Ha! I’m glad that I’m not the only one who does that!

I do not have the time/energy to get into this too much right now, since everyone here, including me, is fighting some virus right now. But I will come back to it.

That comment was mostly based on my own observations of how I have seen regular, everyday, non-political-junkie people react to the global warming issue.

People who did not want Gore for President, are reluctant to see his movie.

I am not saying that he did get into this for political reasons, but there are people who think that and it keeps them from taking it seriously.

As for conservatives asking questions, I was not talking about “experts” like the guy who wrote that column. I mean lay people. Regular folks. I have asked questions before and been totally slammed, called names, made fun of, insulted, and had assumptions made about me that are not true. Yeah, way to win me over.

I DO care about the earth. I am concerned about the way we are polluting it. I also have a level of skepticism over anything that is being used as a political tool. I have had questions. Aren’t we supposed to question authority? Anytime I had a question, I was called a bunch of names by some self-righteous liberal. That in and of itself makes me want to go out and buy a Hummer just so I can idle it in front of their house.

For your information, where I found that column was on an unrelated message board where people who are not necessarily politically involved were trying to sort the issue out for themselves. Unfortunately, such people rarely can find someone willing to work through that and answer the questions because by now most people have chosen sides and are well on their way into demonizing the other side.

Like you do.

When I said I posted this to spark a discussion, I did not mean that I think this guy is right in his view of global warming, but that I knew it would spark a discussion in the comments. (And it did – wow, she is right!)

I’ll comment more later with come common sense solutions.

The P.R. industry is one of the fastest growing in America and their strategies go way, way deeper than having front groups like “friends of science” bribe scientists.

I Haven’t actually watched this doc yet but the old bookby the same name is excellent.

In the meantime, I did a quick search on the net and I found this. Feel free to share your thoughts.

Republicans oppose it because Dems support it? Uh, no, how bout Repubs oppose it because they’re in bed with the big companies responsible for much of the problem, and with anti-science Christianists who feel that it doesn’t matter becuse they’re all gonna get raptured up anyway. C’mon Charity. Gimme some real facts here.

‘Anytime sometne on the right has questions?’… ok, please, once again, give me some examples. There is a difference between ‘having questions’ and denying the phenomenon, which is a consensus in the scientific community. AND the majority of the people ‘questioning’ have close financial ties to Big Oil. That doesn’t put up a red flag for you?

Was that idiot you referred to in the article ‘questioning’ or spreading misinformation? The man hasn’t published a peer-reviewed paper in 14 years. Is that because what he’s spouting would not stand up to serious scientific scrutiny? When Sen. Inhofe says global warming is a communist plot, what basis is he giving me to take him seriously? certainly not his big financial backers in the oil industry.

Once again, you’re giving these silly little black/white either/or answers. The fact that the ‘right sees Al Gore as’ is irrelevant. The right has also seen WMD’s, compared Bush to Churchill, and listens to Jerry Falwell, so their capacity for critical thinking is not exactly exemplary.

What are some of the common sense solutions you’re proposing? Am I off the mark in guessing that NONE of them involve mandating anything?

I really want to debate you on this Charity, you just need to offer better arguments than a FOX news pundit would. C’mon, girl. Give me some facts.

I disagree. It is a partisan issue for a couple of reasons (this is not an all inclusive list).

One, Al Gore, who is loathed on the right, is the spokesperson for this issue. It is seen by many as his attempt to regain national relevance for a future presidential run – a political stunt.

Two, any time someone on the right has questions about global warming, some asshole on the left makes the decision to spout off a bunch of anti-conservative swill, instead of informing and enlightening the person seeking knowledge.

Three, the behavior of politicians on the left has been to make this a partisan issue – vote for us, the Republicans don’t care about global warming. We’re all going to die if they are in office, blah, blah, blah.

People on both sides are making this a partisan thing. It’s not just about Republicans blindly supporting destroying the planet or that Democrats are all saints.

This issue has been turned into a political issue, with both sides wanting gains for their own team.

What does that accomplish?

You are completely naive if you think that every politician who supports doing something about global warming is doing it because they really care about the planet.

It’s all about politics.

Democrats support it because Republicans oppose it. Republicans oppose it because Democrats support it.

Meanwhile, there are common sense solutions that could easily gain support from politicians on both sides and the American people, but that doesn’t play into their political football game.

Charity, I am totally open to dissenting viewpoints… if they’re factually correct. In the case of this particular guy we’re talking about, what credibility does he have, considering all of the evidence pointing to his lack of credibility? People are entitled to their own opinions. They’re not entitled to their own set of facts, however.

How does the fact that ‘he anticipated I would say that’ (re: Big Oil) make it any less obvious, from a debating standpoint? The fact that he knew what my criticism was going to be was all the more telling, and it had nothing to do with the validity of my criticism. He’s heard it and anticipated it because it’s true.

This doesn’t have to be a partisan issue, unless one chooses to. One can be a total arch-conservative and still not have to look to bogus mouthpieces for the oil industry who use questionable science to make their case. Like I said before, I think most conservatives that do a have an issue with this stems from the fact that they’re not going to be able to continue doing what they’ve been doing to make money. Perhaps they feel discomfort at having to change their behavior because they have to. And when it comes down to rising sea levels, disappearing species, more severe weather and other environmental devastation and you weigh that against Exxon-Mobil’s bottom line or some shmoe’s right to drive a Hummer, what is really more important?

I’m not trying do be harsh here (if was going to I woulda saved that for our religion debate). It’s just that I don’t see the point in ’sparking discussion’ unless the discussion is about special interest groups who pay scientists to do their bidding, and continue to push a notion that the majority of scientists don’t believe is correct.

To spark a discussion.

“You gonna point to one of the many credible articles out there that supports how severe the global warming prob is?”

I didn’t realize it was necessary since every single news organization and almost every blog in the world already has.

The interesting thing is that you are proving the point he was making in the column – that any dissenting viewpoint is not to be considered, or at least civilly refuted. I mean, if this guy is wrong on the data, then he should be refuted point-by-point. It is not really convincing to just call him a puppet for Big Oil, especially since he already said that is what you would say.

You are irrationally reactionary to this issue, as are a lot of people.

I happen to be concerned about our planet whether or not global warming is being caused by man. There are enough other good reasons to change the way we consume energy without turning this into such a contentious issue.

Unfortunately, this is becoming a partisan issue, with two sides, both demonizing the other. In the end, I don’t think that is going to accomplish as much as we need to accomplish.

More than a response to me about taking you to task, I’m interested in what you think of what I’ve pointed out to you. If you did some research, you’d find that a majority of the anti-global warming articles are either not peer-reviewed (a crucial part of scientific validity), and/or they have ties and funding from Big Oil. What do you think about that? I’m not being a smartass.. I’d like to know.

I’m just wondering why you would even waste time pointing to that piece? You gonna point to one of the many credible articles out there that supports how severe the global warming prob is? I’m not trying to bust your ass too hard… well , yes, I am. Stop promoting misinformation.

But I still luv ya.

(I’m kidding.)

I don’t see anywhere where I am saying that I do not think global warming is occurring or that man is not causing it.

I also posted that the Greens are showing a movie. Does that mean I am a Green or that I think the movie is true?

Thanks for the warning, though. I wouldn’t want to incur the wrath of JD Ryan.

(I’m just messing with you JD.)