Having been raised by what I, as an outdoors snob, would call a "real environment" ( to the rest of you) I guess I've always been biased towards environmental issues. Certainly becoming LDS (that should read "a LDS", but that just doesn't sound right!) wasn't the beginning of my belief in protecting the environment. However, as I continue to learn more about my religion I feel more and more concerned with the state of the Earth and what we are and can do to try and improve it. Though there are some specifically LDS teachings that help strengthen this (scripture that deals with the Earth as a living soul, aware of what's going on at the surface) the Bible isn't entirely silent on the issue either. I don't consider myself competent enough to comment on other religions (really I probably over-step my bounds just going beyond my denomination) but my imagination says that there's hardly a mainstream religion out there that is against environmental protection!
And yet I can't help but notice the incredibly high correlation between religious affiliation and a negative attitude towards environmental protection. My first thoughts are the unfortunate (to me) fact that environmentalism came down as a Left-backed issue when sides were being chosen and so ideological consistency lead to those backing the Right-conservative side to generally go against it. Not that I'm saying that this is anyone's specific reason, but rather that it created a general context in which political people established their ideas and beliefs.
Yet I don't know, is this really the case? I hear a lot of quoting of "to be used for the benefit of man" type stuff but it always struck me as more of an out of the potential religious blockade to those kinds of attitudes than a real religious reason for opposing environmentalism. Of course that's from my biased perspective of seeing this as a real, and religious need. Is there really a correlation between religion and anti-environmentalism*?
*I hate to use that phrase, it's like "anti-choice" or "anti-life", used to degrade and inaccurately reflects people that are not against either but support something different. I just couldn't come up with something else, so if anyone has a suggestion, let me know!
Hobbes Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Most of the mainline protestant churches have pro-enviornmentalism statements. I think the Roman Catholic church does too.
Edit to add: Try here if you want some resources on faith-based enviornmentalism.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Many political groups that are conservative are also pro-business and anti-regulation. When the social conservatives aligned themselves with the Republicans, they got "stuck" with being on the other side of environmental issues.
Also, in my opinion, care for the poor issues. Those are very religious, but get quashed when it comes to what conservatives want government to do.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Thanks dkw. I assumed so, and some of my (very scarce) research showed it, nice to get it from someone I trust. I've reading somethings about "creation care" I found quite interesting actually. However, all this just adds to my confusion over the high correlation I see between religion and ... whatever the appropriate terms is.
Hobbes Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
What katieboots said. Also, see my edit for resources, if you're looking for 'em.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
So then you'd agree with this: (?)
quote:And yet I can't help but notice the incredibly high correlation between religious affiliation and a negative attitude towards environmental protection. My first thoughts are the unfortunate (to me) fact that environmentalism came down as a Left-backed issue when sides were being chosen and so ideological consistency lead to those backing the Right-conservative side to generally go against it.
I guess that's been my feeling but I've always felt that those are are religious and don't support environmentalism would be rather disagreeable to that idea...
Hobbes Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Not usually my venue, but I think it is not unreasonable to think that someone could be both religious and progressive as well.
I'd think....
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
(ETA: replying to Hobbes) Yes, I would. I don't think being religious or not correlates to being pro- or anti-envirornmentalism, but certainly what "flavor" of religon you're affiliated with seems to. (Noting the overgeneralization, and the presence of exceptions on all sides.)
I also think the same thing is true of liberals on other issues. Dividing the world into "liberal" and "conservative" teams makes it harder for people to break with the team over particular issues, at least partially because the media they listen to and the sources they trust will tend to support the side that goes along with their package deal.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Achiles, it has been known to happen.
Hobbes the Catholic Church does indeed have statements on the environment.
``I think conservatives have fallen into a trap when it comes to the environment. For the last thirty years, the left has used the environment as an emotional tool to try and impose higher taxes, more litigation, and bigger government on the country. So the reaction from conservatives was simply to say “no.” But where was the free-market alternative? The lack of competing solutions branded conservatives as being against the environment.
I wrote A Contract with the Earth with Terry Maple to begin the development of a “green conservatism” that emphasizes free-market, entrepreneurial solutions to conserving the environment. If we can re-center our national dialogue about the environment toward shared values and competing solutions, the entire issue of anthropomorphic climate change will just become a sidebar to the larger conversation.''
Of course there's such massive diversity in "Christianity" that it's almost impossible to define a consistent opinion on nearly any subject, let alone pin down the genesis of the opinion.
That being said, many fundamentalist Christian sects have a high degree of apocalypticism in their dogma. Check out the sales figures on the Left Behind series if you want an idea of how pervasive the idea is.
If one really believed that the destruction of the world was inevitable, quickly forthcoming, and a necessary step toward the second coming of Jesus, I can understand how they might view environmental legislation as futile, if not dangerously misguided.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think religion can be a convenient excuse not to have to think about certain hard questions. That's more likely to be a personal failing of religious people than a problem with religion, though.
(While I don't think religious speculative fiction popularity is necessarily a great indicator for the reach of actual religious beliefs, the Left Behind series does explicate one particular belief that might be used as an excuse not to worry about the environment, as Speed suggested.)
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Hobbes, if you could control for the effects of the Bob Salter hi-jack of the Utah Republician Party,I think you would find that what you are picking up as LDS religious objections to some environmental initiatives is really a regional attitude not a religious one. If you come from a "reclaim the desert" tradition (and you all have to admit that a modest, well run farm or ranch is a lot pretter than a scraggley old desert) it's hard to get excited by some sopping wet back-easterner telling you how to use your water.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Hobbes, I think you've nailed it when you say that it tends to be ideologically driven, if you agree that religious people are generally more conservative (generalistaion ) and environmentalists tend to be more liberal, and so religious people can find themselves stuck between what they think is important (looking after God's creation respectfully) and groups of people whose overall ideology they don't like. That's what I find happens to me: The Greens here (a political party who have had some significant political influence over the last 9 years) drive me nuts with much of their program (legalise marijuana, illegalise prostitution, criminalise parents using corporal punishment, even mild forms, on their children) to the point thta my kneejerk reaction to them is "Go away", even when fundamentally I am sympathetic to many of their environmental ideals. Not sure if you have read this, but Hugh Nibley had an excellent piece in a 1972 New Era, called Man's Dominion. It came out at a time when Environmentalism was really becoming important. Very interesting reading. http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=b7d118e7c379b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Thanks Speed, I'm no good at that stuff :{
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It's my understanding that there's a growing "green" movement within Evangelical Christianity. And indeed some have said that younger Evangelicals moving "left" on some issues, even while remaining "right" on others, is part of what brought Obama into office.
I suspect a religous mindset that views stewardship of Earth as "God's creation" is going to continue to become more prominent in the years to come.
It's a bit of a pity after all this time that Mr. Gingrich still seems to put the cart before the horse with regard to partisanship- viewing Democratic environmentalism as a means to achieve regulation, rather than the former requiring the latter in the Democratic view.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
As for personal statistics, I'm a liberal and generally vote Democratic. I'm very much an Obama supporter. And I'm in favor of smart environmentalism, but oppose some things that I think are bad technological decisions.
Low flow toilets are really just no flush toilets. They don't work. That was a big mistake. When they are implemented people just have to flush multiple times. They don't save water and they don't do their job.
100% electric cars don't prevent pollution. They just move some pollution from the car exhaust to the power plant where it's granted easier to scrub or otherwise handle. But the inefficiencies along the way are terrible. First of all, you lose 70% of the energy in waste heat at the power plant. There went your car heater, up in steam from the plant. You don't get one on your battery powered car. Ditto to transmission losses and so on. Electricity is like THE most expensive form of energy. Then batteries are very expensive and don't last. You have to spend several thousand for new batteries every few years in the life of the car. Think about how your laptop batteries are shot by the time you need a new laptop after 2 years. Car batteries for electric cars cost like $1500. And they're toxic as all get out. Even if the car company agrees to recycle them, that's not a waste free process. And the heavy metals they contain are some of the very worst kind of waste. I maintain that electric cars aren't good for the environment at all. Hybrids are somewhat better, but not much. It's nice that someone's working on the problem some, for when petroleum prices are just too high. But it's just not viable technology yet, and it's terrible for the environment.
Another issue is compact fluorescents. I love them and use them in every application they're appropriate. But they're big so some fixtures don't work with them. And they're inappropriate for dimming applications. And they're not appropriate where it's damp, or for outside applications. They don't last as long as they claim. I've been putting compact fluorescents in my house whenever an incandescent bulb burns out. They're supposed to last 7 years but I've only been here 6 years and I've already had to replace all the first ones at least once. And again the waste from them is much more toxic and troublesome than with incandescent bulbs. It's a bad idea to "phase out" incandescent bulbs. For some applications they'll always be better.
I think sometimes we legislate these solutions and they aren't really that wise.
Lastly, I believe nuclear power plants should have continued to be built all along, not gone through a 30 year hiatus after Three Mile Island. If they had been, we'd have emitted far less CO2 into the atmosphere over the last 30 years than we did. Nuclear power is clean and elegant. Fuel lasts 18 to 24 months before being reshuffled. Then is reshuffled an average of 3 cycles before being removed. I think it's great that we didn't dispose of our spent fuel in Yucca mountain, because only 5% of the energy is gone from it. We can reprocess it and use another 90% leaving waste that is toxic for much less time.
Anyway, I'm 100% in favor of us sustainably using the earth's resources. I believe the environmentalists have done a great service to our country, and gotten so much cleaned up. But sometimes the legislated solutions are a mess and aren't the smartest thing we could have done.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
So there's one data point. Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
Being a religious person and a conservative, I support environmentalism, generally speaking. My faith has helped me develop a greater appreciation for this world and all of its beauties. One of my biggest pet peeves is when people litter and sometimes I am really annoyed by all of the excess packaging that goes into our modern products.
At least in my own case, the difference between me being a liberal and being a conservative on environmental issues is not environmentalism vs. anti-environmentalism, but government regulation vs. non-government regulation. I am not saying I disagree with all regulation, just a lot of it. It bothers me how much of our progress in energy development has been delayed due to excessive environmental regulations.
On the other hand, I agree with an earlier poster in that the free market, because of our general attitude as a society, has not done its part to promote concern for the environment. I am seeing this happen more in the private sector in recent years, and nothing warms my heart more than a private organization promoting measures to preserve the earth, as long as that measure is reasonable.
I do believe that God has made us stewards over this earth, and I am not one who believes animals have rights, like humans do, but that God expects us to treat them humanely and to only use them for wise reasons. I believe many Native Americans treated the buffalo, for example, with this type of attitude. They did not refrain from ever killing any buffalo, but they only killed them when they were needed, and then they used every part of the animal that they could. They respedted these animals and understood their proper place in the world. I believe we should all approach the environment in this manner.
I don't like extremes on this issue. I don't like some conservative attitudes that say "to heck with the environment, it will take care of itself" and I don't like extreme environmental attitudes that say, "don't build a house there, a squirrel lived there" or "animals have rights just like humans do." Don't build recklessly, but also recognize that we as humans, have just as much a right to build our societies as does a beaver who makes a dam.
The fact of the matter is, I don't believe the government can solve all of our environmental problems if a large portion of society just doesn't care. If many people don't care, then the private sector also won't produce individuals that promote healthy measures through their businesses. For me, when it comes down to it, we (as a nation, not referring to Hatrack) need to become more educated and less emotional regarding this issue. We, as individuals, should think more and react less regarding how we use resources around us. I include myself in this, because there are still times when I use resources without thought for the consequences, but I find myself becoming more responsible on this issue the older I get.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: 100% electric cars don't prevent pollution. They just move some pollution from the car exhaust to the power plant where it's granted easier to scrub or otherwise handle ...
Out of curiosity, would your opinion about this change in a jurisdiction where the power for the electric cars would mainly come from nuclear or hydroelectric?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:I believe many Native Americans treated the buffalo, for example, with this type of attitude. They did not refrain from ever killing any buffalo, but they only killed them when they were needed, and then they used every part of the animal that they could. They respedted these animals and understood their proper place in the world. I believe we should all approach the environment in this manner.
Just a tangent, but how sure are you about this? I realize this is a popular belief but I'm not sure how much justification there is for it. I would not quibble that the descendants of European colonists are mainly responsible for the near extinction of the American bison, but I think that could be true even if there wasn't deliberate conservation on the part of the Native Americans. They might not have seen/shared the profit motive that led to wholesale slaughter of bison. They might not have figured out a way to kill a lot of them at once. etc.
As I saw someone else point out recently, there have been wildlife extinctions in North America prior to the bison, that were probably due to overhunting by Native Americans.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Marlozhan , scifibum:
This may be helpful
quote: Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump is a buffalo jump located where the foothills of the Rocky Mountains begin to rise from the prairie 18 km northwest of Fort Macleod, Alberta, Canada on highway 785. It is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and home of a museum of Blackfoot culture. ... The buffalo jump was used for 5,500 years by the indigenous peoples of the plains to kill buffalo, by driving them off the 10 metre high cliff. The Blackfoot drove the buffalo from a grazing area in the Porcupine Hills about 3 kilometres west of the site to the "drive lanes," lined by hundreds of cairns, then at full gallop over a cliff, breaking their legs, rendering them immobile. The cliff itself is about 300 metres long, and at its highest point drops 10 metres into the valley below. The site was in use at least 6,000 years ago, and the bone deposits are 10 metres deep. After falling off the cliff, the buffalo carcasses were processed at a nearby camp.
Interesting. I think Marlozhan allowed for the possibility that not *all* Native Americans would have reverence for their food supply, so I wonder if there are any counter examples that show a an explicit cultural expectation to show restraint in killing bison or other prey (outside of the vague portrayals in pop culture which I simply don't trust).
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: 100% electric cars don't prevent pollution. They just move some pollution from the car exhaust to the power plant where it's granted easier to scrub or otherwise handle ...
Out of curiosity, would your opinion about this change in a jurisdiction where the power for the electric cars would mainly come from nuclear or hydroelectric?
The technology is still not there for electric cars to be a mainstream option. We just had a briefing at this at work on Wednesday (I work in energy markets) as a sort of "is this an up & coming issue we need to be aware of?" The answer was no. At roughly current gas, electricity, and technology prices, it takes about 17 to 20 years for the higher cost of the 100% electric car to be made up in savings. At $4 gas, it's still somewhere in the 7 year range.
The only car company taking the idea of an 100% electric car before 2020 anywhere close to seriously is GM - and that's because they're grasping for anything.
Edit: our transportation expert (from the transportation section of the company) put the 2020 market penetration of a plug-in electric vehicle (like GM's Volt) at a possible (not probable) 1% IF the battery durability problem is resolved.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Jhai: Depressing, but good to know. Still, it will be interesting to see if that is indeed how it will play out, especially overseas.
Edit to add: In particular, I wonder if a combination of higher gas taxes in Ontario, more nuclear and hydro in the proportion of power used, the spreading use of time-of-use meters allowing for cheap off-peak power, along with innovation such as that at BYD may push special cases like Ontario to or above 1% before 2020.
quote: Mr. Wang says BYD's batteries use a new technology that makes them safer than other lithium-ion models. He also says cheap abundant labor helps keeps his costs down, another factor that could sway consumers. In China, the F3DM is priced at 150,000 yuan, or $22,000, and BYD expects it to sell for a similar amount in the U.S. The Chevrolet Volt, by contrast, may be priced at $40,000 or more when it hits the market in late 2010.
Another potential BYD edge: more than a decade of experience specializing in making batteries. Mr. Wang started the company in 1995, borrowing $300,000 from a cousin, and making batteries for cellphones. Today, BYD is the world's second-biggest producer of lithium-ion batteries. The company made 21.2 billion yuan ($3.1 billion) in revenue last year and has a work force of 130,000. Last September, MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., an Iowa-based energy producer, invested $230 million in BYD for a 10% stake. Mr. Buffett is majority owner of MidAmerican. ... The first of BYD's electric cars, the F3DM, is more of a purely electric car than the gasoline-electric hybrids on the road today. It can go about 50 to 60 miles exclusively on electricity when fully charged.
By contrast, Toyota Motor Corp.'s Prius is essentially a gasoline-fueled car with an electric engine that propels the car at low speeds and assists the gasoline engine when accelerating. The F3DM is similar in design to General Motors Corp.'s Chevy Volt. But it is being launched two years earlier than the Volt and one year ahead of Toyota's plug-in hybrid, which is due out for late 2009. ... In China, BYD is already one of the fastest-growing independent auto makers. Demand for its traditional small cars, the F3 and the F0, is growing despite weakening car sales in China, allowing it to close in on Chery Automobile Co. and Geely Holding Group, the two biggest independent Chinese auto brands. The F3 was one of China's best-selling models during the last quarter of 2008. "BYD is probably the closest...to becoming the first Chinese auto maker to crack the Western auto markets," says Wolfgang Bernhart, a senior researcher for the German consulting firm Roland Burger.
By late 2009, BYD plans to mark another milestone by launching in China the BYD e6, an all-electric car capable of going 180 miles on a single full charge of its battery.
Those specifics might make a plug-in more viable. We did talk about the possibility of fleets of vehicles used by a city government or in a share-ride approach like Zipcar in major cities (where you get the most out of an electric car), and I could see that being implemented in Ontario. And technology breakthroughs can change the game at any time. However, cost to the consumer is a big one to overcome - it's a pretty accepted rule that the majority of people will only consider purchasing a cost-saving technology if they recoup their upfront costs within three years - and then market penetration falls away drastically. At seven years out, you're looking at around 4 to 5 %. A combination of taxes, subsidies, and regulation requirements can shift those costs around, but it's not politically possible to change costs too much via regulation.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Low flow toilets are really just no flush toilets. They don't work. That was a big mistake. When they are implemented people just have to flush multiple times. They don't save water and they don't do their job.
I would amend that to say "some low flow toilets". There are low water use toilets available that work very well, sometimes better than the huge tank toilets we had in my home when I was a kid.
The problem is that most low flow toilets in the US are simply very poorly designed. I'm not sure why the US is so far behind on toilet technology. I'm living in a developing country, but even here toilet technology is way ahead of the US. The toilets in my home have tanks that are half the size of the typical toilet tanks in the US and yet I never have to flush more than once. In addition, the toilets never "run" because the flapper didn't close properly because there is no flapper. The flush operates on a siphoning mechanism. When you depress the flush handle, it pulls a diaphram that sucks water up and over the top of the siphoning tube and the water in the tank then drains out into the bowl. Once the tank is empty, the siphon is automatically broken and water flow from tank to bowl stops every single time. There are also differences in the design of the bowl so that stuff gets flushed out more easily with less water. And these are toilets in a 3rd world country. (I'm not saying we don't have more than our share of plumbing problems, but I'll spare you that rant for now)
The toilets in Germany are even better. Most of them have the option for a half flush and a full flush.
All too often people assume that because certain resource saving devices perform badly that it just isn't possible to get good performance without using more resources. In many cases like the US low flow toilets, we are just talking about really poorly designed systems and a well designed system could give both better performance and lower resource use.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"In many cases like the US low flow toilets, we are just talking about really poorly designed systems and a well designed system could give both better performance and lower resource use."
I agree with you.
In men's rooms around here, the low flow toilets are a real joke. Since they are in men's rooms, the sit down models are ONLY used when an effective flush is needed, and two flushes is the norm. It'd be better to simply use older models, but better yet to find a water conserving model that can still flush effectively.
In homes and women's rooms, I think the occasional double flush is probably outweighed by the more numerous No1 uses for which a single flush still suffices, but public men's rooms with poorly designed low flow thrones are probably using MORE water than they did with older toilets.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm completely with Hobbes on this one. It has completely baffled me for years why so many conservative religious people oppose environmental protection.
I've got a number of hypotheses on it but I think mostly what it boils down to is this. In western thought the idea that ethics should encompass how we treat non-human things is fairly new and a fairly radical idea. Counter-culture elements that have rejected traditional religious views on morality were among the first to embrace this radical idea that how we treat nature is an ethical issue. It's sort of a guilt by association issue. Conservative religious people associate "environmentalism" with "new morality" and other threats to traditional religious sentiments and so they oppose it. Its not at all rational but then people are rarely are.
It is interesting that most environmental legislation in the US has been linked to human impact. The justification for clean air and clean water is primarily that pollution has a negative impact on people. Much of wilderness legislation is tied to preservation of watershed -- once again linked to human health. Wetlands preservation is linked to flooding of human property. National Parks are preserved for the enjoyment of humans.
The one big exception to this has been the the Endangered Species Act, which has been continually controversial. Even here, its worth noting that while the Endangered Species Act has been a powerful tool for protecting ecosystems the justification has been to preserve "species" and never that ecosystems themselves are of value and deserve preservation on their own right.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:It is interesting that most environmental legislation in the US has been linked to human impact. The justification for clean air and clean water is primarily that pollution has a negative impact on people. Much of wilderness legislation is tied to preservation of watershed -- once again linked to human health. Wetlands preservation is linked to flooding of human property. National Parks are preserved for the enjoyment of humans.
The one big exception to this has been the the Endangered Species Act, which has been continually controversial. Even here, its worth noting that while the Endangered Species Act has been a powerful tool for protecting ecosystems the justification has been to preserve "species" and never that ecosystems themselves are of value and deserve preservation on their own right.
Hmm. I think the only sensible reason to protect ecosystems or other species, when it incurs a short term human cost, is long term benefit to humans. An ecosystem might have some independent intrinsic value to you, but the only way you'll get me to vote for protecting it is if I see some long term benefit to humanity (well, actually I think fear of unintended consequences counts too, but for the same reason).
In practice I'm against wanton destruction without benefit to people, and against most other destruction if I think there's a chance it'll harm us in the long run. But I would not place much value on any ecosystem outside of long term benefit to humans. (That benefit can include living in a lush, varied, and valued ecosystem, but it requires humans to value it.)
As a separate matter I think it's wrong to cause pain and suffering in other creatures (but not so wrong that it can't be outweighed by benefit to humans).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Tatiana -
quote:100% electric cars don't prevent pollution. They just move some pollution from the car exhaust to the power plant where it's granted easier to scrub or otherwise handle.
That's only situationally true. If someone with an electric car were to charge up their car at 4pm, then yes, all they'd be doing is moving the pollution from the exhaust to the smokestack of a coal fired plant most likely, which, like you mentioned, makes it easier to control. But, what if they charge their car at night? There's enough excess offpeak power being generated in the United States right now to replace well over half the light duty vehicle fleet with electric cars with no additional power generation since they plants run 24 hrs a day but aren't needed. So, imagine taking half the cars off the road but not turning on any additional power plants. That's a drastic reduction in pollution.
quote:But the inefficiencies along the way are terrible. First of all, you lose 70% of the energy in waste heat at the power plant. Ditto to transmission losses and so on.
Yeah, that's a problem. I think we're finally doing something about it, especially when it comes to more efficient T&D in the power grid, but we'll see how much money actually gets spent on low transmission loss technology in the next decade. The technology is there, and is being adapted six ways from Sunday in Europe.
quote:Then batteries are very expensive and don't last. You have to spend several thousand for new batteries every few years in the life of the car. Think about how your laptop batteries are shot by the time you need a new laptop after 2 years. Car batteries for electric cars cost like $1500. And they're toxic as all get out. Even if the car company agrees to recycle them, that's not a waste free process. And the heavy metals they contain are some of the very worst kind of waste.
I'm curious, but what electric cars are you referring to? Near as I can tell, it's been ten years since a fully electric car was on the market, and even that one was in pretty small numbers. Well actually I take that back, the Tesla Roadster is on the market, but hasn't been around anywhere near long enough to judge it on any of your battery related criticisms. In other words, you're complaining about the last generation, and I use that term loosely, of electric car batteries, not the next one. I think there are still some problems to be worked out, but companies are finally spending the money to get some real and meaningful R&D done on battery technology to make it a viable seller in the 21st century. As far as replacing these batteries go, they're considered in need of replacement when they fall below 80% of their original charge capacity, which means they still have a LOT of life left in them. There's a lot of talk about a huge potential resale market for the batteries, especially in relation to renewable energy. I don't know if it'll end up being feasible or not, but it sounds like a great way to solve a couple problems at once.
quote:I maintain that electric cars aren't good for the environment at all. Hybrids are somewhat better, but not much. It's nice that someone's working on the problem some, for when petroleum prices are just too high. But it's just not viable technology yet, and it's terrible for the environment.
Fully electric and that's all? Yeah, I'd agree that we're not there yet. I don't think we'll be there until they make it easy to charge a car in 20 minutes, otherwise people will never be able to go long distances with them, and they'll never buy them. But for something like the Volt, which is fully electric but with a small engine for on board energy generation, I think we're just about there, and I think it's going to be great for the environment. It remains to be seen whether or not GM will be able to price it well enough, but they'll get some help there.
On incandescent light bulbs and CFLs -
Newer CFLs do have dimmer capabilities, as well as three way switches, and you can buy ones that aren't massively huge or in that spiral shape. They make ones that look exactly like incandescents. But I agree that they have their limitations and drawbacks, just like their predecessors do. I wouldn't worry too much about it though, CFLs are a stopgap measure until a couple of new technologies become commercial in a couple of years. HEIs and LEDs are going to replace CFLs as the green lighting source of choice in the next decades. LEDs are approaching competitive pricing for commercial lighting applications, and are already being adopted in commercial buildings. HEIs are still in development, but there are a couple companies, I want to say GE and Phillips off the top of my head, that say it's something they'll have ready to go at the start of the next decade. There are even more lighting technologies being worked on for the next big thing, but I think CFLs are at their zenith right now, and by the time congressional legislation that eliminates many incandescent bulbs really takes effect, you'll have a lot more lighting options than CFLs to rely on.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Personally I've always given religious folks the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the sides they often fall on in issues like the environment and poverty. When I see a self-professed religious community on the Right attacking social programs aimed to help the poor, I don't think they are unChristian and hate the poor, I just assume that they want to help the poor at the local level, through community organizing and charity work. My finger only starts to wag when I don't see any of their professed solutions materializing on a meaningful level.
And as far as environmentalism goes, I just think, like many others have said, that they fell in with the wrong crowd. Republicans for a long time have constructed the argument that being pro-environment was automatically anti-business, because it was business that suffered from the regulatory laws passed to help protect the environment. I think that's both true and untrue, it really depends on what situation specifically, but at the end of the day, while these things might not be best for business, I think most of them are net positives for society as a whole. Yes, it costs more for a business to clean up their toxic sludge or pollutants from being spewed into the air, but is anyone seriously going to argue that the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act weren't net positives for society?
Sorry, got into a tangent there. I think it's hard for religious Republicans who are pro-environment to vote because Republicans, until very, very recently, have never attempted to rationalize environmentalism with being pro-business and small government. They've been too successful in the past at winning by calling liberals tree huggers back when environmentalism wasn't as big a campaign issue that it's a knee jerk response now.
The loser is as much the religious voter who has to pick between diametrically opposed extremes when he or she would prefer some gray candidates as it is the environment itself.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Lyrhawn, This may be true for many religious conservatives, but for some religious conservatives the opposition to environmentalism goes much deeper than just association with other republican ideals.
Several years back, my husband and I both gave testimony at a public hearing on a wilderness issue. In his testimony, my husband quoted a short passage of scripture which was then reported in the local newspaper. We were very surprised when his rather benign comment provoked a firestorm of letters to the editor from conservative Christians . My husband was called everything from the Anti-Christ to Satan worshiper by outraged Christians who appeared to have been mortally wounded by the mere suggestions that anything in the Bible might indicate that wanton destruction of the planet was immoral. I'm not exaggerating here. The fire raged on for at least two weeks.
I've seen similar though less extreme reactions in much of my work on environmental issues so I am convinced that at least some conservative Christians see environmentalism as immoral. The only explanation I've been able to find for this is a sort of guilt by associations. Simply put counter-culture groups (Hippies, Pagans, etc) are in favor of "sex and drugs and rock and roll", along with environmentalism and world peace. Conservative Christians think "sex and drugs and rock and roll" are of satan, so environmental protection and world peace must be devilish as well.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
You have a valid point, scifibum, and I admit that the example of the buffalo was just an example to explain the type of attitude that I would like to see more of. I certainly did recognize that it may only apply to certain Native American people, but now that you mention it, it would be interesting to see if this popular notion did apply to any of the Native Americans. Given that there were so many thousands of different tribes, statistics suggests that at least some of them had this type of attitude, at least some of the time.
At any rate, whether or not this is the case, the type of ideology represented by the example is more healthy than either blatant disregard of the environment, or treating the environment as a museum artifact that cannot be disturbed.
And as with any discussion regarding two opposing groups of people, the individuals within those two groups are never as polarized as is often portrayed. I have met religious folk, from a wide variety of religions; I have met hundreds of spiritual people who believe in something greater, but are not religious; and I have met people that are agnostic, atheist, and everything in between. The plain fact of the matter is that every one of these individuals do not fit into the broad stereotypes that are portrayed on a national level. In other words, some of the most ignorant and prejudice people I have met have been devout religious people, while some of the very best people have also been devout religious people. The same dynamic applies to individuals who are not religious.
I know that is an obvious point, but I felt like saying it anyway.
As an afterthought, I have often theorized as to the fundamental difference between religious folk who are very defensive and rigid, and religious folk who are confident, but open minded, strictly principled, but always trying to improve those principles. One thing I am certain of is that those differences cannot always be determined by denominational differences. I am LDS, and there are plenty of LDS people who fall into both categories, as well as with people from other faiths. I wonder if it has more to do with how confident you are in your own beliefs.
In other words, if you are a person who is, deep down, afraid that your faith might be wrong, you would be more likely to reject any opposing notions, get defensive easily, make big generalizations, etc. If you have a deep belief that has come through your own experiences or prayers, and not just from blind obedience, you would not be threatened by others with opposing beliefs, and you would always be open to learning more truth and revising your current biases when appropriate.
Of course, this theory kind of puts religious people into two distinct categories, which I was just arguing against, but I don't view them as distinct categories; rather as a continuum. At any rate, just my thoughts. What do you all think?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I agree with Hobbes here, and it has always baffled me. As far as I've figured out, I think it's a product of the two-party system. Everyone in my conservative little hometown, and especially the Mormons in my conservative little hometown, tend to be die-hard Republicans. But I think that comes from wanting to pick the party with social conservative values (anti-abortion, etc) and then the tendency to "pick sides" made all the other issues follow suit.
I also think this is why a lot of conservative, religious people, tend to be big-business, free-capitalist types. I think if they examined their Christian beliefs a little more closely they'd realize that they're not so in-step with the party lines. But when you've got the cultural good guys/bad guys mindset, I think you're easily talked into supporting a lot of issues that weren't really what you originally signed up for.
A good illustration of this, I think, is a conversation I had once with my mom. I was telling her how much I admired the way Japan handles its trash - mandatory recycling and separating trash everywhere, even at fast-food restaurants. And everyone goes to the extra trouble simply because the don't-waste ethic is a social expectation. She was getting uncomfortable, though, as I said this, and she answered with "Yes, but Japan also has some really terrible problems with pornography."
I was baffled. What did this have to do with recycling? But I think she often tenses up when I talk politics around her because some of the views I took up when I went to college convinced her that I'd "turned liberal" - that I'd switched teams. I don't know how to convince her that I'm on the recycling team, but I'm also on the anti-pornography and that this isn't a moral contradiction for me at all.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I've seen similar though less extreme reactions in much of my work on environmental issues so I am convinced that at least some conservative Christians see environmentalism as immoral. The only explanation I've been able to find for this is a sort of guilt by associations. Simply put counter-culture groups (Hippies, Pagans, etc) are in favor of "sex and drugs and rock and roll", along with environmentalism and world peace. Conservative Christians think "sex and drugs and rock and roll" are of satan, so environmental protection and world peace must be devilish as well.
Huh, I guess I was giving them way too much credit then.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Well, for a look-see at the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America)social statements of belief -- across many areas, including environmental:
quote:Hobbes, if you could control for the effects of the Bob Salter hi-jack of the Utah Republician Party,I think you would find that what you are picking up as LDS religious objections to some environmental initiatives is really a regional attitude not a religious one. If you come from a "reclaim the desert" tradition (and you all have to admit that a modest, well run farm or ranch is a lot pretter than a scraggley old desert) it's hard to get excited by some sopping wet back-easterner telling you how to use your water.
I'm not sure I fully understand this. Partly it's because I'm from Colorado, I just finished college in Indiana and I'm currently going to grad school in Austin, TX. Are you saying that this regional attitude has spilled over into the culture and thus gone across the country, or were you just assuming I'm in Utah? I don't ask the latter to antagonize, it's not a bad assumption I suppose for someone whose LDS: I'm just curious.
quote:Being a religious person and a conservative, I support environmentalism, generally speaking. My faith has helped me develop a greater appreciation for this world and all of its beauties. One of my biggest pet peeves is when people litter and sometimes I am really annoyed by all of the excess packaging that goes into our modern products.
Yes, this is what I mean when I say that it appears to me that Christian religion should lead to environmentalism, thank-you!
quote:I don't like extremes on this issue. I don't like some conservative attitudes that say "to heck with the environment, it will take care of itself" and I don't like extreme environmental attitudes that say, "don't build a house there, a squirrel lived there" or "animals have rights just like humans do." Don't build recklessly, but also recognize that we as humans, have just as much a right to build our societies as does a beaver who makes a dam.
The fact of the matter is, I don't believe the government can solve all of our environmental problems if a large portion of society just doesn't care. If many people don't care, then the private sector also won't produce individuals that promote healthy measures through their businesses. For me, when it comes down to it, we (as a nation, not referring to Hatrack) need to become more educated and less emotional regarding this issue. We, as individuals, should think more and react less regarding how we use resources around us. I include myself in this, because there are still times when I use resources without thought for the consequences, but I find myself becoming more responsible on this issue the older I get.
So maybe a lot of the negative reaction is just spill-over from outrage at the extremes and policy differences amount more to the means than the end? I think that could definitely be a piece of the puzzle. At least it resonates with me as being true for some specific examples I have in mind.
quote: In western thought the idea that ethics should encompass how we treat non-human things is fairly new and a fairly radical idea. Counter-culture elements that have rejected traditional religious views on morality were among the first to embrace this radical idea that how we treat nature is an ethical issue. It's sort of a guilt by association issue. Conservative religious people associate "environmentalism" with "new morality" and other threats to traditional religious sentiments and so they oppose it. Its not at all rational but then people are rarely are.
Do you think there will be a generational solution then? That we just wait for the next generation and much of those accumulated biases will pass on with those who first gathered them? I often worry that time, a lot of time, is the only real solution. Are there other realistic solutions to that problem? All I can see is that we all do what we can, maybe some advertisement: but even then ideas entrenched in this way aren't given up easily. Perhaps make a more serious effort to approach things in a way that's pleasing to the economic and moral outlook of conservatism would get those who already agree with the goal like Artemisia Tridentata on board and give those others who are more rabid about the ideas themselves a way of bowing-out gracefully? I don't know, I didn't really start this thread to try and solve the world's environment problems, but I guess it does make me curious as to if there is a way to move it along!
quote:I am convinced that at least some conservative Christians see environmentalism as immoral.
My experience certainly agrees with that. Obviously I interact more with LDS than other Christians, but I've received that same impression from at least one person of just about every major denomination.
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
In Gospel Principles class the other day, we covered the creation of the earth and the concept of stewardship. The teacher asked the class what we thought this meant, and I said that it means the earth is given to us in trust and we need to take care of it.
This apparently had a wiff of environmentalism to it, because another guy in the class raised his hand and went one for three minutes on how the Earth is like cookie ingredients and they are there so we can make cookies. (Paraphrase, but that was basically it.) It was a little unpleasant and confrontational, but I had confronted the same guy the week before when it had been his turn to teach (He was presenting some ad absurdam conclusions as doctrine - to new members, no less! - so I objected, and he backpedaled, but neither he nor his wife were happy.), so I let it go. But I was surprised by the passion of his objection to my comment.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
That's what got me to start this thread Kat, the feeling like there's real anger behind this. The sense that being against the environmentalist movement is some how morally superior. I just don't understand the intense emotions and convictions when it appears to rise from something I can only imagine would point you in the other direction. Very strange.
As a side note on your story, does anyone besides me ever get the feeling of smug satisfaction when someone on the opposing side of a debate from you proves to everyone around just how foolish their reasoning is? I suppose that's one of those "natural man" aspects of me I should really work on...
Hobbes Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think I know that guy, katharina. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:In Gospel Principles class the other day, we covered the creation of the earth and the concept of stewardship. The teacher asked the class what we thought this meant, and I said that it means the earth is given to us in trust and we need to take care of it.
I think this take is pretty spot on, especially when compared to the other things that we are said to have stewardship over - family, children, other members (depending on your calling), etc.
quote:As a side note on your story, does anyone besides me ever get the feeling of smug satisfaction when someone on the opposing side of a debate from you proves to everyone around just how foolish their reasoning is?
Absolutely! But that is usually tempered with an uneasy suspicion that someone else is taking them seriously.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Everyone needs faith or at the very least something to believe in. The modern environmentalist movement, especially in the global warming or climate change area behave as fanatically as the most dedicated evangelical. The problem with the left is, they are a coalition of extremely dedicated and committed groups. Environmentalists, gays, women, this race or that, gun control, separation of church and staters, etc, etc. One issue voters. There are many environmentally concious conservatives and religious people. But religious people and conservatives wont disregard other important matters for the environmental movement and throw in with a party that opposes other issues. One issue people, a group of fanatics. The "perception" is artaficial. The perception that religious people are non-environmental is a bill of goods that has been sold to you. A tactic that has proven effective in other areas, like race. If you're conservative, if you believe in strong borders or oppose affirmative action you are a racist. If you are opposed to gay marriage you are a homophobe. Don't believe the hype. I know many gun wielding, hunting, christian, loggers that are great stewards of the environment.
[ March 21, 2009, 05:31 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The problem with the left is, they are a coalition of extremely dedicated and committed groups. Environmentalists, gays, women, this race or that, gun control, separation of church and staters, etc, etc. One issue voters.
Actually, as any political strategist will tell you, the problem with the Left is that this is not true. Conservatives are far, far more likely to be single-issue voters, and are considerably easier to herd. Trying to organize the Left is a major challenge, not least because many "leftist" causes are diametrically opposed to each other. Anyone that tells you the Left is made of single-issue voters is revealing his ignorance.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Re electric cars(and Jhai's comment that only GM has any real plans for full scale production of electric cars before 2020 and that only because they're desperate):
Just saw an extended item on Top Gear (UK car show) about the Honda Clarity which one of the show's presenters, James May, is touting as the most significant car for 100 years, and given the show's skepticism and generally negative attitude to electric cars in general, with the heavily qualified exception of the Tesla, that's some statement. He makes the point that it's the car of the future because it runs just like a car of today.
The Clarity doesn't rely on batteries in th same way as other electric cars, producing its electricity from liquid hydrogen, and has only one moving part in its engine.
The only real problem is separating hydrogen from whatever other molecules (that's according to my pretty unscientific understanding of what he said anyway ) it's attached to, but they say that will be at least as easy/difficult as drilling oil from under the sea. The cost of hydrogen at the moment is around the same as the cost of gas.
It takes 3 minutes to fill it up at a hydrogen filling station.
From wikipedia: "The Honda FCX Clarity is a hydrogen fuel cell automobile manufactured by Honda. The design is based on the 2006 Honda FCX Concept.
"Limited marketing of a fuel cell vehicle based on the concept model began in 19 June 2008 in United States and it was introduced in Japan in November 2008.[1] Honda believes it could start mass producing vehicles based on the FCX concept by the year 2018.[2]
"Specifications The vehicle is powered by a 57-litre, 100kW Honda Vertical Flow (V Flow) hydrogen fuel cell stack. Electricity is stored in a 288V lithium ion battery.
"The electric motor is based on the motor in the EV Plus, rated at 134 horsepower (100 kW) and 189 lb·ft (256 N·m) torque @0-3056 rpm. The range on a full hydrogen tank (4.1 kg @ 5000psi) is 280 miles (~450 km), with fuel efficiency of 77/67/72 miles per kilogram of hydrogen in city/highway/combined driving.
"Production Honda planned to produce 200 vehicles within 3 years."
[ March 22, 2009, 05:43 AM: Message edited by: Cashew ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The problem with the left is, they are a coalition of extremely dedicated and committed groups. Environmentalists, gays, women, this race or that, gun control, separation of church and staters, etc, etc. One issue voters.
Actually, as any political strategist will tell you, the problem with the Left is that this is not true. Conservatives are far, far more likely to be single-issue voters, and are considerably easier to herd. Trying to organize the Left is a major challenge, not least because many "leftist" causes are diametrically opposed to each other. Anyone that tells you the Left is made of single-issue voters is revealing his ignorance.
This man speaks the truth.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Liquid hydrogen? Is it in some sort of suspension? Because if not, I can't imagine the fireball that'd make in an accident.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that for some religious people, any hint that we can't do anything we want to with the earth and all that is on it threatens the idea that we are the pinnacle and purpose of Creation. These people tend to cling defensively to "dominion" rather than "stewardship". "Stewardship" carries the implication that we do not own Creation.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
The toilets in Germany are even better. Most of them have the option for a half flush and a full flush. [/QB]
This is mandatory in Australia. And I think our full flush is still light compared to most American toilets (9L - 4.5L is half flush). And I've never, ever had to double flush.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
*bites back questions about diet*
9L is generous compared to the new low flow models in the US: 1.6 Gallons, or 6 liters. Toilets that have been around since before the mid-1990s use a lot more, though.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Yeah, I think the new toilets may be 6L/3L here too. I'm not sure though - I don't go toilet shopping very often.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:The perception that religious people are non-environmental is a bill of goods that has been sold to you.
Or it could be that we know a lot of religious people and that many of them tend to be antagonistic to an environmentalist attitude.
And since it's been mainly religious people in this thread making these observations, I think it's pretty safe for us to be able to say.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The problem with the left is, they are a coalition of extremely dedicated and committed groups. Environmentalists, gays, women, this race or that, gun control, separation of church and staters, etc, etc. One issue voters.
Actually, as any political strategist will tell you, the problem with the Left is that this is not true. Conservatives are far, far more likely to be single-issue voters, and are considerably easier to herd. Trying to organize the Left is a major challenge, not least because many "leftist" causes are diametrically opposed to each other. Anyone that tells you the Left is made of single-issue voters is revealing his ignorance.
This man speaks the truth.
I concede your point....Prop 8 proved your point. Why didn't blacks get protested by the gays? Only the christians were protested...strange.
Why would a lifelong republican conservative jump to the Left to support the most liberal senator?........Colin Powel. I'm sure he supported Obama for his political views not his skin color. Not one issue in this particular case....does this mean that Colin Powell is no longer an Uncle Tom?
It is a major challenge to be in such self denial. My mother would've voted for Hillary despite being a pro-life conservative. Femenists will ignore the plight of Muslim women to back the party's agenda. The homosexual part of the coalition will ignore the execution of gays in the middle east for the same reason. Beholdent to the NEA the left will stop poor innercity youths from having school choice. It is a difficult balancing act, no boubt.
[ March 23, 2009, 02:09 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Why didn't blacks get protested by the gays? Only the christians were protested...strange.
Sadly, there isn't UBB code support for Venn diagrams, or I'd draw you one. It would help answer your question.
----------
quote: Why would a lifelong republican conservative jump to the Left to support the most liberal senator?........Colin Powel. I'm sure he supported Obama for his political views not his skin color. Not one issue in this particular case....does this mean that Colin Powell is no longer an Uncle Tom?
Let me break down some of the Freeper sludge that's cluttered up your post:
1) Colin Powell is not a conservative. 2) Barack Obama was not, and has never been, the most liberal senator in any body in which he's served. It's worth noting that the most common complaint levied against Obama by the Left right now is that he's not nearly Leftist enough. 3) You assume that because Harry Belafonte accused Colin Powell of playing "Uncle Tom" that this is a widespread and lingering belief of some nebulously-defined "Left." This is not the case. What is the case among Leftists is that they believe Powell was cynically chosen for a sinecure position and then, after his popularity and reputation was exploited for various ends, hung out to dry by people with whom he had ideological disagreements. Belafonte, for reasons I'm sure related to his personal and cultural history, believes both that Powell's skin color made this treatment more likely and also that it should have made Powell more suspicious of the people in power from the first. Whether this is true or not is hardly relevant. 4) You also appear to believe that merely stumping for Barack Obama -- and thus crossing partisan lines -- is an exclusively partisan act, in the sense that it might somehow "redeem" Powell in the eyes of Leftists for deigning to serve a conservative administration. I think this will make it difficult for you to understand the concept of non-partisan compromise. 5) You also believe that Powell endorsed Obama purely for reasons of skin color. Let us note for a moment that Obama's positions on the economy, health care, and the war in Iraq are far closer to Powell's own than Senator McCain's are; let us also note that several non-black Republicans publicly endorsed Obama prior to the election, including multiple retired generals. But let us, for the sake of argument, grant that Powell was also motivated by the desire to see someone with his skin color elected to the highest office in the land for the first time in history. What does that tell us about either man?
To be honest with you, I'm curious why you jumped immediately to this "pandering to the blacks" sideline. What makes you think that this line of inquiry logically proceeds from the previous topic?
-------
quote:It is a major challenge to be in such self denial.
*nod* Certainly the interests of multiple demographic groups are inexpertly reflected in the two major political parties. Right now, a homosexual man who believes in small government, stem cell research, and the rightness of military intervention in the Middle East doesn't have a clear party of choice; neither does an atheist Jewish woman firmly opposed to abortion and gun control but strongly in favor of universal healthcare, relaxed environmental regulations, and a higher minimum wage.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I believe the left panders to the basist instincts in us all. Class envy, sexism, racism, etc. Build ire and blame, coalesce against the conservative bogeyman. Would you really deny the left's aversion to successful conservative minorities and women: Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza, JC Watts, Michael Steele, Sarah Palin.... Non-partisan compromise? I suppose it is non-partisan compromise for a femenist to allow enslavement of Muslim women. It's non-partisan compromise for a homesexual to ignore the killing of gays in the middle east. Non-partisan compromise, the teachers union wants to keep inner-city kids in failing schools so minorities who are failing just tow the line. Now all the sudden Obama says the fundamentals of the economy are sound. Funny, he slammed McCain for saying the same thing when the dow was 4000 points higher and the unemployment rate was much lower. Your hypocrosy. JFK would be a republican today.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. So when challenged on the particulars, you start flailing and frothing. I'm sorry to hear that.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
3) I could care less about Harry Belafonte. My point is if you're a conservative minority or female, your achievements are disregarded and you are attacked. Would Clarence Thomas have been attacked by conservatives in the same manner? If Sarah Palin had a D next to her name would the sexist treatment of her been given such a pass? Conservatives have achieved on their own merits, D's give you figureheads without power, Sharpton and Jackson. Obama is safe, his motivation is simple political ambition. He won't change the African American circumstance, he rose to power representing south side Chicago; did he make their lives any better? If he cared about his people he would've plucked his Aunt out of the projects or multiplied his brothers monthly income by a factor of 10 with a $20 bill. Obama is no more African American that the son of white South Africans.
4) Like the non-partisan treatement of Joe Lieberman for supporting McCain? Presidential elections are not partisan, I agree. Anyone who votes on party lines is closed minded. I just wonder how a self described "fiscal conservative" could vote for a man who is the least fiscally conservative president we've ever had and was upfront about spreading the wealth around and expanding government. Govt spending in 2009 highest percentage of GDP since WWII.
5) I'm sure Powell would've came out for Hillary had she won, right? My conservative mother would've voted for her and she at least had the courage to admit the reason.
Not a pandering to blacks sideline, rather pander to everyone. If I were to pander to blacks I might let them know nearly half of their pregnancies end in abortion and the D's will happilly erect more clinics in their usual locations, minority neighborhoods. http://thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.28.001.pdart Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
1) It's worth noting that Powell is a fiscal conservative who believes in universal healthcare and carbon credits. And speaking as someone who's fiscally a little right of Powell, the Republicans worked really hard to lose the fiscally conservative vote over the last few years. It's no surprise that some of 'em jumped ship.
2) *nod* We've discussed this before on this site. Basically, the methodology is questionable. Without getting into it at length, the National Journal tends to assume Republicans are going to vote "conservative" and Democrats are going to vote "liberal," and then identifies core individuals who vote in a reliably partisan way. When a certain mathematically significant percentage of those people split along party lines on a given roll-call vote, the NJ tags that specific vote as a "partisan" vote in a given category and then records the votes along party lines as a percentage of one's party affiliation. They pick about a hundred votes a year, and votes which are missed or abstained from are ignored when calculating the percentage. (This is significant. McCain, for example, missed so many votes in 2007 that his affiliation could not be calculated; Obama barely squeaked in under the wire at 67 of 100. And given that the top 20 "liberal" senators were only separated by three percentage points, even a single "conservative" vote -- which Obama, since he actually stumped for the "conservative" position on a couple votes that year that he later missed, would almost certainly have made -- would have thrown Obama into the middle of the pack. Indeed, it is for this reason that a senator's place on this list changes so wildly every year.) You'll notice that I put "conservative" in quotes; that's because the ideology of the votes is in fact pretty sketchy. So, yeah, the Democratic frontrunner voted overwhelmingly with other Democrats on the few controversial partisan roll-call votes he managed to vote on that year. That's all the numbers actually say.
3)
quote:My point is if you're a conservative minority or female, your achievements are disregarded and you are attacked....Conservatives have achieved on their own merits, D's give you figureheads without power, Sharpton and Jackson.
So your argument is that Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin rose to prominence on their own merits, while Sharpton and Jackson were anointed figureheads? And you don't think that perhaps you're guilty of disregarding and attacking the achievements of liberal minorities or females?
quote:If he cared about his people he would've plucked his Aunt out of the projects or multiplied his brothers monthly income by a factor of 10 with a $20 bill.
Leaving aside the raw offensiveness of this observation -- that Obama must not love his family because he has not lifted them all out of poverty (or Africa, which is apparently the same thing) on his six-figure salary -- it's worth noting that you do raise an interesting question: how much does Obama view himself as the face of Black America? I think the obvious answer is: not much. While his race has clearly had some impact, it's clearly much less of an issue for him than it is for black Americans of earlier generations; to his credit, I think he's acknowledged that while also trying very hard to make it clear that he doesn't have much patience for racial argumentation himself.
4) Remember that the other obvious choices at the time were Huckabee and McCain. Powell is far closer to Obama's politics than to Huckabee's, and Powell and McCain have some pretty serious differences in opinion that, IMO, whittled down any policy advantage McCain might have otherwise had over Obama.
5) You didn't answer the other half of my question. Let's assume that Powell was swayed ultimately to Obama's camp at least partly by his desire to elect someone with his skin color for the first time in the history of this country. What does that tell us about Powell, really? And what if anything does that tell us about Obama?
Posted by DaisyMae (Member # 9722) on :
To answer the original question brought up by Hobbes and then discussed at length by others I'll just add my two cents.
I find that your assessment is correct, generally, but the way those attitudes are brought about is somewhat of a convoluted path.
I think a great many of Christian (and I'm going to insert "LDS" because that is where I garner most of my observations) are not so much "anti-environment" but "anti-environmentalist." Being LDS, I completely concur that the earth is a gift that we are responsible to take care of. Being as eco-friendly as possible seems like a naturally ethical choice. Cut down on waste and your use of energy. Reduce, reuse, recycle seems like common sense.
However, I think that, in general, conservatives live by the "less is more" concept of legislation. You go ahead and tell me what would be a good idea and then I'll make my own choice, thank you very much. The flaw here is that too many people don't educate themselves so they aren't making good choices.
When conservatives see liberals chanting and frothing about environmental issues they immediately retreat, even when some of the points being made are valid. Suddenly anything that smacks of enviromentalism turns them off. I can speak personally that the whole Global Warming thing makes my blood boil. Not because temperature shifts are showing warming trends. I'm not disputing that. But don't give me some self-righteous speech about how it's my fault and if I don't change my evil ways the earth is going to be engulfed in water. I really don't believe that's going to happen. I'm not a fan of the scare tactics.
But I digress. To distill the point, IMO, right-wingers (which can very loosely be translated to most christian-based religious people) ignorantly reject ALL environmental issues because even common sense issues are lumped together with the radical ones they feel are being pushed down their throats by people they interpret would have enviromental choices legislated. Then those conservatives, not knowing quite where they should stand as long as they're not standing next to the liberals, start their own frothing about how the earth is a gift from God that we have every right to do anything we want to. In the end people on the far side of either side of the issue ruin it for those in the middle who might just make smart choices on their own.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Global Warming thing makes my blood boil. Not because temperature shifts are showing warming trends. I'm not disputing that. But don't give me some self-righteous speech about how it's my fault and if I don't change my evil ways the earth is going to be engulfed in water. I really don't believe that's going to happen.
You have some very strong misconceptions about Global Climate Change and both the science and politics that back it. This is likely do to the very inaccurate representation of the scientific issues in the media. I have been involved in the science side of this since the mid 80's, this is not an issue that is being driven by ideology or radical environmentalists, it is in fact being driven by very sound science. If you would actually like to know the truth about the issue rather just venting your anger, I have in the past posted some very good scientifically accurate unbiased references. If you want, I will post them again.
Here is one key reference. It is an excellent history of the science and how it has evolved over the past 50+ years.
I don't understand the indignant attitude against global warming, either.
quote:But don't give me some self-righteous speech about how it's my fault and if I don't change my evil ways the earth is going to be engulfed in water. I really don't believe that's going to happen. I'm not a fan of the scare tactics.
What if there is a small chance it is our fault? Wouldn't it be worth doing all we can just in case? Is it really that terrible for manufacturers to be held accountable for their pollution and asked to find smarter ways? There are places on earth, China, for example, with very few restrictions on what people are allowed to do to the environment around them, and whether you think global warming is involved or not, the immediate living conditions themselves are terrible enough to warrant some kind of governmental controls.
I look at China and see an excellent example of what a libertarian attitude towards the environment would produce. Sure, maybe some people are smart and conscientious enough to take science into account and make their own wise decisions, but most people are all about the fastest, most efficient way to make a buck and if their neighbors have to suffer for it or if little kids have to die from drinking poisoned milk, too bad for them.
Posted by DaisyMae (Member # 9722) on :
Rabbit - I appreciate the reference and though I can't read all the information presented in one sitting, I did read through some of the key articles. Once again, I will say that I'm not disputing that temperature trends are rising. I can completely digest information when presented this way. And, I will also repeat that I do believe that we have a responsibility to do what we can to make our daily living eco-friendly. I don't think that I've had misconceptions about Global Warming itself. I'll completely concede to the fact that it's not a topic that I've spent a great deal of time researching, but the information you presented with your link is pretty well consistent with my understanding.
It's the PRESENTATION that makes my blood boil. I was using just a tad of hyperbole when I mentioned the earth being "engulfed" in water. I stand by my statement that scare tactics really turn me off.
Coming back to Hobbes' original point, however, I wonder (which means I really do wonder; I'm not pinning any type of attitude on you) if the fact that I stated my religious beliefs in any way swayed your reaction to my post. Although I tried to couch my statements in a pro-environment way, the one comment I made that referred to a media-obsessed predominantly leftist issue is the one that was immediately addressed.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It's the PRESENTATION that makes my blood boil. I was using just a tad of hyperbole when I mentioned the earth being "engulfed" in water. I stand by my statement that scare tactics really turn me off.
I guess that just isn't a hyperbole I've heard from any scientific or environmental group. Perhaps you could give me a reference but to the best of my knowledge, that is not a hyperbole even the most extreme environmental groups are throwing around. It sounds more to me like the kind of lies that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity spread and not anything commonly said by environmentalists.
Posted by DaisyMae (Member # 9722) on :
Annie- Again, I'm not against addressing Global Warming. And as you stated, most people AREN'T going to research the issues and make their own educated decisions. That's why I get angry when the media, who, in a perfect world, should be trusted to present us with accurate information without tacking on pre-made moral judgements that we must either conform to or be seen as the enemy.
Maybe it is our fault. Okay, let's try to be better. But I have a real problem when people care more about the environment than the people who live in it.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Coming back to Hobbes' original point, however, I wonder (which means I really do wonder; I'm not pinning any type of attitude on you) if the fact that I stated my religious beliefs in any way swayed your reaction to my post.
Well, since Rabbit and I, who both responded to your post, are both LDS, I'd say probably not Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Although I tried to couch my statements in a pro-environment way, the one comment I made that referred to a media-obsessed predominantly leftist issue is the one that was immediately addressed.
Rabbit is a climatologist.
Posted by DaisyMae (Member # 9722) on :
quote: I guess that just isn't a hyperbole I've heard from any scientific or environmental group.
You're right. Unfortunately I don't get most of my information from scientists.
For those of us who don't delve deeply into every issue we're left with impressions we get from those with the loudest voices. I can't give you specific references unfotunately, only the computer-generated image that is imprinted on my mind of the whole of Florida being swallowed by water. I honestly can't remember where I specifically saw this, but I remember it, so it has colored my opinion.
For the record, I have never once listened to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. They bother me just as much.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Although I tried to couch my statements in a pro-environment way, the one comment I made that referred to a media-obsessed predominantly leftist issue is the one that was immediately addressed.
Rabbit is a climatologist.
Not quite. I am an atmospheric chemist, but I am deeply familiar with the climatology research.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by DaisyMae:
quote: I guess that just isn't a hyperbole I've heard from any scientific or environmental group.
You're right. Unfortunately I don't get most of my information from scientists.
And this doesn't strike you as a serious problem in your ability to draw sound conclusions?
quote:For those of us who don't delve deeply into every issue we're left with impressions we get from those with the loudest voices. I can't give you specific references unfotunately, only the computer-generated image that is imprinted on my mind of the whole of Florida being swallowed by water. I honestly can't remember where I specifically saw this, but I remember it, so it has colored my opinion.
So you saw a picture, and you didn't like what you saw, and since you couldn't be bothered to find out what the facts were, or indeed, what exactly the picture was supposed to be demonstrating (I bet if it were an image of Florida in a hundred years if CO2 levels continue to rise as they are now, that it wouldn't be inaccurate), you've concluded, what? That global warming can't be a serious problem? Because a picture was too scary?
Could you have made a more textbook example of the fallacy of consequences if you'd tried?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:So you saw a picture, and you didn't like what you saw, and since you couldn't be bothered to find out what the facts were, or indeed, what exactly the picture was supposed to be demonstrating (I bet if it were an image of Florida in a hundred years if CO2 levels continue to rise as they are now, that it wouldn't be inaccurate), you've concluded, what? That global warming can't be a serious problem? Because a picture was too scary?
Could you have made a more textbook example of the fallacy of consequences if you'd tried?
In all fairness, most of the images I've been able to find on the internet for sea level rise in Florida, don't present a time scale they show what would happen for a given rise in sea level with no information regarding how likely that rise is or how soon it my happen. Some of them go up to 8m or more increase in sea level when scientists are predicting that sea level rise in the next century will likely be less than 1 m.
Of course a rise in sea level of 1 m would impact over 100 million people globally which is a very serious issue.
Sea level rise due to climate change will arise from 2 factors, thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet. Over the long term, thermal expansion of the ocean will be the larger of those two factors but it will take a long time for the entire oceans to warm up. There is a great deal of uncertainty in how long that will take since we have a limited understanding of energy transport in the deep oceans. Thermal expansion of the oceans will continue for a century or more after the atmospheric temperatures have stabilize. Over the next several centuries, these could amount to several meters change in sea level, but not in the next century.
The second factor contributing to sea level rise is the melting of the ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic. This contribution was largely ignored in the IPCC estimates of sea level rise for the next century. Unfortunately, during the last 2 - 3 years researchers have found that the ice sheets in both Greenland and the Antarctic are melting far faster than anyone anticipated. Several mechanisms for transferring heat from the top of the ice sheets to the bottom have been discovered which were not previously anticipated and are resulting in very rapid collapse of the ice. Hence sea level rise in the next century will most likely be considerably higher than the worst case scenario predicted by the IPCC, but still in the 1 - 2 m range, not the 8 m range shown in some of the simulations.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Hey Rabbit, do you know about the GRACE satellites and their gravity measurements? Here I'm talking the application to measurement of ice loss for both Greenland and Antarctica.
Hobbes Posted by DaisyMae (Member # 9722) on :
quote: So you saw a picture, and you didn't like what you saw, and since you couldn't be bothered to find out what the facts were, or indeed, what exactly the picture was supposed to be demonstrating (I bet if it were an image of Florida in a hundred years if CO2 levels continue to rise as they are now, that it wouldn't be inaccurate), you've concluded, what? That global warming can't be a serious problem? Because a picture was too scary?
I do believe you are inferring quite a bit about my attitude toward this issue. If you'll review my past statements I think you'll find that I've indeed conceded the point that Global Warming IS an issue worth looking at and that I was grateful to Rabbit for directing me to information to give me a more complete understanding.
I apologize for not having memorized the source of every time I have been confronted with Global Warming Propoganda. I can tell you that I have often been left with feelings not at all unlike the ones produced by your comments. The snippy little attitude is a perfect demostration of my point.
I would bet it's safe to say that the average American would not be able to recall the specific sources from which they have collectively developed their own feelings and opinions on certain issues either. I gave you one example. How silly for one to think that I'm basing my feelings solely upon it.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I know, National Geographic hates the environment but I'll site them anyway. Our carbon must be getting to Mars since they are seeing a similar melting.
It's ok though, he buys carbon offsets from his own company. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Geesh. It's like you know how to cut and paste links from the Free Republic forums!
*rolls eyes* Seriously, do I have to explain why each and every one of those "arguments" is intellectually empty?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
*sigh* Have you even looked around a little for refutations to your talking points? Even the first paragraph of the first link you provided tells us that Global Cooling "never had significant scientific support" so you're already contradicting yourself if you're presenting this as a foil to scientific concensus about Global Warming.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Are you denying there was cooling from the 40's to 70's. Are you denying the planet hasn't warmed in 10 years. Are you denying the hypocracy of Gore? Please, use a real argument. How do you explain regular ice ages. Good thing Neandertals found fire to put enough smoke in the air to melt the ice sheets covering North America.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Malanthrop, I suggest that you read this thread. Follow the links, and read those too.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Are you denying there was cooling from the 40's to 70's.
Yes! Check out the data.. Between 1940 and 1970 global temperatures were nearly constant.
quote:Are you denying the planet hasn't warmed in 10 years.
Yes! More data.. 1998 was the warmest year on record, largely due to a very strong el nino event. 2008 was the coolest year since 2000 due to a strong la nina, it was however still the tenth hottest year on record and hotter than every year prior to 1998.
quote:Are you denying the hypocracy of Gore?
Al Gore is irrelevant, he is at best just a mouth piece. The truth lies in the scientific data and the character of any individual involved either in the actual scientific research of the publicizing of those results is neither evidence for or against the validity of the scientific research.
quote: Please, use a real argument.
Have you read even one peer reviewed scientific report on the subject? I've been studying this professionally since you were in diapers.
quote:How do you explain regular ice ages.
Ice ages and the interglacial periods in earths past have been caused by a variety of factors including (but not limited too) changes in the earths orbit, changes in the solar radiance, and major volcanic episodes. None of those are happening right now. Numerous scientific studies have found that none of the factors associated with previous climate swings on this planet are adequate to explain the climate change we have observed over the past 150 years. The only factor which can explain the magnitude and abruptness of the current climate change is the green house effect caused by burning fossil fuels and other human activity.
quote:Good thing Neandertals found fire to put enough smoke in the air to melt the ice sheets covering North America.
Please, take the time to read one genuine objective scientific report on the subject. You sound like a Dittohead without even a basic grasp on secondary school science.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by DaisyMae: I do believe you are inferring quite a bit about my attitude toward this issue. If you'll review my past statements I think you'll find that I've indeed conceded the point that Global Warming IS an issue worth looking at and that I was grateful to Rabbit for directing me to information to give me a more complete understanding.
Sorry, but if you came to this conclusion without paying attention to what scientists say, as you previously said in your post, then your opinion is pretty worthless.
quote:I apologize for not having memorized the source of every time I have been confronted with Global Warming Propoganda.
I can't understand the nonchalance. The most important thing about drawing conclusions is knowing the basis for those conclusions. You pretty much said that your whole opinion is colored by one stupid image and what the loudest voices are saying, and that you haven't gotten around to "delving" into the facts.
How much respect do you expect an opinion with such a foundation will get?
Posted by DaisyMae (Member # 9722) on :
quote: How much respect do you expect an opinion with such a foundation will get?
Little to none. And that's fine. Respect for my view on scientific findings was never my intent.
All that has been said about my original post has been about an aside stating my own personal opinion about something which actually wasn't the point of my post. Whether I've done research on the topic is moot. The point is that the average person (which I have no problem categorizing myself as) does not know everything about each issue, but that doesn't mean they don't naturally have feelings about it. They take what they've heard and immediately develop an opinion. It doesn't matter if what they've heard is scientific or not, elaborately explained or not. You can criticize all you want your perceived idea of how much research I've done on the topic, or lack thereof. Doesn't matter, because that's not my point. I have never professed to be an expert, or even to have a better than average grasp of all the information available. I'm certainly entitled to whatever feelings I have though. Once again, please let me stress that I am NOT in disagreeance that global temperature trends are on the rise. The fact that I keep having to defend this point is proving to me that there seems to be a zealous attitude toward this issue. It's not the issue, but the zealots, I find bothersome.
The only reason I even commented in this thread was because a question was posed about the correlation between religion and environmental attitudes. I was merely stating my observations about that topic with a (now regrettable) personal statement about how I've been made to feel on the issue of global warming.
Posted by DaisyMae (Member # 9722) on :
quote: You pretty much said that your whole opinion is colored by one stupid image and what the loudest voices are saying,
Reading back on how I originally presented this information, I suppose I can see how you would gather that I'm truly basing all my opinions on that one image. I assure you that whatever humble opinion I may have has been shaped by quite a bit more than that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For what it's worth, DaisyMae, I'm glad you shared your point of view.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
We could debate 60 years of data if you'd like but basing trends on man's recorded data is like sampling ten people in New York for a political poll. Ice ages come and go, this is a fact. I'm not going to argue it much with you. I may as well argue with the Taliban about the Jews. It is your religion. If you feel empowered by saving the planet or arrogantly believe we have sway over the climate, good for you. When they accurately predict the number and path of hurricanes, I might consider your "science". When the weather man can predict the rains in a small town a little better, I might think climatologists are on the right path. Mt St Helens spews more Co2 than all the cars in Washington State. Forest fires raged accross the continent. Water vapor is the number one green house gas. People contribute about 2% of Co2 emmissions into the atmosphere. Tax the ranchers because the cows and pigs pass gas. Forget the fact that the amount of Buffalo and other animals dwarfed our farm cattle. Oh, it's climate change now right. We can blame it on: rains, drought, freezing temps, extremely high temps. You may as well throw a witch in the pond, if she sinks she's innocent.
the green movement has made a lot of people extremely wealthy and is an excuse for future government revenue base on pig farts.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Current science does a very good job of predicting temperature trends and ice coverage trends in many parts of the world.
Local weather phenomena such as daily temperatures and the exact paths of hurricanes are, of course, much harder to predict. Indeed, I'm pretty sure theory will tell you that they aren't very predictable -- there are limits on time and space resolution, at the least.
That's not at all an indictment of our ability to predict climate, just of your ability to understand the difference between climate and weather, between the aggregate and the specific. For instance, science can predict with incredible precision many properties of a gas in an enclosed space under various conditions, but can't even start on telling you the positions of any particular particle.
Large-scale models can be extremely accurate even when they can't predict the individual parts of the constituent phenomena.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:basing trends on man's recorded data is like sampling ten people in New York
You'd rather we tried to base trends on unrecorded data?
quote:the green movement has made a lot of people extremely wealthy
Whom? Bear in mind that you have to contrast these insidious profits with what arguably comprise the "anti-green" movement, like oil and coal companies.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and they aren't just based on recorded data. We have a lot of data about the past, it is just less precise than our more recent data. Things like tree rings can tell us an astonishing amount about the climate in a particular time period.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I don't dispute the existence of climate change. It was going on long before humans roamed the Earth. Just in time to save the day, in 20,000 years we've figured out how to stop a 4.5 billion year old cycle. Good thing we evolved to put a stop to it.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
You are disputing humankind's role in climate change.
If someone you cared about was a smoker, would you caution them to stop smoking because it is bad for their health, or would you just think to yourself that everyone dies?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I don't think anyone has claimed that we know how to stop it. We just have a pretty good idea that we're making things worse and some idea of how to mitigate that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I may as well argue with the Taliban about the Jews. It is your religion.
It seems you're genuinely incapable of carrying on a discussion without the wildest hyperbole and without making odious comparisons.
---
Honest question: Does saying 'the Jews' have a negative context to anyone, as opposed to simply saying 'Jews' or 'Jewish people'? It could be just because it's malanthrop talking.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Sorry, but if you came to this conclusion without paying attention to what scientists say, as you previously said in your post, then your opinion is pretty worthless.
Let's be a little more civil. No one's opinion here is worthless.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Actually I fought the Taliban and I have no negative perception of Jewish people. If there are any people of Hebrew decsent who were offendend, I sincerely opologize. I also find myself using the term "black" instead of African American on occasion, I mean no negative implications with that term either. I'm sure you've already discovered, keeping up with the PC term of the year is not my strong suit. But my college trascript will always show the A I got in "Black Culture", must've been a racist class.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm grateful for your military service, and I say thanks with sincerity.
With equal sincerity, though, I say that your having fought the Taliban means crap-all in this discussion. Especially since you used it as a complete subject-change. The comparison was still pretty nasty, and you shouldn't have made it.
Anyway, this little tangent is also a complete subject change, so I'll drop it.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I may as well argue with the Taliban about the Jews. It is your religion.
It seems you're genuinely incapable of carrying on a discussion without the wildest hyperbole and without making odious comparisons.
---
Honest question: Does saying 'the Jews' have a negative context to anyone, as opposed to simply saying 'Jews' or 'Jewish people'? It could be just because it's malanthrop talking.
Only responding to what you percieved as an insensitive remark. Wasn't looking for support or points for my military service. I have been keenly aware, even in theater, the liberal perception of the war. I was over there listening to Demaocrats declare we had lost the war, it was a waste, etc etc. Different issue for another day perhaps.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
My point is the evangelical nature of many environmentalists. I can only compare the dedication to the most zealous religious person. I understand, what higher calling can there be other than saving the planet. Especially for an athiest...back to the original post.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oshki, dude, you've regressed to simple trolling here. If you're going to make real points, make 'em.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Wasn't looking for support or points for my military service. I have been keenly aware, even in theater, the liberal perception of the war. I was over there listening to Demaocrats declare we had lost the war, it was a waste, etc etc. Different issue for another day perhaps.
I ain't a liberal. Hell, just ask around. Just because someone objects to your particular brand of noxious politics doesn't mean they're liberal.
quote:My point is the evangelical nature of many environmentalists. I can only compare the dedication to the most zealous religious person. I understand, what higher calling can there be other than saving the planet.
You picked the most evil zealous religious group, or one of the most such groups. I'm trying to drop it, but not if you last-word with that sort of bulls@#t.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Didn't mean to go that far, perhaps 7th day adventist or Mormon . Valid point. It's been a while since I've heard of an environmentalist burning down a suburban house, suv's in a car lot or rail road spiking a tree to kill a logger.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, you did mean to go that far. Also, HA! about SDA and LDS. How very telling that you'd phrase things that way. You didn't mean to liken them to the Taliban, just Mormons or Seventh Day Adventists.
Heh.
quote: It's been a while since I've heard of an environmentalist burning down a suburban house, suv's in a car lot or rail road spiking a tree to kill a logger.
If they burned down a hundred surbuban houses a week, likening them to the Taliban would still be unfair. And I mean even to the actual environmentalists who did it. Comparing all environmentalists on that account is stupid.
Betcha don't want the fringe-nuts on your side of the aisle trotted up and chained to you, do you?
Anyhoo. You're at least a kissing-cousin to a dittohead. I've got better things to do than talk with you. Everyone else should, too.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
SDA and LDA are great people, just very devout. Sorry it didn't translate too well. I was being sarcastic, it truly has been a couple years since I heard of environmentalists burning homes and auto dealership to the ground. You are correct, they are nothing compared to the Taliban. I was pointing out the fervor of some is "similar" to religion.
[ March 24, 2009, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:We could debate 60 years of data if you'd like but basing trends on man's recorded data is like sampling ten people in New York for a political poll. Ice ages come and go, this is a fact. I'm not going to argue it much with you.
No you and I could not have a rational debate over even 10 years of data because you clearly haven't even bothered to look at the data I provided you. I on the other hand have a Ph.D. in the area, have personal published research on Atmospheric chemistry, and have taught in the field for ovr 15 years.
The graphs I linked only contain the temperature record for 150 years but this is not the full extent of scientific record. Measurements taken over the last 150 years have been augmented with data from tree rings, ice cores, soil temperature, isotopic measurements and a host of other temperature surrogates. All these measurments agree -- the climate change we are observing currently on the planet is unprecedented in the last 300,000 and can only be explained by human activity.
I gave you a list of reasons for past ice ages and explained why those reasons are inadequate to explain the current climate changed but like the data I linked, you completely blew off my explanations and simply repeated the same disproven arguments. You can't simply throw out the data because it doesn't agree with your preconcieved notions.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
*cough*
quote:Hey Rabbit, do you know about the GRACE satellites and their gravity measurements?
Hobbes Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Sorry Hobbes, I didn't mean to ignore you. The only thing I know about the GRACE satellites are what I've read in the news. I'm reasonably familiar with the scientific results on glacier melt that are coming from the satellite but I really don't know anything about gravity measurements, I'm a chemist not a physicist.
The only thing I can really add beyond that is that using gravity measurements to do a mass balance on the ice sheets is a really clever idea and is making a valuable contribution to the science. I give my cudos to the people who came up with the idea. Its definitely very cool!
[ March 24, 2009, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie:
quote:Sorry, but if you came to this conclusion without paying attention to what scientists say, as you previously said in your post, then your opinion is pretty worthless.
Let's be a little more civil. No one's opinion here is worthless.
You're right, I wasn't specific enough.
I guess I meant that with regard to having an intelligent conversation about the facts of the world, an opinion that is devoid of a factual basis is worthless.
Factual conclusions change in light of new facts. Emotional responses don't, so talking about them is mostly venting.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I don't know, I appreciate the ability to converse on a wide range of subjects, not just those in which we are personally experts.
I also appreciate input from non-scientific points of view because, in reality, how much of human experience is scientifically validated? As long as things are being presented honestly, it's nice to be tolerant and hear what people have to say. DaisyMae didn't pretend to any qualifications she didn't have - she stated from the beginning what her background was and what her feelings were. Feelings are perfectly valid things to bring up in conversations among friends.
Posted by DaisyMae (Member # 9722) on :
Thank you, Tom and Annie.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I hope you don't feel stomped-on.
Posted by DaisyMae (Member # 9722) on :
Only a few tread marks, but none worse for the wear.
I read the threads often but rarely comment for that very reason.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Factual conclusions change in light of new facts. Emotional responses don't, so talking about them is mostly venting.
I disagree. I think that emotional responses can and do change as we discuss them and try to understand why we have them.
My interest in participating in this thread is because I'd really like to understand peoples emotional response to environmental issues. I've seen a lot of religious conservatives get very angry at and about environmental protection and I still don't understand where that anger is coming from.
I have a better grasp on apathy about the issues. For a lot of people, the idea that human activity could cause serious global changes runs counter the all their intuition about how the world works. From their world view it just seems too far fetched to be valid.
I can imagine how I would respond if people started claiming that sending rockets to mars was going to shift the earth out of its orbit and cause the destruction of all life. Based on my knowledge of physics, that is just too far fetched for me to seriously consider.
Most peoples intuition about how the physical universe works is way off and their understanding of science in general is very weak. So its very difficult to persuade people that driving cars and burning coal really can cause a global catastrophe. Even when scientist have done the ground work and shown that its not just possible its really happening, the conclusions are so different from what most peoples intuition tells them that its much easier to believe this is some sort of conspiracy that it is for them to understand the seriousness of the scientific conclusions. So I can understand apathy.
What I don't understand is the anger and contempt. If people care enough to feel anger or contempt, shouldn't they care enough to actually investigate the issue and understand what the data really say? If they care, shouldn't they care enough to try and figure out the truth?
I'd really like to understand where the anger comes from.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that the anger is defensive. Knowledge that we are responsible and, more importantly, that we should change, is very threatening.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I can see at least some of the anger being directed at the scientists/environmentalists/pundits who haven’t managed to get the abrasiveness and accusations out of their warnings. Perhaps at agendas that sometimes get attached to calls for action on the environment’s behalf. Also at the constant flow of terrible news about what’s happening without much mention of what they’re supposed to do about it. As irrational as it might still be, I don’t think it’s as irrational as pure anger and contempt directed toward the environment itself, which I’d be surprised if many people have.
But yeah, many people simply don’t want to budge from their lifestyles, have a vested interest in an activity or business that is harmful to the environment somehow, or don’t want to make it their life’s mission. It’s not a priority, and might not be one until it starts directly interfering with their lives.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I can see at least some of the anger being directed at the scientists/environmentalists/pundits who haven’t managed to get the abrasiveness and accusations out of their warnings.
So you are saying that people are angry because scientists, who have discovered something that is likely to kill tens of millions of people and devastate economies, aren't sufficiently polite in their warnings?
Sorry I still don't understand.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I think the difference is between saying "The Earth is warming, it's effects will be devastating on a global scale, and human beings are responsible," and saying "the Earth is warming, it's effects will be devastating and it's all your fault."
It's not about being sufficiently polite, it's about being sufficiently savvy. I think in the past, the environmental movement tried to target personal virtue/responsibility as the vehicle to effect change and, while achieving some success, managed to come off to some as elitist and disdaining the average person.
This decade, I'm seeing several changes that say, to me, that things are improving. The environmental movement seems to have changed in a couple of ways. I see a major re-targeting, from individuals to business and government systems. This strikes me as both a more practical method of effecting change and a more effective one. I don't think the personal virtue aspect has been forgotten, but I do think that has a shifted emphasis as well.
That said, I think some, probably people who are older, hear the old accusations whether or not they are a part of the new message.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:The only thing I can really add beyond that is that using gravity measurements to do a mass balance on the ice sheets is a really clever idea and is making a valuable contribution to the science. I give my cudos to the people who came up with the idea. Its definitely very cool!
I asked because that's what my Dad does. I was going to get into it more if you did but... well I'll pass it along.
Hobbes Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I can see at least some of the anger being directed at the scientists/environmentalists/pundits who haven’t managed to get the abrasiveness and accusations out of their warnings.
So you are saying that people are angry because scientists, who have discovered something that is likely to kill tens of millions of people and devastate economies, aren't sufficiently polite in their warnings?
Sorry I still don't understand.
Kind of in the same vein as Juxtapose. Scientists don't always tend to be the best marketers. Whether or not the facts are there, people aren't going to swallow them if they're presented as damning facts. They will listen better, perhaps, if the presentation is engaging and doesn't put them on the defensive.
Like the Quote of the Day on my iGoogle says,
"Few people can see genius in someone who has offended them." - Robertson Davies
In essence, it's the same problem Noah had. There are those few who will listen regardless of their being hit over the head with the message, but the majority will react negatively despite the facts. Scientists have to find ways to transfer their passion to the people instead of alienating them with it.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
It doesn't help that the climate hasn't warmed in over a decade and we just went through one of the coldest winters in memory. Tough sell, true or not. Americans have short memories.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: the climate hasn't warmed in over a decade
*blink*
Wasn't this just rebutted last page?
Speaking of short memories . . .
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Seriously. Do you understand the concepts of statistical outliers and trends?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I could use statistical outliers and trends to easilly offend anyone in this room.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
There are much smarter people on the subject than I. Concensus is a lie but if you disagree in the scientific world, you may as be a holocost denier. Here's >30000 scientist who disagree with you. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p333.htm Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: There are much smarter people on the subject than I. Concensus is a lie but if you disagree in the scientific world, you may as be a holocost denier. Here's >30000 scientist who disagree with you. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p333.htm
That is something you could only possibly believe if you have never had any dealings with scientists. Its kind of the equivalent to saying "Non-smokers are shunned in the Mormon world." Disagreement is more common and more encouraged in science than in any other area of life. It is integral to the scientific method and expected of scientists.
There is however one type of disagreement that is looked on disfavorably in science -- disagreement with the facts. If in science you continue to support a hypothesis that is repeatedly proven inconsistent with experimental measurements, you will eventually be dismissed as a fool.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Concensus is a lie but if you disagree in the scientific world, you may as be a holocost denier.
Doesn't that mean there's a consensus?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I could use statistical outliers and trends to easilly offend anyone in this room.
This is the biggest tiredest load of crap. I am so sick of idiots who say, when the data contradicts them, "You can make the data say anything you want.".
No, you can't. There may be more than one way to interpret a set of data, but there are ways that are absolutely wrong. Saying that global warming has stopped during the last decade is simply wrong. The data does not support that hypothesis. There is no way that anyone with the slightest understanding of climate patterns could come to that conclusion.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Will also wrote that "according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade." The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is one of many respected scientific institutions that support the consensus that humans are driving global warming. Will probably meant that since 1998 was the warmest year on record according to the WMO -- NASA, in contrast, believes that that honor goes to 2005 -- we haven't had any global warming since. Yet such sleight of hand would lead to the conclusion that "global cooling" sets in immediately after every new record temperature year, no matter how frequently those hot years arrive or the hotness of the years surrounding them. Climate scientists, knowing that any single year may trend warmer or cooler for a variety of reasons -- 1998, for instance, featured an extremely strong El Niño -- study globally averaged temperatures over time. To them, it's far more relevant that out of the 10 warmest years on record, at least seven have occurred in the 2000s -- again, according to the WMO.
nitpicking data = ^2 / Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Kind of in the same vein as Juxtapose. Scientists don't always tend to be the best marketers. Whether or not the facts are there, people aren't going to swallow them if they're presented as damning facts. They will listen better, perhaps, if the presentation is engaging and doesn't put them on the defensive.
I also wanted to add that I don't think all, or even most of the people historically doing the marketing have been scientists. My off-the-cuff guess is that the failures of the early environmental movement had more to do with the zeitgeist of the '60s-'80s.
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
to the rest of you) I guess I've always been biased towards environmental issues. Certainly becoming LDS (that should read "a LDS", but that just doesn't sound right!) wasn't the beginning of my belief in protecting the environment. However, as I continue to learn more about my religion I feel more and more concerned with the state of the Earth and what we are and can do to try and improve it. Though there are some specifically LDS teachings that help strengthen this (scripture that deals with the Earth as a living soul, aware of what's going on at the surface) the Bible isn't entirely silent on the issue either. I don't consider myself competent enough to comment on other religions (really I probably over-step my bounds just going beyond my denomination) but my imagination says that there's hardly a mainstream religion out there that is against environmental protection!![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
I suppose that's one of those "natural man" aspects of me I should really work on...![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Have you read even one peer reviewed scientific report on the subject? I've been studying this professionally since you were in diapers. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I asked because that's what my Dad does. I was going to get into it more if you did but... well I'll pass it along. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
^2 / ![[Confused]](confused.gif)