Skip to main content

Stop lying to me.  Stop lying to yourself.  You don't need science to know that human-induced climate change can and is happening.  You just need common sense.  And every time you mock the idea of climate change or global warming, I will know you are lying again, to yourself, to me and to everyone who comes after us.

Sure, you could note a study by some scientist that differs from the opinions of the vast majority of other scientists in the world who believe all of the fumes we are emitting into the atmosphere will cause changes in our planet's temperature.  You could mention some study by some think tank that flies in the face of the overwhelming majority of science out there, not because you have read it and believe it is solid scientific evidence, but because it supports the conclusions you have already made.

But I am not going to stand for this crap argument from anyone anymore.  You don't need science to tell you having 7 billion people around the world, demanding food, demanding services, demanding energy, demanding manufactured products add up to one hell of a lot of emissions into the atmosphere.

You've seen it, the black smoke spewing from the 18 wheeler as it crawls up those hillsides.  Multiply it by the billions of people in the world.  

You know we are burning coal to power your iPhones.  Multiply it and amplify it millions of times.  

You've seen pictures of the Chinese cities gridlocked with traffic, hazy with pollution in the air.  Heck, you've seen that here in Los Angeles or Atlanta or New York.

You know there are enough people on this planet, consuming so many things that result in emissions in the air.

Yeah, you're not a scientist, but you're not dumb.  You know that stuff goes somewhere.  It all adds up.  It's common sense.  Put that much stuff in the air and it's going to have an impact.

You don't need science to tell you what we are doing to the atmosphere is bad.  You know it's true.  Deep down, you do.

You make fun of Al Gore and you refuse to watch An Inconvenient Truth.  But you know he's right, and you are afraid.  Afraid if you did watch that movie, you would feel guilty about your carbon powered lifestyle.

Science can offer predictions on what the effects of these emissions might be on the environment, when it might happen, the severity of the impact, and there can be some legitimate disagreement on how those predictions are made and how accurate they might be.  

But you don't need science to know its bad when people have to stay indoors due to the impact poor air quality might have on their lungs.

So knock it off with the "scientists disagree" canard.  You don't believe it.  You know... when you add up all those people, and you allocate some amount of emissions for every person in that 7 billion person family, that's a whole heck of a lot of crap flying into the air.  

It's common sense.  We are screwing with our air.  We are screwing with our environment. We are screwing with the future of our species.

So while you sit in your comfortable sedan, driving to your suburban mini-mansion, firing up your iDevices powered by coal electricity, cranking up your oil or natural gas furnace, you know you are adding to it.  But you create this delusional denial to justify yourself, your existence, and your contribution.

Will climate change cause catastrophe now or later? Who cares.  You know it's happening.

Originally posted to EagleOfFreedom on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 08:34 AM PST.

Also republished by Climate Change SOS, Kitchen Table Kibitzing, and Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Sometimes you just wake up and have to (14+ / 0-)

    call a spade a spade.  This message is timely as there is something each on of us can do to push back on the denial and delay we see.  

    I have the honor of helping to promote the latest #NoKXL Blogathon this week, “Public Comments,” in order to elicit comments to the State Department between now and Friday night (11:59 PM EST).  




    Keystone XL Pipeline "Public Comments" Blogathon: March 3-7, 2014


    Diary Schedule - All Times Pacific




    Let your voice be heard by opposing the Keystone XL Pipeline.  
    The deadline for submission of comments is 11:59 pm on March 7, 2014.

    This Daily Kos blogathon team is part of a coalition seeking public comments to oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline.  More details are in this diary posted on Monday, March 3 by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse - Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, Van Jones, Winona LaDuke in DK Blogathon XL Comment Campaign, .

    Please tweet all diaries posted during the week, feel free to link to your Facebook pages, and remember to republish each diary to your DK Groups.

    • Thursday, March 6

    8:00 am: FishOutofWater.
    11:00 am: Van Jones, President & Co-founder of Rebuild the Dream.
    1:00 pm: catilinus.
    3:00 pm: James Wells.
    5:00 pm: Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse.




    XL Pipeline "Public Comments" Blogathon: March 3-7, 2014




    Let your voice be heard by opposing the Keystone XL Pipeline.  
    The deadline for submission of comments is March 7, 2014.

    Writing public comments in opposition to the presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline is as easy as posting comments at Daily Kos. This is your opportunity to make your voice heard directly to the White House without interference by the media, lobbyists or the GOP.  We have until March 7 to express our views on whether or not building the big tar sands pipeline is in the vital national interest of the United States.

    You can write your own comment to post at regulations.gov. Or, you can copy from one of the comment templates available from the list below. It's preferrable to tweak the template a little with your own words so that it does not resemble a boilerplate comment.
    In the past, public comments have absolutely made a difference.  Please don't delay as it is the last opportunity to affect this public debate.  Submit your comments today.


    For more helpful tips, please consult "Tips for Submitting Effective Comments" at regulations.gov, the website where you will be posting your comments.  Additional details about some of the guest diarists are in this diary by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse.  

    350.org

    Bold Nebraska

    Center for Biological Diversity

    CCAN or Chesapeake Climate Action Network

    CREDO

    Energy Action Coalition

    Environmental Action

    Friends of the Earth

    League of Conservation Voters

    Moms Clean Air Force

    Montana Environmental Information Center

    National Wildlife Federation

    Natural Resources Defense Council

    Northern Plains Resource

    Oil Change International

    Rainforest Action Network

    Sierra Club
    Our Daily Kos community organizers are Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, rb137, JekyllnHyde, citisven, peregrine kate, John Crapper, Aji, and Kitsap River, with Meteor Blades serving as the group's adviser.


    Please republish these diaries to your Daily Kos Groups.  You can also follow all postings by clicking this link for the Climate Change SOS Blogathon Group. Then, click 'Follow' and that will make all postings show up in 'My Stream' of your Daily Kos page.

    If we really want to straighten out all this crap we really need to think about shit - Holy Shit.

    by John Crapper on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 08:46:10 AM PST

  •  No. (18+ / 0-)

    You really do need science.

    Because the same "open your eyes and look" argument can be used to point out the extra-chilly winter we've been experiencing here in the upper midwest, and then deny climate change.

    Yes, these data points are useful, but really only understanding the science behind these emissions and how they impact our weather and climate systems are probative.

    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

    by raptavio on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 08:51:03 AM PST

    •  praised to get attention - (7+ / 0-)

      and you have to define science before the discussion can continue.  (Body of knowledge v. method of obtaining verified knowledge for starters - and yes, I know it's both.)

      We don't need official scientists to tell us what we already know whether or not we're willing to admit it.  Every gardener knows because of what's happening in the garden.  Everybody who hangs out a bird feeder knows because of which and how many birds show up when.  Every nutcase stocking up guns for the coming "Mad Max" scenario knows it - that's why they're stocking up.  The very class of science/global warming deniers knows very well that it's happening because they aren't rich enough to be cushioned from the effects.  It has become an article of faith with them to deny it, so quoting science at them will work about as well as quoting history v. the Bible to them.  So nevermind "science" - especially not anything they would call science - rub their noses in what they know, from droughts/wildfires to tomatoes going out in April instead of June as they did 30 years ago to trying to breath anytime they go into a major city.

      •  That's a losing strategy. (8+ / 0-)

        Anecdotal data will always be self-selected to support one's preconceptions. You can look at droughts. They'll look at snow in Atlanta. It is subjective. Science is objective.

        And science is the discovery of the truth of the physical universe through the process of empiricism. Science has no agenda.

        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

        by raptavio on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 09:38:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm going to call bull (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alice in Florida, kyril

        I don't believe you can produce a single survey that shows even a majority of gardners know what's happening, not when I can produce a survey that shows farmers split on the issue.

        What's more likely is you've been exposed to sufficient positive reinforcement--as a layman--that the climate change consensus seems self-evident to you.  That's not a bad thing, since your belief is on good groun, until you start ranting about how it should be plain to anyone else.  And if all you can answer with is "it's friggin' obvious," then your efforts serve no purpose.

        •  Bull on you (0+ / 0-)

          I love you how you decide what I'm thinking and what my responses will be.  That's very scientific of you.

          Science has done a terrible job at convincing people who are not scientifically minded of the threat of climate change.

          Let's see you do better since you have called bull on my attempt.

          ~ Nothing insightful to say ~

          by EagleOfFreedom on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 06:09:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Science isn't your new God (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kyril

            It ain't your new Moses either.  It's not going to sweep through Egypt in the night and lead you to the Promise Land.  It's a tool.  And just like a miter saw, it's up to you to make use of it or not.

            In any case, I'm calling bull specifically on this:

            Every gardener knows because of what's happening in the garden.
        •  I think that serious gardeners have noticed the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bfitzinAR

          northward march of the growth zones over the years. Just look at the colored maps on the seed packets and compare to the packets from, say, fifteen years ago.
             Farming, OTOH, is an industrial operation using seeds that have been hybridized to fit the expected climate conditions. They wouldn't be expected to notice subtleties in growth ranges of various vegetables.
            But they sure notice the increase in droughts and floods, nd eventually they'll make the connection.
           

          •  In fact they, along with bird watchers, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Attack Gardener

            are a large part of where the evidence is coming from - at least as far as organizations like Arbor Day Foundation and Audubon Society are concerned.  Both of which have been instrumental in getting the zone maps changed.

        •  I was a gardener. That how I noticed - (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Attack Gardener

          30 years ago in AR you didn't put out your tomatoes or plant your summer stuff like corn and beans June 1st.  15 years ago you put out your tomatoes in the middle of April.  30 years ago in AR the first frost was expected sometime after Oct 31st, 15 years ago it's expected in Nov.  I hooked up with groups like Union of Concerned Scientists to find out why.

          And the farmers I talk to at the Farmers' Market are small farmers, not corporate, subsidized, mono-cropping mega-farmers.  They know.  They are not all Dems.  In fact many if not most of them are not.  But they know global warming is happening by the changes in what they can plant when, how often they have to start feeding out in the summer instead of pasturing, the frequency with which their "all-weather" springs go dry.

          The people it's not obvious to, aside from the very wealthy since their money can cushion the current level of effects, are the urban and suburban folks who don't farm or even if they put out bird feeders, don't pay any attention to what birds are showing up when.  But they take the word of a gardener or a farmer over that of a "scientist" on this.

    •  That's not what I'm saying (5+ / 0-)

      I'm not saying "open your eyes and look".  That's overly simplified interpretation of what I wrote.  I'm saying observe and extrapolate.  There's a huge difference.

      How bad will it be?  How soon?  That's a role for science.  Are we doing it?  Is it happening?  That's just common sense.

      ~ Nothing insightful to say ~

      by EagleOfFreedom on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 10:32:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In my arrogant opinion (0+ / 0-)

        "observe and extrapolate" is just a fancy way of saying "open your eyes and look." And even if it's not, it's the same exact pitfall -- observation of the world around you is going to always be self-selected to reinforce your own biases.

        Which means telling someone who is a climate change skeptic to "observe and extrapolate", even if he heeds that advice, is not going to persuade him.

        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

        by raptavio on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 10:39:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Listen to Guy McPherson, I did. Methane plumes (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ladybug53

        from meters wide to kilometers spell extreme problems for a long time to come if we stop or greatly reduce carbon emissions yesterday.  If we do not, it is likely only the oldest among us will live a full life.  Even worse, our planet may end up not able to support carbon based life except maybe some rather primitive forms.  Talk won't stop it and no amount of profit will shield anyone from it.  As a species we have to act now!  There, now sit on the couch and pick up the remote, or maybe write a blog.  I do.  

    •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      raptavio, kyril

      I think you've already touched on the main point.  People will just subjectively point to something they think contradicts the evidence.  I work with people who still do not get that climate change and global warming are two different but connected things.  They still think that it was just a PR move and someone changed the name.

      People have been trained for decades to think very short-term about things.  Where do I find work, where do I get money, how will I pay my bills, what are my kids doing, etc.  This automatically biases many people to ignore "climate" which measures fairly long-term increments in favour of day to day weather.  The ignorance of climate is very high.  

      Hell,  just recently I was at a conference for work and someone stood up to ask one speaker (a weatherman) "Isn't it true that climate always changes and has changed in the past and will change again in the future?"   Essentially, he was making the arguement that climate change that is now happening isn't really a "thing".  Just normal cycles nobody should think much about.  The weatherman responded with "Of course, and nobody really knows for sure what the cause is...plus it is getting colder, not warmer".    All of which is totally untrue for CLIMATE, but may be true for this weatherman who looks at 18 years as a LONG-TERM pattern and this winter as a data point.

      People just don't get it.  They don't understand and only science will help them understand.  The problem is that proposing charts and graphs and scientific reasoning will make their eyes glaze over.  Someone needs to present the scientific evidence, data and reasoning in langue even a child could understand.  Only then will people start to think about this logically.

      Until then, you will continue to have people saying it is OK to pump more and more CO2 into the air because plant food.  Or worry that changes will mean they could lose their job and therefore we should hold off and worry about it when it is cheaper and won't have any economic impacts...which is pretty much never.

  •  Great post Eagle of Freedom. Tip'ped and Rec'ed (7+ / 0-)

    May I suggest changing you title to "We Don't Need No Stinking Science!" as the allusion to the famous scene in Searra Leone might pull in double the readers.

    "Seriously, Folks, WTH?" - ("What the Heck? "h/t Joan McCarter, Seriously, Florida. WTF?)

    by HoundDog on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 08:59:50 AM PST

  •  That will work as long as enough people (4+ / 0-)

    actually have, and choose to use, common sense.

    For those who pay attention to RW media, that may be more difficult because the insinuation is always in front of them that, if they give an inch, they become anti-American, anti-business, and maybe even anti-god (because we all know their god can, and probably will, swoop in to make everything alright again to protect his chosen people). So what's a poor rube to do?

    I don't think I ever convinced my mother, and she may have seen me as anti-everything-she-believed-in, but she no longer argued any of it with me after the day I asked her if she really could look out at the world, with all of those cars and trucks, all of those factories, all of those energy-production facilities, etc, and try to claim we were NOT affecting the climate. While she did briefly acknowledge that she could not, she also quickly changed the subject and never broached it again.

  •  You and my right wing climate denying freinds (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BadBoyScientist, ybruti, Fall line, rduran

    don't need science, I do.

    Science deniers hurt environmentalism all across the board. I constantly run up against the issue with wildlife. I don't know what it is that causes people to dislike science but it's a recurring theme in American culture.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 03:06:13 PM PST

    •  Amen! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fall line, ban nock, rduran

      It seems there are people who want magic, not science.

      I teach Astronomy, and at least once a year a student tells me that after learning about some of the wonders of our crazy Universe, they feel like they have lost something.  The Universe is no longer as mystical to them.

      I want to drown my tears in drink.

      -- illegitimi non carborundum

      by BadBoyScientist on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 03:25:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've a friend who teaches astronomy at the local (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rduran

        university. I used to ask her if it was going to be a bad day for me because I'm an Aries. She used to fall for it again and again.

        “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

        by ban nock on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 04:41:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  When women asked about astrology I used to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ban nock

          reply (after getting their birthdate - including age ;) "Oh, well you're going to sleep with an Astronomer tonight!

          Until my GF broke a few of my ribs ...  but that was many years ago (we only knew of five planets and didn't count the Earth among them)

          BTW many astronomers get their knickers in a knot over Astrology - they'd lecture people on how non-sensical it is. I read some study by some skeptic's group which showed telling people how silly Astrology is has virtually no effect on belief in it.  

          So now, when a student brings up Astrology I take a different tack - I admit that it is a bonafide phenomenon, tons of people AND Ronald Reagan have paid good money to consult with Astrologers... tons MORE people read their horoscope everyday.

          They wouldn't do this if they didn't get something out of it ...
          Then I'd throw a question out to the class, "What do people get out of Astrology?"  

          Invariably some student brings up things like the Barnum Effect and one guy said it isn't much different than going to a life coach.   We'd have a good discussion about how psychology explains astrology better than some mystical connection with planets billions of miles away.

          And I cap it off by saying - if it works for you and doesn't hurt anyone else go for it.  We all have our little tricks for coping with life and it's better to indulge in Astrology than beer or drugs.

          ----

          My colleagues don't always approve of this ... but they don't approve of the "Gemini" coffee mug my GF's daughter gave me.  They keep asking me "You don't believe in that stuff" pointing at my cup - I always tell them, "No.  But I do believe in the power of Irony!"

          -- illegitimi non carborundum

          by BadBoyScientist on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 06:38:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Denying science and buying more guns is all (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ladybug53, METAL TREK

      that's needed for barbarians as the tipping point may have already come and 97% of scientists aren't enough to convince the bought off media that no amount of money will help any of us from the climate change about to hit the fan.  The methane bomb is being released as we speak.  Mother nature doesn't need our recent species on this planet.      Xenored.

    •  You need science to tell you? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ladybug53

      You need science to tell you that 7 billion people pouring crap into the air is bad for the air?  You need science to tell you that the things we are all doing, when multiplied around the world, are probably going to have some negative impact?  No, I doubt you do. You might need some math.

      ~ Nothing insightful to say ~

      by EagleOfFreedom on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 05:48:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Actually (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rduran, kyril

    you do need science, or -- at least -- a lot of data, to see that there is Global Warming.

    Smog ain't global warming, and there have been regional fluctuations in the past. The point is that almost all regions are now experiencing a warming from one decade to the next.

    •  Yes, you need science (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ladybug53

      to see and measure there is global warming. And a ton of data. Couldn't agree more.

      But that's not what I'm trying to do here.  I'm saying... set the science aside and just think about it from a common sense perspective.  You have a lake.  You get hundreds of people to pour a thimble full of oil into it all day every day. Eventually that lake is going to have some oil in it.  Is having all that oil in there good?  Probably not.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that.  Same goes with our atmosphere, the air we breathe.

      ~ Nothing insightful to say ~

      by EagleOfFreedom on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 06:22:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is all the science (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rduran, ladybug53

    that you need to explain the small portions of the world that are colder than average compared to the large portions that are warmer (to an even greater degree) than average:

    January 2014 temperature anomaly (change) map.

    A million Arcosantis.

    by Villabolo on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 04:35:24 PM PST

  •  Actually, you do (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    In fact, your "common sense" amounts to a crude model.  It is not "self-evident" that some smokey stuff over here and over there equates to a global rise in temperature.  At the very minimum, you need to convince yourself of the a rough idea of radiative equilibrium, and even then you'd have a model that resembles reality only in the narrowest sense.

    A lot of hard work on some very hard problems went into developing the significantly more complicated climate models we have today, and even more work went into cultivating the hundreds of thousands of years of back data necessary to confirm and refine those models.  The results were not obvious.

    •  Read the comments (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ladybug53

      This discussion has already been had.

      ~ Nothing insightful to say ~

      by EagleOfFreedom on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 05:38:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Beware of Poe's Law (0+ / 0-)

        The fact that sarcasm, irony and satire do not come across well on the internet explains why so many people missed the point of your article.   I confess, I did the first time through.  I started writing a comment just like all those others before I stopped myself and re-read your article.

        This is no dig on you - the first word in your title was 'RANT' and that should have been a tip.  

        I am just saying if I hadn't caught myself, you probably would have had one more comment to shake your head sadly at ;)

        But good job!  I love a good rant.

        -- illegitimi non carborundum

        by BadBoyScientist on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 06:46:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Messaging is separate from content (7+ / 0-)

    What EagleOfFreedom did is an excellent example of messaging. What science gives us is honest, truthful content. What we need to do as Democrats, as progressives, as human beings, is take truthful content and wrap it up in the best damned messaging you ever came across and ram it down the other side's throat sideways.

    We need the thoughtful voice of reason through people like Bill Nye and Degrasse Tyson. We also need loud, aggressive attack dogs going for the figurative jugular of our opponents. We need both. We need emotional, visceral appeals just as much as we need rational persuasion.

    There is nothing inherently evil about propaganda. It's a tool, and an effective one. We can use those methods to spread the truth just as effectively as our opponents can use it to spread a lie. What we cannot do is rely on a poorly told truth to win out over a beautifully crafted lie.

    •  Hallelujah (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ladybug53, waterstreet2013

      At least somebody gets it.  Thanks IndyGlenn.

      ~ Nothing insightful to say ~

      by EagleOfFreedom on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 06:10:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Meanwhile it's all message and all lies (0+ / 0-)

        with the Republicans.

        Lies are simpler. Lies can be tailored to the target audience. They learned to package message from the Straight Line Persuasion system, getting it converted for political use in the early 2000s.

        Lies work better, given that they're in the business of getting people to vote against their own economic and political interests.

        Once Straight Line got converted, the GOP didn't need its evil geniuses to make principal arguments. They didn't need a Kevin Phillips, Lee Atwater, or Karl Rove. All they need is a radio and access to Toad Limbaugh -- whatever he says, they can repeat it and carry it forward.

        Of course, lying makes you stupid. Then stupider and stupiderer.

    •  How do you prevent (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      waterstreet2013, kyril

      all these messaging operations from going off the rails and blowing away our credibility?   After all, this is a free society.  You have competitors--many with dubious allegiance to the facts but no less vigor than you can bring.

      •  So far they have "anchored" their pitches. (0+ / 0-)

        The presentations are tied to deeply loved entitites:

        -- Babies. Human, soft, new babies. Unborn babies for best. "A Child Is Not A Choice" with pictures of innocent unborn babies inside the womb. They're for babies, while Libruls are baby-killers.

        -- Ronald Reagan. The Great Conservative. A Second George Washington. The savior of the Union and a master of the presidency. The Perfect Man. (Alliance with Saddam Hussein and contributing shiploads of arms to kill Iranians didn't happen. Letting the Sabra and Shatila slaughters happen, gunning 1,500 Lebanese to "Teach them a lesson," and losing those 241 servicemen at the Marine BLT Barracks -- none of that happened. Big big time rewrites to history.)

        -- White Self-Pity.
        You can call it "racism" but that's not exactly what's happening. We're working on the key phrases that the GOPers are using to leverage these phenomena. Altogether this is a big deal.

        One shock is how important Reagan is. He left office in 1989. He wasn't all that popular. He lost 675 Americans to terrorism, compared to Obama losing 10.

  •  National Geographic defines the debate. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Question Authority

    They've got the whole world, continent by continent with what is left when we finish adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

    All of the ice sheets get melted. Oceans go up by 216 feet.

    -- Rising Seas -- If the Ice Melted as a map

    As you will notice right off, this is largely the RICK SCOTT PUNISHMENT.

    Didn't believe the hurricanes ??? Here's the big stuff:

    Also, coastal Pine Bluff, Arkansas, gets to be a major port.

    But still, today, there's Republicans. A political home for candidates who are brain damaged xxxholes.

  •  IF! (0+ / 0-)

    there were such a thing as common sense, it would be common and everyone would posses it. Since it is quite clear that common sense does not exist in the United States at least, I think we should continue to look to science.

    Religion is like a blind man, in a pitch black room, searching for a black cat that isn't there.....and finding it.

    by fauxrs on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 06:36:11 AM PST

  •  Common sense...if you have that (0+ / 0-)

    Obviously you can do math, so you don't need science. But the fact is, nothing in the way of fact, never mind math or science, is going to change the religious beliefs the 'global ignorance' crowd. For one thing, it requires one to admit they might have been wrong (good luck with that) and have to change something (good luck with that, too).

    Religions (including libertarianism and global ignorance) often supplant faith with beliefs. Beliefs are like a bricks, from which you can buld walls separating 'us' from 'them.' Faith is optimistic, and builds doors through which one may move. My point being: the global ignorance crowd is not optimistic, so seeking to wall others out, they instead wall themselves in, where they can breathe the miasma of their delusions.

  •  n/t (0+ / 0-)

    "You can't reason someone out of a position they were never reasoned into" Voltaire

    Great rant. Sorry it probably won't help. Too many people are emotionally invested in having their heads in the sand or, alternatively, up their asses.

    Watch out or I'll go get my shovel and unload plant divisions on you!

    by Attack Gardener on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 08:39:39 AM PST

  •  I don't need science (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BeninSC

    to see that the mountains that ring my city are completely bare of snow all winter now, but back when I was a kid they were covered all winter.  Even the tops of the mountains no longer have snow on them in the winter anymore, unless we get the occasional storm that dusts them.  But then the snowdust just disappears in a couple of days.

    I don't remember when this happened, or when it started to happen, but I do know it's been quite a few years now, and every winter I hope and pray for the snow to come back.  And it never does.

    Meanwhile, thank goodness for scientists!  I really think that most people know exactly what is going on (perhaps we're listening too closely to the crazies because they make the most noise), and that's all because they heard the scientists and believe what they're telling us.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site