A Convenient Truth?

dear mr. anti-science,

i don't have a my freshman year zoology book with me at work (i kept it b/c it was an unusually great textbook), but i will stipulate to your fact that polar bears have been around for 25 mill. yrs., for the purposes of our discussion, and ask: how does that "evidence" advance, what i guess is your proposition that polar bears will somehow just adapt/evolve moving forward so as to enjoy hundreds, thousands, or 25 million more years when temperatures continue to rise due to global warming? humans are not just going to start using less fossil fuels are they?

oh, i know, "hey man, that's just what natural selection is all about?" except you forget to emphasize the word NATURAL.

i think i might be dr. science, at least to you.

I'm always curious as to how people who dispute global warming don't recognize that being so dependent on fossil fuels is problematic. It seems to me we should be spending a lot more time & money figuring out how to power our cars with something other than petroleum-based fuels. Yes, ethanol research has improved, but it seems to me we should be making larger strides than we are now (and no, Surly, I'm not trying to single you out).

it's because they're natural contrarions who refuse to agree with a certain cultural "type" of person (ie, stuffy liberal intellectuals) on pretty much any issue

the whole goal of the environmental movement needs to be to de-politicize the issue, which gore focused on in the film … the only way that's really going to happen though is to get people from the other side of the aisle (and not just mccain, hagel, and a smattering of other pragmatists) to buy into the problem

if you look back on it, it's pretty incredible that congress in the 70s was able to pass sweeping harm-based statutes like the clean air act, but it gives hope for us getting something similar done today (or for incorporating GHGs under the current clean air act regime, as enviros tried to do through the judicial system in the supreme court this term)

fascinating retort … don't you find it a bit coincidental that the same people who don't "believe" or "buy into" climate change are generally the same people who support social and economic conservatisim?

why are these people hard-wired to see this scientific issue as part and parcel with the culture wars and with partisan politics?

the only way we'll be able to get real political movement on this issue is if we move beyond this partisan framework for the "debate", like we've done with so many other issues that began as "liberal constructs" and became simply wise moral policy … unfortunately i don't see it happening in the near future, just too many contrarions out there who are supported (often unwittingly) by tons and tons of money

vassego, why should Americans give up fossil fuels if the Chinese & the Indians don't have to. Don't tell me that you are a yet another brainwashed proselyte to the propaganda promulgated by The Protocols of the Elders of Kyoto?

Now that I've broken out a dictionary, I can certainly say I am not a poselyte to the 3 P's of Kyoto.

Call me brainwashed or whatever you like, but I don't think only Americans should restrict their use of fossil fuels (notice I did not say "give up").

Is it not apparent that fossil fuels won't be around forever? If not, then ok, but if it is clear, then why not work to develop non-fossil fuels, and then we can let "the Chinese & the Indians" worry about their problems when they run out of fossil fuels?

the main problem about having this debate is that it's often formed by intellectual "elites" from the coasts, again looking down upon "regular" people not living on the coasts. this smacks of elitism. . .which does end up with people having knee-jerk reactions against it, and rightly so.

i had a long conversation with a friend when this movie came out about how the way the message is put out (and has been getting out for the past 20 years) is the largest hindrance to this country doing anything about changing the way we use energy.

there was a great article in the ny times today about the increase in the installation of solar panels in california, and how people are viewing it not necessarily as an environmental plus, but for economical and national security reasons (this is perhaps my biggest problem with the way republicans have addressed energy use, although without the tax cuts from the 2005 bill, none of this would be economical).

why should it be "right" for "regular joes" to have knee-jerk reaction against intellectualism?

i've never fully understood this anti-intellectual part of the conservative psyche

Why should Americans give up fossil fuels if the Chinese & the Indians don't have to?

when the chinese and indians start using fossil fuels for hummers and private jets in the way that americans do, we'll have grounds to complain. where there are more cars than people in china and india like there are in the US, let's raise the red flag.

america has already benefited from (among other things) cheap energy to achieve its current state of development. time to re-invest our wealth, since we have wealth, into alternatives. we can afford to, india and china are still busy feeding themselves (insert typical rant about their spending choices, like they're anything near those of the west).

i know you're just being surly, but it amazes me that people can't accept that the american standard of living is unsustainable. we need to change, and that change will have a cost (i.e. no more hummers - shed a tear). thank god everyone in the world doesn't consume like we do.

60-70 degrees in wdc in dec-jan. global warming is a great thing.

hoya- the anti-intellectual bit cuts both ways. let's not forget that populism is also an anti-intellectual movement. it's also no coincidence that it's stems from the midwest and the south (the west would rather just be left alone, and have the states fix their own problems, and not the fed. govt.).

it's still a rural-urban debate. . .the feeling that the people from the city know better than the people from the country vs. i'm from the city and have a vast amount of knowledge about the world and can teach these country rubes a thing or two. people don't like to be talked down to and treated as if they are stupid, even if they are. and that you don't understand it just proves the point.

oh, i understand why pride causes anti-intellectualism in the less-educated, i just don't think it's "right"

my utopian scenario (obviously unachievable, patently absurd, and riddled with inconsistencies / possibilites for abuse) consists of a pure oligarchic technocracy run by policy experts in their respective fields

oligarchic technocracy run by policy experts in their respective fields

That worked out well for the Soviets.

which is why i so heavily qualified it

the feeling is really just an overreaction to the 15th century approach towards science that this administration takes

But surely you agree that arabian horse judges make the best Federal Emergency leaders.

90-115 most days in the future during a dc summer = crotch pot cooking. pass the baby powder surly.

Have you ever heard of Wiki or Google?

do you mean the last word on all things factual??? like i said, that's why i stipulated your facts.

Constitutional Robocracy

so…we should all die horrible deaths because the coasts think they are so big and smart and middle america doesnt like to be talked down to? we need a uniter not a divider here, folks

congratulations, dupek. your stupidity, greed and self-centeredness have gotten the best of me… i bow before the power of your arguments. by deflecting serious questions with nonsense, hyperbole and tangents you've made debate impossible. good work! bill o'reilly would be proud of you.

p.s. admission is the first step.

no one can nor should challenge your assertion, mostly because that's not the point we're discussing here - the point is that there haven't been this many warm januaries this close together cause by man-made greenhouse gases. typically it takes centuries to achieve this, we've done it in 40-50 years. polar bears can migrate to colder climates over centuries, not over decades.

if you don't believe in the effect of carbon in the atmosphere, go hang out on venus (~95% CO2, bring your sunscreen)

"The enormously CO2-rich atmosphere generates a strong greenhouse effect that raises the surface temperature to over 400 °C. This makes Venus' surface hotter than Mercury's, even though Venus is nearly twice as distant from the Sun and receives only 25% of the solar irradiance."

quit being an idiot and stick to the argument, instead of bringing in everything and the kitchen sink to this debate (then asking if anyone dares challenge that this is indeed a kitchen sink).