I’ve posted many times on this whole chicken little-the sky is falling-the earth is getting warmer-hysteria. I’m not going to waste anymore time arguing my case. I just wanted to link to this article from Drudge and say that if anyone out there ACTUALLY believes that global warming is real and is due to human activity please email me. I want to hear from you, and I also have some ocean front property in Kansas that I’d like to sell you.
If you’ve read this blog before then you know that I’m a big Condi fan. She tops my list of people that I want to see win the White House in 2008. With that said, after reading this article I have to say…gimme a break! What this guy did was nothing but an accident…a slip of the tongue. I’ve done it before. It usually happens when I’m talking too fast or trying to think of what I’m going to say next…the wrong word comes out and I sound like an uneducated idiot. This has happened to everyone. Should this guy have been fired for it? Absolutely not, and I honestly believe that Condi would probably feel the same way. Using a racial slur in a condescending manner is one thing (ala Hillary referring to Ghandi as a gas-station owner), but a lapse in speech is quite another. His neurons misfired and the wrong word came out. He was actually promoting her for the new NFL commissioner! He said he wanted to say ‘coup’, but accidentally said ‘coon’. Is this a racial slur? No way.
6 comments:
Agreed John, totally agreed, he made a very unfortunate slip of the tongue..
And he's paying a hell of a price for it too...
"if anyone out there ACTUALLY believes that global warming is real and is due to human activity please email me."
I think I've commented on this point with you before, but since you asked:
There are those of us who know beyond a shadow of a doubt (you included) that human activity is negatively impacting our environment. Further, there are scientific studies that suggest we ought to be concerned about the possibility of human activity contributing to global climate changes.
The science out there does not say that human activity is causing global warming and I don't know that I've heard any scientist say so. They're saying it's a concern, that studies suggest it may be a reality, but it's too soon to tell right now.
Would you suggest that we wait until we know for a fact that human activity is contributing to increased climate change? Even when we know that human activity is negatively impacting the environment?
Look at it this way: Suppose a factory were to locate next to your house and there were those concerned that there were toxins in the soot emiting from the factory. Who do you say should bear the burden of proof: Those concerned about the factory (you, as a neighbor, for instance) or the factory?
Those concerned about global climate change as caused by human activity are saying that proceeding with caution and erring on the side of less pollution is the personally and societally responsible thing to do.
Dan, much of what you said is simply inaccurate. Your speaking as though the evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activity leads to global warming. The fact is, this HAS been studied, multiple times. Research has been done to determine the answer to this question and so far ALL of the research shows that human activity does NOT lead to global warming. There is not a single study to the contrary. So, to add to you hypothetical, if this factory opened and there were concerns about pollution, yet scientific evidence had been gathered showing this soot to be safe; AND selling your house and moving away would wreck you financially...what would be the logical thing to do?
Let me give a real-world example. At one time the pesticide DDT was thought to damage a certain species of bird. The evidence was limited and hardly conclusive (and subsequently proven wrong). Yet, somehow the "fear" of harm was extrapolated to humans and DDT was eventually banned, and still is today. The result? As I said, DDT has yet to be proven harmful, BUT the rates of malaria and other mosquito-born illnesses have skyrocketed. Banning DDT has had catastrophic consequences on humankind. Why? Because we acted hastily on bad science. It is reckless and dangerous.
Doing the same in the global warming debate is equally so.
"So, to add to you hypothetical, if this factory opened and there were concerns about pollution, yet scientific evidence had been gathered showing this soot to be safe;"
Aahh, but this is not the case. We know that the "soot" has not been shown to be safe at all (in the cases of most factories). What the debate has been about is how damaging the soot is - is it a level of damage we can live with? And it is nearly always been the people living in the neighborhood who have had to make the case that the soot is in fact, killing them.
In this hypothetical case I bring up, I'm speaking from reality in my community where they have built polluting factories, where cancer rates have increased and where change has only come slowly by pressure being raised from neighborhood groups, who set out to prove the damage.
Again, I'm talking about personal responsibility. Corporate responsibility.
And I'm just a dumb Kentucky boy, but from what I read from scientists that I respect, the case VERY much is still out as to whether global climate change is a concern - and much evidence suggests that there is a case to be made.
What sources are you listening to?
Here is a link where you can find some information and references.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/EarthDay04Myths.html#A
Your source (Nat'l Center for Public Policy Research) is a self-defined conservative, pro-business, pro-big defense (and, hence, big gov't) organization, so consider the source. A more neutral source would be more believable.
As I have said, I'm no scientist, I don't know the facts behind the studies. Your source here is questioning them, there are other groups that endorse the notion that there is evidence that suggests we should be cautious and think through our policies, as it is possible that human activity is impacting climate change.
Because it is not my area of expertise, I rely upon listening to many sources and especially the ones that seem to have no axe to grind.
So, short of you providing a more balanced source, I don't give much credence to this group. I ask you in fairness to consider the source.
These people have a financial interest in discrediting the scientific studies that are being issued on the topic. Got anything better?
Post a Comment