Prev  1  2  

Comments 51 to 60 out of 60:

51. dhogaza at 07:40 AM on 11 October, 2011
    But we're getting way OT here and should probably wind this down ...
    0 0
52. muoncounter at 08:13 AM on 11 October, 2011
    Dave123#36: "in the US we believe deeply that one person's opinion is as good as another's. And it's all opinion you know. The resentment of there being people who actually know more or are smarter runs deep" That's a relatively recent development. Not all that long ago, the US believed in science and technology; we valued expertise, not opinion. We could build large-scale projects: we went to the moon based on the work of experts. Now we value opinion; anybody who 'can't see climate change in his own backyard' has an equal say in the 'debate.' Coincidentally, we have a country that can't get much of anything done. Is it any wonder we can't deal with complex issues? Is it any wonder we deny climate science and investigate scientists? We have an education system that ranks slightly behind Estonia. But who needs a good education when only opinion matters.
    0 0
53. DSL at 08:23 AM on 11 October, 2011
    Agreed, dhogaza--on both comments--though I'd add that for me it was the idea of unions-as-progressive that was deflating. One more note for muon: let's not forget the contradiction in the social response to technology in the last sixty years. There was a great deal of fear of technology and science, expressed in thousands of SF movies and novels. I've always thought that Gilligan's Island is a powerful commentary on the response to the modern world. Anyway . . .
    0 0
54. Riccardo at 08:36 AM on 11 October, 2011
    Reading your comments, both from the US and Australia, maybe my over-simplistic idea of the prevailing self-interest value is just part of the picture. Indeed, you showed that in many instances it did not prevail. This is not unique to the US, though, be sure that it applies to single european countries and to the whole European Union as well. Yet, at least when dealing with global problems the balance seems to be shifted more on the global interest side. Americans, and australians as Stevo suggests, seem to be more torn apart between the two opposites as if they can't find their preferred balance. We may add that the crisis started a couple of decades ago, when the USA political and economic leadrship started to decline and which, like any crisis, tend to make people or nations try protect themselves from the outside world. This translates, as muoncounter says, in not being able to take the necessary steps. I'm trying to understand how come that a great nation decide to turn its back to the world and steadly point backward. We know from history that great civilizations may and do collapse; if a society denies the very existence of a problem it won't be able to solve it for sure. I am optimistic, though. I belive that the american people are able to show a strong will once they face the unavoidable conclusion. In some sense, the climate Pearl Harbour didn't arrive yet and this is what we're here for, avoid another (worse) Pearl Harbour.
    0 0
55. muoncounter at 09:19 AM on 11 October, 2011
    DSL#53: "Gilligan's Island is a powerful commentary" Recall that GI included 'The Professor' among the castaways and the others did not blame him for their misfortune. A more modern version of this would have him 'voted off the island.' But the common theme to the bullet points in this post is not fear of technology, it is money talks.
    0 0
56. Lloyd Flack at 09:36 AM on 11 October, 2011
    No money buys you an echo chamber where you hear what you want to hear. Yes, many in the fossil fuel industries are trying to cause consusion over climate change. But first they are confusing themselves. And it is not just profits. It is their sense of vocation, their belief that they are doing something beneficial to their societies that is threatened.
    0 0
57. muoncounter at 12:18 PM on 12 October, 2011
    DSL#48: "another look into the minds of US conservatives," Here's yet another revealing look, highlighting some key traits: denial of scientific evidence, use of government to censor science. Rice professor accepts Gulf article's fate

    A Rice University oceanographer said he accepts a decision by the state's environmental agency to kill an article he wrote on sea-level rise in Galveston Bay, ending a standoff over the article's references to rising sea levels and human-caused environmental change. "I'm willing to live with not having it published," John Anderson said Tuesday. "I refuse to have it published with their deletions."

    TCEQ is Texas' environmental quality agency; from their mission statement: "Our goal is clean air, clean water, and the safe management of waste." The agency's director, Texas A&M Biological and Agricultural Engineering Professor Bryan Shaw, was appointed in 2007 by Gov. (and current presidential hopeful) Rick Perry. Dr. Shaw is on record as disagreeing with the unanimous opinions of the TAMU Atmospheric Sciences department (Andy Dessler, John N-G, et al) and supports his Governor's opinions on climate change. Inquisition? Nah, just censorship. But you will recall that the Church banned Copernicus' book before putting Galileo on trial.

    0 0
58. muoncounter at 23:45 PM on 13 October, 2011
    Climate Progress nicely covers the censorship of any mention of sea level rise in Texas, including the markup of the chapter written by Anderson with edits. It would be astounding, if it were not happening in Rick Perry's Texas. “We can’t even present a conservative viewpoint” The edits are stunning. For example: the very existence of Galveston Bay is attributed to sea level rise. It is ironic that its future will be strongly regulated by the now-rising sea. A must-read.
    0 0
59. Sasquatch at 06:02 AM on 14 October, 2011
    1. From where do the figures on funding from industrial sources come from? 2. How much money has been spent on supporting AGW research, and where does it come from?
    0 0
60. DSL at 06:44 AM on 14 October, 2011
    1. Here's a sourcewatch wiki on Koch Industries, with references. Readers can do their own explorations from that starting point. You should add no. 3, Sasquatch, if you want to provide complete coverage: "Where does the industrial funding money come from?" Remember, the government isn't the only economic entity that engages in taxation (it's just the only one that offers representation (such as it has become)).
    0 0

Prev  1  2  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.