Gritting my teeth. Again.

[ysobelle]

Why does it feel like whenever I come up against NeoCon arguments, they're all the same damned arguments? I can almost tick them off on a list:

Global warming is a natural occurence: there's no proof we're causing it.
Evolution is a theory, not a fact!
If we want to keep marriage sacred, it has to be between a man and a woman only!

I don't get it. It's not bad enough that the entire Republican party has to march in blind lockstep with the President, but everyone down to the peon voters has to, as well? Is it now treasonous to THINK differently from the Party?

Someone-- probably a Republican-- said that the Democrats can't even figure out what they think. While yeah, I'm waiting impatiently for my Party to get its collective head out of its ass and step up to the plate, I have to admit I feel MUCH better knowing we're not running a Blue Shadow Theocracy. A few weeks ago, both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were at a Dem event, and spoke of their different stances on the war. I believe it was Hillary who was jeered at for her views. While I really don't approve of that kind of behaviour-- she has an opinion, at least be civil if you don't agree-- I don't mind that it was an open showing of different plans. At least we HAVE different plans. I wonder if the single-braying-voice of the Republican party has unfortunately worn off on us? Have we come to think that many voices are not a strength, but a weakness? I surely hope not.

Comments

[maskm.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm. Well, it *isn't* clear we're causing global warming. Evolution is a theory and a fact. Point out to the NeoCons that the Theory of Gravity has some serious problems -- it can't be rationalized (yet) with quantum mechanics. They better install metal plates all over and get magnetic boots!

I think one of the problems the Democratic party has to overcome, somehow, is its fractious nature. That's one problem the Democrats have to deal with is they're the party of acceptance of diversity. How can it have One True Voice? It's easy for the Status Quo Republibots to Speak With One Voice (Approved by God!)

I'm gonna go practice my German so I can move to Switzerland.

[raven-albion.livejournal.com]

Erm. It is clear that we are contributing to global warming (or climate change, take your pick, since some areas might actually get cooler in the future. Right now, though, we're certainly warming.). The scientific community still quibbles over exactly what the human contribution is, but the fact that humans are a factor is no longer seriously argued by climate scientists. This has been true for at least the last 5 years, and has only become more clear with time.

But if you won't take my word for it, take the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's words (the quote below is from page 41 of the linked PDF file):

"In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

[raven-albion.livejournal.com]

Whoops. And I should add that the primary cause of the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations is the onset of the industrial age and the internal combustion engine. Sorry about the multiple postings.

[maskm.livejournal.com]

Yes, we are no doubt contributing to global climate changes. That's different from global warming.

Yes, greenhouse gases have been holding more heat. There's also new evidence that other pollutants are actually reflecting solar energy away from the earth and contributing to cooling.

most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

"is likely" is NOT the same as proof. And yes, we are likely contributing. But we don't know. Hence, people can say we don't have proof because we don't. That's an issue dealing with the Neocons, because they don't like to hear "well, it's extremely likely, so..." they demand "PROOF!".

But we also need to be more careful in approaching our alternations in the name of environmentalism. In the name of political environmentalism we could end up cutting back more on the energy reflecting pollutants and less on the energy storing and BAMMO, we're really screwed. That's why I don't like knee-jerk political environmentalism.

The Earth has been a lot cooler than this and it's been a lot hotter.

[(Anonymous)]

Wow

Nikki, you making broad generalizations. You MUST be mad.

[neverborn13.livejournal.com]

that was me