M.E.O.W.

I find it fascinating that the same people who accuse Bush of fomenting a climate of fear are upset that Bush isn’t fomenting a climate of fear about the climate.

Case in point is Al Gore’s new flick, “The End Is Near,” in which he insists that the earth is facing a, “planetary emergency,” that threatens to, “end civilization.” …It’s a bunch of tartuffery if you ask me; to which I say, “Meow”.

New gods for old

The web site for Gore's movie, climatecrisis.net, says, "we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe." Just ten years?

In the old days natural disasters were said to be the work of the gods when they were angry-- Gore is a prophet in this vein. He even channels gaia for us, telling us that the earth is very unhappy with what we are doing, and that we'd better pay heed, or else.

What Gore is actually calling for is the launch of a new, "moral equivalent of war" against a global warming foe; which, as it happens is us; we the people, who are the source and cause of global warming, are in essence the enemy in this moral equivalent of war or MEOW for short).

Carter, responding to the OPEC oil boycotts in the 1970s, risked his presidency to champion energy self-sufficiency. But his appeal to Americans to launch the "moral equivalent of war" (a coinage borrowed from the philosopher William James) was quickly lampooned by the acronym MEOW. salon.com

This new war would not be a simple or painless crusade to implement either; naturally it would entail enormous sacrifice in order to divert impending disaster because the ostensible cause of global warming is human activity, capitalist human activity to be precise. All the very things that the left and neo-socialists want to ban anyway, (what a coincidence).

Former US vice president Al Gore issued a sharp wake-up call over global warming at the Cannes Film Festival, warning the earth was facing "a planetary emergency."

Last year's spate of natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina which devastated New Orleans in August were proof that global warming was beginning to wreak havoc due to global climate change, he said.

"Mother Nature has joined this debate with a very powerful and persuasive voice," Gore told a press conference after a screening of "An Inconvienent Truth," which documents his one-man crusade to raise awareness about the issue.

"Hurricane Katrina was a wake-up call for many people who had heard that the scientists were warning that the hurricanes would get much stronger [ *factcheck* ]. These and other phenomenon that have long been predicted are now coming to pass.

"The key to solving this crisis depends upon the people demanding action and not just of a president, but of the Congress as well." ~breitbart.com/news

Gore's ranting is so predictable that anyone could put this stuff together randomly. ...And let's also remember that fearmongering for political purposes is one of the lowest, underhanded, despicable things a politician can do. Those who would exploit a tragedy like 9/11 (or Hurricane Katrina) for an unrelated political purpose are the lowest of the low...

He [Albert Gore aka 'Gator Rebel'...] said he believed a huge opportunity had been lost in the aftermath of the September 2001 terrorist attacks to wean the United States -- the world's largest single producer of C02 gases -- off its dependence on fossil fuels.

"I also believe that after 9/11 if, in addition to rallying the country and wisely invading Afghanistan to pursue Osama bin Laden, that if the president of the United States had said 'Let's become independent of oil and coal', that people would have responded to that." ~breitbart.com/news

Wasn't it Gore who accused Bush of, "betraying this country" and "playing on our fears" by invading Iraq in the wake of 9/11?

Bush's real crime against humanity was having the gall to invade Afghanistan, defeat the Taliban, and then liberate the 26 million people in bondage to dictatorship in Iraq too. ...BUT Bush failed to play on the fears of Americans to promote a radical global warming agenda.

To this new call for repentence from industrialism I say, MEOW.

Posted by Eric Simonson at May 31, 2006 4:00 PM
Comments
Comment #153076

Better than WOOF (War Over Oil Fool!) ;-)

I thought Bush now agrees with Gore that we are addicted to fossil fuels and need a dramatic change. So - what’s the beef? That Gore would have said it earlier? Well, good for him.

Posted by: Max at May 31, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #153077
“Bush’s real crime against humanity was having the gall to invade Afghanistan, defeat the Taliban, and then liberate the 26 million people in bondage to dictatorship in Iraq too.”

Did you read the front section of any newspaper before writing this?

Posted by: pianofan at May 31, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #153089

OR like, TROLLS!( The Revenue oil, let’s leaders steal! ;^)

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 31, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #153100

“I find it fascinating that the same people who accuse Bush of fomenting a climate of fear are upset that Bush isn’t fomenting a climate of fear about the climate.”

I find fascinating that there are those who can’t face the overwhelming evidence that Bush was just plain wrong about both Iraq and global warming.

Posted by: William Cohen at May 31, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #153110

Eric-
It’s not capitalist activity that’s the problem, it’s chemical. Once you understand that, all your doomsaying about actually fixing this problem becomes what it is. We beat smog, we lowered pollution in so many different ways without bankrupting ourselves like the critics said we would. Result? Healthier environment, healthier Americans.

We can’t always be catering to the fears of corporations who will lose money because of regulatory shifts. That’s not free market. Free market is, the government sets the laws where they need to be, and the corporations compete within those laws. I’m sure that if we increase efficiency and decrease emissions, somebody’s going to find a way to profit from it. That’s real capitalism. This other stuff is just a subtle form of corruption.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 31, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #153118

One thing the environmentalists & “leading scientists” always seem to leaveout of the global warming argument is how BIG the earth is! Do a thumbnail calc on the size of the ocean and figure how much energy is needed to heat it up 1 degree and you’ll be humbled. We couldn’t affect the temperature of the planet if we made it THE defining task of the human race! The SUN is the only object in the solar system capable of affecting it. Global warming, if it exists (sorry, it is still unproven) could only be a natural event.

Posted by: Martian at May 31, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #153132

And the Greeks placed total faith in the Spartans, and the Romans could not envision an end to their empire, and Hitler completely dismissed any power strong enough to halt his march across the globe, and the USSR just knew that military might was the key to winning the cold war, and the America South, absolutely knew that God was on their side in the Civil War, and maybe there is a reason other intelligent lifeforms can’t communicate with us. Because their intelligence was too stupid and arrogant to save them from their greed and daily profit.

8 years ago, Republicans were convinced there was no global warming. Two years ago they were convinced there is global warming but, man’s contribution to it is negligible. In a few more years Republicans will acknowledge that man’s influence is significant but, too costly, to do anything about. And in many decades when entire American coastal cities are under water, they will blame it on the Democrats for having unseated them from the Congress back in November of 2006 and on having to continue to keep our troops in Iraq to save their democracy.

Rationalization is such a powerful defense mechanism.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 31, 2006 6:44 PM
Comment #153143

“Those who would exploit a tragedy like 9/11… for an unrelated political purpose are the lowest of the low… “

Such as a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq (who was not threatening the US) on trump-up evidence of a non-existent al-Qaeda link, and WMD that didn’t exist? Or do you mean the constant images of the WTC in just about every Republican campaign ad in 2002 and 2004? Or every Presidential address to the nation that starts out “Since the 9/11 tragedy…”?

In September of 2001 the nation rallied around the president, and his approval ratings were in the ninties. The Republicans have been trying to catch that lightning in a bottle ever since.

The Republicans have flogged 9/ll and their fictitious war on terror to death ever since that tragic Tuesday. If you want to visit “the lowest of the low”, go see the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, in Washington DC.


Posted by: Tim Crow at May 31, 2006 7:25 PM
Comment #153144

In another page of this blog I accused the right of abondonning the very ideas that actually worked to the left and then attacking the left of 30+ years ago in straw-man argument strategy to try and pretend they are still on the right track!!!

Well, here is the proof:

…All the very things that the left and neo-socialists want to ban anyway, (what a coincidence).


Get real, righties. The reason we are upset about the fear mongering with respect to war is that it is in an effort to justify a war that is illegal, unproductive and unnecessary. The reason we are upset about the LACK of attention to the very real environmental challenges we face is that the downplaying of the importance of the environment is resulting in less energy and awareness into a VITAL issue for our very survival.

All this sophistry and sound-bite argument out of context is ultimately destructive and irresponsible. If this is how you think analytically, then for cryin’ out loud, STOP VOTING!!!

Posted by: RGF at May 31, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #153148

Eric,

Great job.

Posted by: JimmyRay at May 31, 2006 7:37 PM
Comment #153152

Eric,
Why do you keep presenting fronting for Exxon?

What do you think of the following companies participating in the Business Environmental Leadership Council?

“… This section profiles what each company is doing to address global climate change through proactive and innovative measures including: setting targets for GHG emissions reductions; implementing innovative energy supply and demand solutions; improving waste management practices; participating in emissions trading; and investing in carbon sequestration opportunities and research.

ABB
Air Products
Alcan
Alcoa Inc.
American Electric Power
Baxter International Inc.
Boeing
BP
California Portland Cement
CH2M HILL
Cummins Inc.
Deutsche Telekom
DTE Energy
Duke Energy
DuPont
Entergy
Exelon
GE
Georgia-Pacific
Hewlett-Packard Company
Holcim (US) Inc.
IBM
Intel
Interface Inc.
John Hancock Financial Services
Lockheed Martin
Novartis
Ontario Power Generation
PG&E Corporation
Rio Tinto
Rohm and Haas
Royal Dutch/Shell
SC Johnson
Sunoco
Toyota
TransAlta
United Technologies
Weyerhaeuser
Whirlpool Corporation
Wisconsin Energy Corporation

“We accept the views of most scientists that enough is known about the science and environmental impacts of climate change for us to take actions to address its consequences.


Businesses can and should take concrete steps now in the U.S. and abroad to assess opportunities for emission reductions, establish and meet emission reduction objectives, and invest in new, more efficient products, practices and technologies.


The Kyoto agreement represents a first step in the international process, but more must be done both to implement the market-based mechanisms that were adopted in principle in Kyoto and to more fully involve the rest of the world in the solution.


We can make significant progress in addressing climate change and sustaining economic growth in the United States by adopting reasonable policies, programs and transition strategies.”

http://www.pewclimate.org/companies_leading_the_way_belc/

These companies are meeting the challenge, rather than clinging to the past.

“BP Amoco, for example, plans to bring its carbon emissions to 10 percent below its 1990 level by 2010, exceeding the Kyoto goal of roughly 5 percent for industrial countries.

Dupont has one of the most ambitious goals of any company, going far beyond that of Kyoto. It has already cut its 1990 greenhouse gas emissions by 45 percent and plans to reduce them by a total of 65 percent by 2010, rendering hollow the claim that lowering carbon emissions to meet the Kyoto goal is not possible.

On the supply side, BP Amoco and Shell are investing heavily in new sources of energy.”

http://www.earth-policy.org/Alerts/Alert6.htm

The new Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, states that not participating in Kyoto makes the US less competitive.

Eric, the times and the science are leaving you behind. Exxon stands to profit by clinging to the past. What do you stand to gain?

Posted by: phx8 at May 31, 2006 7:49 PM
Comment #153175


Anything that interferes with the profit margins is either false or wrong headed thinking.

Posted by: jlw at May 31, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #153177

I think it is clearly time for us to move away from oil, but to keep us out of the coming oil wars is the main reason. We have little influence over China and India’s oil and coal use, which are the rising carbon burners. I encourage anything that move us away from coal and oil.

The overexcitement that has turned global warming from a scientific issue into a cause celeb is somewhat humerous and dissapointing, but comparing it to sending troops to die and kill, is a little beyond the pale.

Once again, Eric, you posess a grain of truth and then carry it so far out the branch that you lose all support and fall down. Such a waste of talent.
I almost wonder if you work with a coyote or acme products.

Posted by: gergle at May 31, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #153179


phx8: The following is a list of companies who believe that humans contributing to global warming is ridiculous.

Exxon-Mobil

The following is a list of companies that think global warming is very good for the environment.

Exxon-Mobil.

Posted by: jlw at May 31, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #153205

Martian-
Why do you think they leave that out? You think these climate scientists are amateurs? The size of the planet and the oceans was likely one of the first things they roughed out.

We’re not talking about putting this energy in ourselves. Hell, if we had control of that much energy, we wouldn’t need hydrocarbon fuels!

The global warming we’re causing is due to the ability of gases like CO2 to trap heat. In other words, we’re not making the world hotter by pumping more energy in. Instead, we’re altering the chemistry of the air to make it more difficult for the light and heat to radiate back into outer space.

The Greenhouse effect is no lie. It’s proven. It’s what keeps Earth from becoming a snowball. Water Vapor, CO2, and Methane are among a number of gases that contribute, even at small percentages to making our world comfortably warm.

The climate that we live in, though, has been the product of a natural equilibrium, processes taking these gases in and out of our atmosphere at certain rates. We’ve been adding to those margins, little by little overwhelming the system’s ability to remove excess CO2 and other gases. Result? Levels are increased to levels unseen in hundreds of thousands of years.

As for Global warming itself, that is a fact. The Earth is warming up, and we can tell this by temperature records over time.

Folks have got to get over this notion that somehow the science on all this is shaky. Global Warming is real, CO2 does trap heat, and we are producing great gobs of it. The atmosphere is at record high levels of it. Too much of this so-called debate about the science seems to be simply the product of people buying ill-informed rhetoric.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 31, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #153212

To anyone, seriously, how much Co2 do 6 billion inhabitants of this planet contribute to this problem by the act of exhaling?

Posted by: scolex at May 31, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #153218

Scolex,

“Globally, photosynthesis and respiration consume and replace about one fifth of all the CO2 in the atmosphere every year in a huge natural carbon cycle…”
http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/GlobalCarbonCycle.htm

Just a guess on my part, but I would suspect human agriculture more than offsets the total numbers of humans breathing; humanity uses irrigation to grow plants in places none would normally grow in order to feed more and more people.

Here is a good article from “Physics Today.”

Posted by: phx8 at May 31, 2006 11:16 PM
Comment #153227
the left and neo-socialists
Liberals are to socialism as conservatives are to National Socialism. Posted by: ElliottBay at May 31, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #153232

“…how much Co2 do 6 billion inhabitants of this planet contribute to this problem by the act of exhaling?”

Not to mention farting.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 1, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #153235

Tim,

“Not to mention farting.”

That would be methane, CH4.

Posted by: Rocky at June 1, 2006 12:07 AM
Comment #153247

then what would belching be? co2, or a backwards fart?

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 1, 2006 12:43 AM
Comment #153248

phx8, thanks for the info.

Posted by: scolex at June 1, 2006 12:53 AM
Comment #153296

I’ve actually seen reports that the reason we’ve seen a “sudden” increase in temp over the last 40 years is the reduction of atmospheric pollutants (smog). According to that report, the increase was more gradual and over a longer time period, but smog “hid the problem”. Cleaning the smog resulted in a “more dramatic” temp change.

Am I supposed to believe that we need to increase the level of smog to combat global warming??

Honestly, I’m not sure what to believe. I do not think humans are capable of “destroying the planet” - not even if all of our most powerful and dreaded weapons (nukes) were detonated at one time. Although it would drastically change the world, the planet - and life - would continue to exist. We can destroy SMALL PARTS, but the whole thing? Forever? Even the small parts that we can destroy, nature can eventually fix it.

We do need to be responsible and do what we can to reduce the damage we can cause. However, since I don’t believe we are capable of completely destroying the planet, I do not think we are capable of completely “saving” it either.

If I were to take the position that we currently need oil (no other alternative in the near future) and oil production is on the decline (we are beginning to run out), then I can forsee that we will HAVE to find alternatives. Those alternatives will, presumably, lead to a decrease in greenhouse gas emmissions - if our vehicles are, in fact, the primary cause.

The earth’s climate has fluctuated wildly over the history of the planet. Humans and their SUV’s have had NOTHING to do with those past climate changes. Can we be the sole cause of the small change in climate we’re discussing now? No. Can we be contributing to it? Yes. How much are we contributing? I don’t really think anyone can say for sure. There are any number of natural events that can release more “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere that all of the worlds vehicles can do in a decade.

The real problem is the environmental “Chicken Little’s” have been running around for 50+ years telling us the sky is falling. “Gobal cooling” in the 60’s-70’s, “global warming” in the 80’s & 90’s. Can’t make them happy. They’ve never been right. We were told in the 60-70’s that we were 10-15 years from another ice age. Now they’re upset over melting glacers.

Were they too effective the first time? Did we “overdo” our fix and cause a new problem? Or is our collective ego too big, do we think we are biger than god or nature, are we too impressed with ourselves that we think we are capable of negating all other influences?

Occam’s Razor (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html) would imply that, perhaps our ego (or political power) is the real cause for the “global warming” hype.

Posted by: Rich at June 1, 2006 8:52 AM
Comment #153317

The arctic was a balmy tropics before, naturally,and there were no human capitalists to blame it on?

Posted by: pige at June 1, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #153328

Stephen,

Thank you for a thought-out response instead of an attack.

Yes, in fact most of the scientists supporting global warming are amateurs…in the field. Not that I’m claiming expertise, just a good education and engineering background.

CO2 is a green-house gas, but not the most important, as you mentioned. If we assumed the CO2 content increased to say 1,000 ppm (about double current levels) that would amount to an increase in trapped heat of around 0.01%. Not likely to produce a huge increase in trapped heat considering the contribution already made by water vapor.

More importantly are the documented “secondary” effects of higher CO2 concentrations. The big three are 1) increased plant growth, particularly plankton, 2) increased rate of limestone depositation, and 3) increased cloud cover due to water condensation (in addition to that caused by the higher temps of global warming). The first two effects tend to lower CO2 concentration, while the third tends to reduce the amount of heat trapped.

However, none of this scientific stuff addresses the question, if we made altering the global temperature THE defining mission of humanity, could we do it? The answer, humbling though it may be, is NO.

Posted by: Martian at June 1, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #153350

IF, global warming is real, then why the rush to fix it now?
Won’t ignoring it and raising taxes, as we do now with socialist security, be enough to fix this problem to?

Posted by: kctim at June 1, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #153354
The arctic was a balmy tropics before, naturally,and there were no human capitalists to blame it on?

I hear ya, brother. Everyone thinks that OJ is guilty of murder, but how can they explain the billions of people who died before he was even born? Dying is just a natural phenomenon that you can’t blame anyone for.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 1, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #153438

David Remer,

Since when did the Republicans recognize global warming, in the sense that the Dems recognize it?

- Couldn’t it just be normal global changes that cause temperatures to rise? Everyone thinks that the temperatures dropped for the ice age, why not temperatures rise too then? I mean please!

Max,

The war was not for oil, you’re the fool. The US, Britian, Austrailia and others upheld the agreement and bonds that the first Gulf War brought, they did what the UN had no balls to do… Cut the propaganda.

Posted by: ChrisC at June 1, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #153495

Re: Liberals and Socialism -

The cry against socialism that went out in the early eighties under Reagan was the beginning of the fiscal-cinservative movement that Reagan was a part of and Margaret Thatcher was a part of. The idea was that government is not supposed to be a big-brother type caretaker but only supposed to be able to provide a peaceful rule of law environment that provides economic opportunities for individual success. The government was the problem, not the solution.

Great idea. Many Liberals were sold on this concept. We were engaged in an ideological war with the Soviet Union over civil liberties versus economic lowest common denominator style freedom that the USSR was -supposedly- able to provide. We have always been a nation of liberals with respect to civil liberties…until recently, anyway.

Now we are a nation too full of misunderstanding zealots who refuse to believe the loss of civil liberties is of significant importance to them. That is tragic. But, let us not get confused, LIBERALS ARE NOT SOCIALISTS. We basically want what the Reagan era Republicans supposedly wanted: to be left alone by government.

Now, the GOP is in again and and this time in a way that they were not in power during Reagan’s tenure. The GOP controls all three branches of government now.Also, our nation’s government has never grown faster, more invasive or more expensive in so short a time span EVER.
If anything, reality has demonstrated that…

REPUBLICAN = SOCIALIST

…on a scale that FAAAR outweighs the most imaginary of the GOP accusations against liberals. In fact, it is liberals who have the only proven track record for actually SHRINKING the size and expense of government…and you twits still think the most significant truth about Clinton was that he couldn’t keep his pants zipped!

Posted by: RGF at June 1, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #153521

Rich-
No, increasing your smog would be robbing Peter to pay Paul

And no, we can’t destroy the planet. We can just disrupt the system so much it puts us at a disadvantage, if not endangers our survival.

Human beings, through their activities, has made certain environments harsher for themselves. You should read Jared Diamond’s Collapse for a few examples. Iceland is one example. They used the wrong farming techniques and ended up letting much of the rich volcanic soils blow away. In Mesopotamia, salt content from the water lead to salt crusting on agricultural lands, ruining them. This is something of the reason the civilizations that succeeded one another kept moving north.

Ultimately, we can have effects on the environment. It’s not a locked, independent system of us. That’s ego there. While we don’t control the world, we impact it.

Martian-
The trick with making cooling the planet our defining mission is the same thing that makes puzzling out our contribution so difficult.

For example, take your water vapor. Clouds can reflect light and heat, but they can also trap it. Additionally, as a greenhouse gas, water vapor is even more powerful than CO2.

Limestone Deposition? I think that’s a rather slow process, actually. If you were looking to cool off a planet over millenia, the precipitation of calcium carbonate might work, but it’s a long time to do that, and it only works on what’s stored in water.

You also need to take into account that in some places, heat can cause high pressure systems to form which discourage rain and cloud cover.

It is the interaction of factors that brings about the warming, not CO2 by itself. CO2, you could say, is the primer for the climate change. It works to shift other things in the environment.

Global warming itself won’t be so simple. Parts of the world will become dry, parts wetter, and parts are just going to get crazy weather. It could in fact trigger a relapse into an ice age climate, which would not necessarily be a good thing, either. (It would not happen like in that movie, though. The change would take decades at its quickest.) Instability in the weather, an changes in temperatures at the margin would mark global warming more than a straight rise in temperature everywhere.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 1, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #153553

IT seems clear from these posts that the conservatives, by in large, know and understand less of the science surrounding global warming. That’s not surprising considering how little respect conservatives seem to have for higher learning on average!

Posted by: RGF at June 1, 2006 8:05 PM
Post a comment