From a recent editorial in the Arlington Sun-Gazette:THUMBS DOWN: To the Arlington Committee of 100, which seems to be moving away from trying to present balanced programs, in favorLet's break it down:
of trendy activism.
This week, the venerable community organization was slated to present a program on global warming. Of the three speakers that were publicized to be at the meeting, all appear to be on the same side of the issue.
Which side? If you guess it's the side that says humans - no doubt Americans in particular, and probably Republicans most egregiously - are causing most of the world's environmental problems, give yourself a gold star.
The issue of global warming is far more nuanced and complicated than TV sound-bites would make it appear. Surely there was someone who could have been recruited to provide some balance to what, from outside looking in, appears to be a one-sided discussion.
- The event was not about debating whether global warming is or is not happening. That debate is over. The science is unequivocal -- our planet is warming, man-made greenhouse gases are to blame, and we must cut carbon emissions now to slow (never mind stop) its effects.
- The most accurate part of this editorial is actually the part that's meant to be sarcastic. It IS Americans who are most responsible for global warming. The United States, with just 5% of the world's population, puts out 25% of civilization's carbon emissions. That's not politics, that's science, but apparently the Sun-Gazette can't distinguish between the two. I hope that means they at least got good grades in civics in school, not bad grades in both civics and science.
- The Arlington Committee of 100 is the cutting edge of "trendy activism"? Their website looks like it hasn't been updated since 'N Sync was topping the pop charts.
- No matter what the issue -- global warming, secondhand smoke, evolution -- conservatives love to claim the science isn't settled, that the debate is ongoing, and that if anyone thinks otherwise, they've been paying too much attention to that liberal media. Global warming is happening, secondhand smoke kills, and evolution is why we have these kick-ass opposable thumbs.
Based on the science that says global warming is happening and we're to blame, what do we want to do about it? Do we want to take action to slow and eventually stop it? Or will we take our chances?
Those are the questions we need to be asking, and that's exactly what the Arlington Committee of 100 forum was about. If conservatives want to be a part of that debate, they need to adapt or go the way of the dinosaurs.
7 comments:
you mean dinasours are extinct? ... and who is this "N Sync" group you are talking about? :-)
"The science is unequivocal -- our planet is warming, man-made greenhouse gases are to blame, and we must cut carbon emissions now to slow (never mind stop) its effects."
Why? Because the far Left and advocacy-"scientists" say it is?
The arrogance of these statements is, itself, anti-scientific, but de rigeur among the far Left.
Hmmm Mr. Young, I don't think I've heard of "far left and advocacy" scientists before. I understand your point but the nice part of science is that it is based on fact and proof which is measurable. It's not just "it's sunny today" or "we're not getting as much rain this year", it is actually analysis of patterns and using models to predict the future. If you have any "far right or non-advocate" scientific data, I'm sure we'd love to see it. Otherwise, you might want to pay attention to the actual science and the discussion on how to combat climate change.
And this really isn't a far left issue. This is not about one group winning in some zero sum game. This affects everyone, and groups not even mildly affiliated with the far left such as evangelical Christians and hunters organizations are getting involved in the effort. There isn't a winner here. It's all in or all lost.
I just had to laugh when I read that. The science is unequivocal? Why? Just because the "scientists" say it is? Next time you're going to tell me it's raining just because those tree-hugging "meteorologists" say it is, or that a giant asteroid is heading towards Earth just because those liberal "astronomers" say its.
In a rational debate, you have to separate science from politics, and global warming deniers have consistently shown they cannot.
James, when we debate this issue with "environmentalists", what are we worried about? Do we really care what they believe about "global warming"? Not especially. Our concern is what they want to do about it.
Yet "environmentalists" do have a point. There is little doubt that with or without modern technology seven billion people can inflict considerable harm on the environment. There is also little doubt we often don't have the foggiest idea what we are doing or what to do about it. That sort of ignorance begs for moderation, something "environmentalists" seem to lack as much as the polluters.
Some of the "solutions" called for by "environmentalists" can be just as harebrained as the supposed stupidity of their opposition. Consider the sheer idiocy of electric cars, for example. How does one charge an electric car? How much energy does it require to haul around an array of lead acid storage batteries? What about all that lead? Nonetheless, electric cars are "clean" technology.
If "environmentalists" want to do something about Global Warming, it might be helpful if they stopped calling the people who oppose them names. Why not focus attention on reasonable proposals almost everyone can agree upon?
Almost all the devices that burn fossil fuels produce recognizable pollutants. Whether carbon dioxide is one of those pollutants is debatable, but everyone can see smog. Since the generation of these pollutants imposes costs upon society, the polluters should pay a tax to compensate their victims. Such taxes would help to unmask the true cost of polluting technologies and encourage the use of clean technologies.
On the other hand, we don't need the government's "help" to force use to use "clean" technologies. When our government protects our rights, it already has more than enough to do. We don't need our government telling us how to live or forcing us to adopt those technologies with the most political influence. Let the market decide.
Tom, as your man Ronald Reagan once said, there you go again. Who exactly disagrees that carbon dioxide is a pollutant? Even the conservative-controlled Supreme Court recently ruled CO2 is a pollutant.
Please, I'm begging you, stick to the facts. Stop making stuff up to back up your political arguments.
First James derides far Left and advocacy-"scientists". Then Miles cites a panel of lawyers as authorities for scientific "truth." Somehow, I doubt that this is a sign of the progress of science.
Miles, please go back and read what I said. I merely suggested a simple way you could go about getting what you say you want.
We all have substantial intellectual limitations. Imagine what there is to be known about God's creations. Then consider what we actually do know. Why should I take your version of TRUTH too seriously?
If you believe that Global Warming is sanctified TRUTH, then so be it. I see little point in making a great effort to dissuade you of this theory. As a practical matter, only time will settle the issue.
What is relevant is that burning fossil fuels does cause air pollution, and that pollution must be controlled. I prefer a method that minimizes the power we give to the aristocracy of lawyers that leads us. So long as this method works reasonably well, why would you want to give more power to government than you have to give it?
Post a Comment