Posts
So why does the right take such glee is misrepresenting facts? It's easy: if you read drudge, just watch his headlines when there's a heat surge. Silence. I can guarantee it. If there's a winter storm, snow, a cold front, ANYthing that is not a five degree spike in average temps, you'll see it given pride of place on the website. Or you'll get supposedly snarky, but in reality really stupid shit like this (from today):
I also saw Bill O' Reilly today (yes, yes, I do, every once in a while. It gets my blood pumping, so I look at it as therapeutic. Have to be careful to limit myself to 5 minutes though...), and he quoted an NYT article about the Nature paper; He said something like this: "Well, look at their title; it says that a study finds new evidence of warming. But go a few lines down, and they say that weather stations in other locations, including the one at the South Pole, have recorded a cooling trend. Sounds like that's a misleading headline, eh?" And then he gives his trademark patronizing smirk and head shake.
NO YOU ASSHOLE, IT ISN'T A MISLEADING HEADLINE. The FACT is that the overall sheet HAS indeed been warming, and the tmeps from East Antarctic are noisy - NOTHING remotely like a cooling effect, as BillO was insinuating.
I mean, we KNOW BillO is an awesome guy, but this is either incredibly stupid or especially cynical/misleading. And since he apparently not an idiot (jackass: yes, mentally deficient: no), you have to go for the latter option. The same is true for the even bigger jackass, Sean (vomit) Ha... Han... sorry, I just can't bring myself to type his name.
And that then begs the question:
What do these right wing jackasses stand to gain by denying a scientific fact? See, I can understand the whole anti-evolution fight: the more you can invoke god in our creation, the better you can control gullible folk; its a power thing. You can always threaten people to behave because otherwise they'll get fucked in the ass by some dude with a trident, but you can't say "Hey you better do this or evolution will turn you back into a chimp." So that's you they demonize/deny scientific fact that evolution does indeed work. But what the hell do you gain by denying global warming???
Someone, help me out.
So here's my take:
ReplyDeleteThe right-wing can't admit to global warming cause then the hippies win.
I actually think it's partially the fault of some of the global warming advocates that there is this rift. It's kind of like why people are turned off by groups like PETA, they're just too extreme. Not that I don't whole heartedly believe we're ruining our planet, but people that hear the 'Day After Tommorrow' scenario get really turned off by it.
Here's an argument I've never heard before: Why doesn't someone approach a right-winger and say 'What's wrong with cleaning up our planet? Where's the harm in that?'.
On a side note, I'm glad Obama seems to be making some strides with this (recent emmisions standards).
I can't say much though, I drive an F150.
I wrote a whole comment this morning explaining this but I don't know where it went so you'll have to keep trying to find the answers yourself.
ReplyDeleteGood points, all of them. I think the PETA analogy is spot on. I might be a vegetarian, but if you spit in my face and tell me that you'd rather die of cancer than sacrifice a few lab animals to find a cure, I think that's a little bullshittical.
ReplyDeleteAnd hey, in your line of work, you can't really go around driving a Prius, can you? :)
Dems/liberals are for clean air, environmental protection, limits on business, looking out for the little guy, safegueards/rules, regulations, EPA, etc.the other side naturally has to be contrary (2 party system).
ReplyDeleteBut it goes slightly deeper than that.
the right wants individual freedom on their land. I can build a house even if there's an endangered critter on it, since it's my land.
the free market will correct itself because if people want clean, regulated, secure, they will pay for it. Exxon valdez's, enron, stock market crash don't factor into the equation
But bigger than that, it's about god/manifest destiny.
The world/country is yours/ours to do/destroy what we will. It is ours. Placing any intrinsic value in the world, animals, global warming, extinction etc, contradicts the very central tenant of Christianity: the world is yours to do what you please with/go forth and procreate, just don't bite THAT apple. It also goes against the central tenant of big business which is: to hell with consequences and regulation, make money, even if it fistfucks mother earth.
They aren't for global warming, they are for man's ability to have complete and total dominion over the world, cause god or money says.
(well at least white, christian men's ability)