Alexander Cockburn of The Nation: Global Warming "Denier"?

[1951Campbell]

This could be the best dust-up at The Nation since Christopher Hitchens spoke out on Blumenthal:

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070514&s=cockburn

[cbotnyse]

Dems want CIA to investigate global warming. Another interesting article. http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/04/dem-lawmakersretask-the-cia-to-study-global-warming/

[1951Campbell]

Dems want CIA to investigate global warming. Another interesting article. http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/04/dem-lawmakersretask-the-cia-to-study-global-warming/

:rolling:

[SABRSox]

Better that than tapping my phone via the Patriot Act. :shrug:

[MSquad]

Better that than tapping my phone via the Patriot Act. :shrug: Shame on you for being against that. Governments have a right to intervene when it's for your own good. Don't they? "Like it or not government intervention is needed in some circumstances". Who decides which circumstances, or should it be just the ones you agree with?

[CaptainBallz]

Is that the same "one-guy" from that other article posted on WSJ that "completely debunks" global warming based on some twists of language and irrelevant correlations between causes and effects??
Why is there always that "one-guy"?

Piece of crap article by Cockburn.

[SABRSox]

Shame on you for being against that. Governments have a right to intervene when it's for your own good. Don't they? "Like it or not government intervention is needed in some circumstances". Who decides which circumstances, or should it be just the ones you agree with?
Public health and privacy are two vastly different issues.

[maurice]

But they said that they're tapping your phone to protect us from another deadly 9/11-type incident, so phone tapping really is all about public health.

[Bonzosa]

In a government established with a set of checks and balances, wire-tapping with no need to disclose who or why they are being tapped gives away judicial oversight to federal bureaus. Not a good road to go down.

A couple years ago, the government said it had a right to listen in on any phone call originating or being routed through the United States, luckily the phone companies said no.

Hey, I've got a great idea, let's investigate Elvis, John Lennon and anyone suspected of being a communist...
Oh, apparently it's been done.
Why are we so willing to give away our freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism?

[MSquad]

In a government established with a set of checks and balances, wire-tapping with no need to disclose who or why they are being tapped gives away judicial oversight to federal bureaus. Not a good road to go down.

A couple years ago, the government said it had a right to listen in on any phone call originating or being routed through the United States, luckily the phone companies said no.

Hey, I've got a great idea, let's investigate Elvis, John Lennon and anyone suspected of being a communist...
Oh, apparently it's been done.
Why are we so willing to give away our freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism? What makes you think "we" are. Oh well, it's probably useless. My Edgar Friendly rant was the best I've got. Just let me add "I want to go into a smoke filled bar if I feel like it."

[Bonzosa]

What makes you think "we" are. Oh well, it's probably useless. My Edgar Friendly rant was the best I've got. Just let me add "I want to go into a smoke filled bar if I feel like it."

The passing of the patriot act, hell even it's name alone is reason to believe we are willing to give up freedoms in the name of terrorism.

The same act also allows the government to freely regulate your internet use at libraries and the books you check out.

Dems and GOP's passed it easily and the second installment went into effect with ease as well.

There was not much of a stink about it when it happened...

[1951Campbell]

Public health and privacy are two vastly different issues.

No, in this day and age public health is merely an excuse to take away freedoms, privacy is actually a worthwhile cause.

But we've been down this road in the smoking thread. :shrug:

[Prope]

The passing of the patriot act, hell even it's name alone is reason to believe we are willing to give up freedoms in the name of terrorism.

The same act also allows the government to freely regulate your internet use at libraries and the books you check out.

Dems and GOP's passed it easily and the second installment went into effect with ease as well.

There was not much of a stink about it when it happened...
Yeah, just ask Max Cleeland.

[1951Campbell]

He's on a roll!

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070528&s=cockburn

[CaptainBallz]

He's on a roll!

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070528&s=cockburn

He sure is. I respect what he's attempting to do here, which is corral the hype around global warming and steer it away from the profiteering and counter-productive hands of the nuclear industry and co., but he seems to be going about it in a pig-headed, Limbaugh-esque manner.

By the late 1980s the UN high brass clearly perceived the "challenge" of climate change to be the horse to ride to build up the organization's increasingly threadbare moral authority and to claim a role beyond that of being an obvious American errand boy. In 1988 it gave us the IPCC.

A little tinfoil Mr. Cockburn??

And why even bother with the last paragraph when what he seems to be doing most with these articles is give fuel to those that would rather scoff and brush off ANY and ALL environmental concerns because of the so called "psuedo-science" behind them and the profiteering fear mongers that are ready to cash in? His PERIL of "environmental cleanup" goes hand in hand with the numerous proposals floated by the climate change crowd towards increasing the use of clean(er) energies and environmental practicality in human consumption patterns.

Is this really just his crusade against the nuclear industry? If so, he's going about it in a completely moronic and misguided way.

[1951Campbell]

He makes some valid points about fearmongering and how global warming is merely a stalking horse for many interested parties, but the anti-nuclear stuff is ridiculous. France gets about 80% of its power from nuclear. Nuclear power is very viable. But he's stuck in that late 70's China Syndrome, Nuclear Power Is teh Evil, Let's Go Protest at Seabrook state of mind. He's also pissed off because people with an interest in nuclear power might actually make some money, the greatest sin of all for hard lefties like him.

No matter what, the fact that The Nation is running this stuff, especially after their special "What Is to Be Done" issue recently is richly hilarious.

[CaptainBallz]

He makes some valid points about fearmongering and how global warming is merely a stalking horse for many interested parties, but the anti-nuclear stuff is ridiculous. France gets about 80% of its power from nuclear. Nuclear power is very viable. But he's stuck in that late 70's China Syndrome, Nuclear Power Is teh Evil, Let's Go Protest at Seabrook state of mind. He's also pissed off because people with an interest in nuclear power might actually make some money, the greatest sin of all for hard lefties like him.

No matter what, the fact that The Nation is running this stuff, especially after their special "What Is to Be Done" issue recently is richly hilarious.

Nuclear power is efficient, but the dangers and drawbacks are obvious as well. While it may be a decent current solution, I don't think that it's a viable long-term solution.
Other than that, I agree. He basically seems to be the one fearmongering and conspiracy theorizing that everyone, especially Al Gore, is in the pockets of the nuke industry. While this may very well be true, it doesn't make his point for him and is probably quite counterproductive to his overall objective of "environmental cleanup"

Cockburn like to do this crap though. He did a couple pieces on the "9-11/ Loose change" theories that was nothing more than the rantings of an old bully telling everyone to "shut up" and calling them "nuts" for even thinking that something wasn't all that right about that day. He justified it by saying that it distracts from the "real" issues (war, profiteering, neocons, etc...) But does it? I don't really think so. And attempting a thorough beatdown of people on your side doesn't really help matters either.

In The Nation's defense, though, they do tend to print articles off the beaten path like these as well as allow companies like FOX NEWS to advertise on their pages... It's annoying, but consistent with magazines "free press" philosophy though...

[maurice]

Nuclear power has obvious downsides but, for the time being, it's the best source we have by a wide margin. Everything else is either inefficient or causes even more extensive environmental damage.

[cheeses_h_rice]

I'll give Cockburn his props: for a tree-hugging Socialist to write a column like that takes some intellectual honesty and rigour.