Seattle Times: "The truth about global warming"

This is a conversation, over-amped debate can be fun. Believe it or not, I push in order to try to extract more understanding of the topic.

I would suggest that a post packed with over half a dozen references to "brilliant lib enviros", or some variation, is not simply trying to be part of a "fun" conversation. Please keep your comments free of name calling. That's the way we all want it to be here, and arguments are much less compelling when peppered with such provocations. If an argument cannot be pursuasive without name calling, then it probably does not deserve to be posted.

CW's earlier reference to overpopulation is an important one to me. Although the US and other "developed" countries might not have a traditional overpopulation problem, we do have a serious problem with another type of overpopulation, often termed "consumption overpopulation". The fact that we in the US have 5% of the world's humans but consume around 25% of the world's energy attests to the fact that we have a serious problem with consumption overpopulation. I do not wish to give up the comforts of my life in a "developed" country, but I am always evaluating my choices in light of the fact that I am part of a country that has such a problem with consumption overpopulation. It would certainly be easier to make my energy consumption choices if the price of energy incorporated all of the external costs and reflected its true cost. The recent increase in the price of oil is a step in the right direction, in my opinion.

That post is revised, but not as fun. Gee whiz.

It's more fun for me now, though. Thanks to Charles' kind reminder, I'll henceforth refrain from characterizing others as the "head in sand crowd" as well. I do think that we can have good discussion w/o having to include made-up names that frankly tend mischaracterize each other and make mutual understanding less likely.

Charles - regarding our own personal impacts, this weekend a friend pointed me to NetGreen , which gives individuals a way to buy "carbon offsets" to essentially personally fund enough of a carbon reduction project elsewhere to make you "net neutral" on your personal carbon impact. While we all tend to love to legislate our own favored forms of behavior on others, this is an interesting notion, and something that any of us can do NOW!

It would seem that some of the more formal and seriously-constructed arguments, without the word caricatures, would cause more distress than the talk-show host style. Golly gee.

So we shall use the venal European style of smile to your face and stab you in the back, behave in a corrupt manner while vociferosly accusing others of corruption?

Some folks probably get indigestion in general with certain folks who post here....proudly serving.

Is that a proposal or an accusation?

How about debating the ideas instead of attacking the people with labels and mischaracterizations? No need for royal intrigue with that approach, eh?

But really, check out the NetGreen link above, whether to have your own positive impact, or simply to see what some folks with different worries than you may have are trying to do.

Yes, a debate of ideas, Rando you may well do better than you give yourself credit for. Its a lot more work for me to work out my thoughts and convictions on a subject like this on paper and make them sound like sense. I know what I “feel” but how can I defend it??
Is it true and if true for me what about someone else. I certainly believe that from all the different experiences people have that we certainly all come to the table with different sets of “data points.”
I do have what I feel are intrinsic values of what my place is in the world, but even I do not want to place my values on others?? I do not expect others to share my thoughts but I think listening and respect helps in a dialog to understand. Rando??? do you really want the world to believe in the same thing as you?? everyone?

ah it’s late and I am rambling

cw