Dropping the MoneyBomb: 24 Hrs. to Support the Few, the Brave, the Climate Heroes in Election 2012

[Nathanael]

When people do the right thing for the right reason they should be rewarded.

That's especially true when it comes to politicians because if they aren't rewarded by voters for good behaviour they'll likely end up being rewarded by big oil, coal and health insurance companies for not-so-good behaviour.

Both "clean coal" Obama and "climate science questionable" Romney have decided to ignore the massive wildfires that hit the midwest only a few months ago and the unprecedented droughts that have left US farmers without crops to sell.

Fortunately, outside of the two presidential candidates there are people running for office in 2012 that are brave enough to stand up and say they will lead on the issue of climate change.

That's why today, Tuesday, Oct. 16th, is the Climate Heroes Money Bomb, supporting politicians like Jay Inslee running for Governor in Washington state and Tammy Baldwin running for Senate in Wisconsin.

Find out more and join the campaign: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/16/1144879/-Let-s-blow-up-Climate-Heroes-Campaign-Coffers

[AverageJoe90]

1. Agreed.

Last edited Wed Oct 17, 2012, 06:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Very good. As long as Mrs. Baldwin or Mr. Inslee stick to the facts and truths(and don't go down the "Earth will turn into Venus", "humanity will go extinct", and "Earth will turn into Venus" road, which ultimately harms our ability to get the message out) and, no matter how hard or soft they may be, they will have my full support, because this is an issue that needs to be talked about with great care.

[cprise]

2. A troll and his strawman

Thank you for the demonstration.

[AverageJoe90]

3. Are you serious?

Like it or not, what I've said is true: the kind of thing I mentioned is indeed harmful to discourse. Don't agree? Well, I'm sorry, but I'm sticking to what I said.

[cprise]

4. I hear a broken record that sounds like an astroturfer.

Injecting the same fictional and unflattering characterization of environmentalists at every opportunity, over and over again.

If you didn't try to get the last word on virtually every AGW post that comes through here, it would actually be funny.

[AverageJoe90]

5. Really, CP?

Nice try. But I'm an environmentalist, too, at least of a casual sort. And yes, I do get a little frustrated with all this hardcore apocalyptic stuff because it really isn't helping us, and in fact, has indeed played a role in our discreditation over the years by Koch and co.

I can tell you that I'm not alone in pointing this out, either. For example The Ecologist had something to say about Malcolm Light's highly flawed Chicken Little piece not long ago:

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/1487008/a_student_writes_global_extinction_within_one_lifetime.html

You may disagree with me, and that's fine. But astroturf? Really? C'mon man, that's just, well......uncalled for.

[cprise]

6. The example you cited looks at probabilities

And there is no mention of Venus or 800F surface temperatures.

I realize its much easier for some to demonize relatively powerless people who you perceive to be on the wrong side of the Koch brothers. That you are treating the Kochs' as authorities to be heeded on the climate issue is pretty disturbing, though.

[AverageJoe90]

7. Where are you getting this from?

If you've ever seen me around here much, you'll know that I despise the Koch Bros. for all the shit they've pulled. C'mon man, you know damn well I pointed out that they are a part of the problem why we're having so many problems right now, as I have on several occasions.

All I'm saying, is that the hardcore doom-and-gloom stuff, while not at all malintentioned in most cases, DOES, in fact, play into the hands of the Koch Bros. and all the other crooks and liars who keep the Big Energy denial charade going. And yet, you basically accuse me of being a Koch Bros. shill for no reason. That's just uncalled for, on so many levels.

[cprise]

8. I don't know if you're a shill, but

whether you *like* the Kochs or not a responsible person should not let themselves get drawn into the power dynamic the deniers created and do their dirty work for them. You may not realize you're doing it, but you're doing it all the same and even adopted their terms and tactics -- portraying people as 'alarmists', arguing without facts, saying scientists don't know enough to make good predictions. Who was your teacher growing up, George Bush?

As far as any environmentalist ought to be concerned, the peer-reviewed and widely accepted work of paleoclimatologists like Peter Ward is very relevant to what we're facing now. Looked at from the perspective of the Precautionary Principle, a "small but significant" chance that we could off ourselves needs to be treated with serious consideration; as such the burden of proof (actually 'evidence') rests with those who think extinction is impossible. It is they who are making the more dubious claim, especially when they refuse to look beyond 2100.

There is also every reason to believe that, having created one path to self-annihilation, industrial civilization could manufacture more of them. There is a drive for extreme power without matching responsibility that needs to be recognized.

That doesn't by any means imply that we are done-for, and I believe (in fact, know) that defeatism is self-fulfilling misanthropy. However, expanding the envelope of possibilities beyond what is considered politically correct to better match how this planet can respond to certain conditions is not defeatism. If you refuse to distinguish between the two then you're definitely not helping.

[AverageJoe90]

9. Well........

You may not realize you're doing it, but you're doing it all the same and even adopted their terms and tactics -- portraying people as 'alarmists'

What tactics?

arguing without facts, saying scientists don't know enough to make good predictions.

I guess you really need to start looking around then, because I've offered up facts(speaking of proof, here's a Skeptical Science article I often refer to that talks about 'climate wedges': http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-too-hard.htm), and never have I said that scientists can't make good predictions. Arguing without actual facts? I've had to deal with plenty of this crap from this exact same group of people I'm talking about.

Looked at from the perspective of the Precautionary Principle, a "small but significant" chance that we could off ourselves needs to be treated with serious consideration; as such the burden of proof (actually 'evidence') rests with those who think extinction is impossible

No, the burden of proof rests not with those of us who question this, but rather, those who claim it's possible.

There is also every reason to believe that, having created one path to self-annihilation, industrial civilization could manufacture more of them. There is a drive for extreme power without matching responsibility that needs to be recognized.

True, but is Chicken Little type stuff really helping people wake up to reality?

However, expanding the envelope of possibilities beyond what is considered politically correct to better match how this planet can respond to certain conditions is not defeatism.

Well, I don't consider the possibility of much of the Great Plains reverting back to desert or half of the world's coastal cities being irreversibly flooded in the next century to be politically correct, and I full well realize that the plausible worst-case scenarios may come to pass.
What really bothers me, though, is that there are a fair number of people who either cannot, or will not, distinguish between a sober realistic warning, and a Chicken Little type approach. And unfortunately, it has indeed gotten to the point where it's harmed our credibility, and has given ammo to our enemies to keep their charades going.

You may not quite realize this yet, and I can understand such, but these people are the ones playing into the hands of the Koch Bros., and not people like myself who try to keep the discourse rational.

Here's just one example of what I mean: if you saw a bunch of people going around this forum, or Daily Kos, or whatever, screaming "we're doomed, Romney is going to win!" after say, Obama or Biden, makes a minor gaffe that really isn't that big of a deal, wouldn't you eventually be concerned about these Debby Downers potentially demoralizing our fellow Democrats, especially if they start to become more and more noticeable? I sure as hell would.

That doesn't by any means imply that we are done-for, and I believe (in fact, know) that defeatism is self-fulfilling misanthropy.

Well then, why are we still bickering? We're at least on the same page somewhere.