I won't have internet access for about a week, so I'll be back Sunday or Monday with another entry. I'm sure much will happen in the upcoming week, leave me any ideas here!
Thanks!
2 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Chris, normally I stay away from commenting on statements like this, but I felt the need to clear some things up:
First off, Science. You say: "Can't scientists fund their research through the private sector like EVERYONE ELSE, instead of forcing the government to raise money for them?" Unfortunately, no. Every major scientific breakthrough since the 1920s has been funded at least partially by the government. Nuclear power/weapons? All government funding. Polio? Majority government funding. Antibiotics. Internet. Rockets/Space travel. Chemotherapy. The list goes on and on. The government funds science because it is what makes us the preeminent nation on this planet. I am sure you are infatuated with Ronald Reagan? He knew this better than anybody. He spent billions trying to demonstrate our scientific/technical superiority over the Soviets. This is still important today as the Chinese and Indians are teaming up and are rapidly catching up to us in some areas of medical science, and the Europeans have surpassed us in Physics breakthroughs due to Bush's unwillingness to fund new particle accelerators. The government has in one-way or another funded almost everything we touch today.
Global Warming? I find it funny that you (and Bush) are treating global warming scientists as the Church treated Galileo, Copernicus, etc. Now, I know most people on your side claim the opposite (that scientists string-up those that don't believe in global warming, etc). But you are the ones clamoring for definitive proof. In science, a THEORY does not rest upon definitive proof. It rests upon substantial evidence that makes the claim for one side rather than the other. It obviously cannot be proved yet, time will tell, but the majority of scientists and people in the world support this evidence for global warming.
The Pentagon even disagrees with you Chris. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html This was ignored basically in American press due to White House blackouts. The report is extremely scary http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2003/Pentagon-Climate-Change1oct03.htm
Bush has been muzzling scientists at NASA, ignoring Pentagon reports, and has forced Tony Blair to shut up Sir King, the most respected scientist in the world, by claiming King is leaking government secrets (and the British go to jail for leaking info so he has stopped talking).
Chris, the people who claim adding a layer of pollution in the air will help prevent global warming, they don't mean, "dumping garbage outside". It is actually aerosol particles, which would SLOW DOWN global warming by reflecting some of the suns rays. These could be added by adding a certain chemical to jet fuel. However, it would once again seriously enlarge the whole in the ozone layer, thereby increasing the solar radiation hitting us everyday.
As for you saying the world is not overcrowded? It is true America has vast swathes of land left to be developed in the Midwest, etc. But that is not where the land is needed. Where is the population increasing in this world? Africa and Asia mostly. Africa: seriously lacks water and food as can be seen by hundreds of thousands dying each year due to starvation and water shortage, not to mention AIDS too. Asia: right now most don't hear about it, but India, China and Pakistan are seriously considering military action in the future over their water supplies. As populations increase, so too will conflicts over food and water. We have plenty of both here in America; want to let in a few million Ugandans, Kenyans, Somalis and low-caste Indians that would not contribute to our economy due to poor health and a lack of any formal education? Where would they live? Where would they work? Go to school?
But your point: "there's A LOT of room on this planet for people to live. Whether they want to live there, I guess, is a different story..." I guess you mean the untainted lands in the Brazilian rainforests (our last "air pump" on this planet)? Northern and Western deserts of China? The Siberian plains in Russia? Saharan desert in Africa? Antarctica? All of which, besides the rainforest, are generally uninhabited not because people DON'T WANT to live there, but because they CAN'T survive there.
But then again, I am not a scientist. I just work at a neo-con think tank that is VERY worried about global warming, as are most think tanks. The only people who aren't are the oil industry, and politicians who don't want to be kicked out of office for forcing taxpayers to change their lifestyle in order to protect our planet for future generations, and those who sheepishly follow those arguments by arguing they know better than scientists and that the environment is no reason to handcuff the economy.
I personally would feel massive guilt if I left a battered and bruised planet, stripped of its natural resources, unable to cope with the changes to its ecosystem, to my 4 year old sister and my future (probable) grandchildren. Unfortunately, most who oppose any action against global warming are only looking out for their own immediate and future interests, not those of future generations. If you honestly think nothing will happen to our planet, could you tell a child 50 years from now "Sorry kid, I didn't listen to the warnings from scientists who studied this issue their entire lives"?
And I know nothing anyone says will change your mind, but I had to dispel some things you said. I don't expect a response, or a debate. Neither of us will change our opinion on this issue.
Sorry Chris, Meg posted this for me as I could not acces your site. She is technologically retarded and didn't post it under the Global Warming post. My sincerest apologies. If only she knew how to use a computer.
2 comments:
Chris, normally I stay away from commenting on statements like this,
but I felt the need to clear some things up:
First off, Science. You say: "Can't scientists fund their research
through the private sector like EVERYONE ELSE, instead of forcing the
government to raise money for them?"
Unfortunately, no. Every major scientific breakthrough since the
1920s has been funded at least partially by the government. Nuclear
power/weapons? All government funding. Polio? Majority government
funding. Antibiotics. Internet. Rockets/Space travel. Chemotherapy.
The list goes on and on. The government funds science because it is
what makes us the preeminent nation on this planet. I am sure you are
infatuated with Ronald Reagan? He knew this better than anybody. He
spent billions trying to demonstrate our scientific/technical
superiority over the Soviets. This is still important today as the
Chinese and Indians are teaming up and are rapidly catching up to us
in some areas of medical science, and the Europeans have surpassed us
in Physics breakthroughs due to Bush's unwillingness to fund new
particle accelerators. The government has in one-way or another
funded almost everything we touch today.
Global Warming? I find it funny that you (and Bush) are treating
global warming scientists as the Church treated Galileo, Copernicus,
etc. Now, I know most people on your side claim the opposite (that
scientists string-up those that don't believe in global warming, etc).
But you are the ones clamoring for definitive proof. In science, a
THEORY does not rest upon definitive proof. It rests upon substantial
evidence that makes the claim for one side rather than the other. It
obviously cannot be proved yet, time will tell, but the majority of
scientists and people in the world support this evidence for global
warming.
The Pentagon even disagrees with you Chris.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
This was ignored basically in American press due to White House
blackouts. The report is extremely scary
http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2003/Pentagon-Climate-Change1oct03.htm
Bush has been muzzling scientists at NASA, ignoring Pentagon reports,
and has forced Tony Blair to shut up Sir King, the most respected
scientist in the world, by claiming King is leaking government secrets
(and the British go to jail for leaking info so he has stopped
talking).
Chris, the people who claim adding a layer of pollution in the air
will help prevent global warming, they don't mean, "dumping garbage
outside". It is actually aerosol particles, which would SLOW DOWN
global warming by reflecting some of the suns rays. These could be
added by adding a certain chemical to jet fuel. However, it would
once again seriously enlarge the whole in the ozone layer, thereby
increasing the solar radiation hitting us everyday.
As for you saying the world is not overcrowded?
It is true America has vast swathes of land left to be developed in
the Midwest, etc. But that is not where the land is needed. Where is
the population increasing in this world? Africa and Asia mostly.
Africa: seriously lacks water and food as can be seen by hundreds of
thousands dying each year due to starvation and water shortage, not to
mention AIDS too. Asia: right now most don't hear about it, but
India, China and Pakistan are seriously considering military action in
the future over their water supplies. As populations increase, so too
will conflicts over food and water. We have plenty of both here in
America; want to let in a few million Ugandans, Kenyans, Somalis and
low-caste Indians that would not contribute to our economy due to poor
health and a lack of any formal education? Where would they live?
Where would they work? Go to school?
But your point: "there's A LOT of room on this planet for people to
live. Whether they want to live there, I guess, is a different
story..." I guess you mean the untainted lands in the Brazilian
rainforests (our last "air pump" on this planet)? Northern and Western
deserts of China? The Siberian plains in Russia? Saharan desert in
Africa? Antarctica? All of which, besides the rainforest, are
generally uninhabited not because people DON'T WANT to live there, but
because they CAN'T survive there.
But then again, I am not a scientist. I just work at a neo-con think
tank that is VERY worried about global warming, as are most think
tanks. The only people who aren't are the oil industry, and
politicians who don't want to be kicked out of office for forcing
taxpayers to change their lifestyle in order to protect our planet for
future generations, and those who sheepishly follow those arguments by
arguing they know better than scientists and that the environment is
no reason to handcuff the economy.
I personally would feel massive guilt if I left a battered and bruised
planet, stripped of its natural resources, unable to cope with the
changes to its ecosystem, to my 4 year old sister and my future
(probable) grandchildren. Unfortunately, most who oppose any action
against global warming are only looking out for their own immediate
and future interests, not those of future generations. If you honestly
think nothing will happen to our planet, could you tell a child 50
years from now "Sorry kid, I didn't listen to the warnings from
scientists who studied this issue their entire lives"?
And I know nothing anyone says will change your mind, but I had to
dispel some things you said. I don't expect a response, or a debate.
Neither of us will change our opinion on this issue.
Sorry Chris, Meg posted this for me as I could not acces your site. She is technologically retarded and didn't post it under the Global Warming post.
My sincerest apologies.
If only she knew how to use a computer.
Post a Comment