Is Global Warming a Leftist Urban Legend?

[jbg]

But of these four, Israel (at least to my knowledge) is the only one not responsible for effing Haiti over in the first place.

So while I'd defend Israel's right to pat itself on the back for helping, the other three become symbols of dark comedy if they do so.

Israel supplied mobile hospitals. During WW II Germany supplied mobile killing units, called "Einsatzgrupen".

Which country is more civilized?

[Smallc]

OK, but what about Germany today?

[bloodyminded]

Israel supplied mobile hospitals. During WW II Germany supplied mobile killing units, called "Einsatzgrupen".

Which country is more civilized?

But we're not talking about the murderous policies of Germany circa WW2. We're talking about the horrible imperial policies of France, Canada and the United States more recently.

Like I said, on this issue at least, Israel gets a pass.

Edited March 20, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Smallc]

Imperial policies?

[bloodyminded]

Imperial policies?

Yes. Demanding "austerity measures" (not applicable to ourselves, not even during a serious recession) which all but eliminates Haitian agriculture, thus sending them into droves into the cities hoping to work for a dollar a day at Western factories so that we can buy cheap goods...the direct reason why so many Haitians were killed in the earthquake, by the by, since they had no choice but to live atop one another in ramshackle structures.

Or, in a more clear-cut and unambiguously imperial manner: overthrowing the elected (and tremendously popular) leader, kidnappping him, and illegalizing his Party (itself an illegal move, and by definition an imperial one--an outside force determining which parties are legal and which are not) so that more Business-friendly leaders can attain power....

That sounds like imperialism to me.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Imperial policies?

When did Haiti become a colony?

[bloodyminded]

When did Haiti become a colony?

It's a service area for Western interests, and has been for centuries.

[Guest TrueMetis]

It's a service area for Western interests, and has been for centuries.

Exactly what benefit have "western interests" been getting from Haiti?

[Smallc]

That sounds like imperialism to me.

Well, it may sound like it to you, but it really isn't.

[Smallc]

Exactly what benefit have "western interests" been getting from Haiti?

We've been able to give them large amounts of aid money...oh, wait.

[Pliny]

Yes. Demanding "austerity measures" (not applicable to ourselves, not even during a serious recession) which all but eliminates Haitian agriculture, thus sending them into droves into the cities hoping to work for a dollar a day at Western factories so that we can buy cheap goods...the direct reason why so many Haitians were killed in the earthquake, by the by, since they had no choice but to live atop one another in ramshackle structures.

Or, in a more clear-cut and unambiguously imperial manner: overthrowing the elected (and tremendously popular) leader, kidnappping him, and illegalizing his Party (itself an illegal move, and by definition an imperial one--an outside force determining which parties are legal and which are not) so that more Business-friendly leaders can attain power....

That sounds like imperialism to me.

Fly over Haiti someday. On the other side of the island is the Dominican Republic.

the difference between the two countries from an aerial perspective is mind-blowing.

The boundary separating them is clearly visible. The Dominican republic is the green side of the border and Haiti is the brown side.

I think politics makes the difference. The Dominican Republic recognizes property rights and Haiti doesn't. There is no stability in Haiti because there is no recognition of property rights. There is no reason to work or save or own wealth in any respect because it will be taken away. People will work only to sustain themselves for the moment not to accumulate savings or build a future. The true economy is underground.

[jbg]

It's a service area for Western interests, and has been for centuries.

Exactly what and how much is exported from Haiti?

[Pliny]

Waldo,

How soon we forget. We're heading off on a tangent. Anthropogenic global warming interest is waning, I fear. How do we get it back to being #1? I know it's #1 with you but the world seems to be losing focus.

How about those Leafs?

[waldo]

Waldo,

How soon we forget. We're heading off on a tangent. Anthropogenic global warming interest is waning, I fear. How do we get it back to being #1? I know it's #1 with you but the world seems to be losing focus.

How about those Leafs?

just keep doing your little MLW part, Pliny... just keep bumping this thread - it only highlights your dissatisfaction with the consensus. Pliny - the malcontent rebel!

[Pliny]

just keep doing your little MLW part, Pliny... just keep bumping this thread - it only highlights your dissatisfaction with the consensus. Pliny - the malcontent rebel!

I'm trying to keep it on top for you.

[waldo]

the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a right-wing, conservative, so-called 'think tank', has a long established participation in helping to influence the AGW climate change debate - to cast doubt on the scientific consensus that mankind is causing the accelerated warming. And now... AEI has fired David Frum from it's ranks... given Frum's prominence and background, his "GOP Waterloo" article, has indeed had ramifications throughout the political sphere. Whether health care... or AGW climate change - the right-wing GOP was/is positioned in meeting it's Waterloo!

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

Instead of fighting the science on climate change, we should champion nuclear power against the Obama administration's preference for costly, subsidised wind and solar power.

[waldo]

the Harper Conservative chaired and dominated House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, "suddenly, and without explanation, buried a major report on the oil sands and “the role the federal government can play in reducing risks as development evolves.” Drafts were shredded. Electronic copies were deleted. It’s as if hearings never happened".

A very bad report

The facts show that Canadian regulators have not behaved responsibly, honorably or prudently.

Ottawa has squandered surface and groundwater resources in the region.

It has failed to collect baseline data making the project both unsafe and insecure.

The ponds are leaking and the project is polluting the river.

The federal government has failed to issue national standards for regulating tar-sands pollutants such as naphthenic acids.

It, too, has neglected to transparently monitor water quality and quantity in the world's third largest watershed.

This evidence partly explains why the committee destroyed its final report. Tory MPs that behave like wannabe bitumen salesmen explain the rest.

Linda Duncan, an NDP MP who served on the querulous committee studying water and bitumen, promises to soon write her own report. Francis Scarpaleggia, the vice chair and Liberal MP, says he'll do the same.

But what stuns Duncan (and should anger every blue-blooded Canadian) is simply this: "The federal government has failed to properly regulate the oil sands and in so doing they've put the resource at risk."

[Shady]

Electronic copies were deleted. Its as if hearings never happened

Hmmm. Sounds like they took a page outta Phil Jones' playbook. Destroy information that doesn't support your view!

Edited July 20, 2010 by Shady

[bush_cheney2004]

the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a right-wing, conservative, so-called 'think tank'.....

As opposed to an American "right ring, liberal" think tank? LOL!

USA! USA! USA!

[waldo]

the Harper Conservative chaired and dominated House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, "

suddenly, and without explanation, buried a major report on the oil sands and “the role the federal government can play in reducing risks as development evolves.” Drafts were shredded. Electronic copies were deleted. It’s as if hearings never happened

".

A very bad report

The facts show that Canadian regulators have not behaved responsibly, honorably or prudently.

Ottawa has squandered surface and groundwater resources in the region.

It has failed to collect baseline data making the project both unsafe and insecure.

The ponds are leaking and the project is polluting the river.

The federal government has failed to issue national standards for regulating tar-sands pollutants such as naphthenic acids.

It, too, has neglected to transparently monitor water quality and quantity in the world's third largest watershed.

This evidence partly explains why the committee destroyed its final report. Tory MPs that behave like wannabe bitumen salesmen explain the rest.

Linda Duncan, an NDP MP who served on the querulous committee studying water and bitumen, promises to soon write her own report. Francis Scarpaleggia, the vice chair and Liberal MP, says he'll do the same.

But what stuns Duncan (and should anger every blue-blooded Canadian) is simply this: "The federal government has failed to properly regulate the oil sands and in so doing they've put the resource at risk."

Politicians cancel oilsands pollution probe, tear up draft reports

The aborted investigation comes as new questions are being raised about the Harper government's decision to exempt a primary toxic pollutant found in oilsands tailings ponds from a regulatory agenda.

The government is in the process of categorizing industry-produced substances that could either be toxic or harmful, but has excluded naphthenic acid — a toxin from oilsands operations — from the list, and left it off another list of substances that companies are required to track and report.

The exclusion is "alarming" according to a letter sent Tuesday to Environment Minister Jim Prentice and Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, since the federal and Alberta governments have already identified it as a primary source of pollution in liquid waste dumped into ponds after companies extract oil from the region.

"Naphthenic acids are one of the main pollutants responsible for the toxicity of tarsands tailings to aquatic organisms, and have been shown to harm liver, heart and brain function in mammals," wrote Matt Price, the policy director at Environmental Defence, an independent research organization based in Toronto. "Naphthenic acids are also very long-lived, taking decades to break down."

Price also said in the letter that the federal and provincial governments are already allowing some of the toxins to leak into groundwater and surface water.

[waldo]

about that ongoing from the U.S. political right/Republican war-on-science...

Science scorned: The anti-science strain pervading the right wing in the United States is the last thing the country needs in a time of economic challenge.

“The four corners of deceit: government, academia, science and media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit. That's how they promulgate themselves; it is how they prosper.” It is tempting to laugh off this and other rhetoric broadcast by Rush Limbaugh, a conservative US radio host, but Limbaugh and similar voices are no laughing matter.

There is a growing anti-science streak on the American right that could have tangible societal and political impacts on many fronts — including regulation of environmental and other issues and stem-cell research. Take the surprise ousting last week of Lisa Murkowski, the incumbent Republican senator for Alaska, by political unknown Joe Miller in the Republican primary for the 2 November midterm congressional elections. Miller, who is backed by the conservative 'Tea Party movement', called his opponent's acknowledgement of the reality of global warming “exhibit 'A' for why she needs to go”.

The right-wing populism that is flourishing in the current climate of economic insecurity echoes many traditional conservative themes, such as opposition to taxes, regulation and immigration. But the Tea Party and its cheerleaders, who include Limbaugh, Fox News television host Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who famously decried fruitfly research as a waste of public money), are also tapping an age-old US political impulse — a suspicion of elites and expertise.

Denialism over global warming has become a scientific cause célèbre within the movement. Limbaugh, for instance, who has told his listeners that “science has become a home for displaced socialists and communists”, has called climate-change science “the biggest scam in the history of the world”. The Tea Party's leanings encompass religious opposition to Darwinian evolution and to stem-cell and embryo research — which Beck has equated with eugenics. The movement is also averse to science-based regulation, which it sees as an excuse for intrusive government. Under the administration of George W. Bush, science in policy had already taken knocks from both neglect and ideology. Yet President Barack Obama's promise to “restore science to its rightful place” seems to have linked science to liberal politics, making it even more of a target of the right.

US citizens face economic problems that are all too real, and the country's future crucially depends on education, science and technology as it faces increasing competition from China and other emerging science powers. Last month's recall of hundreds of millions of US eggs because of the risk of salmonella poisoning, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, are timely reminders of why the US government needs to serve the people better by developing and enforcing improved science-based regulations. Yet the public often buys into anti-science, anti-regulation agendas that are orchestrated by business interests and their sponsored think tanks and front groups.

In the current poisoned political atmosphere, the defenders of science have few easy remedies. Reassuringly, polls continue to show that the overwhelming majority of the US public sees science as a force for good, and the anti-science rumblings may be ephemeral. As educators, scientists should redouble their efforts to promote rationalism, scholarship and critical thought among the young, and engage with both the media and politicians to help illuminate the pressing science-based issues of our time.

[eyeball]

Science scorned: The anti-science strain pervading the right wing in the United States is the last thing the country needs in a time of economic challenge.

It's exactly what the country needs as it prepares for the Rapture.

[Wild Bill]

about that ongoing from the U.S. political right/Republican war-on-science...

Science scorned: The anti-science strain pervading the right wing in the United States is the last thing the country needs in a time of economic challenge.

I don't really follow things that closely in foreign countries like the USA. I admit that I'm not that familiar with the AMERICAN Right!

Still, it's not clear to me if the bias is against science in toto or just most scientific institutions. This seems an important distinction. Naturally, the Global Warming folks would like to paint it as an aversion to ALL science! That would make it another ad hominem tactic. People who disagree with their "scientific" pronouncements must be ignoramuses, according to their arguments.

The reality may be quite different. The American Right may have simply lost faith with many official scientific organizations. They may consider them corrupted by politics. Certainly the wealth redistribution dominance of the Kyoto Accord and things like ClimateGate have damaged the credibility of organizations like the IPCC.

There was a time when the American public (I guess we Canadians too) accepted any utterance from a scientific organization as gospel. That is no longer true. However, this is NOT the same as being anti-science! It is being against scientific organizations that have damaged credibility!

The sad thing is that most laymen can't tell the difference. This will indeed cause problems with public support and government funding. We could then argue about who is at fault. Did arrogant groups like the IPCC make this inevitable?

[eyeball]

I don't really follow things that closely in foreign countries like the USA. I admit that I'm not that familiar with the AMERICAN Right!

Still, it's not clear to me if the bias is against science in toto or just most scientific institutions. This seems an important distinction. Naturally, the Global Warming folks would like to paint it as an aversion to ALL science! That would make it another ad hominem tactic. People who disagree with their "scientific" pronouncements must be ignoramuses, according to their arguments.

The reality may be quite different. The American Right may have simply lost faith with many official scientific organizations. They may consider them corrupted by politics. Certainly the wealth redistribution dominance of the Kyoto Accord and things like ClimateGate have damaged the credibility of organizations like the IPCC.

There was a time when the American public (I guess we Canadians too) accepted any utterance from a scientific organization as gospel. That is no longer true. However, this is NOT the same as being anti-science! It is being against scientific organizations that have damaged credibility!

The sad thing is that most laymen can't tell the difference. This will indeed cause problems with public support and government funding. We could then argue about who is at fault. Did arrogant groups like the IPCC make this inevitable?

In Canada these days it's easy to suspect our right wing is anti-science in general. Time and time again the Conservative party has eschewed expert advice in favour of it's own ideological, moral and thinly disguised religious biases. Criminologists, economists, statisticians etc are routinely ignored and left to the attack dogs of partisanship and ideology.

The effect on the public is predictable, a loss of faith and confidence in yet another institution, like the police, religion, and certainly the government itself.

[Keepitsimple]

The Global Warming Establishment Needs More than Cosmetic Fixes

...........

But none of the academy’s suggestions – good or bad – address the IPCC’s fundamental problem: It has every incentive – financial and otherwise — to buttress the global warming orthodoxy and none to challenge it. In every other discipline, scientists earn fame and fortune if they successfully debunk its reingning theories. They are feted at conferences, cited more often, offered more jobs. In climate science, by contrast, debunkers invite an onslaught by the entire global warming juggernaut that can leave their academic reputation in ruins. Debunkers get branded as deniers. And as this Australian blogger points out, they get investigated by Desmog, Exxon Secrets, or Sourcewatch, websites dedicated to exposing any connection the researcher might have with the fossil fuel industry – no matter how old or tenuous.

.................

The case for anthropogenic warming might indeed become airtight one day. But in order to get there, it has to withstand constant attempts at falsification. That’s what fundamental change would require. Anything less is purely cosmetic.

Link: http://blogs.forbes.com/shikhadalmia/2010/09/10/the-global-warming-establishment-needs-more-than-cosmetic-fixes/