activities. Just acccept their propoganda and avoid thinking critically about just what a nightmare world those wealthy agencies are constructing on our backs.
5. Recoil in horror and existential dread at any discussion of collective responsibility and collective action, and at any infringement of the rights of the mighty nations to do whatever the hell they want without restraint. National interests must dominate every policy discussion with other nations.
6. As far as possible (and it is possible quite far for quite a long time) export the problems.
7. When you live in utopia, then clearly there can be no problems and no hardship - so the poor and the disadvantaged can be discarded. They do not exist.
Originally posted by finneganAnd the left wing response is to deny that there is any feasible alternative to the problem other than a massive consumption equalization plan.
Well there is a series of Right wing responses.
1. Deny it is happening. Call it a left wing or secular humanist conspiracy. A variation on this is to quibble indefinitely about specifics.
2. Deny that it matters / trivialise it. This requires living in a time bubble - anything over the horizon does not exist. It also requires appeals to magical t ...[text shortened]... ems and no hardship - so the poor and the disadvantaged can be discarded. They do not exist.
Originally posted by kevcvs57That's a bad link I think.
According to a BBC report this A.M N.A.S.A are calling the event 'unprecedented', apparently such an event has not occurred for 150yrs at least.
The biggest concern seems to the seasonal loss of 100% of the surface ice thus exposing the permanent ice sheet to warming by the sun.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18901068.
Anyway, here is the link to the actual NASA news release.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/jul/HQ_12-249_Greenland_Ice_Sheet_Melt.html
Here's what I love about it. In the title of the news release they say it's "unprecedented." And then they say this:
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.
Gee it's almost like there's a cycle to these things, and the use of the word unprecedented is like a lie or something.
Originally posted by sh76That counts under number 5 in my list.
And the left wing response is to deny that there is any feasible alternative to the problem other than a massive consumption equalization plan.
The Left would argue that climate change is a collective responsibiliity and calls for collective action, organised internationally and with regard to the science and the human costs, in opposition to special pleading and plain mischief from the wealthy nation states. What mechanisms might emerge to implement these ideas would be a matter for debate of course, and it is fine to question the validity of any specific proposal in terms of its efficacy and to offer alternatives. Ultimately, however, decisions have to be made (doing nothing is a decision of course, and its consequences can be demonstrated) and implemented. Now either there is or there is not a prospect of humanity demonstrating intelligence in the face of an existential threat, but it is not a purely rational matter and will call for trial and error along the way. If you insist that nothing be done until every possible objection is resolved and every interest (or every American interest) satisfied then then we revert to the default option - continue as at present. Politics is the art of the possible, not perfection.
Originally posted by finneganYou're using a one-dimensional caricature to represent your "right" and then representing the left with a nuanced discussion.
That counts under number 5 in my list.
The Left would argue that climate change is a collective responsibiliity and calls for collective action, organised internationally and with regard to the science and the human costs, in opposition to special pleading and plain mischief from the wealthy nation states. What mechanisms might emerge to implement these ...[text shortened]... e default option - continue as at present. Politics is the art of the possible, not perfection.
Let me play.
The right would argue that climate change indeed may be a significant challenge of our time and should drive us to collective research and debate on the subject. However, the weight of available evidence has not demonstrated that a cataclysmic consequence is inevitable to the extent that would justify harming the world's economy with economic growth stopping measures with little foreseeable benefit.
The left says: Rich people are BAD; poor people are GOOD.
Originally posted by sh76Heh. Not bad.
You're using a one-dimensional caricature to represent your "right" and then representing the left with a nuanced discussion.
Let me play.
The right would argue that climate change indeed may be a significant challenge of our time and should drive us to collective research and debate on the subject. However, the weight of available evidence has not demons ...[text shortened]... ith little foreseeable benefit.
The left says: Rich people are BAD; poor people are GOOD.
Originally posted by sh76In other words, you won't agree to do anything about it until it's far too late. If you were just destroying your own planet I wouldn't care, but you're destroying my planet as well.
You're using a one-dimensional caricature to represent your "right" and then representing the left with a nuanced discussion.
Let me play.
The right would argue that climate change indeed may be a significant challenge of our time and should drive us to collective research and debate on the subject. However, the weight of available evidence has not demons ...[text shortened]... ith little foreseeable benefit.
The left says: Rich people are BAD; poor people are GOOD.
Originally posted by sh76Strange, though, how it is reasonably accurate.
You're using a one-dimensional caricature to represent your "right" and then representing the left with a nuanced discussion.
Let me play.
The right would argue that climate change indeed may be a significant challenge of our time and should drive us to collective research and debate on the subject. However, the weight of available evidence has not demons ...[text shortened]... ith little foreseeable benefit.
The left says: Rich people are BAD; poor people are GOOD.
Your affection for "the rich" is touching of course. They must be protected and clearly you are the man for the job.
Originally posted by rwingettIntellectual chicken littles have repeatedly made dire predictions in order to get various political policy changes.
In other words, you won't agree to do anything about it until it's far too late. If you were just destroying your own planet I wouldn't care, but you're destroying my planet as well.
Originally posted by finneganIt is almost always true that where there are rich, the poor aren't so poor as they are where everyone is desperately poor.
Strange, though, how it is reasonably accurate.
Your affection for "the rich" is touching of course. They must be protected and clearly you are the man for the job.