A post for the lurking (and not so lurking) lefties who are drawn here like moths to a bright light, offered in the genuine spirit of human compassion, for you know not what you have become.
Nick Cohen, on the ” inversion of principles” of his former comrades;
I’m sure that any halfway competent political philosopher could rip the assumptions of modern middle-class left-wingery apart. Why is it right to support a free market in sexual relationships but oppose free-market economics, for instance? But his criticisms would have little impact. It’s like a religion: the contradictions are obvious to outsiders but don’t disturb the faithful. You believe when you’re in its warm embrace. Alas, I’m out. Last week, after 44 years of regular church-going, the bell tolled, the book was closed and the candle was extinguished. I was excommunicated.
[…]
Auden noticed a retreat from universal principles in the 1930s – communism was fine in ‘semi-barbaric’ Russia but would have been a screaming outrage in a civilised country. He should have been alive today. With no socialism to provide international solidarity, good motives of tolerance and respect for other cultures have had the unintended consequence of leading a large part of post-modern liberal opinion into the position of 19th-century imperialists. It is presumptuous and oppressive to suggest that other cultures want the liberties we take for granted, their argument runs. So it may be, but believe that and the upshot is that democracy, feminism and human rights become good for whites but not for browns and brown-skinned people who contradict you are the tools of the neo-conservatives.
On the other hand when confronted with a movement of contemporary imperialism – Islamism wants an empire from the Philippines to Gibraltar – and which is tyrannical, homophobic, misogynist, racist and homicidal to boot, they feel it is valid because it is against Western culture. It expresses its feelings in a regrettably brutal manner perhaps, but that can’t hide its authenticity.
Read the rest.
Via the “inexplicably popular” Wretchard who adds;
The hollowing out of the Left — the death of its Bolshevik core — is one of the great unwritten stories of the late twentieth century. The decline of the cadre of professional revolutionaries at its center was simultaneously matched by the inrush from the periphery of the network of sympathizers, fellow travelers and “useful fools” which it once adopted as protective coloration. It was a classic case of the inmates taking over an asylum from which the keepers had fled. … the freak show of autonomists, zapatistas, rage-against-the-machine cultists, transgender spokespersons, abortion rights activists, militant gay and lesbians and tattered academics that characterize today’s Left. … To experience any real militancy, today’s Left wing activists must attach themselves as pathetic dogs to Islamic causes like the International Solidarity Movement. There, they can indulge their fantasy of advancing world socialism while objectively dying for Osama Bin Laden or Yasser Arafat. The circle is complete. The roles have been reversed.
The heirs to moribund Bolshevism have now become the “useful fools”, the protective coloration of a dynamic militant Islamism.
Seriously, Dr. Dawg, all taunting aside, why don’t YOU start a real argument? Why just demand we come up with one? Why not make a claim with a starting point which gives us something to work with? After all, you allege that conservatives are intellectually bankrupt, but you offer no proof yet that you aren’t similarly bankrupt. You have yet to demonstrate your alleged intellectual superiority over us.
It’s time to put your bone where your mouth is; crap or get off our lawn; etc. and prove yourself rather than making unsubstantiated claims about your political-thought counterparts. I await your arrival, tail wagging, at the door of genuine intellect. Good boy!
Interesting thread.
I orginally caught Cohen’s piece at Harry’s Place blog, a ” pro -liberation” leftists blog. My guess is that Cohen feels excommunicated due to his thoughts about security issues and foriegn policy but his domestic policy ideas would still infuriate most of the posters here. Still it will be interesting to see how Cohen goes about it like it was great fun to watch Hitchens go at Chomsky et al in the days after 9/11.
Chomsky is still a cunning liguist. And a perverse political scientist.
Mark
Ottawa
“But I’m curious about one thing, Dr. Dawg – You’ve been hanging here and at Angry’s site a lot lately. Is that because it’s starting to make sense, or are you desperate for intelligent debate?”
I hang around Angry’s site for intelligent debate. I hang around this one, frankly, out of morbid fascination.
Dr.Dawg: here is what your morbid fascination has wrought. Go there and hang around. Report back here with the skull count, if Pol Pot will allow you to escape.
Dr. Mengele is waiting for you and your “morbid fascination”.
************************
Communist Genocide in the 20th Century.
An attempt by Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot to form a Communist peasant farming society resulted in the deaths of 25 percent of the country’s population from starvation, overwork and executions.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/pol-pot.htm
Zip and Duke, I much appreciate your comments.
But I think Kate might be talking about me.
Am I a “lurking leftie”? I’ve been hanging around here mainly because I saw some sarcastic comments about climate change research, and I wanted to understand the basis for the hostility. Before you jump to conclusions: I am not pro-Kyoto. I’m a biologist, and I’ve been far too focussed on the science, and too unaware of all things political and historical, to form an opinion about Kyoto itself. But I am staggered by the reactions I have seen here towards any mention of climate change. It seems as if any idea that sounds like “environmentalism” is assumed to be “leftist” and summarily dismissed.
And on the left, there’s no real discussion of climate change either, just name-calling and finger-pointing in the other direction (“big oil”, “technological optimists”).
On this example issue I’ve presented (because it’s the big one for me), each side assumes that if we could just get on with our favoured approach (right: technology; left: sharing), all would be well. If the “debate” weren’t so polarized, each side could offer some meaningful critique to the other (to the right: technology creates efficiencies which create surpluses which fuel further growth with further impacts on the biosphere; to the left: if one group decides to leave some resources for future generations, another group just steps in and snaps them up). But the discussion doesn’t happen because each side simply dismisses its critics by labelling them “left” or “right”. No, more than dismisses. Sets up for attack as the enemy.
From Cohen’s article:
“The least attractive characteristic of the middle-class left – one shared with the Thatcherites – is its refusal to accept that its opponents are sincere.”
And:
“What [Wilby] and a large part of the mainstream liberal-left don’t and won’t confront is that they have become the fellow travellers of the psychopathic far-right.”
They call themselves progressive without anchoring their so-called ‘progress’ to history. Hence, MP Parrish proclaims out of absolute ignorance that our military has a singularly proud history of 100 years of peace keeping. And ‘aa’ cautions that conservative values will take us back to the 50’s (oh my God, no unchecked abortion rights, and gay marriage!)
You can’t argue with idiots, they’ll pull you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Though, come to think of it, there is one thing progressive about the left. The progressive path of the rotting mental disease affecting them all. It leaves them left and lefter.
Like alcoholism, the problem is everyone becomes a victim due to the actions of the afflicted. Increasing gun violence in Toronto and the constant domestic threat of terrorism is of course blamed on America by the left (McGuinty) and lefter (Miller), rather than blaming their failed, yet still great ‘multi-cultural’ experiment.
Is anybody really interested in being a lab rat any further?
‘Liberal Media Bias’ Inspires Launch of New Blog (this looks good!)
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/9/130054.shtml ^ | Aug. 9, 2005 | Jered Ede of CNSNews.com
Posted on 08/09/2005 11:36:36 AM PDT by Maria S
America’s most prominent media watchdog plans to launch its own blog on Tuesday with a goal of further exposing and combating the perceived liberal bias in the media.
Newsbusters.org is the latest project of the Media Research Center, which is also the parent organization of Cybercast News Service. The new blog will feature posts by some of the nation’s most widely read experts on the issue of media bias, an issue that Michael Chapman, press secretary for the Media Research Center, said “is almost overwhelming.”
“Thirty to 40 million viewers are getting news from sources with a liberal bias,” Chapman said, referring to the “old media” such as broadcast network giants NBC, CBS, ABC and cable titan CNN.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1459955/posts
Dr. Dawg, You echoed my sentiments when you wrote:
“I hang around Angry’s site for intelligent debate. I hang around this one, frankly, out of morbid fascination.”
Good on you Dr. Dawg! A stinging retort said with such class! And, oh so true!
People who resort to profanity, name-calling and personal degredation of other commentors do nothing but publicly validate their own immaturity and lack of intelligence. Pathetic!
“Thirty to fourty million viewers are getting news from sources with a (GASP!)liberal bias…”
With a population of approx. 280 million one wonders how the U.S.A. will cope with this heathen invasion of airwaves. Or is it that 240 million Americans are illiterate?
Natural Allies
Here we have it straight from the horse’s (ass’s?)mouth:
Galloway has never considered converting to Islam but says �socialism and Islam are very close, other than on the issue of the existence of God. We are synthesising the socialist idea with religious ideas in Britain in a way no-one else in the world is doing. It�s one of the reasons for the success of the Stop The War Coalition. It�s one of the reasons for the success of Respect.�
I have said all along that it is not in the least bewildering (though many have claimed it was strange) that the Left has so naturally allied itself to Islam, and sees in them the same dreams of totalitarian domination it once possessed before its ideology was exposed as anti-human, anti-Freedom and just downright pathologically dysfunctional.
You see, all those socialist slogans about “equality” and “peace” are simply the code words that needed to be said in order to achieve the power they desired. Once in power, has there ever been a socialist state that allowed “equality” or that promoted “peace”? That is why the socialists of today do not protest Islam’s treatment of women or homosexuals. Both groups were(are) useful alliances on the way to enslaving the human soul but the Left has never really cared much for either except insofar as they could exploit them and gain power for themselves.
Galloway is at least says it openly. As far as the existence of God issue, they aren’t nearly that far apart, either. The Left simply worship a more secular god and would impose their own peculiar brand of “shar’ia ” law as they have done in every socialist or communist state that ever existed.
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/08/natural-allies.html
“Galloway has never considered converting to Islam but says �socialism and Islam are very close, other than on the issue of the existence of God.”
Sort of like early Christianity and Marxist Communism are very close, other than on the issue of the existence of God.
Maybe Gorgeous George can somehow convince Osama that God’s not what Jihadism is all about and just become a nice, normal socialist.
What tripe.
Mark
Ottawa
maz2: “Galloway has never considered converting to Islam but says �socialism and Islam are very close, other than on the issue of the existence of God.”
Sort of like early Christianity and Marxist Communism are very close, other than on the issue of the existence of God.
Maybe Gorgeous George can somehow convince Osama that God’s not what Jihadism is all about and just become a nice, normal socialist.
What tripe.
Mark
Ottawa
Laura, what you see as sarcasm is due in large part to 40 years of Chicken Little programming from the scientific left. There was, in no particular order – the population bomb, the ozone layer watch, acid rain, daily updates on the burning rain forests… amd that was the 80’s. All were going to lead to our destruction by now, if we didn’t run out of oil first.
Now its global warming, and from where I sit, every single weather report seems to “be evidence”. When laypeople ask “climate change experts” why it’s colder than usual, the answer is “global warming”. If it’s warmer or dryer or wetter or unsettled or settled into a drought or settled into a rainy pattern, or a return to a pattern of “average”… it never seems to make a difference in the answer… “Global Warming” explains all.
I find myself wondering just what weather patterns it would require for climate change experts to determine it’s begun to reverse, for it seems every existing one, past or present is evidence that its progressing.
That, and the fact that we keep breaking old records and not new ones, is curious. A pattern of climate change should be producing records that break very recent records – not 100 year old ones.
Bottom line – I think that if in fact, climate change is underway, it is folly to throw money at the problem in an effort to reverse it. Won’t work. We don’t have the capacity to direct weather patterns, and in the history of the earth, the only constant has been change.
Those resources are very scarce in some parts of the world. They should be directed at adaptation and flexibility, not the folly of turning back the clock.
Right, and it amazes me that the left believes that people somehow have the ability to change the weather…
Not weather, Stephen, climate. Two different things. Kate, I agree to a point: individual weather reports shouldn’t be linked to “global warming”. Weather fluctuates constantly and you have to look at overall trends to see whether the climate is changing. As for record-breaking weather, you’re right, we’re not seeing high temperature records being broken and re-broken, but there is still a warming trend: the lows aren’t as low. Here in the prairies, spring thaws are tending to be earlier; poplars near Edmonton are flowering a full month earlier than when monitoring started (if I recall correctly it was about a century of monitoring). I don’t mean to sidetrack this discussion onto climate change, but I think it’s a genuine issue that’s being buried by left/right conflict. As for the parade of environmental doom issues, perhaps some have been overrated, but some have only receded because of action taken, and some have not gone away, they’ve just become old news and therefore ignored. As I see it, there’s a parade because they’re all symptoms of the same unresolved and perhaps unresolvable problem: the human drive to grow the human enterprise within a biosphere that doesn’t grow.
Right, Laura; weather and climate are different, though certainly related.
As for climatic change, while it may appear that today it is occuring in a slow warming trend and you believe it’s the fault of man, how do you explain the global warming following the last Ice Age, when there was obviously no greenhouse gas emission due to the burning of fossil fuels? Can it be conclusively deemed that what is happening today is any different; that it is not a continuation or a natural restarting of the same warming?
Could scientists possibly be colluding; toeing the line due to peer pressure, as so many other professionals, like lawyers, doctors, unionists, judges, psychiatrists, teachers, newsmedia professionals etc.? They all want to continue to practice in their field and therefore are fearful of rocking the boat, annoying their peers and somehow being pushed out of the profession and their livelihood? Surely no one of reasonable intellect could rule out such a possibility? Scientists do, after all, have to keep an open mind and not rule out one thing or another without conclusive, properly-acquired scientific proof. Otherwise, they would not be scientists, but rather glorified humanoid livestock in white coats.
maz2: “Galloway has never considered converting to Islam but says �socialism and Islam are very close, other than on the issue of the existence of God.”
That’s like saying black and white are very close, other than the absence of colour in the former. If he really said such a thing, it’s utter tripe. What on earth is left of Islam once you remove God? Hint: not very much.
London financial district may be at risk
BusinessWeek – 6 hours ago
AUG. 10 7:39 AM ET Terrorists will likely strike London’s financial district and have already surveyed the area for possible targets, a British police chief was quoted as telling a newspaper Wednesday. Known …
Police chief warns of a terror attack on City Scotsman
Attack on City “matter of time”: London police People’s Daily Online
Aussie Al Qaeda Terrorist Rant
MEMRI TV has a longer excerpt from the terrorist video we featured yesterday; Al Arabiya, who have refused to say where or when they got this tape, identified him as Irish, but that�s an Australian accent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> littlegreenfootballs.com
(Click picture to play video. Requires Windows Media Player.)
Terrorist: Oh people of the West, don�t be fooled by the lies of Blair and Bush that you are free nations, for the only freedom that you have is the freedom to be slaves of your whims and desires. Your children are free to be deprived of their childhood and their innocence. Your women are free to be used as tools of business and entertainment, and all of you as a whole are the slaves of con men and women who rule you. They are your real enemies. If you only knew � they are the ones who drag your countries to the pit of America�s group of scavengers, who seek to ravage the entire globe for the interests of a handful of gangsters and corporate companies. Democracy, human rights, and freedom are all but hollow illusions, with which they tranquilize inhabitants of the human farms which they control. The Muslim world is not your backyard. The Muslim world is not Germany, Japan, or South America. The honorable sons and daughters of Islam will not sit down, watching you spread your evil and immorality and infidelity to our land. The honorable sons of Islam will not just let you kill our families in Palestine, Afghanistan, Kashmir, the Balkans, Indonesia, the Caucuses, and elsewhere. It is time for us to be equals � as you kill us, you will be killed, as you bomb us, you will be bombed.
Stephen, good point, the initial warming after cycles of glaciation does not appear to follow a rise in CO2; in fact, it appears to lead it. It looks like some other trigger must have been important, perhaps a change in solar flux. But that doesn’t disprove the theory that a rise in CO2 can cause warming. Here’s my current understanding: in the past, the warming started first, driving up natural releases of CO2, which then drove the warming further. But we’ve skipped that first part; we’ve driven CO2 levels beyond what they were even at the natural highs in the past. And although I said climate change is “the big issue” for me, that’s an oversimplification – my concern is rapid changes to global systems in response to human activity. Rising CO2 is also acidifying oceans faster than they’ve changed in millions of years (and acid oceans correspond with mass extinctions of marine life in the fossil record…) It’s also causing plants to grow faster: good news; that means more food and more CO2 taken up by plants EXCEPT… scientists exploring this good news have found that plants grown in a CO2 enriched environment are less nutritious, so now we may have the answer to why nutrient levels in food have been declining over the last century…
Watching the news, yes, I’m sure environmental reports look like a doom and gloom parade rooted in some sort of academic left conspiracy. Studying this stuff on the inside, however (university, scientific journals), the view is quite the opposite. The MSM does a very poor job of conveying just how cautiously and suspiciously scientists have examined climate change (and other environmental issues). The MSM does quite well at conveying the uncertainties of the science, because the scientists take those uncertainties seriously and work on them. Tell me, who wants this bad news? Who would be putting pressure on scientists to come up with it? I’m sure if the scientists were just looking for issues that urge greater regulatory control and bigger government, they could find much tidier, more popular issues than climate change.
Stephen again – is academic collusion possible? Of course. Is there a bandwagon effect? Definitely. But there’s also a healthy backlash – there are plenty of scientists who advance their careers by being noisy dissenters. I don’t draw my conclusions based on how many scientists have signed this or that statement. I dig into the theories and the criticisms, and figure out what makes the most sense to me. If I’m hindered by a faulty world view because of some flat-earth premise, well, at least I’ve done the best I could with all the information I could get.
Kate, resources are not just scarce in some parts of the world. They are scarce globally. That’s precisely the reason why we have this parade of environmental problems. Both left and right are in denial about scarcity. The left pretends there’s an endless supply of wealth that just needs to be shared better; the right pins all its hopes on a breakthrough that will come if we just let economic growth continue freely. The left yells that the right has the wrong answer; the right yells that the left has the wrong answer. As far as I can tell, nobody has any answer, so let’s stop the yelling so some of us can think.
As for adaptation and flexibility, we’re rapidly narrowing down our flexibility to what can be achieved with human ingenuity applied to inorganic matter. We are creating unprecedented rates of change in global systems. If the past is a good teacher, evolution can’t possibly keep up (except perhaps at the viral level!). You’ve heard about rapid evolution after mass extinctions – that’s “rapid” on a geologic scale, which still means millions of years! The crashes in the fossil record were much faster than the recoveries, and we’re already well into the fastest crash on record. Maybe GM will step into the breach and churn out all sorts of novelties, but how far do you think we’ll get if we’ve whittled the genetic raw material of the biosphere down to, say, humans, coyotes, robins, dandelions, and carp?
Humans are the most adaptable species on earth. So why are we forcing all the other living things to do the adapting? Why not at least look for a way to adapt our civilization?
Thank you, Laura, for your input. I can see that you try to be honest with yourself and try not to be influenced by your peers or the media. We have that in common.
I personally believe that it would be unwise for humanity to wipe out the natural ecosystem, for it would ultimately prove its undoing, as one life form alone cannot survive without the required inputs of a functioning ecosystem. It’s elementary, my dear Laura.
At the same time, however, I know that the Kyoto treaty isn’t in the real world worth the paper it was written on. Emissions credit trading will allow signatories to continue to raise CO2 emissions levels and non-signatory nations will naturally do so without having to buy credits at all. Hell, we know Canada is doing trading and spewing more greenhouse gas all the time. So much for Paul Martin’s hot air about hot air!
One other thing you mentioned, wrt the nutrient levels in edible plants being lower in high-CO2 areas. Think about this: it could be that the high levels of CO2 aren’t the cause at all, but a coincidence. Perhaps the scientists who made the finding you mentioned had failed to consider the nutrient levels in the soil. Yes, soil that’s been used over and over again for agricultural purposes does lose its nutrients. This would not be a surprising finding in high-CO2 areas, as such areas are likely to be industrial in nature and use mass-production growing and harvesting techniques, with chemical fertilizers which promote growth but don’t help with nutrients in the soil and the plants. I know this stuff as I used to be into serious hardcore bodybuilding with sincere competitive aspirations, so I knew I had to learn all I could to succeed, hence I absorbed, among other scientific knowledge, nutritional science over the years.
All in all, an enlightening discussion, I believe. Entertaining thread, too! 🙂
Stephen, it’s not high-CO2 areas they looked at. It’s greenhouse experiments: same soil, different CO2 levels in the greenhouse air. Numerous experiments; results variable in magnitude but similar in direction (higher CO2, lower nutrition in food).
Possible reasons:
Biological dilution (plant puts same total amount of nutrients into larger volume of production) is only a partial explanation. Enhanced CO2 also allows plants to photosynthesize with less water loss and thus take up less water (and nutrients) from soil. Other explanations may of course be forthcoming.
Now I’m really turning into a troll. Sorry, Kate.
Laura, I just saw the post you just made. You raised some valid points worthy of thought and investivation.
Not to be a prophet of doom and gloom myself, but unfortunately, I don’t see any governments right now doing much at all to make a significant difference in terms of global warming (if indeed reducing CO2 emissions would make a significant difference- still up in the air, no pun intended) or other environmental issues, like dumping sewage into the ocean by coastal areas (like here in the Maritimes). Certainly the Canadians really are doing nothing meaningful other than claim it’s a priority and throw money around to fool people into believing something’s being done- but I see nothing happen at all, while the MSM has amnesia wrt the promises. They just want to get votes, to hell with the environment.
Maybe the average person doesn’t care that much, either, despite saying he/she does when asked?
It’s a very complicated issue, indeed, among other very complicated issues.
Don’t worry, Laura, you’re not turning into a troll!
Thanks for the explanation wrt the CO2-plant nutrient experiment. Now it’s clearer to me. Perhaps it’s a combination of the soil and air qualities, I would hypothesize.
If I sound like a scientist myself, it’s just ’cause I take a scientific approach to lots of things and can speak sciencese (if that could be a word) with actual professionals.
It was cold as hell here last winter. The common quote around these parts was, *If this global warming keeps up, we are all likely to freeze to death.* 73s TG
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/: for the timeline:
http://www.rapp.org/url/?VFY8MJ62
littlegreenfootballs.com
Outrage of the Day
The 9/11 Commission was told about the Able Danger report identifying Mohammed Atta, on at least two occasions: 9/11 Commission�s Staff Rejected Report on Early Identification of Chief Hijacker.
Not only did they fail to follow up on this report, Commission members apparently denied knowing anything about it:It�s a classic cover-up. Captain Ed points out Commission co-chairman Lee Hamilton�s statement from yesterday:
The Sept. 11 commission (search) did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or of his cell,� said Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. �Had we learned of it obviously it would�ve been a major focus of our investigation.�
UPDATE at 8/11/05 8:38:50 am:
Dr. Sanity has a put together a timeline, showing a possible motive for Sandy Berger�s bizarre behavior. (above)
Bravo Duke and Zip. I loved reading your posts, they really made my day. People like yourselves and your wife, Duke, are what my Grandmother called the ‘salt of the earth’ the ultimate compliment for any standing (not dead) person she knew. People like you built this country and people like Dawg and aa are tearing it down with glee. Why? They lack the courage to build, they are just wreckers, they laugh at peole who pay their own way in this world, they call people who rely on themselves, fools.
Socialists do not think for themselves they regurgitate ‘the party line’. Did you ever read “The First Circle’ by Solzinitzyn (I hope spelled correctly); this book relates how the Soviet Masters imprisoned scientists on trumped up charges, put them in tolerable prisons – verses gulags – and told them to produce or die. All equipment, good food, decent quarters etc. were supplied as long as they got results. Once the education went downhill (eg. too ‘progressive, no facts, invented history…) the whole system failed because the only educated people were dead. Shortly after, the whole ediface of the Soviet Union crumbled (a 70 year life span). The last 30 years of the Cold War were more or less a farce – they had atomic power but they had no producers to feed, clothe, provide reliable infrastucture, etc. for the people who lived in the vacume. Why would anyone knock themselves out working when there was nothing in it for them? Human nature rears it’s ugly head.
Laura – have you ever heard of ‘polor tilt’? The earth spins on it’s own axis at the same time as it spins around the sun – similar to a spinning top (I hope you know what a spinning top is – I might be dating myself), ask your dad or your grandad if you don’t know. As the earth revolves around the sun it tilts very slowly to the right and to the left – hense; climate change in the N. Hemisphere – to a lesser degree in the S. Hemesphere – using the spinning top as a model.
I read that Marice Strong wrote the Kyoto Protocal to redistribute the wealth of wealthy nations. He envisions the peons (US!) walking, living in soviet type bee hives with no central heat, no modern conviences, no reproduction (children breath and need parents) etc. etc. By forcing industrialized nations to buy carbon credits from undeveloped nations the wealth of all individuals will land in the hands of the corrupt dictators ( who are in the pocket of guess WHO) of under developed countries. Not a pretty thought! I read this by typing in ‘Kyoto Protocal, Marice Strong’ in the Google search engine. I don’t remember the site name but all this information is at the David Hawkins Reaserch web site. Mr. Bob Mills, CPC M.P. for Red Deer also has lots of information on his web site.
The correct spelling is Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn.
The correct spelling uses Cyrilic letters. Any spelling in Emglish that gets the sound right is as good as any other.
My laugh of the day, by the way, was that oh-so-wise “not weather, climate, they’re not the same”. Oh, do keep us posted, laura. I’m wondering how it is that we can control the climate but not the weather? Just how do you that, anyway? Can the climate be said to be changing if the weather doesn’t change?
I gotta admit that EBT makes a valid logical point too. I’m certainly going to think about that. After all, without weather, how can there be climate? Eg.: if the weather’s normally hot and rainy, that’s the climate. Hmm… Yes, to change the climate is also to change the weather. They’re mutually inclusive. Damn, I can’t believe that slipped my mind…