Michael Hardner

I never confused it. But others have. I don't think that's accurate. As you can see from the video in my link, he doesn't talk about adaption versus mitigation. He openly scorns the idea of GW. And I'll be damned if someone tells me his viewers aren't influenced by his lies. This is what Neil Postman called "Amusing Ourselves to Death". It's poisonous to America to have the country enthralled by misinformation and fake problems when there are real ones to deal with. But, you have stated how it should be dealt with - basically, The Daily Show. Ok...

These quotes make me think your perception is of derision towards the US from other nations. I wouldn't say that it's that simple. As we know, it is a preferred destination for immigrants.

Right - so why is it ok for you to bring scientists into the discussion and not ok for me to discuss the hog-calling pundits who make light entertainment of the topic of climate change ?

Sorry, Alta, but you said this: You brought in the topic of other sources of information, specifically scientist data, and whether it was trustworthy, not me. My counter point is that the well-examined and discussed problems with the science are dwarfed by the problems with dishonest commentators misquoting and blowing everything out of proportion. People aren't even listening to the scientists, IMO.

It sounds like you're talking about branding, in which case I agree with you - in substance and style. USA means freedom, there's no doubt about it. But so do a lot of other places now. And the US has exported freedom, arguably, to a lot of other places. Isn't the American way the world way now ?

That's fine, except where do you think all the misinformation about the science came from ? And please don't tell me that most aren't misinformed. There are a few very valid points to be made about skepticism, but how often do you hear, for example, that there is no warming at all ? It comes from pundits who speak as though they are telling the truth, and convince people that they're telling the truth. But they're snake oil salesmen. Of course Fox has the right to put him on, but don't you see this as a problem ?

Objectively, would you say that this is still a differentiating trait of the USA versus other places ?

Why does it matter to the US ? Is it the philosophy that matters ? That would make sense, but I haven't heard it articulated quite that way. Once in awhile, I'll read/hear somebody talking about the spirit of the new immigrant - now that's American to me. But more often, I hear them complaining about immigrants.

What is he ? Does anybody know ?

You said it's getting harder to trust the scientists. Here we have a journalist, or pseudo-journalist who is among the most watched/listened to people in America, who continually rails against Global Warming as his ratings go up. And he is quoted as saying that he doesn't believe what he says on TV. If he were an actor or a stand-up comedian then we'd say "who cares" ? But guys like Beck are listened to far more than the scientists.

This may be it: see the diagram at the top of 5668 https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/home/droyer/web/PhanCO2%28GCA%29.pdf I was referred to it in this discussion: http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/4/w5hs4KVeiAU

We do, on the other hand, have a smoking gun that Glenn Beck is being a hypocrite about Global Warming. Separate thread on Beck: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15931

We have no smoking gun that tells us that climate scientists were deliberately giving us falsehoods in order to help their careers. We do, on the other hand, have a smoking gun that Glenn Beck is being a hypocrite about Global Warming. Why is there no uproar at all about Beck ? Beck can say whatever he wants and the more ridiculous he gets, the more people watch, the more successful his career is. Now, I don't know if he's supposed to be a journalist, but for some reason people watch him and I suspect they believe what he says. Shouldn't he be accountable for that ? Here he is ridiculing Global Warming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im22AkN2piY From 1:35 on he talks about Phil Jones. Here he is in USA TODAY: http://www.usaweekend.com/article/20100219/ENTERTAINMENT01/100218001/Don-t-judge-Beck-by-his-cover I have problems with Al Gore's video, too. But find an instance where Gore does a flip-flop this bad. With that interview Beck is practically flaunting the fact that he is scamming his audience.

Good for you, MG, for asking for scientific proof rather than a blog or video. Just for you, I will find something.

Can we say they matter less ? PLEASE ? I saw another commercial about Canada today... and I was thinking.... please don't be a beer commercial, please don't be a beer commercial. But it was.

Keep in mind that there are hundreds of scientists who are working on these things. Also, nothing in the Climategate emails amounts to anything like a smoking gun.

I don't believe in conspiracies when everything can be done in plain sight.

Ok. The difference between the targeting of civilians during war (as happened during world war II) is that it's done to achieve a military goal then ? It may be that 'terrorism' denotes that brand of violence as you define, but only after WW2 or maybe Vietnam. I don't know where I would cut off the time, but it seems to be recent - post Israel anyway.

I generally exclude loud-mouthed morons from my own moronic generalizations, but... sure.

Ask them if things have changed since the end of the cold war. If they answer 'no' then don't speak to them any more. It's very interesting to live in a land with a strong and storied history. But if I move there tomorrow, is it then part of my identity ? These are just echoes of the past, though. There are differences, but global monoculture seeps and creeps, and will turn us all into peeps.

Unfortunately for you, there are several threads with many many pages of posts.

I think it's stifling to try to define oneself in terms of one's country, especially when this country is constantly being made and remade by immigration. I am half French-Canadian, old stock, part Irish, English and Italian. These European people arrived from the 1600s to the 1900s so that they could have a better life, not because they loved the cold, or they respected our treatment of native people, or because they loved the Queen or they were prescient and knew we would have healthcare one day. I don't like all of the actions of America's government, or Canada's but I can't hold that against people who are largely like me. I think that nationalism in general is pointless, and lately seems to mark you as someone who doesn't know about globalization. Can't we all be forthright and say that countries largely don't matter any more ? Edited to add: I went a little far with that last statement - a bit of hyperbole - but I will say that the relevance of nations continues to dwindle...

That is a prescription for boredom.

I know that many Americans get ticked off when they hear (usually for the first time) that Canadians can be anti-US. And who can blame them ? I do love this land, and the people but our history is dull, for the most part, when compared with that of our neighbour. The saddest thing is when I hear Canadians say that the key difference between our country and the US is healthcare. An insurance plan. I do see the usefulness of having nations, but identifying yourself with your nation is an increasingly stupid position, in my opinion. I'm currently reading "Jackson's Way". The Americans of the mid-1700s are unrecognizable today, as are the Canadians of that era. We are left only with the philosophy that they fought for.

To add: many left-of-centre types don't even realize how much they identify with American culture. I don't think I would have been the same without The Simpsons, David Lynch, Dave Brubeck or BurningMan.