The Rhetoric is Warming

[JerrySeinfeld]

Read this column by Rex Murphy and liked it. So true. So freaking true.

http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/2007/05/the...is_warming.html

an excerpt:

"Another noted environmentalist, Prince Charles, has been standing on the same ledge.

The Prince has claimed that urgent action is needed on climate change and likened the struggle to do something to Britain's battle against the Nazis in World War II.

These are not the only occasions. The more fervent advocates of global warming are also far too fond of calling those who disagree with them deniers, trying to associate a policy difference with the brush of Holocaust denial.

It is a despicable tactic.

There are a number of problems with injecting the Holocaust or its shadow into the current political debate on global warming and the separate debate on what to do about it.

For the West, the Holocaust is the absolute standard of evil. It was - maybe the reminder is necessary - the deliberate, conscious torture and inhuman murder of 6 million people, men, women and children, by the Nazi government because those people were Jews. It is also an historical fact, something that dreadfully has really and already happened. Aside from the most pathetic anti-Semites, no one can or does dispute it. Political policy on global warming is a choice, from a range of possibilities about what to do in the face of some very serious arguments that mankind is influencing the global climate. Advocates on either side may be claiming absolute certainty for their positions, but precisely because we are dealing with the future, with models and estimates, neither side can possess such certainty.

Invoking the Holocaust is wrong first on logical grounds. It has happened. We know it. Global warming policy is an attempt to meet a future contingency.

It is also wrong on much higher ground, for it is an attempt to claim or associate with the absolute moral authority that belongs to the Holocaust and all who were victims of its torments and to transfer that authority to the advocacy of a current and contentious issue. Extreme rhetoric is often a mask for weak argument.

It is also very often an attempt to override discussion in favour of a stampede to predetermined and unexamined policies.

Surely with all the science that Kyoto and its advocates have lined up on their side of the debate, dipping into the history of appeasement and the Holocaust is, at the very best, unnecessary. For "The National", I'm Rex Murphy"

[speaker]

Good ole Rex, eh? he has a way with words. This doesn't mean that he is right, or that global warming is any less of a real threat than it was before you read this monologue. Perhaps there is some desperation though amongst people who have the worlds interests at heart, like Prince Charles for example.

There are still people out there who believe that their financial interests take precedence over such minor concerns as mass extinctions that are being forecast, almost makes you think of the Holocaust, doesn't it? There seem to be some who believe that since they will be dead before the impact reaches serious levels it isn't a concern. And still some who believe that no matter how bad it gets it won't affect them personally. You know,... first they took the Jews....,

This wouldn't be so bad but no matter how large the body of scientific research that is available for examination it is easier to throw out a lot of unproven misinformation having the effect of causing denial in people who don't want to believe that they are partially responsible for the state of affairs.

[noahbody]

There are still people out there who believe that their financial interests take precedence over such minor concerns as mass extinctions that are being forecast, almost makes you think of the Holocaust, doesn't it?

Rex could have used this in his article. Makes me think of Y2K.

[JerrySeinfeld]

There are still people out there who believe that their financial interests take precedence over such minor concerns as mass extinctions that are being forecast, almost makes you think of the Holocaust, doesn't it?

Rex could have used this in his article. Makes me think of Y2K.

Brilliant analogy.

[Topaz]

There are still people out there who believe that their financial interests take precedence over such minor concerns as mass extinctions that are being forecast, almost makes you think of the Holocaust, doesn't it?

Rex could have used this in his article. Makes me think of Y2K.

Brilliant analogy.

What about Noah and the ark where it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, or the Great Glacier that came down from the north. Or about the piece of iceberg that as big as Manhattan Is. moving this way now. Not Global warming or cooling??

[Guest chilipeppers]

Sheez, didn't northern Britain and Scotland just get some of that global warming LOL coldest whitsun since record keeping

[rover1]

Good ole Rex, eh? he has a way with words. This doesn't mean that he is right, or that global warming is any less of a real threat than it was before you read this monologue. Perhaps there is some desperation though amongst people who have the worlds interests at heart, like Prince Charles for example.

There are still people out there who believe that their financial interests take precedence over such minor concerns as mass extinctions that are being forecast, almost makes you think of the Holocaust, doesn't it? There seem to be some who believe that since they will be dead before the impact reaches serious levels it isn't a concern. And still some who believe that no matter how bad it gets it won't affect them personally. You know,... first they took the Jews....,

This wouldn't be so bad but no matter how large the body of scientific research that is available for examination it is easier to throw out a lot of unproven misinformation having the effect of causing denial in people who don't want to believe that they are partially responsible for the state of affairs.

No it doesn't make me think of the Holocaust, in the slightest. I not certain just who is being referred to when you speak of they who are partially responsible for the state of affairs.

[geoffrey]

Or about the piece of iceberg that as big as Manhattan Is. moving this way now. Not Global warming or cooling??

Warming or cooling. That's quite a choice.

The sun may either get brighter or dimmer tomorrow, but I'm not sure, but to prevent it, we must do x. It's not a logical thought.

Anyways, Rex is on the ball. The science has nothing to do with Charles or Al Gore or Suzuki... they are in it for the politics... perhaps for the money in the case of the Green lobby (do you know how much wind mills cost per kWh compared to coal?).

It's all talk, little science. Even some of the scientists involved are getting frustrated with all the rhetoric.

People that make such references do the entire field a disservice. Al Gore-like people are the biggest obstacles in getting real change done on the environment.

[gc1765]

The sun may either get brighter or dimmer tomorrow, but I'm not sure, but to prevent it, we must do x. It's not a logical thought.

A much more logical thought is we have to stop doing "x"

[geoffrey]

Stop what? If the Earth is cooling, shouldn't we emit more to stop us from becoming ice cubes?

[gc1765]

Stop what? If the Earth is cooling, shouldn't we emit more to stop us from becoming ice cubes?

The earth is cooling now?

A good rule of thumb is, don't mess with nature. We should not be doing anything drastic to deal with global warming (or cooling) as it will almost certainly backfire. Not doing something (ie not emitting carbon dioxide) is usually the safest bet.

[geoffrey]

That I will agree with. But then again, maybe we should reduce the amount of water we drink, because pee is darker than water and attracts light.

Where do you draw the line? Why should we stop one thing and not the other bazillion that will kill us first (not the pee thing, but say, antibiotics in beef or cancer causing ingredients in washing detergent).

If I was to spend $10b on the environment (just pulled that number out of my hat), I'd spend it on eliminating those things first, things that will likely kill you, way before I worried about CO2 emissions.

I'm going to make a Gore-like hyperbole here... I think that the GHG lobby is the biggest group of murders on this planet, the amount of other things we could do to save lives today and in the future is being reduced by wasting all of a limited resource (cash) on driving less.

[gc1765]

Where do you draw the line? Why should we stop one thing and not the other bazillion that will kill us first (not the pee thing, but say, antibiotics in beef or cancer causing ingredients in washing detergent).

If I was to spend $10b on the environment (just pulled that number out of my hat), I'd spend it on eliminating those things first, things that will likely kill you, way before I worried about CO2 emissions.

I agree with you on that

I'm going to make a Gore-like hyperbole here... I think that the GHG lobby is the biggest group of murders on this planet, the amount of other things we could do to save lives today and in the future is being reduced by wasting all of a limited resource (cash) on driving less.

I could easily one-up you on the hyperbole here. Oil companies are the biggest group of murderers on the planet. The amount of money we spend on oil is huge. If people took all the money they spent on oil and donated it to people who can't afford cures for malaria or TB, it would save millions of lives.

Ok, oil isn't the best example to use here, because it could be argued that oil also saves lives. But substitute anything unnecessary in place of oil, and it works.

[speaker]

No it doesn't make me think of the Holocaust, in the slightest. I not certain just who is being referred to when you speak of they who are partially responsible for the state of affairs.

Each and all of us is partially responsible for global warming, If someone is to deny that without evidence to the contrary, and presents none in arguing that the threat should be dismissed then I would say that they are doubly responsible. Out of the Holocaust came the new legal definition of cime against humanity. Out of this unnecessary crises will come crimes against the environment.

Anyways, Rex is on the ball. The science has nothing to do with Charles or Al Gore or Suzuki... they are in it for the politics... perhaps for the money in the case of the Green lobby (do you know how much wind mills cost per kWh compared to coal?).

Ah ... so now it's the venture capitalists who are promoting green energy that are trying to drag down society. lol

[White Doors]

The Holocause is a FACT.

Global warming is a theory, and not a good one at that. They are not even sure that man's activities are the cause of it. 95% sure they say. That is LOW for a scientific theory. very low.

Your and others use of rhetorical hyperbole is doing your cause a huge disservice.

If you can't make your case without invoking tyhe holcaust or the Nazi's then sane, balanced people are going to question what you are selling and you will have no one to blame but yourselves.

[speaker]

Sure, The Holocaust is a fact. It is also a fact that holocaust is still a usable word to describe a truly terrible event such as one that would see the extinction of large numbers of species, whether or no Manunkind is one of them. Because Rex says that the environmentalists are making reference to the slaughter of innocents in the Nazi concentration camps doesn't mean that they are. It might just mean that Rexs' mind may have taken too many analogy courses in the after hours.

That does not mean that the destruction of biodiversity in the form of species extinction is not a holocaust. Through all of our destructive habits towards the environment many of them leading to Global Warming, we are causing that destruction. Denial is not a facet of 1930s central Europe, it is very much with us today.

It was not the scientists that chose the 95% figure for the degree of surety that the scientists felt about their research into global warming impacts,. It was the politicians that want to appease people with a mentality of denial that came up with that figure.

[gc1765]

If I was to spend $10b on the environment (just pulled that number out of my hat), I'd spend it on eliminating those things first, things that will likely kill you, way before I worried about CO2 emissions.

Why not kill at least Seven Birds with one stone ?

[geoffrey]

Why not kill at least Seven Birds with one stone ?

I ride my bike to work when it's climatically possible (ie not minus 30), 80ish km roundtrip. I do my part with the car thing. I decided not to get a truck (which I could actually use with my biking and stuff, hauling gear for the group is nice) and instead got a fuel efficient smallish car.

Now try to encourage an entire city to ride to work... won't happen. Mass transit is nice, but a non-reality in most Canadian cities.

When I was in Vancouver a couple weeks back visiting some friends downtown, I brought my road bike hoping to do a little training in the mountains and found it was so easy to get around around the downtown on bike. I loved it, makes me want to move there, didn't even have to drive my car until I left, a week after I parked it. Other cities need to learn from this example. I don't have alot of experience riding in other cities (I briefly rode in Montreal when there for a XC mountain bike trip... nothing commuter style though).

Calgary is a terrible city to ride to work at. Getting to downtown is possible, but for us that work on the fringes of downtown, it's extremely difficult and rather dangerous at times.

How do you encourage the typical 200 pound out of shape guy to ride his bike through treacherous roads and irrate drivers for an hour and a half to get to work in the morning?!

When you answer that, I'll give full support to your idea.

Like I said, transit is nice, but it's not economical on the scale of most Canadian cities. It'd work in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. The rest are simply not big enough. It doesn't even work that well in those cities.

People need to learn to live within walking or biking distance to work. It'd do wonders for our health care system too (can you imagine if everyone did 2 hours of aerobic activity daily!!!). Again, not a reality in most Canadian cities.

[gc1765]

I ride my bike to work when it's climatically possible (ie not minus 30), 80ish km roundtrip.

Me too (but my commute isn't nearly as big as yours).

Now try to encourage an entire city to ride to work... won't happen. Mass transit is nice, but a non-reality in most Canadian cities.

To some extent, I understand why certain people have to drive. But a lot of people drive when they don't have to. Some people around here take the car when it's just as fast or faster to take the bus or ride a bike.

How do you encourage the typical 200 pound out of shape guy to ride his bike through treacherous roads and irrate drivers for an hour and a half to get to work in the morning?!

For starters, it would be nice to see some bike lanes. I pay taxes too, why shouldn't I be able to use what I pay for without pissing off other drivers? I stick to the backroads as much as possible, and where I live it isn't too bad, but after hearing your stories about getting coffee thrown at you, I imagine that's not the case in Calgary. It's unfortunate because that 200 pound out of shape guy could easily get in shape too. That's part of the reason I do it.

People need to learn to live within walking or biking distance to work. It'd do wonders for our health care system too (can you imagine if everyone did 2 hours of aerobic activity daily!!!). Again, not a reality in most Canadian cities.

Actually, that's a good point. In big cities, mass transit is a definite possibility, but living close to work often isn't (unless you happen to have a million bucks for a house in Vancouver?). In small cities it's the opposite, transit sucks, but it's much easier to live close to work.

[telegopoly]

I do not deny that global warming may be happening but I do not accept the following:

1. That it is man-made (climate changes cyclically and on its own - for example what got Earth out of previous Ice Ages?)

2. That is is a bad thing (global warming may be a good thing)

I recently found this site - GoWarming.com

Also - anyone that is interested should read the book "Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" and learn about how the alarmists are choosing facts to use scare-mongering techniques to create a culture of fear from which they can profit.