But the air and water in the United States is cleaner now than it was anytime in the last century. Yet we continue to put the impetus and blame on the United States. Why aren't the green activists protesting in the countries with runaway pollution?

Too many disparate pieces of scientific evidence that all support the same conclusion. If you're on the expressway and see traffic stopped up ahead, you don't wait until your car slams into the line of parked cars to think about putting on the brakes, do you?

Silly analogy IMO.

The "scientific evidence" that you speak of can and has been disputed and often. It wasn't all that long ago the same scientists were warning of another ice age. Now we're going to heat up. Which is it?

Sure, I'm game.

 

The US, with its incredible industrial capacity over the past 100 years, combined with the recent emergence of India and China as industrial powers, makes for an unfortunate cumulative effect over the years. And with a cavalier attitude about the problem, I guess we should just not worry about it (or just not worry about concerns about the environment that jive with our preconceived notions — notions might force us to question why we invest money where we do and such things).

You say we should just not worry about concerns about the environment (tongue in cheek, of course) but this country has done a lot to curb pollution for years. Just what (as HHSDad has just pointed out) are we supposed to do about the other countries? This country invests plenty of money toward cleaning up the environment, little good it will do if the other countries do nothing. Right?

That's a fair statement (regarding the fact that other countries are negligent in their efforts). The fact that other countries are lax, however, does not absolve us of our responsibility (whatever level we deem it to be).

 

Just because my neighbors allow their 10 year old to cuss, drink beer, and not do his homework doesn't mean that I have no obligation to raise my children with a better sense of propriety. Otherwise, my children might turn out like Fastbreak ... :scared:

 

 

Frances

That's a fair statement (regarding the fact that other countries are negligent in their efforts). The fact that other countries are lax, however, does not absolve us of our responsibility (whatever level we deem it to be).

 

Just because my neighbors allow their 10 year old to cuss, drink beer, and not do his homework doesn't mean that I have no obligation to raise my children with a better sense of propriety. Otherwise, my children might turn out like Fastbreak ... :scared:

 

 

Frances

What's your point? We already are taking care of the environment. Maybe not the way the treehuggers want us to, but then most of them think that the world would be better off without the human race. If we're already doing our job, then why keep beating up on us. Or is this just another liberal ploy against the evil corpoations?

What's your point? ...

 

94 posts, and the point escapes you? I can understand that you might not agree with my point, but I find it hard to believe that it is lost on you.

 

 

Frances

94 posts, and the point escapes you? I can understand that you might not agree with my point, but I find it hard to believe that it is lost on you.

 

 

Frances

Yes, your point escapes me. The US is already doing and has been doing a great deal to curb pollution in this country, but all I hear from the liberals is that were not doing enough. Nevermind that Eastern Europe was environementally devasted by the time the Berlin Wall fell. Or that China is quickly turning its waterways into sewers and wastewater dumps. No, lets keep blaming the U.S. for all the worlds problems. That way the liberals will always have a chance at getting elected.

Yes, your point escapes me. The US is already doing and has been doing a great deal to curb pollution in this country, but all I hear from the liberals is that were not doing enough. Nevermind that Eastern Europe was environementally devasted by the time the Berlin Wall fell. Or that China is quickly turning its waterways into sewers and wastewater dumps. No, lets keep blaming the U.S. for all the worlds problems. That way the liberals will always have a chance at getting elected.

 

While that was a nice tirade, no one - at least, not in this thread, has laid the blame for global warming at the feet of America, to the exclusion of the rest of the world.

 

For you edification, my point (and that of Westsider, H, BCRules, Jim Schue, etc.) is that we feel that it would behoove us to do what we can, without waiting for a total catastrophe to occur. None of us (that I can see) is saying that a total catastrophe is imminent, but that it would be better to err on the side of caution.

 

I fail to see the benefit of your post, wherein you lump anyone that takes the dissenting point of view into one group of treehugging, liberal alarmists.

 

Certainly, you (or anyone else) is free to disagree with the opinion that global warming is occuring, but I would hope we could discuss it with rational discourse, rather than making gross generalizations about anyone that doesn't share our opinions.

 

Please feel free to join me in that mindset of civility and grace, if you will.

 

 

Frances

While that was a nice tirade, no one - at least, not in this thread, has laid the blame for global warming at the feet of America, to the exclusion of the rest of the world.

 

For you edification, my point (and that of Westsider, H, BCRules, Jim Schue, etc.) is that we feel that it would behoove us to do what we can, without waiting for a total catastrophe to occur. None of us (that I can see) is saying that a total catastrophe is imminent, but that it would be better to err on the side of caution.

 

I fail to see the benefit of your post, wherein you lump anyone that takes the dissenting point of view into one group of treehugging, liberal alarmists.

 

Certainly, you (or anyone else) is free to disagree with the opinion that global warming is occuring, but I would hope we could discuss it with rational discourse, rather than making gross generalizations about anyone that doesn't share our opinions.

 

Please feel free to join me in that mindset of civility and grace, if you will.

 

 

Frances

You're kinda taking this personal aren't you? I not once mentioned you nor Westsider, H, BCRules, Jim Schue, etc. I wasn't even thinking of you in my reply, yet you feel like you have to insult me because I have different opinions from you? Is that how this forum works? As soon as somebody strongly disagrees with you, you attack them personally? And only your opinions are worthwile? So if I have an opinion different from yours, theres no benefit to my post. How lovely.

You're kinda taking this personal aren't you?

Did I take your post personally? Let me think... Why would I do that? Oh yeah - let's take a look at the first three words of your original post:

What's your point?[/Quote]Since you quoted me in your post, I'd say it was pretty clear that you were addressing me personally. So, yes, I did take your reply personally.

 

 

I not once mentioned you nor Westsider, H, BCRules, Jim Schue, etc. I wasn't even thinking of you in my reply ...

As I pointed out above, you directed your initial post to me. I have no problem with that, it's fine. Trying to pass it off as if you didn't is painfully transparent, as well as disengenuous.

 

 

... yet you feel like you have to insult me because I have different opinions from you?

If being asked to remain civil while debating a point is an insult, then I would have to plead "guilty as charged". On the other hand, I think the overwhelming majority of people would see such a request as an attempt to prevent needless hostility.

 

 

Is that how this forum works? As soon as somebody strongly disagrees with you, you attack them personally?

I went to great lengths in my response to be certain that I did not attack you personally. I pointed out your tirade, and even gave you credit for doing a good job of it. I also pointed out that you were making sweeping generalizations (i.e. the classification of all "liberals" as condemning America while giving the rest of the world a free pass). I'm sure you didn't care for my doing that, but the words and actions were yours - not mine.

 

 

And only your opinions are worthwile? [/Quote]Well, I'm not certain how you could have missed it, but just to be sure you get a second chance to actually read what is being said, I'll copy and paste a quote from my own post:

Certainly, you (or anyone else) is free to disagree with the opinion that global warming is occuring ... [/Quote] I hope that you can understand what is said in that statement. If it escapes you again, just let me know. I'll try to rephrase it three or four more times, until you can grasp it. I have pretty good patience when its going for a good cause.

 

 

So if I have an opinion different from yours, theres no benefit to my post. [/Quote] Now, now, now - don't be silly. The fact that we don't hold the same opinion isn't what makes your post worthless at all ...

 

 

Frances

Silly analogy IMO.

The "scientific evidence" that you speak of can and has been disputed and often. It wasn't all that long ago the same scientists were warning of another ice age. Now we're going to heat up. Which is it?

 

There may have been a few sporadic, isolated voices in the past who warned of such things as a coming ice age, but what you're hearing now is the equivalent of a thundering chorus of consensus. Gee, all I'm reading on here in response to the considerable body of scientific findings from different disciplines of science is stuff like "nature heals itself". That's a nice belief and I can see how it would be comforting and all, but it's quite a vague, Pollyannaish foundation for rolling the dice on the future of thousands of animal and plant species and millions of lives. Among credible scientists (definition: those not financially supported by the petroleum industry), there is little if any debate that global warming is occurring and that CO2 emissions from human activities since the beginning of the industrial age is the prime culprit.

Did I take your post personally? Let me think... Why would I do that? Oh yeah - let's take a look at the first three words of your original post: Since you quoted me in your post, I'd say it was pretty clear that you were addressing me personally. So, yes, I did take your reply personally.

I can do this to! I just wanted to know what your point was about the way someone brings up a child. What does that have to do with anything? If it was an analogy, I totally missed it. Usually analogies have comparable themes.

 

As I pointed out above, you directed your initial post to me. I have no problem with that, it's fine. Trying to pass it off as if you didn't is painfully transparent, as well as disengenuous.

So, were not allowed to dirrect our replys to an individual? It seems everyone else does it, why can't I? I was just trying to figure out what you were talking about.

 

If being asked to remain civil while debating a point is an insult, then I would have to plead "guilty as charged". On the other hand, I think the overwhelming majority of people would see such a request as an attempt to prevent needless hostility.

 

I went to great lengths in my response to be certain that I did not attack you personally. I pointed out your tirade, and even gave you credit for doing a good job of it. I also pointed out that you were making sweeping generalizations (i.e. the classification of all "liberals" as condemning America while giving the rest of the world a free pass). I'm sure you didn't care for my doing that, but the words and actions were yours - not mine.

 

Well, I'm not certain how you could have missed it, but just to be sure you get a second chance to actually read what is being said, I'll copy and paste a quote from my own post: I hope that you can understand what is said in that statement. If it escapes you again, just let me know. I'll try to rephrase it three or four more times, until you can grasp it. I have pretty good patience when its going for a good cause.

You talk about "civility and grace" while at the same time saying "While that was a nice tirade", "For you edification", and "I fail to see the benefit of your post" not to mention the last paragraph above. How can I not feel that your talking down your nose to me? BTW, I didn't realize that you were a moderator and could decide how I should post. I'm sure I haven't broken any rules (yet), but I guess you get to decide what's acceptable.

 

Now, now, now - don't be silly. The fact that we don't hold the same opinion isn't what makes your post worthless at all ...

AND WHAT DOES??? :mad:

There may have been a few sporadic, isolated voices in the past who warned of such things as a coming ice age, but what you're hearing now is the equivalent of a thundering chorus of consensus. Gee, all I'm reading on here in response to the considerable body of scientific findings from different disciplines of science is stuff like "nature heals itself". That's a nice belief and I can see how it would be comforting and all, but it's quite a vague, Pollyannaish foundation for rolling the dice on the future of thousands of animal and plant species and millions of lives. Among credible scientists (definition: those not financially supported by the petroleum industry), there is little if any debate that global warming is occurring and that CO2 emissions from human activities since the beginning of the industrial age is the prime culprit.

And there it is, as suspected.

 

So says you and Uncle Al.

I can do this to! [/Quote] Congratulations.

 

I just wanted to know what your point was about the way someone brings up a child. What does that have to do with anything? [/Quote] "H" made the analogy of waiting too late to react to the potential hazards of global warming with someone waiting too late to begin braking when a traffic jam looms ahead. My analogy addressed the point of saying "what about China, Brazil, and the rest of the industrialized world" by saying that simply because someone else is negligent in their actions does not mean that we should use that as an excuse to shirk our responsibility for our piece of the pie. Not unlike a mother telling her son "If Johnny jumped off the bridge, would you do it too?"

 

That is now two different ways that I have explained that to you. As I said, I am a patient person....

 

 

If it was an analogy, I totally missed it. Usually analogies have comparable themes.[/Quote] I just hate it when something goes over my head, and someone has to explain it to me - don't you?

 

 

So, were not allowed to dirrect our replys to an individual? [/Quote] Ouch! My head is starting to spin. In one post, you claim that you were not speaking to me (or anyone else) directly -

I wasn't even thinking of you in my reply[/Quote]and now that I called you on it, you want to act as if I should turn a blind eye to the hypocrisy of it. I clearly stated that I have absolutely no problem with you (or anyone else) directing a post to me. It's being caught in the hypocrisy of doing so, while pretending as if you weren't that is causing the discomfort for you.

 

 

It seems everyone else does it, why can't I? [/Quote]Please feel free to do so. I welcome the witty dialogue.

 

 

I was just trying to figure out what you were talking about.[/Quote] Still struggling with that one, huh?

 

 

You talk about "civility and grace" while at the same time saying "While that was a nice tirade", "For you edification", and "I fail to see the benefit of your post" not to mention the last paragraph above. [/Quote]Did you happen to notice the sequence of how these posts unfolded? Perhaps not.

 

 

How can I not feel that your talking down your nose to me? [/Quote]Am I now to be held responsible for your feelings of inadequacy?

 

 

BTW, I didn't realize that you were a moderator and could decide how I should post. [/Quote] I'm not a moderator - and I'm pretty sure that you are aware of that. As for how any of us post, I think that it would be safe to say that our posts are judged on their own merit. I speak only for myself, but I think I'm getting a pretty good feel for yours.

 

 

I'm sure I haven't broken any rules (yet), but I guess you get to decide what's acceptable.[/Quote] I don't need a moderator to tell me when someone is trying to provoke me, or when someone is making gross, sweeping statements that offend me. Those of us that participate in the Politics and Religion forum see statements everyday that we don't agree with. For the most part, we all hold ourselves in check, until (or unless) something triggers us. When I see someone slinging labels about as if they were beads from a Mardi Gras float, it is usually a sign that something shallow is about to follow. This statement is true on both sides of the aisle. When the labels address a position I hold, I tend to respond.

 

 

In response to the closing line of my previous post:

Now, now, now - don't be silly. The fact that we don't hold the same opinion isn't what makes your post worthless at all ... [/Quote] - you wrote -

... AND WHAT DOES??? :mad:

You're kinda taking this personal aren't you?[/Quote]

 

 

Dispassionately,

Frances

And there it is, as suspected.

 

So says you and Uncle Al.

 

I think this is one of our biggest stumbling blocks in the debate over global warming. Both sides have scientists that give opinions, and we each quote those that support our views.

 

We need to identify a group of scientists that we can agree are unbiased, then give them the time to study it, and listen to what they have to say.

 

As long as they didn't agree with Fastbreak, I'd be willing to believe them ...

 

 

Frances