I do believe in limits to freedom (the freedom to swing my fist ends in another mans nose, etc). My point is not that there shouldn’t be limits to freedom, it’s that “there is no ‘other man’s nose’”.

Speed limits is a whole other conversation, and one that I would argue to often limit our freedoms. In a conjested area they make perfect sense that you can travel so fast that a pedestrian can’t see/hear and get out of the way in enough time. But speed limits on wide open interstates are often way too restrictive for that same “danger to pedestrian” argument. What’s more, the national speed limit being set to 55 back in 1974 was mainly for conservation of gas, not for safety. (Funny how it comes back to that).

Again, not trying to say that there shouldn’t be limits to freedom when you would harm other people or infringe on their freedoms or property; but I’m trying to convey that it’s not that harmful, especially when you weigh it against what you would have to give up.

I pulled this from wikipedia on the article about Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in) [table 3].
There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.
There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.

(Just want to reiterate that I don’t believe it, but it is what the UN group put in their report)
So I would ask, is this what we are fighting over? Are we trying to make radical changes in our lives, our industry, and our world to keep the sea level from rising 2 feet?

Life will go on, life will find a way, and hunger will never be a problem for more than 30 days.

Was going to actually do more research on all of this, but the “alternative” newspaper in Phoenix just published a “Green Fatigue” series of articles and it got me all fired up again and figured I’d come post now.

Another point that I thought of: I’m still contending this is a political disagreement, not a scientific one. And I wouldn’t want it to be taught without showing the other sides to the issue. I’m still all for teaching science in school (evolution, how new life is created from a combination of dna of the parents, physics, etc)

Final thought: What would it take for you to be convinced Global Warming isn’t true?
What it would take for me to believe: I can’t. Either it’s not happeneing, if it is, it’s not worth the cost to fix, and if it was worth the cost, who’s to say that a rise in 2 feet of sea level would be such a bad thing? (All the other effects can be attributed to “that’s the weather”)

With all due respect, a book by a guy in the Bush administration that goes against over 90% of the international scientific community (we’re talking thousands here) isn’t any sort of slam dunk – especially when it’s a Google Ad for Amazon, and you haven’t read the book. What’s next? A Google Ad saying Nostradamus predicted global cooling in the 22d century?

I’m sorry to say, but this is becoming a distraction. If your comments are reasoned and evidence-based, I’ll continue to accept them, and respond to them. But otherwise, I’m not sure it will be worth anybody’s time. I’m an educator. I believe in reasoned argument changing open minds. If you don’t, then I don’t get why you’re here. And as Stephen suggests, it must be just to distract.

No tme for that.

Over the weekend I’ll try to come up with a better response. It’s not going to change anyones mind of course We are all dug in to our beliefs and theres no turning back.

Jenny.

Jenny Luca’s last blog post..School’s out Friday – but not this week

And the freedom thing: gnarly. It’s a grand word, but it entails some responsibilities too. You’re not free to harm society in many ways. As history progresses, new types of social harm emerge. A century ago, cars came first, speed limits came later (ie, restrictions on drivers’ “freedoms”). A century later, the polar icecaps are disappearing, the food supply is threatened, etc – and the international community of scientists (who don’t “believe” in grand words, but _deduce_ from evidence and analysis, peer reviewed) overwhelmingly “believe” untrammeled and unregulated carbon emissions are a major cause of global warming. Time for some new “speed limits”? Or should we let the “new lead-foots” run over us all to defend their “freedom” at our expense?

The argument (really, the lack of one) is just too facile, isn’t it?