EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
Popular content
Today's Top News
Nearly Half of Americans Believe Climate Change Threat Is Exaggerated
US belief in climate science lowest since polling began 13 years ago, with 31% saying the threat is 'definitely' a reality
Public belief in climate science has seen a precipitous slide in the US, according to new polling that suggests fewer Americans are concerned about the threat posed by global warming.
Artist Vincent J.F. Huang's installation artwork "Suicide Penguins", a comment on global warming using glass penguins and a stuffed toy polar bear, hangs below the Millennium Bridge in London February 13, 2010. (REUTERS/Luke MacGregor)
Nearly half of Americans – 48% – now believe the threat of global warming has been exaggerated, the highest level since polling began 13 years ago, the poll published today by Gallup said.
It directly linked the decline in concern to the controversies about media coverage of stolen emails from the University of East Anglia climate research unit and a mistake about the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 in the UN's authoritative report on global warming.
"These news reports may well have caused some Americans to re-evaluate the scientific consensus on global warming," Gallup said.
Half of Americans now believe there is a scientific consensus on climate change. Some 46% believe scientists are unsure about global warming, or that they believe it is not occurring. A UK poll last month showed adults who believe climate change is "definitely" a reality had dropped from 44% to 31% over the past year.
"The last two years have marked a general reversal in the trend of Americans' attitudes about global warming," Gallup said. "It may be that the continuing doubts about global warming put forth by conservatives and others are having an effect."
The poll feeds into fears among some environmentalists that the furore over the hacked emails has given new fuel to opponents of action on climate change, and stopped short the momentum in Congress for passage of a clean energy law.
A troika of Senators trying to draft a compromise climate bill that could get broad support said this week they may not be able to produce a draft until after the Easter recess, further reducing the chances of enacting legislation in 2010.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration faces lawsuits from Virginia, Texas, Alabama and a dozen business lobbies challenging its authority to act on greenhouse gas emissions through the Environmental Protection Agency.
Tim Wirth, a former Colorado senator who led the campaign against acid rain, told a conference call the science squabbles resembled a re-run of efforts to discredit that earlier effort for an environmental clean-up.
He said the scientists who worked on the IPCC report were woefully outmanoeuvred in PR by business groups which have the funds to employ legions of lobbyists and communications experts. "It's not a fair fight," he said. "The IPCC is just a tiny secretariat next to this giant denier machine."
A majority of Americans continues to believe that climate change is real, but they are less convinced of its urgency. Only 32% believe they will be directly affected by the consequences of a warming atmosphere, despite a major report by the Obama administration last year that climate change could bring flooding, heat waves, drought and loss of wildlife to the US.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
138 Comments so far
Show AllAnd the winner - the laws of nature, which will continue to operate, no matter what so-called skeptics say.
...and how many believe the world was created a few thousand years ago?
Thinking for oneself such a foreign idea to Americans.
Sarah Palin saw a picture of human footprints in a dinosaur footprint, you betcha! And there's so much snow, the earth just couldn't be warming. And who give's a rat about the polar bears anyway, they'll just eat your kids for dinner. Babble, babble, babble. Did god really give the naysayers a brain?
does one who believes the sun never goes down deny twilight?
I bet a large plurality would say the sun sets instead of the Earth rotates.
These polls flip-flop according to the weather. If we have a scorching hot summer, twenty percent of the people will change their minds. Right now, it's sixty degrees in Northern Michigan--and has been for the last week. Ice is gone--looks like a pretty hot summer to me.
Agreed. We has a rather snowy, but not very cold, last half of the winter. The Allegheny river is unusually ice-free, Lake Erie is has more ice than the freakishly warm winters recently, but still much less than normal. Nonetheless everyone is saying "we had a record cold winter - where's the global warming?" USAns are stupid idiots.
We've been hammered with snow here in central NM, somewhat unusual the past 26 years. It's been serious 4WD adventure for those of us in the mountains. This year's precipitation is easily explained by El Nino, but alas, it will only briefly interrupt the drought.
The main point is that snow does not equal cold. Our heavy snows mostly fell with temperatures barely freezing, the sticky snow brought trees and power lines down like I have never seen a snow do.
The extra snow is a result of more moisture in the air, put there by evaporation from warm ocean water, nominally provided by El Nino, but possibly exacerbated by GW.
it fits perfectly into american culture... not wanting to take responsibility for ones actions... when something is broken, throw it away and buy a new one... when a marriage is difficult, get a divorce... war on the other side of the planet? who cares, i'm just going to stupify myself with more trash TV. people suffering? not my problem... what time is American Idol on? i like mcdonalds... meat tastes good, so i want to eat it, dammit, and you cant stop me! i dont want to know if it has negative effects on the planet, and if its socially unjust, just... dont talk about it.
(blah blah... blah blah blah blah... blah blah!)
wait a minute... you're trying to tell me that MY actions are resulting in climate change?? give me a break!! the earth is SO BIG and there's no way that humans could have such a big impact. and... i like my life the way it is! its comfortable! i want to go to the store and buy whatever i want... i want to drive my big car... we have the FREEDOM to do that, you know!! thats what this country is all about... FREEDOM! yea right, i'm not changing my ways... i'll change my lifestyle when... when...
when i absolutely have no other choice.
when i dont make a conscious choice... when the choice is made for me...
... or when mother nature kicks my ass.
The worst thing about this kind of ignorance is that it would take YEARS to teach these people enough basic science to understand the evidence for climate change.
They don't know about thermal radiation. They don't know what photons are and what that has to do with why greenhouse gases are greenhouse gases. They don't know what albedo is. They don't know a mass extinction event is taking place. They don't really understand natural selection or ecology. They don't know what it means to measure something by proxy. They don't know what acids and bases really are and what that has to do with the atmosphere and the ocean. They don't get the idea of the carbon cycle, the water cycle, etc. They don't know what the scientific method is for or how it works. Truth be told, they probably have a hard time interpreting any sort of bar graph or line graph. No way in hell do they get the basic idea of statistical testing.
If you know a little bit about all those things, the evidence for climate change is straightforward and overwhelming, with terrifying implications. The global warming deniers will be burning in hell on Earth with the rest of us, and I hope they're proud of themselves.
you know what, inverse_agonist... although i do consider myself a scientifically-oriented person, I myself don't even understand the details of all the scientific mechanisms behind global warming either... BUT i still certainly believe that it is happening as a result of anthropogenic behavior. why? because its common sense. you are right, these ignorant americans lack scientific knowledge... but they just lack common sense too. its only logical... we unearth a powerfully potent form of fuel and burn it so that society can run faster and faster and faster... society has transformed so intensely over the past 200 years with the industrial revolution... and there simply MUST be a consequence... there simply must be an effect. and the effect is that we are filling our atmosphere with gases, and the temperature rises. you see, i have no clue about the scientific details of it... but i can admit that there must be a consequence of our actions... that we are definitely responsible for this problem, and all the other environmental catastrophies that are taking place. all these people just want to run around, la-dee-da, like a little child... not taking responsibility. i believe that THIS is the root cause of the ignorance we are witnessing... the lack of awareness of the consequences of our actions (a type of social/collective awareness)... the tendency to act like a child, and have mommy clean up our mess after us. its time for humans to GROW UP. i wish that humanity didnt have to receive a slap in the face for it to happen... but it probably will.
Very astute post the substitution of fundie Christianity on the right and New Age superstition on much of the left for the more difficult task of a formal rigorous education is quite literally endangering the eco-systems of planet earth and thus all our lives for we are dependent on a planet with temperatures within the parameters all us creatures evolved within and relatively stable bio geochemical cycles.
What percentage of Americans believe in angels? Alien abductions? God? Enough said.
55% believe in guardian angels.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1842179,00.html
I would bet good money that most of those *don't* believe in AGW.
Climate's not a number's game. If we wait till people believe "the truth" we'll wait a long time. It's not so much about them as about us . . . change in no way depends on "their" belief.
So this stat, while interesting, is not powerful. Living out of possibility is powerful, and possible.
www.radicalrelocalization.com
Actually this is very good news.
Currently there are 7 billion homo sapiens on the planet.
Earth can probably tolerate at most tenth of that, so the homo sapiens are going to do mother earth a favor by wiping itself out with their cleverness.
March 2055: Elderly Fox Pundits Beck and Hannity tour the new Fox News headquarters building on the Jersey Palisades, overlooking the Hudson and permanently flooded Manhatten on a pleasant 80 degrees March day.
And Yes! They still believe Global Warming is a hoax!
Headline should read: Nearly Half of Americans Intelligence Is Exaggerated.
Shit, half of Americans do NOT 'believe' in Evolution.
Good grief, another 'we don't believe climate change is happening; or is that we don't believe that global warming is happening(look how much snow fell this year, ha ha); just what are the specifics here and who is supposed to know what is happening here, surely not a scientist studying the earth's core, definitely not an educated extraction geologist, surely not a corporate environmentalist.
This is and has been a great mish mash of the 'never ending story' for the msm to keep pumping out to the dumbstream addicts to form baseless decisions on and divert attention from, by arranging an obstetrician to lecture on the climate as an expert, but it is just as easy for each person to just look out the window and see what is happening at any point in time to describe the climate.
Now, the real science on climate is on going but it really involves research that would be totally unintelligible to people who do sort of just 'look out the window' to understand climate. And climate change IS long term in effects which just as a mortgage is basically long term but most irresponsible people are only on the QT of short term attentions, so see what happened in the housing and mortgage world because of that.
So I believe the climate is changing but unpredictably as trying to forcast the weather 5 days ahead and the real climate change will do what is going to do even after everybody who is alive today are dead and gone.
Remember last year when the gallup poll found only 39% of the people believed in evolution? But what was left out was that 36% had no opinion either way, 1% had no answer and only 25% did NOT believe in evolution, nice mix.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/11/darwin-200/
Half of Americans will believe anything...as long as it agrees with their existing beliefs that their Daddy told them....ignorance is hereditary.
I hope they enjoy living in a waterless desert.
Half of Americans will believe anything...as long as it agrees with their existing beliefs that their Daddy told them....ignorance is hereditary.
I hope they enjoy living in a waterless desert.
"Nearly half of Americans – 48% – now believe the threat of global warming has been exaggerated"
This speaks directly to what I was saying two days ago. When you are talking about threats its almost impossible NOT to exaggerate, firstly because you may feel real FEAR. Did they exaggerate the Iraq WMD threat a few years ago? Yes. Americans believed it, and don't believe this threat, because of their media. That's the only difference.
But, whats the 'threat' of GW remediation? Now the shoe is on the other foot, and the GW skeptics are prone to exaggeration. The real 'threat' is as much as 2% of global GDP in the next 50 years, and as little as -2% (i.e. GW remediation, through encouragement of better, more efficient technologies, could easily end up putting MORE money back into the economy than it takes out of it). The real 'threat' is a world where we aren't all kissing OPEC's **s. But, to hear the GW skeptics describe it, GW remediation will usher in no less than the end of the world, or our capitalism, at the least. The 'real' agenda of the GW promotors is global hegemony through communist subterfuge. NOW, who's exaggerating?!? And once the public is aware of the blatant lies the GW skeptics are putting out regarding the 'costs' of GW remediation, they are apt to disbelieve anything they say, and sign up to GW remediation, figuring 'why not, what have we got to lose?'
The mistake GW promoters have made, is arguing this subject on the GW skeptics 'turf'. We keep insisting the science is 'ironclad' (a lie, no science is ironclad), that we're good people who wouldn't exaggerate (a lie, people aren't good and do exaggerate, and we ARE people, as the CRU email hack proved), and that we just want a decent planet (a lie, many of us see opportunities for $$$ out of this crisis: and why shouldn't we?).
Its time to get them to argue it on OUR turf (GW remediation), and then bury them in their own lies.
The 'end of capitalism as we know it'? Why hasn't anybody confronted a lie repeated so often on Faux News and the Wall Street Journal that its accepted as gospel. Why does everyone think GW remediation is going to cost megabucks? The most worthwhile studies of the topic show it could end up being a major plus to our economies. And, as isn't pointed out very often, all for doing something we're going to have to do anyway in 30 years thanks to Peak Oil.
Considering that about half the numskulls who live in America think the earth was created about 5000 years ago and the dinosaurs perished in Noah's flood, the fact that an approximately equal number don't believe in global warming should come as no surprise.
We really need to put a religious spin on Global Warming for the benefit of the American faithful. 'A taste of hell'? 'Thou Shalt Not Combust'?
As a nation, we do seem to do everything important in halves, don't we? I suppose that's why nearly every election is split evenly down the center. Just once I'd like to see a presidential election where the candidate was so charismatic, so RIGHT about everything that 90% of us voted for him without a moment's hesitation. But then no doubt the other 10% would immediately begin screaming, "You just elected the antichrist!"
Babble Babble Babble, Do you all dislike americans or just those are confused by conflicting views on the subject,we are not the only ones whose opinions have changed on hearing there might be some junk science out there. besides do you think china or india will slow there growth over this. remember in most of the world you buy chinese or go without.
I really only dislike about 48% of Americans.
and I dislike the other 52%
Well, I see we're going to get along...
"do you think China and India will slow there (I think you meant their, small quibble) growth over this." Did you read ubrew12's description of cap and dividend? We tax the imports on their carbon footprint and return it to American consumers. Remember, American imports are the largest in the world. If we, and hopefully, Europe put a carbon tax on Chinese and Indian exports they'll soon find that it's cheaper to cut their carbon footprint than to sell only to the Third World. They definitely prefer to deal with people who have strong currencies. Also, China is putting a lot of money into Green Power give them 20 years and we with our junky coal plants will be the only people left burning fossil fuels.
sorry about the misspelling,it is just my high school education showing through.On the cap and dividend the chinese are in the drivers seat and are certainly not known for playing by any set of rules.We put them in control.As to returning the tax to americans i will not hold my breath.We americans are trained from birth to consume and if we do not the world economy collapses.The chinese have built their economy on rampant pollution and huge coal reserves.Unless products are made here or imported from competitors other than China there is no real economic reason for China to change. I am 55 and can remember when we made it here and had some control.We all marched happily to the drummer of cheaper goods and now we pay the price. My thanks to all for your opinions
Denying climate change facts is sort of weird to start with, if predictable. Some people hear the warning about skin cancer but won't put on sun block and a big hat until after their first few skin surgeries. People won't quit smoking or drinking or eating sugar and fat for the same reasons, I think.
What makes this even weirder though is that the people above usually accept the science but refuse to change out of flakiness or addiction or something. These climate deniers apparently spent some time in the last few years not denying but accepting the scientific bad news on climate and perhaps even doing something about it. Then what happened? Did they just lose that part of their consciousness? Did they forget what they used to think? Did they change their minds? Why? What explains rejecting a view when the facts have, if anything, trended towards support for the view?
This ability to blithely and unapologetically change your mind for little or no reason seems uniquely American to me. We don't explain anything. We don't have to. We don't justify anything. We don't have to. One opinion is as good as another, because we have "free speech" in America, which makes all opinions equal, right? Is it because the catastrophe didn't occur 6 months after Gore's movie came out, so everybody lost interest? Is is Adult ADD?
Doesn't matter I guess. Nature bats last...
I think 80% of Americans don't know WHAT to think, but understand they're supposed to know what to think. What's unacceptable, when polled, is to say you don't have an opinion, because that indicates you don't even think the topic is worth studying. In this type of matter, people will say they know what they think, even when they don't, because at least it indicates the common courtesy of having given it some thought. But, lets face it, AGW is not like terrorism. We already KNOW what bastards people can be, but we don't know the 'radiative heat balance' of a planet unless we've received specific training.
What this situation means, for those who want to sway the polls, is that appearing to be passionate about your 'apparently' educated opinion is uniquely effective. You're up there, looking all righteously angry, pounding the desk, spouting scientific arcana as if the Faux News sheep understand it: you're going to sway some heads. Not minds, necessarily, but heads. And then you let out the kicker: 'if we try to affect this large atmosphere, we'll destroy our economy and will all have to live in sackcloth!' Case closed.
The heads will decide, and if asked will say they have an opinion about something their minds really don't understand. Anyway, what this means is that polls like this are 'soft', and can easily be swayed one way or the other. People say they know what they think, and they don't. Next month, next big eco-catastrophe or Katrina, they'll say they know what they think, 180 degrees opposite from what they said before.
I think a lot of you are missing an important part of this argument. I'm not a global warming denier I just not sure I believe it's man-made. There is a lot of science to back this up, the world's climate changes naturally whether we cause it or not, it's going to change. Sea levels will rise, environments will change, creatures will die. It's all apart of nature. 900 years ago it's was much warmer than anything we're experiencing today. Also 17,000 scientist say it's not man-made. The report of the 2,500 scientist by the IPCC on man-made global warming has some dubious aspects, quite a few scientist had to threaten the IPCC with legal action to get there names removed from that report. And what about the fact that Al Gore is a member of the Club Of Rome? "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill..." that's a direct quote from a book they published in the 70's or how about this "...we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination.... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts.... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." That's from Stanford University Professor Steven Schneider who won the Nobel Peace Prize along with Al Gore. When confronted with so much contradictory evidence should we just turn a blind eye? Don't be so dogmatic with you GW invective. I'm certainly not a conservative I believe whether or not man-made gwing is real we need to seriously curb carbon emissions. I'm not sure any of this will really matter though I think we've already seen the emergence of peak oil and we are going to see the fatal flaw with an infinite resource driven society exposed. You have to have infinite resources...
"900 years ago it's was much warmer than anything we're experiencing today." No it wasn't. It was warm in the N Atlantic, which is not the same as Planet Earth. Early tree ring data was taken from England alone, and people have been fooled by those old graphs ever since.
"Also 17,000 scientist say it's not man-made." Really? Do they have names? Because the Oregon Institute no longer lets the general public see the names of the scientists you mention, or their qualifications as scientists. Thats because, before, people could look and find names like 'Donald Duck' and 'Ginger Spice' on that petition. Also, did you know that 3000 or more of those names are doctors or veterinarians? I'll listen to what a veterinarian has to say about the climate when you take your poodle to the climatologist for a worm shot.
"what about the fact that Al Gore is a member of the Club Of Rome?" Al who? The guy is a climate change popularizer. I'm astonished at the importance you people attach to this person. I get my information from several websites stocked by scientists who I'm sure have never met Al Gore.
"I'm not a global warming denier I just not sure I believe it's man-made"
confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring.
Ok, that last paragraph wasn't me. It's from http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=16
which shows all the cool plots, etc. But the conclusion is inescapable: the extra CO2 from the 20th century is ours cuz it matches what SHOULD be up there from calculating all the fossil fuels that have been burned in that period of time, and this extra CO2 also matches the nuclear fingerprint of fossil-fuel burning. Conclusion: Its man-made.
Thank you for your points I will take them to heart and think over them. My biggest concern though is that this whole scare is being used to set the stage for a new world order. It's scary when you look at the people actually behind the groups that pretty much broke the scare wide open. David Rockefeller, Dick Cheney (yes Dick Cheney), Henry Kissinger, The Bilderbergs, The Trilateral Commission, George H.W. Bush all these groups and people have a huge stake in GW there's no denying that (if you do some research). To what end? I'm no scientist certainly the numbers and figures don't mean much to me considering I have a background in social work. And I'm not convinced yet either way, but I'm not going to automatically buy into this with so much controversy and the fact that these groups whether they admit it or not (bush and kissinger have been more candid), are pushing for a one world government. Again I'm not a conservative denier. I don't even own a car anymore I bicycle everywhere I go. I have solar panels in my home and a wind turbine that I built. I grow my own food whenever possible. I'm not questioning this because I want to see our civilization continue on the way it has been. Honestly I think we're already up shit's creek with a turd for a paddle. But I think the bigger tragedy would be to find ourselves one day enslaved to a one world system.
Well, you're entitled to your 'world view' and indeed are laudable for your small footprint. I talk loud about GW but still drive my car, burn oil, etc. Keep in mind that we already have a 'one world economy', driven by capitalism. The capitalists would like nothing better than to never have 'one world government' because it means they can literally play at pirates just by moving money across governmental borders. In this they resemble the atmosphere, it too knows no borders. I don't want one world gov't either, but something needs to be done to stop the piracy, which lately has been a piracy on you and me (WallStreet bailout).
As much as possible, try to understand the AGW controversy from the science. Nature isn't a one-worlder, a capitalist, or a communist. Our atmosphere is what makes this planet liveable: Mars and Venus are both unliveable, Why, because of their atmospheres, and for no other reason. Venus, in particular, shows what happens when a greenhouse effect feeds on itself until it scorches the planet. Such a fate is NOT out of the question for Earth. We need to exercize care.
For now, I believe America should tax fossil fuels at their source, and pay out the revenues from this tax to every American as a monthly dividend (so that the 'tax' isn't a tax, but is revenue neutral). In this way, people with such small footprints as yours will actually make quite a bit of money, whereas people like me will probably break even. Any country that doesn't do as we do, should have its imported goods TAXED for their fossil fuel content, so that they don't end up at a competitive advantage to our products.
There: nothing in there about 'one world government'. Just a common sense approach to get everyone to live as you already do.
I completely agree on tax and dividend I've actually worked on the "cap and trade" legislation (very minor I assure you), and I don't see how this bill will curb carbon emissions it will be about as effective as the clean air act. It's all posturing. I also agree there has to be a radical change in how we live if we want to support life for generations to come, but when I read about the groups behind this it scares the living shit out of me. And science has lied to us before (eugenics, marijuana) all in the name of policy. I have been lied to so much by my government and science that I can't take anything they say at face value any longer. If the numbers are so conclusive why does the IPCC feel the need to lie about them? Again I'm on the fence here I wish there was a definitive yes or no answer, but from what I read there are very good and plausible points on both sides. And if you don't believe in a New World Order agenda you need to wake up quick. At the G-20 meeting they discussed a one world currency which Kissinger has said is one of the first steps for implementing a one world government. You should look at the Club of Rome's agenda for yourself (social and cultural transformation) on their website then look at their members, all proponents of the new world order. I agree we need to change the way we live. I wish everyone was more like me, I do it out of a love for the earth, and I hate the stagnancy that our society breeds. But I could not live in a world that was governed by a hegemonic body of elites. I wouldn't bring my children into such a world. I grew up in an extremely poor family from the "hood" I've seen firsthand what the "White male power structure" can do to people. It's not something I envision for the world.
"I could not live in a world that was governed by a hegemonic body of elites"
No, none of us could. Hmm, could they do it? Only one way, that I see: if our own military was its 'police force'. That could happen, if the corporations succeed in taking over our government (they are 9/10ths there already). Hence, my other pet peeve on CD: fixcongressfirst.org, or basically, publicly financed campaigns. This is actually more critical than AGW. If we can't take back our democracy by throwing the wealthy corporatist (and often FOREIGN) interests out of Wash DC, we will lose our government. And losing the government, we will lose control of our military. We have already basically lost our government, but we can still make them pass acts that have overwhelming and immediate public support, like campaign finance reform. If we can succeed in mandating public financing of all elections, we can regain our democracy. And I believe that, having regained it, we can pass the legislation that Americans really want, rather than what the corporatist (and increasingly global) power elite want. What they want is global governance, in practice if not in name. What America would bring to that governance is its massive military: boots on the ground. The rest of us can die, but 'they' want our military engaged in critical economic (mostly oil-based) prizes around the world. They are already getting what they want.
Right now your legislator can tell you he's working for you, and turn around and get millions of campaign dollars by working for someone else. He'll spend those millions come election time convincing you that, while he didn't work for you where it mattered, he's still a flag-waving patriot and his opponent has a foreign-sounding name. And half the time, it works: its just a matter of throwing enough money at the problem of getting you to forget why you hate the man.
Thats not democracy. Indeed, it most resembles prostitution, and many of our legislators are working for overseas interests.
PS: 'tax and dividend' is not the same as 'cap and trade'
I certainly know the difference that's why I made the distinction I'm for tax and dividend, against cap and trade. I think we lost our government along time ago. I mean seriously Nixon was to the left of most democrats today. We already are the world police. So many issues I'm glad you agree that our corporate-politico institution is more pressing for americans right now, that seems to be the issue that keeps me up most nights. I mean really (I'm assuming you live here in the states) you see how marketable the green movement has become it's a pre-packaged lifestyle anyone can buy into whether they are truly green or not.Campaign finance reform is something I have been working on since I was a teenager. It will never happen. They don't listen to us, that much is apparent. How many americans are FOR the public option, yet obomba has compromised on that issue twice already. I have really enjoyed our discussion this evening you make really excellent points during this conversation I was watching "Collapse" I'm not sure if you are familiar with it. But it's about peak oil and the resulting collapse of our society due to oil shortages it's a very interesting movie. I recommend it for anyone who see's this. Look forward to more of your posts ubrew
Well, thanks alot. It's clear I've only recently 'evolved' into positions you've held for a long time (like that our government isn't really 'ours'). I find it depressing that you've fought for campaign finance reform all those years, and nothing has happened. Perhaps this time, with the urgency of our imminent decline all around us, and the primacy of this factor as a cause, the people will take action (ala Churchill: 'Americans will always do the right thing, after they've exhausted all the other possibilities'). I'll look out for 'Collapse' as it sounds like a good one to see. Right now, I'm trying to make a date with another 'Collapse' this one by Jared Diamond (referenced elsewhere on this thread) about how societies choose to fail or succeed. But there's only so much time...
You're on common dreams which means that you certainly see the fallacy that exists in mainstream news. That's more than i can say for most of the population here... I love Jared Diamond so much that I almost hate him, lol for exposing obvious truths. I remember i think it was 13 years ago that "Guns, Germs, and Steel" came out and i was blown away cause I had been asking myself the very same questions that Yali posed to Diamond. I wish there was a way I could legally post "Collapse" for all to see. I think it's too late for us as a species. This may sound a little extreme but I can see 4/5ths of our population dying off. Which i know it will be a tragedy a lot of people we know will die and I'm sorry for that, hell I might die in spite of all my preparations but i'm doing everything i can to try to offset the repercussions that will occur with oil shortages and the ensuing chaos. Thanks you very much for your views and opinions ubrew, they are much appreciated.
Harmonization of regulations - particulary a global pollutant like greenhouse gases require agreements between nations and an international deliberative body of some sort. Abolishing war also requires a deliberative body of some sort. This is not the same "one world government" - in fact it assures that nations can continue as sovereign entities.
You are sounding like a right wing John birch, anti-UN whacko.
Yes I am anti U.N. and I'm anti New World Order, but i'm no right wing whacko. Maybe a left wing whacko. You think the U.N. does good things for the world? You must be joking. Ask the people of Palestine what the U.N. has done for them. Ask the people of Afghanistan and Iraq what the U.N. has done for them. You think people like George H.W. Bush and Henry Kissinger give or gave a shit about the welfare of the masses? Give me a break. Kissinger started 3 wars in his unfortunately long political career. You don't have to be a right wing nut to see the suffering that the u.n. ignores, or is complicit to.
Get rid of the Security Council and all it's powers, - particularly those of the five permanent memberships, and devolve them to the general assembly, and the UN would be a pretty good organization.
But as you rant on about the UN, you probably know nothing about its organization, don't you?
pjd412, interesting suggestion to get rid of the P-5 of UNSC. I wonder why other countries are not talking of these. Instead, what some countries want is to expand the number of Permanent Members, so as to provide a better balance. I know that none of the existing members would voluntarily allow any new member. So they play all kinds of clever games. On the matter of "Iran", for example, it's P5 + Germany doing the negotiations. It's an indication of which country is considered ahead of others who want to become Permanent Members - such as Japan, India, South Africa and Brazil.
Now just a second there, good buddy:). Part of being a good veterinarian is being able to think rationally. The others have gone into politics or real estate.