Re: OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere

On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 15:37:15 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

JosephKK <quiettechblue@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:7faj94hd4ma4lu068trs38nrhvh2ebba33@xxxxxxx:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:34:45 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

<snip>


I'm not dealing here with GW, because it's being used now to set up
exclusive and even extremist positions - GW is an excuse to set
so-called "coenservatives" agains teh so-called "greenies" and visa
versa, so it's become a divisive issue, not a common ground issue.
I'm looking for common ground.

Thank you very much , sir, for trying to take a higher road.

To be honest, I'm not even trying to do even that much - I'm merely
trying to appeal to rationality.

I see a lot of label-flinging, and arguing over this or that specific
bits of minutiae regarding GW/AGW. Now, it's all fine and good to have
*intellectual* discussion...
TANGENT: please note that "intellectual" does not mean "PhDs
and/or genius IQ's only, all others please use the service
entrance" - I've worked with all sorts of people over the past
30+ years, ranging from sci/tech people to arts/liberal-arts
people, and from Nobel candidates to "regular" PhDs to out of
work fishermen trying to retrain, and if there is one Truth
I've learned, it's that the capacity for intelligence, and for
rational discussion/problem-solving, is *NOT* the sole purview
of any one "type" of person - the people who claim that their
group alone has some monopoly on intelligence have, 100% of the
time, turned out to be far elss intelligent than they believe
themselves to be...OK, back to the paragraph:
but discussion must yield to action when there are real and serious
problems occurring, and appearing on the horizon.

Do I think global warming, and specifically, AGW, are real? Yes -
*however*, I also understand that there is no argument among thinking
people over (1) pollution, and its deleterious effects and potential
deleterious effects, and (2) the issue of peak, or soon-to-peak, oil
recovery, which means more expensive extraction methods and a shrinking
supply.


I believe in climate variability. I have seen too much personally and
the long well verified track record is too much to ignore.

I specifically do not believe in AGW. I have seen to much hating back
and forth and various accusations of wealth mongering (both plus and
minus) and far too little checkable data, techniques, openness to
inquiry, etc to trust either side any more.

Frankly, what irritates me a lot is when people call one oranother idea
"stupid" merely because "it won't supply 100% of out needs". Well, not
even fossil fuels supply 100% of out energy needs, so, but that "not
100%" so-called "argument", we shoudl do away with oil as well - IOW, the
argument is absurd, in the literal sense of the word.

THe simple fact is that we will need "bridges", or "bridging
technologies", because it's just plain impossible to simply change the
system overnight - we can't just force people out of their homes and cram
them into cities, where they will tehn be forced to use mass transit.
THat's just lead to a massive revolt.

So, things have to be looked at with at least some *semblance* of logic.
Yes, we will need gasoline fro quite a few years. However, it si not
"stupd" for peole to be exploring all sorts of other technologies,
including fuel cells and so on - we have to let the specialists do what
they do best, and see whether they can arrive at solutions that cane be
*meshed into* a multifacetted solution.

Which leads into drilling. Am I concerned about offshore drilling? You
bet your bottom! At teh same tiem, however, I realize that,a s above,
things can't be changed overnight. I *do* think that conservation is an
absolute "must" - and that not only means going back to governemtn-
mandated higher MPG standards for cars (since the manufacturers, adn the
consumers, have proven they are incapable of regulating themselves in
this matter), but also, conservation *must* be made part of all building
standards. For example, there should simply be no option to have single-
paned windows in a new home or building, *and* there need to be tax
exemptions for people who retrofit older homes with energy-conserving
parts/materials. The us pisses away a hell of a lot of tax money, and a
ahrd, close re-look needs to be taken so as to minimize waste (and
boondoggles, and pork, and "fluff" - and nope, I'm not defining them, teh
definitions will have to be determined via a national dialogue), and once
waste is trimmed, reallocate a *meaningful* portion of those funds
towards helping people move to alternative/conserving technologies,
including things as "simple" as modern energy-conserving roofing
materials, added insulation in attics, thermopane windows, and even,
hell, planting deciduous trees to help regulat the temeratures of humes
an dcommercial buildings - get rid of this assinity of slapping up
cheap*** Monopoly Box houses that have few, if any, energy-conserving
features.

And so on, and so forth. It's not a "high road" or "moral high ground",
it's merely what used to pass for *mature adult-level decision-making*,
as opposed to the increasing tantrum-throwing and petty little nasty
behaviors that one would never tolerate in even a kindergartener, yet
everyone is supposed to applaud when indulged in by someone who claims to
be an adult.


I graded as taking the high road here because so many are in mud
slinging contests and you are refusing to do so.





<snip>


GW is a complex issue, and the masses don't do well with complex
issues. ANd it's mostly jsut a shouting match. THat's the problem.
Is there no way to talk about conservation on the basis os pollution,
and environmental damage that, in turn, erodes human health...?



Very much agreed. I have been trying to step away from debating with
either side. (Or as frequently, both)


The thing is that both just end up spinning their wheels. As above, I
personally think GW is real, *however*, I realize that there is nothing
at all to be gained by flinging insults at poeple (well, that is, unless
one likes the adrenalin rush of useless bickering becasue one isn't
physically able to sky-dive or go bungee-jumping or go around whacking
hornet nests for stimulation...)

The fact is that some poeple are absolutely convinced GW/AGW is real;
otehrs are absolutely convinced it's not, but what is *relevant* is that
the vast majority of people have mixed views. And, the only way to deal
with the issue rationally is to try to stop clawing at one-anotehr's
throats over who does or doesn't supposedly "own" The Absolute Truth, and
instead find the Common Ground, because, despite all fo the screaming and
shouting extremists, most people do (it seems to me from all I've seen
and heard) think there is ample room for some.

So, firstly, let's say, "OK, maybe it isn't real, *but*, what if it is?,
what sort of long-term contingency strategy should we keep open? Note
please that "contingency strategy" does *not* mean "everyone has to start
riding bicycles and taking only one shower a week, starting the first of
next month". Mainly, we (and our elected so-called "representatives")
have to stop with teh BS about "the otehr party is to blame". THat whole
blame-game is nothign mroe than the game played by pre-schoolers, whose
brains have not yet developed enough for them to realize that Mom *is*
smart enough to know that Mr. nobody, or the dog, or so on, did not climb
up the counter to raid teh cookie jar and tipped it sothat it crashed to
the floor and brokle into a hundred pieces.

At this point, all that this childish partisan BS finger-pointing
accomplishes is: Not A Damn Thing. Thsi is why I'm not a member of
*any* party. I don't beleive in them, because they inevitably end up
placing thier own partisan interests first, and then their oppiosition to
teh otehr party's partisan interests second - and what happens is that
*American* interests, the *NATIONAL* interset, is relegated to a very,
very distant third - and IMO, that simply si unconstitutional and not
very loyal to the good of the nation. The situation with energy - not
just high gas proces, but the billions being sent out of the nation just
to get from point A to point B in the most massive cehicle possible, *is*
an issue of national security; and again, teh answer is not to simply
drill more and continue pissing away the respurce, but rather, establish
bridging technologies/methods, while intensified research and development
into alternatives: alternative engines, more efficnet living, and all
teh oehr things that pretty much everybody says they agree upon when you
sit them down one-on-one and ask them directly.

One thing that definitely *must* stop is the all-too-common stupidity of
rejecting an idea, esp. an idea one formeryl thought was a good one,
*merely* because some member of the "otehr party" also says it's a good
idea - or even wrose!, rejecting a good idea merely becasue soem
knuckleheaded "celebrity" practiced for months and finally learned to
pronounce a word like "ree-sigh-kuh-ling". It's a good idea to recycle
and conserve, regardless of whether this or that dim-bulb "media darling
of the month" blithers about it but never actually does it.

As for the name calling, well, people who resort to that sort of idiocy
are simply showing their true natures, and if they can't learnt o behave
like adults, then they should be sent to the corner and ignored like the
naughty little children they are.


To me, that's not a high road, because it's nto that I think I'm "morally
superior" - I'm not; it's just simple common sense, and simple adult
behavior...




It has been my direct experience that those most claiming to be
morally superior, are not. And altogether too similar with claims of
intellectual superiority. Thus i try to avoid making such claims,
either i can make my case or i cannot. Even if some others think i
have made my case, anyone else (including you and everyone else here
and elsewhere) may not.

.

Loading