Re: maybe it's not over- climategate

[chris () blask org]

--- On Wed, 12/9/09, RandallM <randallm () fidmail com> wrote:

> tip of a giant iceberg . http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=118432

You can't seriously quote Weird Net Daily.  The National Enquirer has more solid sourcing.

I can't see why this topic is such a politically-polarized one.  Either mankind is capable of effecting the environment 
or it isn't, and the answer has nothing to do with political liberalism or conservatism.  However, the lines form along 
purely political fronts...

My friends who are solidly on the Left are shocked that I question any of it.  They tick off the Litany of Evils of 
Mankind (particularly capitalists) and accuse their political opposition of not caring about anything but themselves.  
Frankly, I think they are largely correct (we certainly are capable, and probably are in range), but we are talking 
massively complex systems and forecasting precise outcomes is troublesome (and we could be in a natural trend counter 
to our induced effects).  The topic is at least debatable as far as exactly where we are at the moment.

My friends who are solidly on the Right are determined that we are either incapable of impacting climate, that these is 
no such thing or that it's all a Communist Plot.  They vomit data (even WND "data", shame on you Randy) and opinions 
and shake angry fingers to prove their points - which are mostly about a Coming Socialist Takeover.  Frankly I think 
they have some points as far as questioning the extent of human impact and our ability to forecast, but the wild 
paranoid conspiracy ranting makes it hard to take seriously.

I guess I get the basic political alignment - since we are all embedded in it, "climate" tends towards group-oriented 
politics: since it triggers group-oriented politics, it triggers counter-groupism responses - but the stridency and 
dedication to the points along political boundaries still puzzle me.  Doesn't anyone care what the real answer(s) 
is/are?  What would happen to the political Losing Side if/when this is more definitively answered?  If (as seems 
majority opinion) mankind is having an effect on climate does it mean the complete collapse of political conservatism - 
even though it would mean we really do need to do something about it?  If it turns out that we can double our carbon 
output four more times without harm (as Martin suggests), would the liberals throw themselves off cliffs in droves - 
even though it would mean a reprieve from looming disaster?

I'm just interested in seeing that we continue to increase our understanding of (climate, biology, etc).  My political 
opinions aren't threatened no matter what researchers discover or propose.  I don't understand the eagerness of either 
side to find proof that the world is either ending any minute or that we should be free to pollute without restriction. 
 

It's more than a little creepy from both sides.

-chris


      
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.