No quite the opposite OMHO, the more political a issue gets the more I tend to distrust the message. At this point I am OK with just letting things be as they are, If things happen we’ll deal with the consequences then, if it gets too bad we better to learn to live on mars really fast. Either way we win.
The Amphicar back in the '60s was a notorious failure on the market . . . but market conditions may be changing . . .
He’s a Bush appointee, so it’s to be expected that he doesn’t believe in it.
Ironically, the politicisation of the issue comes largely from the US right, which, if I’m not mistaken, is “your side”. I.e. the moment a largely accepted scientific theory is opposed by your side, you distrust it. :dubious:
ETA: except the most important part of the US right has finally bought into it.
by CP: * (Now when the wealthy and powerful actually start shorting beachfront property, I’ll really think they are taking it seriously.)*
Apologies for my retardation on this but can someone help me out here?
I am whooshed worse than Mr. Bush reading an IPCC report.
In Superman (the first one starring Christopher Reeve) Luthor buys a bunch of inland real estate with plans to make it beachfront by nuking the San Andreas fault, thus causing most of California to fall into the ocean.
This is just a stupid statement. Their track record is actually quite amazingly good. They have had some significant accidents, what with them being on the cutting edge of science and technology, but they are far below the expected rate of problems for the work they do.
Take the shuttle for example. It has the smallest loss rate of any space vehicle I am aware of and the rate of serious accidents has been much smaller than what was initially predicted (back when they thought they wouldn’t be used nearly so long as they have).
Your statement would be like saying that NASCAR drivers have a much higher rate of accidents than Volvo drivers, therefore they must be lousy behind the wheel.
Thanks. I think I get it but it’s still a bit oblique for me. I need to get out to the movies more.
I do feel the left has had a worse history of misusing ‘science’ for political advancement then the right.
the BBC indeed. If you are trying to prove someone you suspect is on the right of the political spectrum I suggest trying to find a cite that is not considered liberally biased by people on the right.
Sorry the credibility of this issue is gone, I refuse to believe a bunch of fat rich men flying around in private aircraft (or any aircraft) telling us the sky is falling, um make that heating up and we have to cut down on CO2 emissions, who use more energy in their homes in a month then we, the little people, use in a year. There is too much money and power in this ‘science’. Scientists (and IIRC climatologists) who don’t worship at the alter of global warming are ostracized, information on the global heating on mars, and several other planets and moons are ignored.
I’ll probably regret asking this, but when has it ever?
The linked story says only that the Bush Admin (that’s what jjimm means by “the most important part of the US right”) is calling an international summit on greenhouse gas emissions. What, you think BBC made that up?
Hypocrisy does not make them wrong.
If I were climatologist greedy for money, I would do GW-denial for the oil companies.
I’m talking about this particular issue.
You didn’t even read the damn link did you? You went “BBC=leftist” and ignored it.
Old chap, the Beeb was merely the first link I found Google. Or are you disputing the facts of the article? Have you paid any attention to any news sources in the last 24 hours? (Or perhaps more accurately, are the right-wing blogs not puking this one up, since it’s contrary to their chosen worldview.)
To help you out, there was a certain speech given by a certain Pres. Bush from the US of A. Nothing to do with bias, old chap. The same story’s at the White House website:
Plenty more where that came from.
I’m afraid you’ve revealed some rather damning things about yourself with that response.
And the developing world has so many more “capitas”, so overall consumption does tend to balance out.
However, I am deeply troubled by the way American cities have grown up to favor only cars in the past 50 years. This makes us an extreme case of hyperconsumption, and much if not most of this consumption is necessary just to function in the economy. It isn’t capricious or something done for enjoyment.
I’ve just about come to believe that our socioeconomic structure forces many into the suburbs when they would rather not live there. I was startled recently to learn that my stepdaughter is renting an 1100 square foot apartment in central Berlin for 550 Euros a month. How cool is that…a big apartment in a historic building, totally refurbished, in the center of a vibrant world class metropolis, close to rapid transit and everything, and this is actually an option for a foreign English teacher in Germany. You couldn’t touch that for such a price in the United States. Which is why, undoubtedly, many of us wind up in boring suburbs that must be driven to.
Or, it could be right now.
Meanwhile, the permafrost in Siberia – “a frozen peat bog the size of France and Germany combined” which “contains billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas” – is melting for the first time since the last Ice Age. (Story is two years old, but I doubt the process has reversed since then.)
There is, however, some skepticism as to whether Bush’s calling for an international conference on greenhouse gases outside the framework of the UN is just a cynical delaying and/or weaseling tactic – intended either to avoid doing anything substantive during the remainder of his term, or to find a less burdensome-to-business alternative to the Kyoto Protocols. See this thread.
According to the Independent, global warming is happening “three times faster than the worst predictions.” This purportedly is from a new study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (which I cannot, however, seem to find on the NAS website).
Meanwhile, Bush is cutting funds to monitor global warming from space.
There is a link directly to the report in the Independent story.
pdf link is in the right hand box.
Can you list some examples?
Some examples that trump the Nazi use of science and technology in the Holocaust.
And creationism.
And anti-gay ranting.
And climate change denial.