BREAKING NEWS: The best parts of this post are in the comments. I welcome yours. -- Original post --
While the Scoop is a big fan of conservation activities that help keep our environment clean, I don’t see joining the alarmist global warming movement as a logical extension of this activism.Missing are the facts and evidence that suggests man has any meaningful role in driving global climate change.
In actuality, it appears there is more evidence to show that global warming and cooling is what has been occurring for many, many millions of years…far before man appeared on earth. For me, the evidence needs to be more than the presence of an Academy Award or a Nobel Peace Prize.

But that has not stopped some of my well intentioned friends from declaring this week a major victory in the global war on warming. Especially dear to their hearts is UM Professor Steve Running, a member of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group that was a co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.
My friends tell me that if I only would take time to hear Dr. Running speak, I’d immediately see the error of my ways.
But the truth is, the Scoop HAS HEARD Running speak, and while he is a great speaker and sharp academic, I don’t see where his theory is any more grounded than Gore’s. Both make the huge assumption that coincidence equals causation.
The Scoop is frustrated with the new loosy-goosey form of earth science employed by most of the global warming advocates I follow. While they often make strong points, it appears to me that they do so in a vacuum, ignoring the evidence of hard sciences that are more familiar; like biology, chemistry, and geology. It also bothers me that these scientists speak with such certainty without having successfully proven their theories using basic scientific principles, like the scientific method.
But Running is not the only one at UM with solid scientific credentials to have an opinion. The Scoop recently heard two other UM professors speak on the issues of global warming, at two unrelated events. One was a leading geologist, the other a leading paleontologist.
While neither of these researchers spoke with the certainty of the global warming alarmists, they both said that they did not believe that the evidence in their fields proved anything out of the ordinary was happening.
In fact, they stated the opposite: global warming and cooling has been happening for millions of years. And to prove it, you only have to look at the mountains of evidence around us in Montana.
Literally, the evidence is in the mountains around us… and on the plains.
EXHIBIT ONE: GLACIAL LAKE MISSOULA
The first is in the evidence left by Glacial Lake Missoula, which was a huge lake that filled the valleys of most of northwest Montana. The water was so high in Missoula, Mount
Sentinel and Mount Jumbo were islands. If you look closely, you can see the various water lines that represent the lakeshore at different levels. At the lakes highest point, most of the city of Missoula was 500-1000 feet under water. The lake was created as the climate warmed, the huge northern ice sheets melted, the valleys filled with flood water, and the water failed to find an eastern or southern drainage route.So what ever happened to the lake? Per the prevailing theory, global temperatures continued to warm, causing the northern ice sheets to continue to melt. Consequencially, the large ice dam (located near present-day lake Pend Oreille, outside of Spokane) that held back the water of this huge lake failed. In essence, it started to float in the warming waters itself, like a melting ice cube pops up in a glass of water.
The contents of Lake Missoula suddenly found a downhill direction to flow.
Most geologists believe that this happened quickly, causing a catastrophic flood that helped wash out most of eastern Washington and etched the now famous Columbia River Gorge. Interestingly, Scientists at UM have hard evidence that the lake filled and emptied up to 30 times, as the climate cooled and warmed repeatedly, over hundreds of thousands of years.EXHIBIT TWO: THE SPECTACULAR FOSSILS OF EASTERN MONTANA
Fossilized dinosaurs also contain some clues about climate change. The main question: How did these fossils end up in the dirt of eastern Montana? (…and I’m talking about the Jurassic type, not any of the current Republican members of the Montana Legislature).
It appears that eastern Montana was actually a coastal plain, covered with lush vegetation…a prefect breeding (and dying) ground for dinosaurs looking for food and water.
But last time I looked, eastern Montana was closer to being a desert than a lush coastal plain. Was the geography of eastern Montana at one time different?

The evidence suggests it was. In earlier geologic periods, during warming trends when the polar ice caps would melt and send our oceans to the high water mark, the middle section of North American would turn into a vast seaway, connecting the Artic Ocean with the Gulf of Mexico. The land mass of North America would itself turn into three much smaller islands.
Science is uncertain how many times this occurred, but it appears to have happened less and less as plate tectonics lifted the coasts and plains of North America out of the reach of the warm period high water mark.
These two bodies of evidence make the comment of Phillp Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London, even more relevant.
“Sadly, the idea of a sustainable climate is an oxymoron. The fact that we have rediscovered climate change at the turn of the Millennium tells us more about ourselves, and about our devices and desires, than about climate. Opponents of global warming are often snidely referred to as 'climate change deniers'; precisely the opposite is true. Those who question the myth of global warming are passionate believers in climate change - it is the global warmers who deny that climate change is the norm."
34 comments:
Well done, Scoop!
I have two questions:
1. Are we currently in the optimal climate right now compared to all the changes that have happened throughout the millions and millions of years of change?
2. When will Dr. Running get to have his turn with the Nobel Peace Prize? Will it be passed around to everybody on the panel kinda like the Stanley Cup is passed around to all the hockey players on the NHL Championship team? Will he have a public showing when he gets it?
Good questions Andy.
Unfortunately, optimal climate is a point of view. I sure would like to grow wine-making grapes up at Flathead, but it will have to get a little warmer. Of course, you might like it to be a little colder so you can have a longer ski season. Get a hundred people and I’ll show you a hundred answers.
The global warming alarmists are a little like the alien race in the Star Trek Voyager episode that was relentlessly destroying planets and cultures in a vain attempt to restore time to the moment when their empire was the greatest. I think they had been at it for a thousand years before Captain Janeway put an end to their self-indulgent pity party.
There is a great deal of human vanity in thinking the current climate is the right climate…and even more in thinking we can change the course of natural phenomenon that have been occurring for millions of years.
As for the trophy, I think Running is going to have a hard time prying it from the hands of Al Gore. But, I’m sure we have not seen the end of the festivities in Missoula.
You're making an argument where there is none, Scoop. All scientists, whether reputable and published in peer-reviewed journals or not, agree there has been climate change in the past. It's moved past that, and moved past man-made causes (at least on the part of the former group of scientists), to the rate of change.
I'm curious about the UM geologist and paleontologist you mentioned who don't believe the current pace of climate change is "out of the ordinary". Who are they?
If you tell me Dr. Randy Skelton, I'll be heartbroken.
Rebecca:
I’m not sure I follow your claim.
Are you saying that all reputable scientists now believe that global climate change is inevitable, part of nature, and not caused by humans?
If you are, I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion. Most scientists I read, and especially those associated with the IPCC, claim that man-made CO2 emissions, from things like cars, coal fire plants and cows is causing a warming trend that is not in line with historical progressions.
But, I don’t think that is what you are saying, and I may have mis-read the whole point of your post.
I’m not making a false argument, and this is not a settled point.
Global warming alarmists point to trends in the last couple thousands of years, that don’t include periods when we were all covered by a sheet of ice, or water, for that matter.
I personally think relying on temperature readings from the early 1900’s to inform us about what is “normal” is like making an assessment about the day by observing a millisecond.
But, I appreciate your post none-the-less.
Scoop
p.s. – It was not Randy Skelton. Your heart can remain intact
But, I have to wonder why your heart is involved in the first place. Science is not the place for feelings and emotions. That is for the realm of politics.
I’m afraid you may have made the same mistake as many of the IPCC scientists, who have (for one reason or another) traded the rigor and objectivity of the scientific method for the feel good hyperbole of the public square.
Wow, does this mean we can hunt and fish between the high water marks? Big Swede
Only if you have the proper tags...
Let's try this again. Climate change happened in the past. Natural climate change will happen in the future. No one's claiming otherwise. There is no argument here from anyone. However, the current fast pace of climate change is caused by human activities. As charming as Dr. Philip Stott, Professor of "Biogeography" and Michael Crichton, fiction writer and winner of the American Petroleum Association's "Journalist of the Year" award might be, I suggest you start reading the scientific articles of these fine folks. Here's a good place to start.
Dr. Skelton was one of my favorite professors at UM. To know that he's become the 21st Century equivalent of a tobacco industry lobbyist (Smoking doesn't cause cancer!) would be disheartening. I'm not sure where you got the idea that we should divorce our humanity from our intelligence. Science is all about humanity. In every field, it is our greatest achievement because it has liberated our species from primitive notions about the universe. Without it, we'd still be grunting around the fire about gods and goddesses. Well, okay, some of us still are. No one's perfect.
By the way, don't think I didn't notice you did not mention the names of the two UM professors who disagree with current theories about climate change.
I love when theories become facts. It's fun!
Rebecca: I’m asking that scientists divorce emotion from scientific observation, not humanity. You made that up on your own.
I completely disagree with your claim that we were liberated from our lesser instincts by allowing emotion (or humanity, for that matter) to mix into scientific observation. On the contrary, great scientific advancements have come from those who have challenged the prevailing cultural norms, political correctness, and dominate religious doctrine of their time.
But these incredibly smart people didn’t trade the safety of convention based on a good feeling, a hunch or blind faith.
They did it becuase they knew beyond a shadow of a doubt they were right - by observing phenomenon, integrating previous knowledge, forming a hypothesis, testing this hypothesis, and deriving conclusions that could be tested and replicated by others under similar conditions.
Without Galileo, Copernicus and Pasteur we would still think the earth was flat and the center of the universe, and that disease was due to sin, bad luck and evil spirits.
All three of these revolutionary scientists were vilified in their times. It is by no surprise that the Pasteur Institute, one of the greatest scientific institutions in the world, not only continues to lead in the fight against infectious disease, but also stands as a bulwark against those that want to trade the rigor of the scientific method for a bunch of feel-good liberal bullshit.
So, it would be by no surprise that Paul Reiter, professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute, has the following to say about global warming.
"We imagine that we live in an age of reason, and global warming alarm is dressed up as science; but it's not science, it's propaganda."
"A galling aspect of the debate is that this spurious 'science' is endorsed in the public forum by influential panels of 'experts.' I refer particularly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Every five years, this UN-based organization publishes a 'consensus of the world's top scientists' on all aspects of climate change. Quite apart from the dubious process by which these scientists are selected, such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. “
He continues…”Science proceeds by observation, hypothesis and experiment. The complexity of this process, and the uncertainties involved, are a major obstacle to a meaningful understanding of scientific issues by non-scientists. In reality, a genuine concern for mankind and the environment demands the inquiry, accuracy and skepticism that are intrinsic to authentic science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse."
It is a liberal illusion that ALL scientists agree on anything, including climate change.
Anyways, even if they did, history indicates that this type of consensus should be more troubling, rather than comforting, to freedom loving people.
That said, I have no obligation to list the professors I heard speak. You can believe me or not. Both lectures were recent and widely attended by a diverse range of folks, including many who read this blog.
If you are so curious, I suggest you seek out speakers outside your philosophical comfort zone. I have already started reading your recommended reading with the curiousity that I may be wrong.
Of course, equating a knowledgable and sincere scientist with the likes of a tobacco industry liar may not prompt them (or others) to share freely with you, but I think you already know this.
You should be proud to name the two UM professors, Scoop. After all, according to you, they're intellectual heroes. You have no "obligation", sure, but if you're going to use other people to bolster your claims, you should be able to cite them freely. Anything less is, at best, intellectual cowardice and at worst, fraud.
I completely disagree with your claim that we were liberated from our lesser instincts by allowing emotion (or humanity, for that matter) to mix into scientific observation.
That's not what I said at all. I said science liberated humanity from the darkness of superstition. Humanity only came into play because of your suggestion that I shouldn't be able to make a lighthearted comment about a beloved professor because it's too emotional for you.
Your rant about Galileo and others, well, you'll get no argument from me, because we're basically in agreement--other than your mention of "political correctness". I know PC is a popular bogeyman among conservatives and libertarians, but in past years the only folks who have consistently introduced politics into the scientific realm are conservatives, whether the issue is contraception, evolution, or now with the Bush Administraion and the censoring of government scientists, climate change. The ever-dwindling number of scientists denying climate change are doing so for financial and ideological reasons. Far from being heroes like Louis Pasteur, they're busy raking in the money from major corporations.
Your argument at the heart of your original post, that scientists don't believe in past abrupt climate change, doesn't exist. From that link:
No one doubts that abrupt climate change has happened - the evidence for it is overwhelming - but there are considerable controversies as to where, how, why or even when it happened.
The argument in your reply and other posts, that there is still "debate" over the existence of climate change, again doesn't exist. From that link:
In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise"
Note the word "all" in that sentence. Sure, there are individual scientists that disagree, but as I mentioned earlier they largely do so because of non-scientific considerations.
Now, you can completely ignore me and my "liberal bullshit". In fact, I'm sure you will. But while you're spreading the myth of debate and the myth of your fellow political travelers' intellectual independence, stop and wonder why so many more intelligent people worldwide, PhDs who have been busy...let's see..."observing phenomenon, integrating previous knowledge, forming a hypothesis, testing this hypothesis, and deriving conclusions that could be tested and replicated by others under similar conditions" completely disagree with you. Ask yourself if yours is not the same argument that creationists make in their fight against evolution--for it is, and shamefully so. It's no wonder that there are many ideological friends in both battles.
After all, history and freedom deserve no less.
By the way, GeeGuy, gravity's still just a theory too.
Blows your mind, doesn't it?
Without Galileo, Copernicus and Pasteur we would still think the earth was flat and the center of the universe,
Without getting involved in the argument of what truths we absolutely have to know before we act (while simultaneously claiming we can't know them), I'd just like to point out that Copernicus had been dead for 20 years before Galileo Galilei was born. 'Just thought you might want to know.
Never mind, I missed the word "we" in your sentence, which still bothers me a great deal. Appeals to what "we" know based on such luminaries as Copernicus and Galileo is problematic, considering that Galileo's contemporary Tycho Brahe was as responsible for geocentrism as Ptolome was, and yet his politically favorable view was accepted for hundreds of years. And in case the miss the fault of your historical analogies, the 'rebel' disagreeing with the learned concensus was Tycho. Most astronomical scholars (including Tycho's instructors) favored Copernican theory. But what the hell ... heliocentrism was only a theory, right Geeguy?
Rebecca:
Most people walk the razor's edge between seeing the world as totally objective (factual) and totally idealistic (interpretation). You seem to walk whatever line you need to make your point.
So I can put on my non-objectivity hat and agree that gravity is just an interpretation. But, do you have a better interpretation that you can present and defend to objective science?
Otherwise, I can prove the apple will fall on your head. Just throw it up and stand under it. Trust me on this one. It does not matter how you FEEL.
Whether you jump on one side of the razor or the other, any pragmatic person will require proof that your theory aligns with the physical outcome. That is why the scientific method is such a great truing mechanism- it best predicts outcomes and consequences.
While your interpretations can't be proven, it doesn't make them any less valid, as all human expression is equally valid. It does, though, make them less powerful in determining outcomes.
At first people might trust your new theory that the current theory of gravity is made up, but they will change their mind once they get pelted by enough apples. We are pragmatic individuals hard-coded to survive.
I know that most of my interpretations, and those of the scientists I read, cannot be proven either. But the traditional burden of proof in science is that you show something exists, not that it MAY exist.
Until then, let's still conserve our environment for the right reasons - for our health, well being and as a gift to future generations.
Let’s not go overboard on theories that can't be proven as these usually lead to disappointing outcomes.
A potential threat now, due to the global warming debate, is that nuclear power is gaining strength across the global, as coal fire plants are demonized for their CO2.
While we are not certain man made CO2 plays any role in global warming, we do know that nuclear waste is deadly in the most smallest amounts to almost all living things. It is also very long-lasting (as in hundred of thousands of years)...much longer than CO2 emissions.
We may end up burdening more generations than the ones we intend to save, which is why the co-founder of Greenpeace, and one of the founders of the global conservation movement, is an outspoken critic of global warming alarmists.
But, of course, he is another anomaly to your theory that ALL scientists agree on this topic.
Sorry for bring it up.
I know that most of my interpretations, and those of the scientists I read, cannot be proven either. But the traditional burden of proof in science is that you show something exists, not that it MAY exist.
From this post, I'm not convinced that you understand scientific tradition at all. It is precisely to show the possible that the scientific method is used. There's a reason that many "theories", unproven as they are, are still the basis for construction and engineering. Ya know, like gravity and inertia? The "burden of proof" is syllogistic. It is to show that what is seen as possible, really isn't. *That's* the scientific tradition.
I'd say that 99.99% of the physics behind construction and engineering are understood enough to provide an operational analysis of how they work - one that others could successfully replicate under similar conditions. You can learn more by walking across campus to the engineering school and they can show you!
I do agree with you that there are a few things that work and we don't have the words to describe how or why they work, but we can still reproduce the results over and over and trust a predictable outcome. (Although I disagree that gravity and inertia is not among them.)
But none of you or Rebecca's circular reasoning explains how something can exist in the absence of any proof otherwise, other than shear wordcount.
A great philosopher once said that not much differentiates humans from dogs sitting on a porch, other than humans have the ability to language and thus can choose to make up our own bullshit about what is going on.
Dogs, on the other hand, have the advantage to know that a bone is just a bone.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Look, you can obfuscate the issue with half-baked assumptions about my thought process and the scientific method, pontificate on history and environmentalism, and deliberately mis-read my posts in an effort to guide the direction of discussion. Others might be impressed. I'm not.
All your rhetoric highlights one very simple fact: you can't or won't directly address my original point. (The marachino cherry atop this sundae of falsehood, of course, is the fact you've chosen to hide your local sources.) Your blog entry pretends there's a scientific debate over the existence of previous climate change. Your entry claims that those scientists--imaginary, mind you--who do not believe in past abrupt climate change cannot be trusted to present correct models for global warming in the future, natural or otherwise. None of your story has any basis in reality, Scoop.
Thanks for bringing up our canine friends, because they provide us with an excellent lesson here: dogs, unlike humans, can't just make crap up.
Oh, and I think this is terrific:
But none of you [sic] or Rebecca's circular reasoning explains how something can exist in the absence of any proof otherwise, other than shear [sic] wordcount.
I look forward to your presence alongside me in any argument against the existence of the supernatural--be it Osiris, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, or God.
Admittedly, I appreciate your blog love in the "Breaking News" post. Skilled debater and writer? Check. "Liberal-Progressive" mind? Check. Kicking ass and taking names?
....
Okay, those were my words.
1. How good are the scientists at forecasting weather (not climate) more than two weeks out?
2. Why do we think that they would be better at guessing what the climate will be in 100 years?
3. What happens if they are wrong?
4. If they are right, and 400,000 people more per year will die, but 1.8 million more will live with warmer climate, is there not a human interest in preserving global warming?
First of all, Steve, weather and climate are two different things. You and I read the Missoulian and wonder what the hell is going on when the little weather symbol says "sunny" and clearly it's cloudy. We shrug our shoulders and change our shoes accordingly. Climate scientists don't just look at the immediate picture, but the long term actual events on the face of the planet. An easy answer can be found thanks to Columbia University--plus a fun map of the weather on the day you were born. Me? Cool and rainy in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Secondly, that strikes at the core of the debate between Scoop and myself. I'm going by the models of the National Academies of Science, Scoop's cast his lot with the author of Rising Sun--which was a terrible book and movie.
Next, if they're wrong? Well, as Scoop himself says, we've still done the right thing. Or let me quote him:
Until then, let's still conserve our environment for the right reasons - for our health, well being and as a gift to future generations.
I think that's a beautiful sentiment, don't you? It's so full of emotion, dreams and wishes it brings a tear to my eye.
Finally, you're asking me if it's okay to decide who gets to live and who dies? No thanks. Others have made that decision in different times and different places in the last 100 years. I'm not ready to accept the notion that some lives are worth more than others, especially due to our inaction. But even if I am, I'm still not ready to accept the burden of destroying more than just human life. Whole ecosystems will be destroyed by man-made abrupt climate change.
I have to add in the point that I always do; one which is never directly rebutted from global warming deniers:
We don't know for sure either way, but what are the stakes in both sides being wrong? If Rebecca is wrong, all that happens is that we throw some money away and waste some effort on saving energy and changing our habits; no blood no foul.
On the other hand, if you are Scoop - the repercussions could be much more dire. If global warming is real and we don't work to rectify it, we will be faced with any number of dangerous changes in the world. Floods that claim human habitat, loss of crops when we loss growing weather, animal extinction due to habitat loss, loss of water in third world nations, etc.
I am not stating those things WILL happen, but I am saying they might. Why take the chance that we are wrong with such possibly high stakes? That is what I never get. Why isn't it worth it to change our habits, drive more efficient cars, carpool etc if it MIGHT save us from such ends?
Why is resisting the possibility that the science of global warming is right so appealing to you when, if you are wrong, we are so screwed?
This is one of those debates whose half life is roughly equivalent to spent nuclear rods. One side agrees with the scientific consensus, the other with the minority of (real) scientists who disagree with the conventional wisdom. This has been said before, but most of us are not knowledgeable enough to debate the issue in the meta. So as I've said before (shameless plug alert), it's hard to get worked up over the issue when almost no one is calling for, or better yet personally implementing, the required sacrifice to make the slightest dent in the pending crisis.
We've done this dance before Colby, and because we posted at roughly the same time, I'll repeat myself in response to your question:
"Why isn't it worth it to change our habits, drive more efficient cars, carpool etc if it MIGHT save us from such ends?"
Because it won't help. If you're right about the crisis, or if you just want to err on the side of safety and address the issue 'just in case', we need to cut at least 70 percent of our emissions to begin to make a difference.
The "t" byline should be TMM, I hit enter too soon.
Colby:
I mention in an early response why we just don't follow the global warming logic about CO2, even if it were wrong.
A potential threat now, due to the global warming debate, is that nuclear power is gaining strength across the global, as coal fire plants are demonized for their CO2.
While we are not certain man made CO2 plays any role in global warming, we do know that nuclear waste is deadly in the most smallest amounts to almost all living things. It is also very long-lasting (as in hundred of thousands of years)...much longer than CO2 emissions.
We may end up burdening more generations than the ones we intend to save, which is why the co-founder of Greenpeace, and one of the founders of the global conservation movement, is an outspoken critic of global warming alarmists.
Another is that caps on CO2 keep developed countries from building any economic independence from the West, which is why I think most big companies are in support of global warming policies (If no more plants can be built, those that own them sit on an increasingly appreciating asset).
Without developing, these countries can't house, warm, feed, and care for their people. This is the ugly side of global warming, and why most third world leaders stand firmly against the UN IPCC.
Steve is correct when he says lots of lives are at stake, and Rebecca is ducking the question by thinking her current actions aren't a form of her playing god.
Kicking ass and taking names?
....
Okay, those were my words.
Yes, and they are not the ones I would choose.
"All scientists agree."
"No they don't, what about x, y, and the 2,000 z's?"
"Oh, they're all shills for industry. All scientists that I have declared to be right agree...."
"We don't know for sure either way, but what are the stakes in both sides being wrong?"
Interesting that Pascal's Wager would come up.
Yes, and they are not the ones I would choose.
Tsk, tsk. That's rather unbecoming and pissy of you.
Despite the wording of the top post on your home page, in no way is this a debate. We're not listening to each other and we're certainly not changing anyone's mind. The regular readers of and contributors to any given Montana political blog already bring their own ideology to the party.
Geeguy, no, it's not me saying the vast majority of man-made global warming deniers are "industry shills". It's the folks themselves, or rather their bank accounts. That's a rather large .pdf file, so get yourself a fresh cup of coffee before settling down to read it. Most of them admit to taking money from industry without any hesitation and, frankly, they're proud of it. They believe that energy industries are looking out for our best interests. To be honest, industry is doing that in a certain way, since we show no signs of slowing down and conserving energy.
Our government knows this, which is why government and industry oppose any real controls on emissions. Where's this "big company" in the energy industry that supports tighter regulations? Demand is up, Scoop. Our appetite knows no bounds, and there's profit to be made. Your sudden concern for the Third World is touching, but why should industry and government in those countries act any different than ours? Far from a desire to "house, warm, feed and care", it's all about the market economy. You show me the Third World country opposing restrictions for entirely altruistic reasons, and I'll show you reality: Nigeria. There's plenty of oil there, plenty of money going to the Nigerian government, and none of it going to "house, warm, feed and care" the people. There already is an "ugly side" out there, and it has nothing to do with supporting theories about man-made global warming.
Which brings me to TMM's point about sacrifice and your mention of my "current actions". I drive a fuel efficient car. I can't afford a hybrid just yet, but as soon as I can save enough money I will buy one. I walk wherever possible. I turn off lights and use the new energy-saving light bulbs. My home (built in the 1960s) has been updated with all new energy-saving features. Even so, the country I live is the world's greatest energy user and that's not likely to change anytime soon. That's why it's important for individuals to act on their own, and not wait for government to do it for them. Government's too busy protecting our greatest asset: our economy.
I'm not playing god at all. It's not up to me who lives and who dies in any catastrophes (or, conversely, gains) that result from man-made global warming. I'm simply trying to do my part, and trying to counteract gross distortions of fact like that presented in your original post, Scoop. No one, not even that great liberal bogeyman George W. Bush, doubts current climate change is man-made. And man-made climate change is neither natural nor inevitable. If we can do things to reverse or stop it, shouldn't we take the ethical high road?
Rebecca – you shouldn’t be offended just because I won’t admit you are kicking my ass.
Wouldn’t you be more upset if someone called you an intellectual coward, a fraud, shameful, or an obfuscator… just a few of the words you use to describe me; and I didn’t look at but a few posts.
On the other hand, I called you a talented writer, a good debater and a great spokesperson. I think your ideas and logic are wrong (I think I said a bunch of liberal bullshit), but I have never questioned your character or motives.
You need to either lighten up or learn to extend the same courtesy to others that you expect. I don't mean to come across as speaking down to you, as I have done the same thing before (and regreted it)
As per the conversation, I’m sorry you ended up not enjoying or learning from it. I did. You actually changed my mind on something, which maybe I’ll share if we ever are in the same room.
I think others did find it of interest. I’ve got over a a half dozen e-mail inquiries from people “on the fence”, over twenty from people trying to feed me talking points, most who I do not know (thanks, but I decided to stand on my own here). Two claim to be scientisits, but we'll pretend I didn't say that because they supposedly all agree with you.
Yesterday was also the first day I hit 300 unique visitors in the same day, with half of these returning more than once. Our comments have had over 1100 page views since yesterday morning.
Probably a drop in the bucket to the big blog you usually call home, but a new high watermark for the Scoop.
I can’t think that all these folks have their minds completely made up, as I can’t even say I do on everything. Maybe we both informed someone. I can tell by the posts and e-mail I get, not all my visitors are hard core partisans.
I include myself on that list.
Anyways, I welcome you back anytime.
Well – it looks like this one has come to the end, so I’m turning off comments. Of course, I extend to Rebecca (only) the last dignified word.
E-mail me your post and I’ll put it up (unedited).
Scoop
By the way, since I have posted my e-mail address on the top of the Scoop, I get almost as many e-mails as I do posts!
I really appreciate them and the educational materials you send. Also, some are funnier than hell, and I thank readers for that too.
Please note your e-mails to me are confidential, and will stay just that, unless you want to post the comment or information yourself.
Scoop
Post a Comment