Live Earth 7/7/07 gentlemen start your tivo

Looking forward to the music...unfortunately, it comes with the politics these enlightened entertainers love to share.

Again I quote Zappa: Shut up and play yer guitar!

I like the T-Shirts one band was wearing that stated something like "Say no to Nuclear Power".

Let's examine the disconnect in this purely political movement.

Okay, you're fighting greenhouse gases, but you all flew to your venue on commercial or private aircraft. You're against nuclear power though it emits virtually no greenhouse gases.

Yep, makes sense to me!

And please, no talk about the dangers of nuclear power. How many Americans died in the last decade from Nuclear Power accidents? NONE.

But how many coal miners died digging coal in the Americas?

Many hundreds.

Gimme a break with the environmental politics.

So, the climatologists who disagree are "mostly funded by the energy industry". So that means they must be wrong.

And some of the guys who are so CERTAIN what the future will bring are the same guys who can't predict the weather accurately 7 days out.

Look, I'm not being negative about people caring. I care, and I'm environmentally conscious as well. But what we are seeing these days looks very nearly RELIGIOUS in it's zealotry. And just because the majority of "scientists" agree on this doesn't mean they have the answer. Google "Eugenics" and get back to me. Nearly every eminent scientist, politician and celebrity of the age endorsed it as scientific fact- including Adolf Hitler.

Forget liberal or conservative- look at this movement with open eyes and healthy skepticism. Carbon credits are paid to the company Al Gore is a member of. Incentive for the movement? Well as the old saying always goes, "follow the money".

Yet these people- again with a near-religious zealotry- abhor nuclear power as some great evil. Nuclear power can do more to reduce CO2 than nearly anything we can do. Yeah, there's waste. It can be dealt with if you drop the hysterics and deal rationally with the issue.

Other alternatives to fossil fuels suck. Wind power is very inefficient and kills thousands of birds. Wind Farms have been referred to as "The Cuisanarts of the Air" by The Sierra Club- no conservative organization by any means. Solar power sounds great, but is best used on a personal basis, not for grid power. And think about the caustic battery storage systems required to store solar energy. Not too green there.

So it's great to have a cause. But don't say the I am the knuckle dragger with the closed mind. When any group of people tell you "the debate is over", it's time to be very afraid.

Time to re-read George Orwell.

Well, agreed, Eugenics was not/is not fact. Neither is human caused global warming- it is a commonly accepted theory.

That's how the Scientific Method works. And to say my argument about weather prediciton is short sighted is to miss the point.

Fact is, the data from which global warming trends are extrapolated is sometimes suspect. Do I agree that these scientists are doing the best they can with what they have? Absolutely. Do I think the hand-wringing is premature? Absolutely.

One more thing- directed to Rnm4. When you accuse someone of "denying" global warming or lump these folks into the category of "global warming deniers", some may find that very offensive. Such descriptions of people who are justifiably skeptical of some of the science you readily accept cloaks them in the same moral garb as "Holocaust deniers".

The two are not remotely alike, and you may want to choose your descriptions carefully. How about "human caused global warming skeptic"? Not as pretty or cutting a sound bite, but far more accurate.

Rnm4;

While you may think I'm confused, I think you are incorrect.

I appreciate the difference between policy and theory. Eugenics, as espoused in the early 2oth century, was both. The THEORY was that selective breeding could produce progressively superior human stock. Every undesirable trait in humans could be bred out, desirable traits bred in. The POLICY was, well, the justification for involuntary sterilization and later the genocide of homosexuals, gypsys, the mentally ill, and ultimately, Jews of any description whatsoever.

Disagree with me on that if you will, I respect that.

What I find offensive however, is this statement of yours:

"The resonance"deniers" makes with holocaust discourse is not unintentional; the cases are not identical, but that doesn't mean the resonances shouldn't be pointed up".

At the risk of sounding rude, I have to ask you if you have any idea what you're talking about?

There is absolutely no relevance between the two issues, and if you find any resonances whatsoever you need to learn considerably more about the Holocaust. The fact that you make the comparison intentionally is stunning, and franky proves my point regarding the near religious zealotry of this movement. To equate people like me with those who deny the Holocaust is arrogant and insensitive.

You are falling in with a dangerous lot: people who question the morals and intelligence of anyone who doesn't believe as they do.

I'm neither immoral or unintelligent: I am a believer that the human contribution to global warming is MUCH less than many scientists currently believe it is.

Nothing more, nothing less.

It doesn't matter what Al Gore III did. As long as he believes mankind is the cause of planetary climate change he can still worship at the altar of this movement. All will be forgiven.

Oh, and don't forget- anything you do is not your fault anymore anyway...you just claim you have a disease and you're going to celebrity rehab!

Too bad Al and Tipper's earlier cause- record content warning labels- wasn't quite enough to keep little AGIII on the straight and narrow.

Okay, you guys have MILKED this thread dry!