Stephanie Phillips, Associate Editor
Ideology: Environmentalist | Writing From: Portland, Oregon
As I have written multiple times in my articles on the Politicizer, the environment, energy issues and climate change should not be viewed as partisan problems. They have been traditionally marginalized to the left, and this has been a huge mistake. Climate change will affect everyone, and all ideas should be brought to the table to solve the problem. To effectively communicate this all inclusive, bipartisan idea, leaders of the environmental movement and environmental activists need to use new messaging strategies, strategies that do not demonize the right and focus on our societal sins, but rather focus on larger environmental goals to strive for.
This week, two things happened suggesting such a shift in strategy with regard to the environment, energy and climate change issues.
First, on Friday, President Obama spoke at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) about energy policy. His message was refreshing, and the forum was perfect for using the energy issue in an attempt to galvanize the public with American pride in innovation. What better place to speak about a positive and unifying energy future centered on technological advance than MIT? He began the speech describing windows that can generate electricity, batteries that can be grown and new advances in off-shore wind electricity generation. He also spoke about the political climate, but he did not linger on the difficulties, he did not chastise past policy decisions and he did not speak of doom. He spoke of seeing the energy crisis as a challenge that if met successfully with posed legislation and more, can mitigate climate change, can spur the economy into the future, can create a new type of green industrial job, can decrease national security risks, and can keep America at the top in terms of technological innovation and scientific research.
He described it as a new space race – a chance for the American people to rise together to meet new global challenges and come out on top as a continued technological leader. Those who linger in pessimism have lost that fighting American spirit, and have already admitted defeat. Ultimately, he spoke to the interests of all Americans as they are invested in the environment and he framed the problem in the language of patriotism.
Whether or not you like Obama, and whether or not you believe his speeches will have any long-term effect, this choice in framing the environmental message comes from what the President believes will resonate with the American people. This suggests to me that perhaps our leaders have become aware of the fact that the environmental movement need not be so deeply partisan and if framed correctly, can be seen as the ultimate national challenge that will spur us to come together and rise to the occasion in the name of protecting our own interests and the future of all. If this philosophy is adopted in the public arena further, I have greater hope for the future of climate change mitigation and effective legislation in the United States.
Second, on Saturday, people spoke out in action in the name of stopping climate change around the world. Actions were centered on a visual representation of the number “350.” Led by the group: 350.org, activists highlighted this number because many scientists believe that 350 parts per million is the most carbon dioxide that the atmosphere can hold while maintaining stable climate conditions, mitigating the effect of climate change on human populations.
There were over 5000 demonstrations in 181 countries. Banners were flown in India, people arranged their bodies in the shape of “350″ in a field Kuwait and TV screens in Times Square lit up with the “350″ message. In the Yukon Territory in Canada, activists surrounded a Parliament building, “hugging it,” urging their leaders to act. In Mt. Diablo, California, a group circled the entire mountain as a “necklace of hope.” Here in Portland, I saw kayaks preparing to spell out “350” in the water, with people watching from the banks.
There have been numerous climate change demonstrations and protests around the world to date. What I like about this action in particular though, was that its message was both international, and in no way partisan or politically charged. It was just a number – a number backed by the scientific community that people can rally behind and advocate for. By using it, we are simply saying: we want carbon levels sustained, whatever that means in terms of policy action.
The climate change movement has lacked this type of unison to date. By nature, it is not very tangible, with so many cause and effect factors and so much uncertainty into exact consequences and time-lines. 350.org has recognized this and thus chosen a number, something that we can all get behind, as a representation that we want action. There is certainly a great deal of debate surrounding the number itself, many people believe it can never be achieved, considering that we have already surpassed that number at 387 ppm and there is no indication that levels will actually reduce anytime in the near future.
However, achieving the number is not so much the point, as is providing a tangible mechanism for people to rally behind, for whatever reason. Their ideologies need not be defined before they came to support this idea. They could join in the action for reasons of national security, as part of a quest for a green economy, because they want more energy efficiency in homes, to save the polar bears, for the wilderness, or in the interest of global human rights. This action didn’t ask them to specify, and was not marginalizing.
Whether or not these two things actually indicate any real shift in the polarization of the environmental movement, I don’t know. What can get passed in Congress in the coming months and what can be negotiated in Copenhagen will be more realistic measures of that. They do however, serve as a hopeful symbol to me, that our leaders and many activists, are gathering behind a new positive image that can potentially coax many more people into the discussion.
The 350 movement was definitely inspiring to me, and I’m more hopeful than ever.
Realistically, Copenhagen probably won’t result in any hard policies or caps. But it definitely has the potential to result in an agreement on goals and plans for future meetings, which is better than nothing.
If we can get enough support in the Senate for either Sen. Kerry’s Cap-and-Trade or Sen. Cantwell’s Cap-and-Dividend, there will be much more momentum and potential for a tangible agreement in Copenhagen. The problem is that we only have until December to do it, and right now Congress is bogged down in the Health Care debate.
Does anyone else find this discomfitting?
“surrounded a Parliament building, “hugging it,” urging their leaders to act.”
“many scientists believe that 350 parts per million is the most carbon dioxide”
Spelling 350 by lying down in a filed? This is a “movement”?
This is a public display of unforgivable ignorance! We’re in a worldwide recession or depression, and our “leaders” are wasting time on this Unspeakable!
As Jane Austen used to say “Insupportable!”
Dear Greenies:
What’s gonna happen when they find out that the parts/million of H2O go from near 0% (it’s called a desert, very dry…like good French wine!) all the way up to near 100% (typhoon–see last week, Phillippines)
What kind of environmental disaster is that? Humidity going from very extremely low, to OMG high?!
It’s called weather, and it’s happening all around you. Managing toward a target ppm is one of the silliest ideas I’ve ever come across(Groucho Marx to Mae West:”You’ve got the nicest chest I’ve ever come across!), and since you know I’m Old & Decrepit, I’ve come across some silly ideas.
The parts per million have nothing to do with particles of water, but rather of carbon dioxide. In order to be safely sustainable, the atmosphere should contain no more than 350 particles of CO2 per million. The increase in the amount of heat in various places on the planet throws off climate cycles and destroy ecosystems. Furthermore, once that point was reached, the average temperature of seawater rose, and as the temperature of water rises, the amount of carbon dioxide which can dissolve in it decreases, thus releasing more carbon dioxide and perpetuating the problem.
Your confusion of statistics on water and carbon dioxide tend to hint at a lack of research on the subject. While I realize that someone who describes himself as “Old & Decrepit” may not really feel a need to worry, many of us would really like to be around in 50 years. Your cooperation in your children and their children not suffering through horrendous famine, pandemics, climate disasters, sea level rise, wars over resources, and a whole host of other problems is greatly appreciated.
The earth has heated up and cooled off for billions of years – that is scientific fact. Are humans responsible for the recent spike of Co2 levels? Yes. Is lowering them by means of gov. taxing and passing laws going to stop the world heating up or cooling off? NO. You can not stop nature from doing what it wants to do.
Chris,
While taxing may not be the way to bring about a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, the cut in emissions is known to be a necessary step to a sustainable climate system. There is no scientific evidence that a temperature swing at this pace has ever occurred before, and all evidence shows that it is a result of human behavior. How do you correct the human-caused problem without changing human behavior? You don’t.
Wait O&D,
You mean carbon dioxide and rising seas aren’t caused by gay marriage?
I thought every time gay people ruined your marriage, the ice caps melted….
Pissed off at GW says:
October 26, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Wait O&D,
You mean carbon dioxide and rising seas aren’t caused by gay marriage?
I thought every time gay people ruined your marriage, the ice caps melted….
NO NO NO Al Gore wants you to know that anytime you bring about a reasonable dispute against his movie the ice caps melt.
Dear P-ssed -ff:
Clearly confused. Go back to bed.
We had it out on gay marriage already on the other board. You missed it.
Colin: You’ve been reading too many of their pamphlets. You can’t do that. BTW “Sustainable” wasn’t really a word in the English language until the green movement picked it up in all it’s awkwardness and made it into a blessed “concept.” It’s the kind of word pointy heads use to spellbind the ignorant, and shut up the opposition.
Sustainable: Who says?
Rachel Carson started this whole idiocy and then Paul Ehrlich(he ought to be in academic jail for life)poured more on the fire of stupidity, and now the millenialists have got the greenies in their thrall.
As soon as one denies God, this stuff all happens as a result. Under God, what he wants to be sustainable, is…well, sustainable. What isn’t, well,…isn’t. See Genesis and the rest.
But come on, lying down in some field, a bunch of Eurotrash, to try tp get the G20 or whomever to fork over a bunch of US GNP to nogood socialist bossmen who mislead their Third World countries(somebody’s gotta do it–see Rwanda). Why do we need to even waste our time and attention on that UTTER FOOLISHNESS.
O&D,
This is the last time I’m going to bother addressing you.
My question is this: why do you continue to hide behind a pseudonym? All of the writers on this site, and many of the commentators, give their full names during debates. We put ourselves out there, because what we believe in is not only founded in sound argument, but it is just and right.
Do you feel comfortable in your anonymity? Do you feel safe alone, behind that computer screen? I’m sure you do, because you don’t have to look us in the face when you use the name of God to spread your hatred.
I’m here to shatter your illusion of safety. I know that you probably don’t understand how the internet works, since you’re so “Old & Decrepit,” but I’m going to let you in on one thing.
We know who you are. Every time you post, you enter your email address in the box below your name. Although it’s not published, the admins of the site can see that email address, and we can see that it includes part of your real name.
Essentially, we know who you are. You can’t hide behind your computer anymore. And if you try to post under a different name and email address, we’ll still know who you are, because we can see your IP address.
How brave you will be now?
Colin; From Yours: “he parts per million have nothing to do with particles of water, but rather of carbon dioxide. In order to be safely sustainable, the atmosphere should contain no more than 350 particles of CO2 per million”
I’m afraid you’ve boned this up pretty good, and if you got over a 2 on your Chemistry AP they’re gonna be calling you for some of that college credit back. CO2 is a molecule that in the temperature of air on earth is in a gaseous state(pisses me off to have to do HS Chem, ’cause it’s real old for me, but what you have to do , you have to do).
Now this gas that the CO2 is in’s called air, and its a mixture of Nitrogen, Hydrogen, H2O, argon, Oxygen (O2) and other negligibles. Each molecular particle is a part.
Grab 1 million parts. The 350ppm(parts per million, or parts/million)of CO2 is somebody’s preferred level. Why? “it’s a greenhouse gas” they’ll say, hoping that’s enough, they’ve blessed it and you won’t ask any more questions. How much water’s in there? I’ll ask. “Lots” they have to admit. “H2O, that’s a greenhouse gas, too. isn’t it?” Yes they’ll have to admit. “And when it gets up to a certain level of ppms at certain temperatures, it becomes an opaque mist, we call them CLOUDS(very, very dangerous)–they reflect the suns rays. But they absorb some of them, too. “How much of the suns rays do they absorb? I ask. Some, but they reflect some, too. How much of each? We dunno.
So the greenhouse gas that you can see(H2O), like in pictures from the moon, both reflecting AND absorbing light existing in much higher and much more variable concentrations in the atmosphere, well I’m not even supposed to ask about that, I’m supposed to instead get sweat pimples about a relatively small conc. of gas, CO2, that’s a product of animal respiration and food for plants–two good things.
Leave alone this fact that people always overlook: What defines the temperature of the atmosphere we live in, anyway? The sun’s rays, every earth science teacher parrots. But what about the contribution of heat from the nuclear furnace that is the core of the Earth? 3,000 miles diameter of molten rock below us oughta be hot, oughtn’t it? What’s it contributing?
THEY NEVER INCLUDE THAT IN THEIR TEMPERATURE MODELS. Did you ever notice that? Better start thinking about it.
The temp. of the atmosphere is defined by the equilibrium established by the contribution from the core of the Earth, and the contribution from the sun’s rays.
So whatever variability in the contribution from the sun:Clouds, CO2 concentrations, rain forest destruction, etc., is mitigated by the corresponding contribution of constantly radiated heat from inside the earth.
That’s about enough basic chemistry and earth science for now. Think about how much qwe know, and don’t know, and how confident of all this stuff the greenies are about it when there’s so much they don’t even take into consideration, and think how discredited Rachel Carson is(40 million Africans dead of malaria)and how discredited Paul Ehrlich is(2000 has come and gone, and by God, there’s plenty to eat!), and come here and we’ll do a little more of this tomorrow.
Ian:
That’s more hate than I might encounter at a tea-bag rally, up there in yer one post. Get a grip, young feller!
You guys don’t listen to Crosby, Stills & Nash anymore, do you?
Calms the nerves.
And I’ll point out that while you were hyproventilating, I was addressing the substance of my “issues” with the green issue, the results of which may be seen above.
While I thank you for your enlightening discussion of just how chemistry works, somehow I’ve always done alright in chemistry myself. The amount of CO2 in the air has never gone far above 300ppm in 400,000 years until recently. (Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html ) That number has increased to almost 390ppm. Adding almost 1/3 more of a substance into a mixture can drastically affect how that substance acts.
Here, I’ll even make this fun for you, it’s an experiment, which unlike the hate crimes posts doesn’t require you risking jail time:
1) Take a clear empty two liter bottle and fill it with water.
2) Add three drops of the food coloring of your choice and close the bottle, then shake it up.
3) Look at the color of the bottle, remember it.
4) Add one more drop of food coloring of the same color, then shake it up.
5) Observe the color. How has it changed? How will this affect the amount of light which can pass through and reflect outward?
If you managed to stay awake through the first week of high school chemistry, you’ll know that the increased pigmentation will lead to increased absorption of light, which is energy. This means that the light energy will be converted to heat energy and will heat the colored water in the bottle at a higher rate than uncolored water.
Much like colored food dye absorbs more light within the visible spectrum, carbon dioxide absorbs more electromagnetic waves outside the visible spectrum of light. This will lead to the same effect though and the atmosphere will get warmer.
However, CO2 is hardly the only culprit. No, a single particle of methane is thirty times as damaging as one of carbon dioxide, for nitrous oxide the number is 160, and for tropospheric ozone (which has a different effect in the stratosphere) the number is approximately 2,000. All of these pollutants are being released by industries at rates which are unprecedented.
Is lying in a field going to fix climate change on its own? No. But is drawing attention to climate change going to force decision makers’ hands? I sure hope so.
Dear Colin:
Crap with the bottle was fun, especially after I got to drink the two liters of Code Red.
The thing about 350 ppm is that even if you double it, it’s only 700 ppm. In doing that, I’ve gone from .035 % of the volume of air, all the way up to .07%. Those are both negligible, inconsiderable, (what do we say here?) “below-the-radar” percentages. Especially when compared with the fluctuation of the other greenhouse gas, (conveniently forgotten in all of these analyses) H20, which fluctuates wildly, as I detailed between near zero up to near 100%
How’s any human activity gonna corral all that fluctuation?
Fluct again.
And the stuff with the bottle was cool, like Beevis & Butthead. But what do I do with the food coloring?
Nobody addressed the cool new thing–that the ground actually heats the air above it. The earth is a fiery hot barbecue coal flying through the vacuum of space, dimly lit. How could anything we do have any affect whatsoever on what its temperature’s gonna be?
And nobody’s mentioned …sunspots!
A two liter bottle of can hold about 40,000 drops of water, meaning your fourth drop of food coloring increased the concentration from .0075% colored to .01% colored. Much like food coloring, CO2 does not have to be the primary component in air to have a huge effect on how the air affects heat from the sun.
As to your ideas on humidity, 100% humidity does not mean the air is 100% water. Relative humidity refers to the amount of water in a gaseous state in the air compared to the maximum amount that the air, at that temperature, can hold without the water condensing.
There were over 5000 demonstrations in 181 countries. Banners were flown in India, people arranged their bodies in the shape of “350″ in a field Kuwait and TV screens in Times Square lit up with the “350″ message. In the Yukon Territory in Canada, activists surrounded a Parliament building, “hugging it,” urging their leaders to act. In Mt. Diablo, California, a group circled the entire mountain as a “necklace of hope.” Here in Portland, I saw kayaks preparing to spell out “350” in the water, with people watching from the banks.”
Awareness for the sake of awareness is pointless.
Did people actually accomplish anything other then make themselves feel better?
art
By the way O&D, you’ve become extremely predictable in your views.
Someone please start a thread on evolution, so the geezer can write “Was your grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand- … – grand father a rock?”
Spice it up a little big boy.
art
“Essentially, we know who you are. You can’t hide behind your computer anymore. And if you try to post under a different name and email address, we’ll still know who you are, because we can see your IP address.”
If your answer to criticism is to say “look, we’re coming after you” then you shouldn’t be writing opinion pieces on a forum.
Yes, yes, you know who I am too.
art
Art,
Awareness for the sake of awareness is pointless, you are correct. But without awareness, action is impossible. The real challenge is the next step. This group must now harness the energy and awareness and move forward to create real change, or all will be for naught. While this does not always happen, we need this group and those like it to be successful. Civilization as we know it doesn’t have another century left if we do not literally clean up our act.
Dear Art:
I’m predictable. You’re not?
Have you ever read an idea in any literature, academic, political, or popular, as original as “The earth is a hot barbecue coal flying through the vacuum of space”? It might make you mad. But doesn’t it make you think? Does it make you think in a new way? Does it challenge your own conceptions? Is that partly why you come here?
Critical thinking is fun, and BTW your expensive high schools and colleges say they train you in it– all the while doing precisely the opposite. If you give in to it, you can truly discover what a “liberal education” is!
Is this board a doctrinal Inquisition I’ve been dragged before, or is a place to read, think, and learn?
Hmmmmmm?
Please do offer the editor a piece on evolution: sure, we can get that one started if you like. If I’m so predictable, send your proposed posts to my e-mail address which you purport to know, and I’ll consider them for posting under the masquerade “Old & Decrepit”.
Good move.
Stephanie: my apologies to you; how did I know things would get so ugly?
Dear Colin:
You and I, at least, can discuss this(I was up all night ’cause of the Code Red).
Remember “Oil fer Food”, the program? UN devised, it used Saddam’s oil revenues allegedly for food, but quickly became a slush fund for UN corruption, French and Russian complicity, and a paid-for looking away of the depravities in Iraq under Saddam, and advancement of his weapons program.
If the US agrees to cap & trade, and participates, who’s to guarantee that it won’t make Oil fer Food look like a raffle at the county fair?
Righties didn’t like the League of Nations; they didn’t kill it either, I think a crazy dictator in Germany did. Righties don’t like the UN any better, it gets used by Commies and Anti-Zionists to give cover to their inhumanities. And righties won’t like cap & trade either.
Think of the depravities that honey pot, the honey pot of honey pots, could finance! Cap & Trade.
BTW: the H2O argument above, plus the “earth has a molten center” and sunspots; aren’t they called “mitigating circumstances” in a court, and they should work together to give pause.
Look I’m for saving the planet, renewable resources, and the rest of that jazz. But government legislation like cap’n'tax is not the answer. Our government, and I can only speak for our government, is only looking for ways to make money for themselves and expand their control over the people.
Pelosi owns a lot of stock in a company that stands make huge profits when this bill passes, as do Boxxer and Waxman. Al Gore also stands to make hefty profit with his selling of carbon credits. Mr. I’ll save the planet from one of my 3 energy wasting mansions, while I fly around the world in my G5 promoting how great my movie is and is the word of god.
Yes, let’s tax farmers because their cows and pigs fart to much; yeah, that make sense. Everybody poops, unless you’re catholic. Then it’s, that’s pure concentrated evil coming out of your back side and you’re a naughty boy. What next? You gonna tax me because i plan on breathing and eating chili?
I’m gonna drive my 12 mile per gallon clunker across country polluting the ozone. But it’s okay because i paid Al Gore thousands of dollars for carbon credits to offset it!
Here is an idea. Instead of obama giving his best friends at GE billions of dollars so they can harvest the renewable resources and charge us up the butt for it like the oil companies, why not invest in research towards personal solar/wind generators for homeowners? So that the homeowners are producing his own energy for his house thus free up money and being green and releasing us from costly grip of the energy suppliers.
I do not advocate the so-called “cap and trade” system at all. I would much rather see an industry-driven approach to solving the crisis of climate change. However, we’re not seeing that happening, which is why there needs to be more of a protest over this. By protest, I don’t mean hugging trees (or for that matter parliaments) or marching somewhere. I would like to see people vote with their wallets.
I want people to research where their products come from and what the manufacturing process is that is used by its maker. If it is found to be environmentally damaging, purchase an alternative which is more eco-friendly.
Buying produce? Buy local. It supports your local economy, it costs you less because it isn’t shipped as far and it is less damaging to the environment.
Getting a new washing machine? Get an Energy Star appliance. It saves water and electricity, which for you means it saves money.
Is your city’s utility building a new power plant? Don’t vote for politicians who will allow it to be a fossil fuel plant.
Buying imported goods? Before you buy that product from China that’s probably painted with lead paint and undoubtedly has a carbon footprint bigger than Shaq’s, look to see if there is a product which is made with higher environmental standards. Generally, such products are of higher quality. That means, in the long run, the cost of replacement of the cheaply-made good will probably outpace the increased cost of the better product.
Buying a car? Think about what its use will be. If you live in a city, you probably do not need a Range Rover. You’ll waste money on gasoline and you will never find a spot large enough to park it. Shockingly, soccer moms, your two kids do not require that you own an eight-seat van.
The companies that manufacture goods will have no choice but to retool their processes to respond to the will of the consumer. Keep your dollars green and maybe, just maybe, we can actually make some change.
“Critical thinking is fun, and BTW your expensive high schools and colleges say they train you in it– all the while doing precisely the opposite. If you give in to it, you can truly discover what a “liberal education” is!”
“As soon as one denies God, this stuff all happens as a result. Under God, what he wants to be sustainable, is…well, sustainable. What isn’t, well,…isn’t. See Genesis and the rest.”
This is pointless because you’re arguing from a biblical belief. If people took your line of thinking seriously, then ‘science’ would still consist of counting how many angels can dance on a head of a pin. Because hell, if god wanted something to happen it would have happened, so what’s the point?
Fancy you telling others to exercises their minds.
art
Hey Art: If Enlightenment Christians were so slavishly faithful in the will of God, why did they continue Oxford, Cambridge, and then go ahead and found Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and all the rest?
Do you really believe that serious Christians, once they believe, cease to believe in science, history, and the future? Yours is a collossal bowl of putrefying ignorance as noxious as the compost and cowfarts that Big Green would stack up around us.
No one has a word about those icons of green, Carson and Ehrlich? Academic criminals, they were.
Colin: I’m afraid, like big gay, big green is a movement that now under BHO won’t move. Why? He used you to get elected. Now he doesn’t care anymore; as you point out he needs all his cards for the health care debacle. Bad news for big green today–UN’s backing up on Copenhagen. Maybe they’ve decided to wait for a hot summer.
I didn’t make a single comment about actions the federal government should take on this issue, so I’m not really sure how President Obama factors into what I was talking about. I assure you, it is not necessary that the administration approves your produce purchases.
I don’t believe in people adapting to the government, I believe in the government adapting to the people. When the people of the planet adopt eco-friendly ways of life, the government will follow.
O&D-
If by “big gay” you are referring to the movement to give all people equal rights under the law, then I am very kindly asking that you use a more appropriate term. Though I am a straight woman, I have a handful of gay and lesbians friends whom I love and admire, and I am rather offended that you refer to their struggle as “big gay.”
I find that, while you may disagree with a certain view (i.e. the LGBT equality movement), there is no reason to be disrespectful towards them. I feel this is a simple request, and would very much appreciate if you were more respectful to the LGBT community.
Thanks.
Marie
Dear Marie:
I have friends who work for oil and resource companies, and in academic research surrounding petroleum and gas. Their calling and their job is routinely now over years and years referred to so often as “big oil” that no one hears it as a pejoritived anymore. I like “big gay” because it saves time–the alternatives like”our esteemed and gracious friends in the LBGTQ world” or whatever, are just too ungainly. Pardon me, I meant no disrespect. I try to impart meaning. Esteem I don’t do well.
I also like “big green” and I don’t know where I got it. I might have made it up myself. You can use it if you want.
Dear Marie:
I’ve been thinking about your asking me to refer, on the basis respect/disrespect(once called “comity” or “politeness”, but in this new age of rapazation of our beautiful language we’ve lowered ourselves to “dissin’” I guess) to your friends not with “big gay” but rather “LGBT” or something like that.
First of all you may be new to this board; I’ve been here a couple weeks, long enough to be mugged and backbitten all day and all night by college-aged adherents and acolytes of “big gay.” There are more of them than there are of me. It’s alarming how quickly innocent questions having nothing to do with “gay” become a spitting hissing contest on gay: right to a gay “marriage”, sodomy laws, hate crimes leg. around and around and around. It’s as if you shout something completely benign like “Tax Policy” into a completely dark room, close the door. Open the door 20 seconds later and out comes “Right to gay marriage!” It’s weird, like the urge for gay acceptance has become the boardwide fixation and cathecism. I saw it in my children’s educations that there was an alarmingly magnified preoccupation with sexuality, with an emphasis on perversion, and tolerance of it.
That being my preamble, you urged me to be “nice” by avoiding the term “big gay” and instead using “WHAT THEY THEMSELVES PREFER TO BE CALLED” etc. LGBT. Oddly, just yesterday I saw a college add a “Q” to that, presumable for “queer”. I find that particular self indentifier sick–evidence of self-hatred, which I have observed is a quality exhibited by many in big gay. Queer used to mean odd or aberrant without reference to sexuality; thereafter it was used as a slur for homosexual about the same time as “homo”; now it’s being embraced by some in big gay itself(and by this college). That’s nuts, don’t you think?
I’ve lived from the era when negroes were simply called that. They liked it, it worked. Then came “black”(as in Panthers–scary), thereafter came “afro-american”, after that the clunkier “African-American” (and out of that this whole circus of hyphenated-Americans!). It seems to me a manipulative game: what I want you to call me, akin to the medieval order to the serfs :”Address me as mylord or I shall lop off your head!” Here in America we should call people what’s practical.
And if you don’t like “big gay” because you think it’s not analogous to “big oil” because it’s a lot of nice well-meaning men and women of “alternative lifestyles,” think again: it’s monied, it’s got lobbyists(tassled loafers!)it owns one Protestant denomination and is moving fast on all the others, long ago it infected the priesthood, it owns academia as it’s servile sock-puppet, it owns the NEA(scary, cause that’s all about “the children!”) and it bosses around the Congress with much force. It owns and is heavily financed from Hollywood, and the salons of NYC. It has law firms, and PR firms. A couple weeks ago it rolled out maybe 100,000 on a Sunday for a Mall occupation(“We’re here. we’re queer, and we’re in your face!”)
And the buzzing bees you will see aroused on this board are the acolytes of Big gay. So is my use of the term disrespectful, no. It’s facing a reality. For 20 year, what “big gay” wants, all too often “big gay” gets. Fie on the public health. Fie on public decency. Fie on other more important public needs, leave alone foreign policy.
We’ve gotta see it’s face, and recognize what we see.
O&D-
I’ve actually been following the site since the day it began; however, I only make comments when I read something that bothers me a great deal (see also: Goldin: Why I’m Marching-the only other time I have made comments). Perhaps you meant no disrespect to the LGBT community in using the term “big gay;” nevertheless, I felt it was used in a disrespectful manner seeing as some of your previous comments, especially towards the LGBT community, have not always been the nicest. If you would like to continue using the term “big gay,” then I would suggest clarifying that you are not using the term disrespectfully.
Now, you mention that you’ve been”mugged and backbitten all day and all night by college-aged adherents and acolytes of “big gay.” ” As I said, I noticed some of your responses have not always been the nicest, and perhaps one of the reasons why you’ve been “mugged and backbitten” is because you’ve shown the writers/commenters what they feel is disrespect (maybe unintentionally). It seems that when one person shows another disrespect, he/she tends to respond with the same disrespect originally received. I’ve seen this go both ways here. If you’d like to avoid such disrespect, I suggest being more polite in your responses – seeing as this site was made with the intention of peaceful, political discussion in response to “fresh” perspectives.
if you don’t believe me – just look our own conversation. I asked you politely and respectfully to not use a certain term, and you responded with your opinion in an equally polite and respectful comment (which I appreciate).
Dear Marie:
Touche, but you’re still asking me not to use a term that’s 1) new, 2) creative) 3) directly analogous, in fact pays homage, to the derivation of “bIg oil”,”big pharma”, “big food” etc. I simply use it for simplicity, and for the other reasons I present. Naming, vocabulary and rhetoric are actually part of the process of discussing politics. For example, this very day Pelosi, in trying to continue to sell the “public option” in the health care bill, changed the term she was using to “competitive option” to try to make it sound better. New name, same old crappy bill.
Our exchange is now very respectful, and we understand each other, but I will continue using the terms I choose, rather than having terms required of me. Requiring different or certain terms of me is shades of force, or dictatorialism, whose ugly cousin is censorship. No one wants to see that.
More interesting, but unaddresed by you, is the point I raise about gay people’s own use of the word “queer”, which I can’t see as any other than evidence of self-loathing, which if it’s part of it really worries me, as I believe it should others. Higher than normal rates of alcoholism and drug abuse, high risk sexual behaviors, added to self-loathing self identifiers is not a healthy combination in a group we are busy accommodating.
As I’ve said on another thread, I’ll say again: is this a movement well lead, or should it’s leaders get a better grip on it?
O&D:
First of all, I want to thank you from venturing away from the LGBT issue (except in the last few comments, lets get back to the topic of this post) and taking on the “greens” in your commentary on my post – your presence seems to always bring a great deal of readership…
I’m happy to respond to your ideas, although I’m not going to debate climate science with you, we clearly have very different understandings of the topic, and my giving you a textbook rundown of how I understand natural processes of carbon movement from atmosphere to biosphere to geological sphere would have very little effect on your opinions. All I can say on the matter is that an overwhelming majority of the world’s scientists posit that the rate at which we burn fossil fuels (aka transfer the carbon that took the earth millions of years to store into the atmosphere in a matter of decades) is contributing to a greenhouse effect, which is warming our planet’s atmosphere. These scientists don’t come with a green agenda – there are just too many of them studying the realities of the earth and saying this. Not that warming is inherently bad, but it will have effects of sea levels which will impact cities, create refugee and national security problems, and change arable lands which disrupt economies globally and disrupt the production of food. These are big problems, as big as our current recession, as big as wars, and we need to deal with this now.
Beyond that though, hating the green movement is really just silly, and demonstrates the polarization of opinions in this country and how they align with pre-determined ideologies, rather than come from a place of real contemplation. I’m guessing you hate the greens because they are radical, and hippie – because they talk about peace and love and hug buildings, when really they should be caring about the real issues out there.
The reason that hating the green movement is silly, is because it is hating a movement that is rooted in a desire to perpetuate human kind on the earth for as long as possible – and to ensure high qualities of life for everyone.
Climate change as an issue in itself is huge, in my opinion (shared by many), it is the greatest challenge our generation will ever face. It calls for global cooperation and significant compromise and sacrifice.
Beyond this though, seeking to solve climate change is a symbol for solving many other of the world’s problems – problems that you yourself have claimed to be “more important.” Climate change as an issue is a symptom of the same diseases of society that cause wars and recessions.
Climate change is a reality because we are addicted to energy, and to a form of energy limited in supply and internationally sourced. This addiction has led to huge national security threats, and has been at the root of past wars. Our dependence on fossil fuel energy will only worsen our standing internationally into the future, and only increase risks. Working to establish a renewably sourced grid in the United States will not only impact climate change, it will make Americans safer.
Climate change is a symptom of the fact that we discount the future at such high rates, that our actions often do not take into account inevitable future consequences. This is a symptom of our current structure of capitalism, and it is the same recklessness that allowed for a continuation of sub-prime packaging and over-leveraging in banks, although it was clear that the housing market was in a bubble leading up to the current recession. People kept taking those risks, however, knowing very well that eventually the bubble would pop, but hoping to get out before that happened. In a way, we are doing the same thing now with climate change, making decisions based upon what’s good for us today, while ignoring the inevitable consequences of over-consumption.
Working to combat climate change and establish a green energy industry in the united states could actually help us rise out of our current depression and create a new era of American technological prowess.
With this in mind, through talking about the issue of climate change, the green movement is asking our leaders to protect our security interests, think about the future of our children, and boost our economy, while cooperating globally, and incorporating everyone (you, me, and every other ideology) into the conversation. So we get down and we spell out 350 in a field, and utilize multi-media to spread the message as a symbol of what we want… how you can hate this is beyond me.
About Rachel Carson, sure I’ll take the bait. Rachel Carson was an ecologist, and if you’ve ever read Silent Spring (I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt), you’ll know that she did not advocate for the complete ban of DDT. She simply documented the scientific realities that DDT has on bird eggs, on ecosystems and on human health. Before her book was published, DDT was being sprayed on lawns and dead birds were found in them the next day. Average people took the information and advocated for a ban on DDT, and the government responded. It started the environmental movement because it triggered in people a recognition that what we do has impacts, and sometimes we don’t like those impacts (most people want birds and safe lawns to play in). She was not a hero, she was just a scientist who wrote down what she studied. She happened to be a good writer and was at the right place at the right time and people used the information she presented to found a movement.
Dear Stephanie:
Thank you for your post defending your concern for and belief in and commitment to activism on the subject of global warming and climate change.
My attitudes on this subject are born of experiences that go back some years. As a boy I spent some time crossing the ocean in boats, and I was impressed with it’s size and scale. Later I observed that experience wasn’t common to everyone; those who hadn’t seen the breadth of the oceans and the sky didn’t share my impression. This was during the era of a heightening concern for pollution—of our land, but also lakes and oceans. I concluded for myself that the concern about pollution of the ocean, both temperature pollution and also garbage, was not necessary. The ocean was too big, and human occupation of the earth was too small a part of it to make a difference. I remember dire predictions of our power plants heating up rivers and oceans. Didn’t happen.
High school biology, early 70’s began with a reading of Paul Erhlich’s “The Population Bomb”, written to arouse concern in population growth which was forecasted to bring famine in the 80’s, 90’s certainly by 2000. It was promoted to convince the weak-minded and easily lead to join movements of the time to control the distribution of resources, and restrict propogation of certain peoples—scary stuff. Luckily, along the way it was rapidly discredited, but by that time the field of ecology had struck the gold it was seeking—it had convinced everyone of the mystery and grandeur of a new “sensitivity”—everything was connected to everything else, so in essence one couldn’t swat a fly in Nairobi, or a baby might die in Idaho—good territory for totalitarians to explore. Also not a realistic worry.
I won’t bore you with the longer course of follies which have ensued since, suffice it to say that one that might be memorable to you is the Y2K farce of the end of 1999 when great fear was unleashed, and here’s the important part, great profits were earned by interests that exploited the concern raised(that computers would fail changing from 1999 to 2000). Nothing happened. But all those consultants and software writers all got paid, and all those scientific speculators that swore there was a chance of doomsday, never apologized, they just picked up another doomsday rabbit’s foot.
Since a monk named Malthus who mispredicted the cataclysm, the man from whom the Malthusian concept got its name, such end-of-the-world ideas have frightened the weak minded, and proved untrue.
About this one. There are at least 7 periods previous to modern man’s experience where it is known the temperature rose—why is not completely known–but it did. And it did so obviously without the stimuli that cause concern today. And I have been listening closely for the clear consensus that you insist exists among scientists that the current temp. rise, if it even indeed exists(the are skeptics to even that), is provably attributable to
human activity. That is again no consensus, and increasing skepticism. Of course a war is on over our heads between the Gods of governments(now that cap & trade could produce the honey pot of honey pots) and resource companies(whose livelihoods literally are at stake) is taking place, so it is hard with all the smoke and fire to discern the truth.
The Earth is so large, and relatively speaking, so sparsely inhabited, and the atmosphere is so big, and what we do to add or detract is so small as to be laughably irrelevant. NO young person wants to think they don’t matter. Everyone wants to matter. The green movement gives everyone a chance to FEEL that they matter, because the leaders arrange it so that its adherents think that the very future on man on earth is at stake, and that preposterous fool Al Gore bellows that we’re at or past a “tipping point” an important scientific principal invented by a …sociologist.
So Paul Ehrlich was terribly wrong; predictions of warming are arguable as to existence and as to cause, and presently so much money is at stake that you don’t know who to believe. Do me a favor: next time you fly coast-to-coast, look out the window most of the way and look how much empty land is out there, and how much pristine air and water is out there. Or sail to another country rather than fly, and see for yourself the pristine majesty and scale of God’s creation the earth.
After that, you might not think so much of “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever they’re calling it.
As a kid, I went sailing a lot. These days, I fly back and forth across the country all the time. I’ve seen the majesty of this planet. It is beautiful, and it is not difficult in the least to say that I could not envision living in any other place.
That said, let’s be real about climate change. Nobody disputes its existence. Temperatures are changing. Global precipitation patterns are changing, too. As climates change, the types of crops a certain region can grow change. This has happened before, you’re right, albeit not since the establishment of civilization in the modern sense. However, it has never happened to this scale. Furthermore, by examining the ice in Antarctica, we have proven that global carbon dioxide levels are at their highest level in history. We have proven that temperatures are rising at a higher rate than ever. We have proven that increased carbon dioxide concentration in the troposphere and stratosphere leads to increased heat on the planet. These have been proven and no evidence exists to contradict it. The climate is changing and humans are contributing to it with the pollution they create.
I appreciate your observation about how massive this world is. In fact, I will be the first to admit that climate change is not going to kill every person on this planet. Hell, it may kill as few as half. But it will vastly change the world as we know it.
Your comment a while back that God will sustain that which he sees fit to sustain brings me back to the story about the flood and the old man who knows God will save him. The town is flooding, but he knows God will save him. A boat comes by and offers to save him, but he knows God will not let him perish and sends the boat away. He does the same to another boat and then to a helicopter as he sits on his rooftop and watches the floodwater rise. He drowns. At the gates of heaven, he asks God why he was not saved. God replies “What are you talking about? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!”
Has it crossed your mind that maybe this research is our helicopter?
Dear Colin:
For my part I hope Marie and Stephanie are still reading. In my last post I left out some more sarcastic stuff because it tends to undermine my “hook” arguments, which unexpectedly secured your attention, for which I’m grateful. When we settle down, we bring out the best in each other(don’t touch me there!).
CO2—I mocked the thing with the food coloring, but I got what you implied, Mr. Wizard like, all of a sudden at a certain conc. all that water was gonna go blue. And CO2 does the same? Who says?
Greenhouse effect according to O & D: Glass house lets in light. Nice & bright, plus infrared is invisible but heats up the stuff inside. Which heats up the air, which the glass won’t let out. Cool, glass house with no ventilation in way-below-freezing climate warms up. I like it. As to of CO2 the molecule—you seem to be detailing some special quality to it that super-energizes it’s ability to accept, or react to infrared radiation that they forgot to tell me in HS chem.—this was before this new principal was invented to hype the greenhouse effect—but in those days water(H2O–our friend, the “life” molecule) with it’s 105 degree angle, and unexpected freezing point—it was the one that was taught as having “magical”(magical, “schmagical” it’s all Mr. Wizardry!) properties. Anyway, your description of the hyper-excitability of CO2, or that it’s some kind of Green Hornet molecule doesn’t fit with what I know, and sets off my BS alarms.
It also reminds me uncomfortably of transubstantiation, that principal loved by our Catholic friends but bemoaned on the Protestant side: when the priest rings the bells the wine really does turn into the blood of Christ. Really. Translate: the CO2 really does turn from kindly expirant into some kind of worldwide life denying poison. Come on. Get gripped!
On another topic. Communists don’t give up, they just change their causes. They drop one flag or territory(out of the Soviet Union, into the UN and worldwide green) and pick up another. They have achieved breathtakingly effective influence over US politics and governance: remember, Chinese leadership when we were actually winning in Viet Nam was stunned(in a good way!) with how easily we gave up. John Kerry and Jane Fonda were so glad to be helpful, as was Congress! So the Commies left Russia like the bankrupt sagging bag that it was(20 million starved in the Ukraine) and they took up new causes like Pol Pot(20 million more!) And meanwhile when the anti-war sentiment waned in the US because Nixon turned to Ford turned to Carter turned to Reagan etc. what liberal cause advanced inexorably because the anti-pollution movement(Give a hoot, don’t pollute!) had been so wildly popular?—Wilderness Society and National Wildlife Fund and National Geographic, and Voila—Big green. With money, and commies and the youth,, and government force and a malevolence against capitalism and a kindly green face(Jolly Green Giant!)
I guess I’m tired, I could go on and on(Dylan(X2): even you’ve gotta admit, this stuff’s worth clicking on just to read it!), but now that you, Colin, and you two, Marie and Stephanie, are getting trained in critical thinking, I don’t have to do it all alone anymore.
Now this is education. Liberal style!
Dear Stephanie:
The science is in and it’s ….well…, settled, just not in the direction the world warming cabal was going.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist
I love it when a real scientist stands up and dares to do science correctly. So we don’t have to sign that preposterous treaty in Copenhagen, and the UN department concerned can take up a new concern.
Goodbye cap & trade!
“Do you really believe that serious Christians, once they believe, cease to believe in science, history, and the future? Yours is a collossal bowl of putrefying ignorance as noxious as the compost and cowfarts that Big Green would stack up around us.
No one has a word about those icons of green, Carson and Ehrlich? Academic criminals, they were.”
I’m getting back to this a little later then expected, but hey, better late then never, right?
This is your point: Christians founded universities, therefore they couldn’t have been dogmatic when it comes to science. And you trot out some school, and soon you will trot out famous believers that were also scientists.
That’s wonderful, but I can only assume that you’re being disingenuous here at best. No where in your wonderful little blurb do you mention that up until the enlightenment those fine institutions of learning served as divinity schools and nothing more. So yes, christians did setup schools to study christianity. Great. Your point is well made.
Were there men in these schools that conduct the serious business of natural philosophy? Sure, but that was despite of, not because, of the institutions (I’m not even going to go into the slavish adherence to the Aristotle, since it back up the christian view of the world as the center of the universe).
Do christians do good science? I can’t believe I actually have to answer this stupid straw man you’ve said up. Yes, they damn well do. But you can’t seriously tell me that it is because of the fact that some view the bible as a direct word god.
Also, you haven’t answered my fundamental point: how can you claim to be a critical thinker when you come into a subject with mind made up. Genesis says it ain’t so so it ain’t so.
Now lets go to Carson and Ehlrich. This is your argument: their science was crap, so the science now has to be crap. Really? Is this your profound point? Trust me big boy, if their science was as horrible as you say it was, then anyone trying to build off it now would be ridiculed and treated as an academic fool. Alternatively, these two scientists actually performed some good work then hasn’t been fully refuted but doesn’t fit into your little world view. Either way, your argument has no power.
By the way, save the ad hominems; they don’t work.
art
Dear Art:
“Your point is well made.” You said it. I agree.
“ad hominems” you know some Latin. That’s exciting. Carpe diem, cave canem, et cetera…
The universities were founded and protected against the infiltration(now unsuccessfully) of minds such as you display: slavish devotion to the emptiness of a Godless universe: see Descartes vs. Newton. It’s in the front of your Phil. 101 textbook.
Yes, the best and truest science is done by believers, probably because they know their place in the universe. That God is big, he knows and creates what was, what is, and what will be.
And the eggshells of the birds of the DDT experiments of that sinister dope Rachel Carson were deliberately fudged. Too little calcium made too little eggshell. It was bound to be. But the real scary part is the dude who ran the early EPA banned DDT because he wanted to ban something, anything, in order simply to define its power to ban. Nice and effective pesticide banned through irrational gov’t power.
What a lesson in how not to do it!
And Ehrlich went off to the Linus Pauling Institute, I think, where he keeps that vitamin C hobby horse rocking.
Dear Greens:
Breaking news: American Chemical Society announces that hydrocarbon formation(coal, oil, and gas)may, instead of being the product of long-ago fossil beds(therefore creating the depletion argument) may be produced by naturally occurring interactions of the mantle of the Earth, water, and methane which is there all the time. In other words, the Earth may be manufacturing our hydrocarbon resources, and the manufacture may be talking place below us continually, and restoring reserves previously extracted.
http://portal.acs.org:80/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=223&content_id=CNBP_023309&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=a68e5bba-5c03-4f8e-acbf-a6e846f018b1
Perhaps after we be still for a time and discern the import of such a finding, we can exchange our concern for the imagined fear of depletion of resources, and the related concern for damage to the environment–also over-charged– and find new concerns which involved less hysteria and less millennialism.