<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Wherein we puzzle through the truthiness]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Delay And Deny http://www.grist.org/article/conservatives-and-global-warming/ Mon, 26 Mar 2007 06:47:35 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/conservatives-and-global-warming/1 You Started It!

Hey,

Wasn't it the Green/Lib side that harangue President Bush for 6 years calling him "The Chimp" and "stupid" all the while he was fighting a war to preserve America and protecting us from terrorists?

We Conservatives have been waiting for that long for you Libs to put your (wo)man up to the test -- and now that your Leader gets a bit of ribbing, you cry "No Fair".

Snivelers!

The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com

]]> You Started It!

Hey,

Wasn't it the Green/Lib side that harangue President Bush for 6 years calling him "The Chimp" and "stupid" all the while he was fighting a war to preserve America and protecting us from terrorists?

We Conservatives have been waiting for that long for you Libs to put your (wo)man up to the test -- and now that your Leader gets a bit of ribbing, you cry "No Fair".

Snivelers!

The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com

]]> Comment #2 by wedjr http://www.grist.org/article/conservatives-and-global-warming/ Mon, 26 Mar 2007 06:48:27 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/conservatives-and-global-warming/2 Meme for a day

I often wonder if there aren't daily messages sent to conservatives which contain talking points, like "green is the new red"*. Maybe they are subliminally encoded in Breakpoint or Limbaugh broadcasts. What's intriguing about their apparent lock-step resistance are the equally apparent breaks in the ranks: Connaughton touting the economic bonnaza of coming green technologies (and, by extension, green collar jobs); investment bankers warming to renewables and staying away from nukes for decades now; hawks warning about security implications of dependence on foreign sources of energy; Czick surviving internal NEA efforts to quash creation care. In fact, I'm fairly confident that the conservative monolith is a myth and that the only surviving bloc is more aptly described as laggards. Every social and economic evolution has them and they are best ignored.
* See http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272612221.shtml  

]]> Meme for a day

I often wonder if there aren't daily messages sent to conservatives which contain talking points, like "green is the new red"*. Maybe they are subliminally encoded in Breakpoint or Limbaugh broadcasts. What's intriguing about their apparent lock-step resistance are the equally apparent breaks in the ranks: Connaughton touting the economic bonnaza of coming green technologies (and, by extension, green collar jobs); investment bankers warming to renewables and staying away from nukes for decades now; hawks warning about security implications of dependence on foreign sources of energy; Czick surviving internal NEA efforts to quash creation care. In fact, I'm fairly confident that the conservative monolith is a myth and that the only surviving bloc is more aptly described as laggards. Every social and economic evolution has them and they are best ignored.
* See http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272612221.shtml  

]]> Comment #3 by Lou Grinzo http://www.grist.org/article/conservatives-and-global-warming/ Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:07:47 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/conservatives-and-global-warming/3 It's all bad journalism and entrenched interest

Two things here:

First, a lot of the media is interested in just one thing: Keeping "the debate" going as long and as loudly as possible.  It gets them readers and viewers, and that's all they care about.

Second, there are people who will put their private financial interests ahead of everything, including climate science and peak oil, no matter how many experts you can line up to tell them they're wrong.

This argument won't go away anytime soon.  Heck, we're still fighting evolution vs. creationism; the global warming deniers will keep arguing until there are palm trees in Alaska and 5 feet of water on the streets of Manhattan.

]]> It's all bad journalism and entrenched interest

Two things here:

First, a lot of the media is interested in just one thing: Keeping "the debate" going as long and as loudly as possible.  It gets them readers and viewers, and that's all they care about.

Second, there are people who will put their private financial interests ahead of everything, including climate science and peak oil, no matter how many experts you can line up to tell them they're wrong.

This argument won't go away anytime soon.  Heck, we're still fighting evolution vs. creationism; the global warming deniers will keep arguing until there are palm trees in Alaska and 5 feet of water on the streets of Manhattan.

]]> Comment #4 by Pete H http://www.grist.org/article/conservatives-and-global-warming/ Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:29:45 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/conservatives-and-global-warming/4 Some of us post on this blog

You don't need to look to "conservative blogs" you can look at your own blog (liberal? environmentalist? progressive? smug?) to see that some of us conservatives are skeptical AND informed.

The "evolution vs. creationism" argument is tired and frankly doesn't get the job done.

"Faith" in the GCMs and thoughtless acceptance of one scenario (20 foot sea rise! really?) is hardly science, a consensus or anything remotely like it.

Here is a link, but beware - I don't bash Gore enough for you to dismiss me out of hand...

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84#19

]]> Some of us post on this blog

You don't need to look to "conservative blogs" you can look at your own blog (liberal? environmentalist? progressive? smug?) to see that some of us conservatives are skeptical AND informed.

The "evolution vs. creationism" argument is tired and frankly doesn't get the job done.

"Faith" in the GCMs and thoughtless acceptance of one scenario (20 foot sea rise! really?) is hardly science, a consensus or anything remotely like it.

Here is a link, but beware - I don't bash Gore enough for you to dismiss me out of hand...

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84#19

]]>