Temperatures are what they are but the predictions Laurie David, Time Magazine and Al Gore make and the actions they propose are the issue, not what the temperature is and was. What is so difficult about that to understand? I constantly hear the fact that temperatures in some areas are higher today than a few years ago used to obscure the real issues. That is another reason to distrust those who push what Gore pushes. They refuse to discuss the lack of scientific evidence that their proposals will have any effect at all. They refuse to do cost benefit analysis (not that any could be done...they can't even get five labs to agree on what the average mean temp will be in five years). Say anything critical of Gore's agenda and the answer is always the same: global warming is true! Its's true! Its true! It's a fact.
There was this excellent article in Atlantic Monthly about this, and it wasn't really a liberal article WORLD magazine appreciated it. It basically said, global warming is a problem, but not as big as the activists make it. Then it pointed out that various other environmental threats have popped up and regulations been passed regarding them, with only minor short term economic problems.
So, really, the actions probably won't be much of a problem. And I would like to point out that the article doesn't mention the actions they propose are vague. They say, "we need to seriously find a way to fix this". And that's it . . . if you find that controversial than you must be denying the fact in the first place.
Now, we all know there is debate about what exactly will happen. But then again if we are to use that as a basis for discrediting global warming, practically all science is bunk.
I understand where your coming from too mate. I was arguing your position just a year ago, not to say I think I'm all that high and mighty now. Just I think that I was mistaken.
Yeah...so what? Let's talk about what Laurie David and Time propose to do about it.
Chances are slim that the kids will read anything other than what was in those articles. And in those articles, nothing controversial is proposed--I think.
Time Magazine is pushed in schools. "God's World News" isn't. "Everybody does it" isn't an excuse anyways. I also doubt the pestering Laurie David wants children to do is encouraged by Olasky's publication. But it might be. In which case I would oppose it. Also the question of Laurie David's agenda. She is a socialist. She wishes to use the environment to empower the state. I doubt "God's World's News" has that agenda.
True enough. But I wasn't saying GWN said the same thing, just that it was pushing an agenda as well. You're right that it isn't an excuse, but it's best to understand that is not just one political party. Time for Kids is directed at youth, chances that they will delve right now into LD's philosophy is slim. Chances that they will care to later on in life are slim as well. I completely disagree with socialism--I'm a centrist/libertarian, but I do agree with her here. And if we discredit the entire movement because there are some scum amongst them, then we are being stupid.
And Vylo, ever read
The Hundred Year Lie? It's an informative book on topics like what you brought up, though it is a horribly boring read.
