RaySmith55’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  appalling

  Once again, PETA makes use of stereotypical and dangerous images of female sexuality - women as super-thin scantily clad hypersexual rock n' roll babes. The fact that PETA's ultimate aims are good ones doesn't make the ad appropriate.

  Second, I don't know how effective this ad actually would be; it's tone appeals to people who probably have no interest in being vegetarian regardless.

  Also (and this is perhaps my most pressing question), does anyone know what studies they are referring to? On Did NBC squash PETA corn-porn? posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 44 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Is panic justified?

  I agree that Mr. Roberts' suggestions are a lot more palatable than Lovelock's. I very much want us to have more organic solutions, such as the ones Roberts suggests, to environmental problems. But is that reason to deny Lovelock's doomsaying and extreme proposals? I'm having a hard time seeing how Roberts' argument is something other than that because Lovelock's solutions are so awful and technological, his doomsaying must be wrong. This of course is not a good way to argue - I'd much rather see direct evidence that his gloom-saying is unjustified. On James Lovelock's terror masks the same old industrial-era thinking posted 2 years ago 13 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  too nit-picky

  Your headline is really funny, but I'd say to give the Post a pass on that one... the whole article is indeed full of predictions of doom if we don't change our habits, and the line after the one quoted is: "But overall, he said, the effect would be overwhelmingly disruptive and costly." I don't think we should be criticizing every small little bit of the alternative global warming story, especially when it is acknowledged by the lead IPCC author. It smells a bit too much like we're not properly receptive to a piece of evidence except if it confirms our own view.On Thanks for the observation, Washington Post posted 2 years, 4 months ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Global Warming, and GLOBAL WARMING

  One pervasive misunderstanding on the issue comes from the fact that the expression "Global Warming" means two different things. It means: (1) Anthropogenic (human-caused) global temperature increases, and (2) Global temperature increases.

  Regardless of whether humans are the cause of the temperature increases throughout the globe (which everyone concedes are occurring), we should all be very concerned about it! If at some point in the future, there is a dangerous asteroid heading towards the planet, then whether asteroid strikes are simply a part of the Earth's natural history or whether some human activity provoked the asteroid to head our way should make little difference. We need to act to solve the problem! So even if Americans aren't convinced that human activity is responsible for increased temperatures, a strong case can still be made that we need to take preventative action. Perhaps a good next step would be a new vocabulary to describe the problem.On On climate, U.S. attitudes are split along partisan lines posted 2 years, 7 months ago 20 Responses