Bill McKibben on Global Warming
I try to write a short piece on global warming every week or two, but I find it difficult, given that so many people cover this subject so well. Linked here is a short Bill McKibben article that I urge everyone to read.
That we’ve taken this matter out of the hands of science and reduced it to the basest level of politics is one of the most nauseating aspects of our current-day culture.
I have to give my immediate family credit here. Even though they generally don’t follow this stuff too closely, they are enjoying the heck out of McKibben’s masterpiece “Eaarth.” I hope you’ll pick up a copy and share it with friends.
Take a different angle, call it Climate Change and compare the opposing or differing positions on it. totally non polarized. I have heard some different “Opinions”. Put the cards on the table well exposed and whose hand they are in. Disallow name calling in comments, Quantify in a glossary any slang such as right or left or conservative. These words need to be used but for a defined purpose not as a “fence” between “us & Them” I think this could be a totally healthy dialog, therapeutic as well Facts only, Media truths disallowed. Sources required if stats are used.
This could bridge encourage women to moderate and the outcome could be a sellable product to Politicians !
Greg Chick
I’m please that you enjoyed the article, Craig, and especially that you’ve chosen to reference it here.
By the way, it’s my firm stance that this phenomenon should always be discussed as “climate disruption” and not as the media prefers, “climate change” – lets call an ace an ace. If someone drives a truck through a house and hits the gas main, we don’t call it “structural change”.
Even “global warming” rather misses the point, for though the global temperature averages are rising, the real story is in the potent disruption of our weather patterns to make considions far more severe: more powerful and more frequent storms, longer droughts, greater floods, and more extreme temperature swings to both ends of the scale.
Just a thought to bring the impact of the words more in line with the reality we face.
An idea, do you know how Ca. Ballots are mailed out with “Arguments” on props and candidates and how a pro/con, rebuttal in favor of and so on are printed. Who sponsors and who “Approves this message” in the ballot. .
How about one on Global Warming ? The research, the scandal on the research, the last word on the research etc. Media hype disallowed. all done online. Get two moderators rules are post all sources. and equal kilobytes for each side (including references). Universities allowed as reference. Nasa, and others, no media, Fox or NPR etc.
Greg Chick, Please let me know if you would do this. greg@ramonasplumber.com
Sorry I forgot to check the notify me box below.
Mass transit at the expense of personal liberty???
You have got to be kidding. Once kid down on the farm has seen Paris, there is no going back.
Americans are addicted to their personal conveyances. I think that concentrating on improving the efficiency of personal transportation mode like motor scooters, bikes, and minicars is much more in keeping with the american dream. Perhaps an improvement to the already existing mass transit corridors would work but the Chinese are only going to lend us so much money and then expect a pound of flesh for any more. Getting it from the rich is a tired arguement that should be put to rest. There aren’t enough rich people and they don’t have enough money to fund the massive outlay that the dreamers can envision.
The only way extensive mass transit can work is in a totalitarian society where top down decisions are made and choices are severely limited.
Give me liberty or give me death, even it comes by hurricane, tornado or drought. China has way more high speed trains but is it really worth the sacrifice of our political system to whip the proletariat into line?
New rules (liberties lost) happen and will continue to happen. Urban planning has and will evolve with ever increasing structure in order to solve the very real problems of high density. We will see an increasing number of city zones disallowing the majority of vehicles and providing alternative mechanisms. Freedom is still there. Don’t live in such a city. That said, we are finally at a point in technology where we can begin to embrace the truly discontiguous workforce. The need for everyone to physically converge will be tailing off – slowly, but it will happen. Only some fraction will remain and it is likely to be an evolving fraction.