SOCIAL: A little environmental help please

Thu Jul 23 19:40:08 PDT 2009

Okey doke, I will send my Lomberg info in a separate thread, as there is a
lot of it!

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Geoff Davis <geoff at geoffdavis.net> wrote:

> Actually, I think Lomberg is interesting.  As I understand it, his take is
> that global warming is real, but that the money spent on preventing it could
> be better spent on other causes.  I think that's a reasonable debate, but
> the trouble is that then you have to estimate how much it will cost to
> prevent / mitigate (could be a lot, could be not so much if some big
> discoveries make things easy) and how much it will cost if we ignore it
> (could be a lot if the worst case scenarios hold up; could be less if not).
>  I'm a fan of the precautionary principle in this case given that the worst
> case scenarios are pretty seriously bad.  (Then again, I haven't read a lot
> of Lomberg, so this is mostly second hand)
>
> On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Kristina Pappas wrote:
>
> My blood pressure is rising just thinking about your experience in the
> lunchroom! I've seen a lot of research in the last few months that
> skepticism among Republicans far outweighs that among Democrats and
> Independents, and in fact the better educated someone is, the more likely he
> or she is to believe (D's / I's) or not (R's) that climate change is real
> and caused by human activity. Also, Republican disbelief actually fell last
> fall (when McCain, who believes that climate change is real, was running)
> and started rising again after Obama was elected.
>
> Grist has an excellent series on its website called "How to talk to a
> Climate Skeptic" available here:
> http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
>
> While they have a great series of links to dispel the most common
> arguments, unfortunately there is no link to something like "Al
> Gore/Inconvenient Truth is wrong"!
>
> By the way, if it turns out that they are basing their arguments on a
> skeptic named Lomberg who published (unfortunately well-publicized) drivel
> last year in the form of a book called "Cool It", I've got ammo for that
> too. But no need to waste your time on him and his arguments if not
> necessary.
>
> Kristina
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Mike Kosim <mike.kosim at mac.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd also look at the political bent of the website itself.
>> They market themselves as "Free Market Environmentalists" and "Common
>> Sense Environmentalists".  While they say they are not politically aligned,
>> I think it is fair to say they are Regulation Opposed.  That's just a
>> short list.  This site is pretty biased.  My $.02.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> Here are some excerpts from their site page:
>> http://www.heartland.org/suites/environment/index.html
>>
>> *
>> *
>>
>> *>>They Say:*
>>
>> *What is Common-Sense Environmentalism?*
>>
>> Common-sense environmentalism recognizes that almost everyone today is an
>> environmentalist. We all want a healthy, green environment for ourselves and
>> our families.
>>
>> >>My comment:  This isn't really true.  While it would be *MORE* true if
>> people acted entirely in their backyards, I don't think the CEOs of coal
>> companies are living on the mountain tops they are removing!  That is, while
>> people may want the best environment for themselves, this doesn't mean they
>> are willing to sacrifice their yearly performance bonus in order to preserve
>> the environment for strangers.
>>
>>
>> >>They Say:
>>
>> The key insight that environmental advocates, and the media<http://www.heartland.org/policybot/?keyword=&Author=&Publisher=&StartDate=&DocumentNumber=&topic=12&subtopic=149&Submit=Search> that
>> gives them sympathetic coverage, overlook is the First Law of Toxicology<http://www.heartland.org/policybot/?keyword=&Author=&Publisher=&StartDate=&DocumentNumber=&topic=12&subtopic=127&Submit=Search>:
>> The dose makes the poison. Many “toxic” chemicals are not dangerous if the
>> level of exposure is below a threshold where physical affects can be
>> observed, while many “harmless” chemicals can be deadly if we are exposed to
>> too much of them.
>>
>> >>My comment: The old addage "The solution to pollution is dilution" was
>> something anti-regulation advocates liked to say about environmental
>> disasters.  While it would be true in a static sense, that is, yes, if I
>> diluted that drop of DDT in billions of gallons of water, it would be
>> relatively harmless, this largely ignores the fact that there are many
>> biological and physical systems that create high concentrations of toxins in
>> our food supply. (witness tuna, a major source of mercury in the American
>> diet)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Geoff Davis wrote:
>>
>> A more neutral version:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm
>> The movie *can *be show in schools, but there needs to be a disclaimer.
>>
>> It sounds like the gist of the issue is this:
>>
>> Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is leading to all sorts of changes in the
>> climate, but it is extremely difficult to say that any particular event is a
>> direct result of increased CO2 emissions.    Gore was trying to tell a
>> story, so he showed specific events (e.g. Katrina) and suggested that global
>> climate change may have been responsible.  It's hair splitting.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Jennifer Seuferer <
>> jenniferseuferer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So today I walked in on a conversation in my office lunch room between
>>> two men known for their conservative & republican political views. They were
>>> talking about the environment and global warming. I won't go into everything
>>> they were saying because it makes me so mad I want to throw something but
>>> one thing they said was that Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" could not be
>>> shown in British schools because of all the inaccuracies in the film. I
>>> googled this and found this article and was wondering if anyone on Social
>>> could speak to some of the points in this. What concerns me is the men I
>>> overheard discussing this were using this to basically write off global
>>> warming or the things people do to try to help as ridiculous and uneducated.
>>> If you have time please read this and let me know what you think. Its not a
>>> very long article.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22160/British_Court_Rules_Inconvenient_Truth_Represents_Partisan_Political_Views.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Social mailing list
>>> Social at lists.deeptrouble.com
>>> http://lists.deeptrouble.com/listinfo.cgi/social-deeptrouble.com
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Social mailing list
>> Social at lists.deeptrouble.com
>> http://lists.deeptrouble.com/listinfo.cgi/social-deeptrouble.com
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Social mailing list
>> Social at lists.deeptrouble.com
>> http://lists.deeptrouble.com/listinfo.cgi/social-deeptrouble.com
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Kristina Pappas
> MBA, Sustainable Management - 2008
> 415.812.3128
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/kristinapappas
> _______________________________________________
> Social mailing list
> Social at lists.deeptrouble.com
> http://lists.deeptrouble.com/listinfo.cgi/social-deeptrouble.com
>
>
>

-- 
Kristina Pappas
MBA, Sustainable Management - 2008
415.812.3128
http://www.linkedin.com/in/kristinapappas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deeptrouble.com/pipermail/social-deeptrouble.com/attachments/20090723/7c176ac7/attachment-0002.htm>