(no subject)

[ebonlock]

In an earlier post I prophesied that the right wing would go all poo flingy on the whole Al Gore won a Nobel thing and damned if I wasn't right. Perhaps I should play the lottery today...

TBogg sums it all up nicely:

...maybe someone can explain the rightwings aversion to the facts of global warming other than because "Al Gore said so".

Better yet, maybe Gore will make a major speech telling people to not stick their tongues in wall sockets in an effort to save electricity. Afterward, expect lots of flickering lights in your neighborhood and fewer rightwing bloggers on the internets.

And speaking of wingnuts I'm fighting the strong urge to *headdesk* over this article:

The Mexican flag flies no more over the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum — and the U.S. flag is gone, too.

The museum's board of trustees voted to remove the flags — which had flown side-by-side since 1954 — after receiving complaints and threats about flying the Mexican flag.

Questions from visitors about why the Mexican flag was being flown on U.S. soil escalated in the past couple of years, said board chairwoman Sophia Kaluzniacki.

An anonymous death threat against the museum's animals made earlier this year by a phone caller also factored into the board's decision, but to a lesser degree, she said. The desire to avoid controversy on border-related issues was the main thrust, she said.

Ok so some righty off his meds took offense to the Mexican flag being flown at a museum and threatened to kill the museum's animals over it?! Words abso-fucking-lutely fail. Though Lesley came up with a great response in comments:

These so-called patriots need their own flag, one with a skull and cross bones the colour of vomit.

Comments

[phillipalden.livejournal.com]

They just can't stand viewpoints other than their own, and now the neo-con fantasy they bought into is falling apart they'll pick random targets to take out their anger and resentments.

These people left civility behind a long time ago. (Along with dignity and free thought.) Now they're like wounded animals - big, stupid, dangerous animals.

[h0h0.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but Gore is a hypocrite. Yes, he has done much to raise awareness about climate change, but that's where it ends.

1. Some of the science used in the documentary was cherry-picked, probably for dramatic effect. Not really an offense...everyone does it.

2. Contrary to popular belief, we, as individuals, contribute negligibly to the problem. Telling us that it is our fault and we're going to pay for it is absurd and irresponsible.

3. Someone please tell me how corporate sponsored concerts that were ecologically and environmentally irresponsible helps.

4. Solar, ethanol, hydrogen, and stricter car emissions are not the answer. I'm not going to go into the details of each one right now, but they are either prohibitively expensive or produce less energy than they take to create.

5. My biggest issues with Gore are his lust for the mining industry (coal, in particular, which he has large holdings) and his dismantling and prohibition of nuclear energy.

5a. A single 1000MW (moderate size) coal power plant dumps the equivalent of 1M cars worth of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, not to mention the tons of uranium and thorium that go up the smoke stack and subsequently respired by us air breathers. It also spews a decent amount of methane, which is exponentially worse for the environment than CO2. Once a plant is decomissioned, it is a toxic waste site due to the coal slag seepage into the surrounding soil.

5b. Nuclear power is cheap, clean, and overwhelmingly safe. Fuel can now be reprocessed, leaving little waste to dispose of. When was the last time France had a nuclear meltdown? The country gets 90% of its power from nuclear reactors. If it's good enough to put in our ships and satellites, it's good enough to put on the ground. People need to get off their high horses and do some fucking research before launching into tirades of hysteria.

Okay. I'm done ranting. ;-)

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

I would really appreciate you not using the word "hysteria" in responses to my posts or in conversation with me in general. If you don't understand why I'd object to the word please look up it's etymology and I think it will become clear.

Now regarding Gore, I think what's important to remember here is that he didn't win the prize for presenting the world with a solution to climate change. He won it for actually bringing the problem to a lot of peoples' attention and making it all but impossible for governments to ignore it. Even governments as backwards and environmentally unfriendly as our own. Whether you agree with all of the science he presented or with his suggestions for what we should do to alleviate the problem, you must admit that at least now even Bush has been dragged kicking and screaming into the discussion.

[h0h0.livejournal.com]

I wasn't referring to you at all when I said hysteria. I was referring to the Sierra Club.

Like I said at the beginning, I understood why he won it and that he has done a lot in communicating the public relations aspects of the issue. I must admit that he was instrumental in convincing many Americans that the problem is real. Few people listen to scientists.

That said, all of my previous points stand. And it isn't whether *I* believe the science he presented. Any respectable scientist has the same concerns as I. It's plain physics.

Again, I'm sorry if it sounded like I was coming down on you. That was not my intention! I was providing sound counterpoints that need to be brought to the foreground if there is any chance of playing more than lip service to the issue.

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

The problem is that the majority of the public aren't well versed in science in general or physics specifically. What Gore managed to do was to explain a really complex problem to a lot of people in a way that got their attention and caused them to pause and think about the environment. Again, nobody is suggesting that he's got all the answers where climate change is concerned by attempting to denigrate his contribution to the discussion is basically just giving the anti-climate change crackpots more fuel for their fire.

[h0h0.livejournal.com]

We're on the same side, here! Maybe my responses appear to be a bit aggressive, but I thought you knew me better than that.

I am, in no way, denigrating his contribution and to suggest so is a misinterpretation of my arguments, even though I have explicitly said this has nothing to do with his contribution to awareness. This is about solutions. Why don't you believe me and insist on arguing?

The majority of the public cannot be educated? I should more or less shut up? This is troublesome and leads me to believe you don't think the problem is as urgent as proposed (it is urgent, IMO). Why stoop to the opposition's level? I don't get it.

*sigh*

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

Uh you responded to my congratulatory post about Gore winning the Nobel by saying he was a hypocrite then kinda launched into a series of attacks on the guy. So if I'm coming off as defensive it's because I perceived your original comment as an attack. But I think if you re-read it you'll see why I might have done that.

[(Anonymous)]

...and treating him like a Messiah does what?

His proposed solutions are hipocritic at best. :-( My attacks aren't about him. They're about his policies. Two entirely different subjects.

After watching the morning TV shows Sunday, I see your point. I didn't realize the political machine was so virulent with their idiotic ideology attacks. And it's worked. Instead of talking about solutions, everyone wants to argue pointless politics.

[h0h0.livejournal.com]

You definitely have a point. I finally got a chance to go back and reread things and I do come off as combative.

Sorry about that. It wasn't my intention and it seemed fine at the time. Something I need to work on.

I do think nuclear power needs to get a serious second look. The technology has come a long way and the waste generated pales in comparison to that generated by coal-fired plants. However, nuclear can't solve it, alone. We need a mix of different energy sources, choosing the best one to meet the needs of the application.

I'm critical of Gore because I think he could be so much more. I think he would be much more effective if he practiced what he preached. Flying across the country in your private jet (not even an efficient one) just gives wingnuts ammunition.

With any luck, I hope this comes across better and without the snarky overtones.

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

See yeah now I can address your points without feeling like I've been backed into a corner defending Gore :) Although honestly the wingnuts wouldn't be happy unless the man lived in a cave and wore moss and animal skins...even then they'd find something to criticize. That's certainly something we've learned in the past 6 years, where there is no controversy they'll create some. I mean for gods' sake we spent how many weeks talking about Edward's haircut and Obama not wearing a flag lapel pin?

Regarding nuclear power I do agree it's a discussion we should be having, though before we get too seriously into talking about building more power plants let's first address what we're going to do with the waste. And for gods' sake let's put some money and teeth back into our regulatory organizations.