The G-8 and climate change | Napa Valley Register

Home » Opinion » Editorial

The G-8 and climate change

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Comment

This week’s Group of 8 summit has pretty much lived down to the low expectations it generated, yet it did produce a long-overdue agreement to fight climate change.

The club of industrialized nations agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. It was less than President Obama had hoped for — he had aimed to get developing countries such as China and India to sign on as well — but it represents the first time the United States has taken the international lead on climate change since the 1990s.

Such international pacts are usually meaningless without the backing of Congress; President Clinton, after all, signed the Kyoto Protocol to fight global warming in 1998, but it was never ratified by the Senate. That chamber once again finds itself in a position to overrule the president as it considers a climate-change bill — one that would fulfill Obams’s G-8 promise — that was approved last month in the House.

The clamor from global-warming deniers has heated up as the nation gets closer to taking action, yet their comprehension of climate science hasn’t improved. A particularly common obfuscation is the “revelation” that global temperatures have been declining since 1998, even as carbon emissions have risen. This hardly debunks the climate change theory. The cyclical El Nino phenomenon and heavy greenhouse gas concentrations combined to make 1998 the hottest year in recorded history. Such statistical blips are properly ignored by most climatologists, who look at average temperatures over time. The last decade was on average the hottest ever recorded.

The climate bill’s fate in the Senate will depend less on crackpot science than on hardheaded horse-trading. Its effectiveness was undermined in the House by special interests seeking to maximize profits at the expense of the environment, and the same is happening in the Senate.

With his leadership on climate change at the G-8, Obama posited that the United States would no longer ignore a pressing global threat that is largely of its making. If the Senate proves him wrong, it would harm more than our international standing. Those who advocate inaction are gambling with the future of everyone on Earth.

(This editorial originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times.)

45 comment(s)

Hear Ye wrote on Jul 11, 2009 1:22 AM:

" Shhhhh! The deniers don't want to hear about this. There are religious leaders and mechanical egineers on their side. "

krusty wrote on Jul 11, 2009 1:24 AM:

" This was an interesting article that appeared in the Guardian on Tuesday regarding coral reefs and rising levels of CO2:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/07/coral-attenborough "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jul 11, 2009 6:29 AM:

" Yes, our government is covered with corporate lobbyist leeches who are weakening the normal responses to climate change and financial shenanigans.

If we don't find some way to stop the leeches since our country is already collapsing, the collapse will be greater then the First Republican Great Depression and the leeches will be disconnected from their food supply anyway.

~Ruff "

russ wrote on Jul 11, 2009 7:17 AM:

" Yes, I do deny AGW.

There is no science referenced here, only that the planet has cooled in the last 10 years as CO2 has increased. How does that support GW?

The only way to reduce CO2 emissions significantly is to severely downscale the US economy. China and India know that, that is why they refuse to downsize their economies.

There are too many politicians and Kool-aid drinkers of Al Gore who just go along with the phony science, unknowing of the consequences,

Hear Ye, did you see the list of 9,000 PhD's and 30,000 other scientists who deny man-made global warming? "

kevin wrote on Jul 11, 2009 8:09 AM:

" The State Run Media (ie LA Times) can run all the propaganda B.O. dicates, but fortunately we can still get the real news from the UK newspapers:

"G8 summit: China and India reject G8 calls for climate targets"

"By James Kirkup in L'Aquila

The refusal of developing nations to sign up to a climate change deal overshadowed an agreement between rich nations to limit the rise in global average temperatures.

G8 leaders meeting in L'Aquila, Italy, agreed for the first time to work to prevent global temperatures rising by more than two degrees Celsius.

Gordon Brown hailed the G8 statement on climate change as "historic" and a precursor to global climate change talks in Copenhagen in December.

"We have laid the foundations for a Copenhagen deal that is effective," he said.

But the deal was marred by the failure of fast-growing Asian nations to sign up. The G8 had wanted them to agree to cut their carbon output by 50 per cent in the same time.

However, the 50 per cent carbon targets faced resistance from India and China, which argued that the targets would hamper their economic growth.

"For any long-term goals there have to be credible midterm goals in the range of 25-40 per cent," said Dinesh Patnaik, an Indian climate policy negotiator.

And the proposal received a further blow when, within hours of his boss, Dmitry Medvedev, apparently signing the deal, the Russian President’s top economic aide said found the emissions target set for developed countries “unacceptable and likely unattainable”.

“We won’t sacrifice economic growth for the sake of emission reduction,”Arkady Dvorkovich said." "

kevin wrote on Jul 11, 2009 8:19 AM:

" Looks like Algore's prediction will come true much sooner, if the G8 has their way:

"Gore: U.S. Climate Bill Will Help Bring About 'Global Governance'"

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1893/Gore-US-Climate-Bill-Will-Help-Bring-About-Global-Governance "

Paddy wrote on Jul 11, 2009 9:38 AM:

" China and India are laughing into their fists as Obama continues to spend money he doesn't have.

There is an environmental change taking place. The sources of this change began during the Industrial Age and escalate yearly. The US is not the current culprit for what is destroying ecosystems. China, India and Brazil lead the current list of climate changers.

Wake up, if it's not too late. "

Bike To Work wrote on Jul 11, 2009 11:13 AM:

" Thank you for stating the truth about climate change. Corporate profits will drive a campaign to confuse people into doubting the long term trend. Our nation has been less and less willing to research and read and instead listens to sounds bites from their favorite blog / pundit. The pundits thrive on the dumbing down of our nation. "

russ wrote on Jul 11, 2009 11:16 AM:

" It is amazing to me that global politicians are driving this whole phony fear-mongering war against economic survival. Where is the science??

Gore's call for “global governance” echoes former French President Jacques Chirac's call in 2000.

"On November 20, 2000, then French President Chirac said during a speech at The Hague that the UN's Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance."

'Global Carbon Tax' Urged at UN Meeting"

“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, said at the 2007 UN conference after a panel titled “A Global CO2 Tax.”

Do not be a sucker like all of the tag-alongs of one worldism. It is the world against America run by a bunch of European socialists. Even the Russians are smarter than our Democrats. See kevin's post above.

"The environmental group Friends of the Earth advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations during the 2007 UN climate conference."

All quotes came from:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1893/Gore-US-Climate-Bill-Will-Help-Bring-About-Global-Governance "

freeport56 wrote on Jul 11, 2009 12:07 PM:

" To sum up the Central Governments Domestic and Foreign Policy Goals:

1: Completely destroy energy production, manufacturing capabilities and redistribute the wealth to third world nations via the UN,

2. use alternative energy to supply just enough power to read by candle light, no significan reduce in greenhouse gases achieved, earth cools faster,

3. cozy up to the World's dictators who have tortured, and murdered their citizens whose opposition to their tyranny they spoke up againest,

4. ego driven, Barry looks to head the new world order.

Oh, but that could never happen here????? "

Raven wrote on Jul 11, 2009 12:28 PM:

" for all the naysayers, if human changes to the world climate are non-existent or nearly non-existent, why does it matter what China and India do?....(unless man has has a worsening impact on the planet's climate after all)

and you can make positive changes to the US output of greenhouse gases and the impact we have on the world..it just takes time.

There were a lot of people in the 70s who said we couldn't clean the air or the water without devastating our industries. Nixon went ahead and signed the clean air and clean water acts and formed the EPA (the few bright spots in his tenure).....with positive impact on our economy and our health since then. "

freeport56 wrote on Jul 11, 2009 1:07 PM:

" How will a unilateral climate change bill stop global warming?

If China and India have no energy controls and not signatories to any form of climate control, why will what we do matter?

1 volcano, will produce more pollution than all mankind can. The ocean is the leading cause of CO2 in our atmosphere.

How will lowering our standard of living, by destroying our economy help?

If you want to end global warming (if it really existed), plant more trees!

Al Gore stands to make trillions of dollars if Cap&Trade passes. Just be thankful that there are only 34 votes in the seante for it.

call your senators and tell them you do not want the largest tax increase in world history! "

russ wrote on Jul 11, 2009 2:00 PM:

" Obama and the Democrat congress have created a "stimulus" spending plan of $797 billion, a budget with a deficit of $500 billion, talk of another stimulus of maybe $500 billion, a health care plan with a $1 trillion deficit.

Plus an Energy tax plan (Waxman-Markey) of $500 billion in new energy taxes.

Where in all of this is the mention or budget for ONE MEGAWATT SOLAR or WIND FARM or a nuclear power plant or any other power generating facility.

Americans are going to be fleeced by liberal Democrats, lead by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Mike Thompson, of the financial security of us and our future generations, without ANY energy security.

Throw the bums out. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jul 11, 2009 3:56 PM:

" freeport56- A unilateral reduction in the USA's consumption of petroleum would cause our economy to fly like an eagle.

While global warming deniers make excuses and try to tap dance around the melting glaciers and the collapse of arctic sea ice, the oil companies are laughing at the chumps who fall for their propaganda and stuff their pockets full of money.

Even if you don't believe in AGW, folks who call themselves patriots should want the USA to have a strong economy where we don't have to go hat in hand to Saudi Arabian princes who fund 9-11 terrorists for yet another fix of 'dinosaur juice'.

~Ruff "

John Richards wrote on Jul 11, 2009 7:09 PM:

" Hear Ye wrote "Shhhhh! The deniers don't want to hear about this. There are religious leaders and mechanical egineers on their side."

You're suggesting that mechanical engineers aren't capable of understanding the science involved? As a graduate engineer I may not be involved in atmospheric science research, but I'm quite capable of reading and understanding scientific papers on the subject. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 11, 2009 7:24 PM:

" Raven wrote: 'There were a lot of people in the 70s who said we couldn't clean the air or the water without devastating our industries."

Interestingly, that was also the time when scientists were predicting another ice age:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

As for harming our industries, there is no doubt that much of our manufacturing has moved to third world countries as a result of ever tightening and costly emission requirements. For similar reasons, California usually has the most expensive gasoline in the nation. One can't help but wonder how much these factors have contributed to the current economic downturn... "

russ wrote on Jul 11, 2009 8:07 PM:

" Ruff,

Show me some science, any science, that supports the position "the melting glaciers and the collapse of arctic sea ice" is beyond the normal ebb and flow of nature. You can't do it.

Show me hundreds and thousands of scientists who support the theory that man-made CO2 is destroying the planet. Can't do it. I can show scientists who deny AGW.

Liberal's arguments are against corporations, capitalism and profits which make our country work, not in favor of their science.

Shame on you all. Toss out bum science. "

ampsthelena wrote on Jul 11, 2009 10:00 PM:

" kevin, russ, freeport, and others:

I personally don't know all the science behind claims of global climate change.

But think about it this way: if our worldwide industrial civilization were NOT having a major effect on the world's climate, wouldn't that be truly astounding? I mean, how would it be possible for us NOT to be having a major effect on the climate? "

russ wrote on Jul 12, 2009 9:17 AM:

" ampsthelena,

but what is the evidence that CO2 is affecting the climate in a catastrophic way? CO2 is not toxic and temperatures have been declining the last 10 years. There is no such thing as static global temperature. It goes up and down, always has.

Is it worth scaling back our economy and all of the hurt that would cause? Unemployment, lower quality of life, debts left to our future generations?

Yes, China should clean up it's industries, as we did several decades ago and continue to do. India and third world countries should do the same. there are lots worse things in their industrial pollution than CO2.

We need energy and lots of it to prosper. "

kevin wrote on Jul 12, 2009 9:25 AM:

" Look at history, ampsthelena. The climate is ALWAYS changing, throughout history. The idea that man can deliberately change the earth's climate to suit our fancy is preposterous.

No, this legislation has NOTHING to do with climate change and EVERYTHING to do with power and control by an elite ruling class. I think former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth said it best:

"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

THAT'S what we Conservatives are fighting against... "

Sandra wrote on Jul 12, 2009 10:02 AM:

" "But think about it this way: if our worldwide industrial civilization were NOT having a major effect on the world's climate, wouldn't that be truly astounding? I mean, how would it be possible for us NOT to be having a major effect on the climate? "....
I do not even know where to begin with this type of logic..... But I will make an attempt.
So, let's agree that humans impact the planet...that is a given....Don't you think that what we do about it should be based on accurate scientific data and research? If you spend a few hours rlooking into how research is funded, and how data is collected, and the politics behind publishing data, you will understand what I am saying. And would you not agree with that sorely lacking, that anything we do based on bad data could just possibly have just as bad an effect as if we do nothing at all?
There have, in the past, been environmental actions taken, based on bad info., that did just that. The management of our national forests comes to mind...
Do you not also see the amount of money that those who holler the biggest are making? Do you not also see that even if it were true, if the BIGGEST carbon contributers do not get on board, what we do matters very little. And if you think because we are the GREAT U.S.A., we should lead the way, and that will change CHINA and INDIA's minds....I've got news for you. China owns us. So they do not have to do anything they do not want to do. And they are not going to cave to pressure about carbon emmissions. "

Paddy wrote on Jul 12, 2009 10:17 AM:

" For every action there is a reaction and the human population has completely taken control of the earth's climate in just about everything we do.

Those who scream for evidence will continue do so regardless of the logic and evidence that surrounds them. To them the combustible engine is a clean and wonderful technological tool with no impact despite the emissions it produces. Whether 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 are being driven they would say there's no perceivable impact.

Those same naysayers would also explain that the loss of billions of acres of rainforest will have no impact on this earth's environment. It can't be "proven" that millions of years of evolutionary development across this world could actually regulate this global ecosystem better than we can. I'm sure our efforts over the past 100 years are FAR superior than what nature has accomplished to date. "

ampsthelena wrote on Jul 12, 2009 12:42 PM:

" Russ, Kevin, Sandra,

Whoa now, boys and gal! Talk about jumping to conclusions about something I've written!

You'll notice I didn't say I believed we WERE necessarily changing the climate with human activity (though I implied I thought we PROBABLY were). Nor did I take a position on the "global WARMING" debate. Nor did I claim knowledge of the science behind the debate. Nor did I address the question of people "deliberately changing" the earth's atmosphere.

All I said was this, and I'll re-phrase: it seems to me that it is highly unlikely that a couple centuries of industrial civilization would have no effect on the climate. That's all.

Cars are rolling 24/7 throughout vast expanses of the earth's dry surface; factories have been spewing out all sorts of chemicals into the air for a couple hundred years now...surely that will have SOME effect on the climate.

And, if it ISN'T having some effect on the climate, then THAT, in my opinion, would be an astonishing fact, one well worth investigating. If it is true that our worldwide industrial civilization has had no appreciable effect on the earth's climate (either positive or negative), then that fact cries out to be explained. It would be astonishing--and it would be fascinating to investigate.

I wouldn't be surprised if this IS all about "power and control by an elite ruling class" (I am a socialist, after all); and yes, I am quite aware that earth's climate has changed radically in the past. I grew up in New York State--which used to be under a mile of ice.

Then again, I would ALSO be surprised if our industrial civilization were NOT affecting the climate. "

rogers wrote on Jul 12, 2009 12:52 PM:

" Apparently John Richards you are not capable of reading and assessing scientific reports let alone journalism from the 1970's. If you did a little reading about the Time magazine article, you would realize that it did not speak for science but was based on the speculation of only a few scientists.

A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.

And Sandra here you go again...nothing about scientific research can be trusted because the funding mechanisms skew and bias the true results. Yours is an flimsy excuse to not believe in anything.

Paddy thank you! Somewhere out there a few exercise their common sense and powers of observation.

Hey freeport, I suppose we could get India's and China's attention by restricting their one way trade with the US or slap tariffs upon some of their dirty products? Oh but that would restrict our God-given rights to free trade and hobble our own industries who don't care who they are in bed with. "

russ wrote on Jul 12, 2009 1:20 PM:

" amp,

Thanks for the clarification.

Sounds like you are laying the groundwork for saying that civilization and the industrial revolution has helped make the planet more inhabitable.

The mile of ice is no longer in upstate New York, people are living in Alaska and at the Equator due to technological advances. "

ampsthelena wrote on Jul 12, 2009 9:31 PM:

" russ,
Not sure I follow you.
You think I'm saying that industrial civilization has made the planet more inhabitable?

If so, then, No. I think it probably IS causing ecological disaster and making the earth less habitable. Unplanned short-sighted profit-driven capitalism to me seems very unlikely to be having anything but a negative effect on the world's ecology.

I'm not weighing in specifically on the Global Warming hypothesis, since I don't know enough about it, except for the observation I already made: namely, that it would suprise me if our industrial activity were NOT affecting the climate in SOME way. I mean, how could it not? We need good (non-politically driven) science to find out in what way. And, again, I don't know enough about the science already available to weigh in on the issue.

Yes, technology would probably allow us to live on the moon, too, but that doesn't mean the moon is by nature "inhabitable".

Or by "inhabitable", did you mean "Uninhabitable"? Was it a typo?

The mile of ice I mentioned was referring to the glaciers, 50000 years or so ago...to let Kevin know I realize that climate changes all the time.

Anyway, just not sure I know what you were trying to say....? "

Sandra wrote on Jul 13, 2009 8:52 AM:

" Amps,
Your reaction to people's comments has me wondering what the point of your comment was? Was it just to state the obvious? I think we reacted as we did, because what you wrote should be obvious to everyone, and we all assumed, since it is one of the environmentalists catch phrases, that you were following the very weird logic of that camp. I really think you have a deeper meaning behind what you wrote, and are now backpeddling. I have found you much to intelligent, if slightly skewed (lol, of course you probably think the same about me...well the skewed part anyway), to take such a statement from you at the obvious face value. "

russ wrote on Jul 13, 2009 9:45 AM:

" amps,

a. Previously you stated that upper New York state had glaciers a mile deep, (there was and Ice Age several hundred years ago)

b. Next you stated that civilization and the industrial revolution has had an impact on the environment.

c. Now our climate is very comfortable and inhabitable, even in upper New York.

I, therefore, interpret that a + b = c

I do not see the negative effect of civilization on the climate, just the opposite. "

Sandra wrote on Jul 13, 2009 10:59 AM:

" Rogers,
"And Sandra here you go again...nothing about scientific research can be trusted because the funding mechanisms skew and bias the true results. Yours is an flimsy excuse to not believe in anything."

That is the conclusion you draw from what I say?
I feel the need to point out to you that what I say is based on fact. My excuse is far from flimsy. Heaven forbid we let facts get in the way of our mindset.
We should believe anything that makes us feel good, no questions asked? We should never question how research is done? Especially when driven by funding and getting published? How do you think research stays afloat? It isn't funded by the nonbiased research fairy....
There are steps that could be taken to assure that science remains unbiased. There are laws that could be inacted to make funding anonymous. Ever wonder why it is NOT done? Everyone has an investment in the outcome they want to see. It is about control and money...FROM ALL SIDES.
Have you taken the time to look at how the data on "global warming" has been collected? Have you looked at just the small area of collecting temperature data from the last 100 years? Do you realize that the encroachment of civilization has not been taken into effect on the temperature rise with any accurate means? In other words, once where the temperature was taken was outside of the cities, and now it is surrounded by buildings, cement, pavement...that alone causes a temperature raise. But that is disregarded, because those funding the research have an investment in using data that supports their theories. That is one small aspect...multiply that by the amount of people doing research....lol flimsy....sure.... "

John Richards wrote on Jul 13, 2009 10:18 PM:

" "where the temperature was taken was outside of the cities, and now it is surrounded by buildings, cement, pavement...that alone causes a temperature raise."

I saw the photos of the official temperature recording stations, many now encroached by new parking lots, and new air conditioning discharge paths. No wonder the surface temperatures appear to be getting warmer. But according to the scientists' model, CO2 increases should make the upper atmosphere warmer first. Yet that is not happening! "

ampsthelena wrote on Jul 13, 2009 10:25 PM:

" Sandra,
The point of my comments was this:

I have heard many people arguing about whether or not humans are having an effect on the climate. My point is simple (and, yes, rather obvious, but is a kind of "obvious" that rarely gets addressed): it is almost certain that we MUST be having an effect. And, if we are NOT having an effect, then that would be an astonishing fact, and would need to be explained as well. That's all.

Thus, those who deny "human-induced climate change" should consider the implications of what they are asserting, namely, that human industrial civilization is having NO EFFECT on the climate. If so, then that is indeed a startling assertion. It may be true, but we would then have to find scientific explanations of how it is possible to pour all sorts of chemicals into the air for hundreds of years and still have no effect on the climate.

You sound like you have done your research. Good for you. "

ampsthelena wrote on Jul 13, 2009 10:33 PM:

" russ,
Sorry, you're losing me. I just don't get what you're trying to say...about what I am saying...???

But, maybe it doesn't matter.

What you are saying, however, seems interesting: you think that industrial civilizatin has made the earth more habitable....? Because technology has allowed us to live in naturally uninhabitable climes? Or because we have actually altered the climate in such a way as to make it more hospitable to man? Or both...?

One clarifying note: the glacial sheets covering the northeast were gone many thousands (not hundreds) of years ago. I myself was making no connection between them and any effect industrial civilization might have had on them. Were you? "

ampsthelena wrote on Jul 13, 2009 10:51 PM:

" Sandra,
One of the very great difficulties that you seem to have when you try to understand what I am saying is that you DO NOT take my words at "face value".

Try doing so, and you might find me easier to understand.....

I'm generally quite clear, and I try NOT to leave things unsaid, or merely implied. I really try to say what I mean, exactly what I mean, no more, no less (within 300 words or less limit!). Of course, I sometimes fail. And SOMETIMES I am obscure on purpose (or by accident)--but not usually.

Sandra, give it a try. Just look at what I've actually written, take a deep breath, don't immediately jump to conclusions or start trying to "read into" things, and just see what I've said. Try it. You might like it. ;-)

It's a common human failing we are all prone to: we fail to appreciate our own interpretative lenses which determine how we read and hear what other people write and say (it's the quintessential "fundamentalist mistake"). It takes a conscious effort to seek to read and hear beyond one's own conceptual frameworks.

Being gay gives me an advantage: I have absorbed two world views: the world as I, myself, experience it, and the surrounding heterosexual world which interprets the world in a different way. I experience BOTH. It's perhaps one reason the Indians call us "two-spirit" people, and it may be one reason gay sexuality has often been associated with the spiritual world (in non-Abrahamic religious traditions....).

We are "in" the world, but not "of" it--from the viewpoint of the "norm", if you see what I mean. "

russ wrote on Jul 14, 2009 10:43 AM:

" Amps,

If the earth is very habitable as it is now, why grieve and fret over the Industrial Revolution and centuries of man's progress which helped to get us here.

I trust the proven positive past over the speculative unproven future. "

ampsthelena wrote on Jul 14, 2009 2:34 PM:

" Russ, I repeat my question:

How exactly do you think that industrial civilization has made the earth more habitable....? Because technology has allowed us to live in previously uninhabitable climes (e.g. heaters in Alaska)? Or because we have actually altered the climate in such a way as to make it more hospitable to man (e.g. hydrocarbons altering the environment in a beneficial way)? Or both...? "

russ wrote on Jul 15, 2009 6:57 AM:

" Amps,
Does it matter? the presence of man on the planet has resulted in a perfect island in the universe.

Some environmental extremists believe any changes to the planet are evil and humans should return to the earth as it was before man. Loony.

I think man-made CO2 has had little effect on the planet and all predictions to the contrary are biased speculation.

The earth warms and the earth cools. At the moment we are in a cooling pattern. That is my belief based on graduate degrees in science and engineering and years of experience in industry. "

Sandra wrote on Jul 15, 2009 8:30 AM:

" AMPs,
Well here we go, disagreeing again. After many exchange of emails with you, I discovered some things that you had not put in your original letter to the editor. (The one about debating the nature of the bible.) They was more behind the words you put out for general consumption. There was motivation behind what you said, and deeper reasons for saying it. AND, because of that, I find myself not taking you at face value, inspite of what you claim. It has not been MY experience with you. This is not a bad thing, it is a very common thing. In fact I find it very surprising that you want me to take you at face value, and not question, when it is exactly what you demand we do concerning the nature of the bible. Also, you are correct, the 300 word limit is constricting to ones as verbose as us, so of course I ask for clarification of your question.
While you may claim I should take you at face value, I remain skeptical. I think most of what you say has deeper meaning behind it. "

ampsthelena wrote on Jul 16, 2009 5:01 PM:

" Russ,
Hmm, still not quite "getting you".

You seem to say that the presence of man has somehow improved the earth itself (for us? for all creatures?). And then you say that man-made CO2 has had little effect.

So, my questions again (aren't they clear?):

How exactly do you think that industrial civilization has made the earth more habitable....? Because technology has allowed us to live in previously uninhabitable climes (e.g. heaters in Alaska)? Or because we have actually altered the climate in such a way as to make it more hospitable to man (e.g. hydrocarbons altering the environment in a beneficial way)? Or both...? "

And, don't worry, I won't ask again. "

ampsthelena wrote on Jul 16, 2009 5:14 PM:

" Sandra,
Thank you for the compliment. I certainly HOPE there is depth to what I say. But there isn't the kind of "hidden" depth you keep looking for. My God, Sandra, I am an openly gay socialist challenging the dominant world system...and you think I'm HIDING something? LOL!!!!

Of course there's always "more" behind EVERYTHING EVERYONE says or writes. Our conscious words are like the tip of the iceburg--underneath lies our very complex and multi-layered selves. You expected me to put EVERYTHING in a letter to the paper--there isn't even room!

You may be confusing the limited scope of my intention for that letter, with everything I actually think about the subject. You'll remember that I was advocating DEBATE. I was not giving MY SIDE of the debate. In our emails, I gave you MY SIDE of the debate. See the difference?

What I was saying is that in order to communicate with words, you need to at start with the face value of the words, and then work from there. What I've seen of your modus operandi has been that you don't respond to what someone has actually SAID; you respond to your own REACTION to what they have said.

For example, your letter to the paper in response to my editorial was NOT a response to what I had actually said. It was a reaction to the most extreme (and twisted) interpretation possible of my words. And it got a very fundamental point wrong: you suggested I was denying people the right to believe what they believe. You couldn't be farther from the truth. "

Sandra wrote on Jul 17, 2009 9:14 AM:

" Yes, amps, I see the difference, and that was my point. LOL and amps, after exchanging emails with you about your letter, it truly does seem that my interpretation and response was a fairly accurate one. It responded to what I expected was behind the writing of your original letter. You may say "you don't respond to what someone has actually SAID; you respond to your own REACTION to what they have said." BUT, I would say that it shows I have a good ability to read between the lines and determine the motivation behind someone else's words. I may not be 100% accurate in that regards, but I came fairly close in regards to yours. I would not call it extreme and twisted though. That is YOUR REACTION to my words. I would also point out that you are doing the exact same thing you accuse me of. We all read others words through our own personal filters. How could we not?
And as for, "you suggested I was denying people the right to believe what they believe".... No , I implied that what I read in your letter had the danger of leading to that, and that I hoped that was NOT what you were advocating. And after our exchange of emails, I still think that is a dangerous outcome that could result from what you suggest. I do not think it is what you advocate, but I think you are blind to the possibility of this outcome. "

ampsthelena wrote on Jul 17, 2009 11:18 PM:

" Sandra,
Yes, you have good woman's intuition, and you have come "close" to understanding where I'm coming from (though I think you have also "missed" in some essential ways).

And, yes, I too view what you say through my own personal filters.

But there is still this which perplexes me about your MO: it doesn't seem to matter what I actually SAY...

For example, you say that you think I am "blind to the possiblity of this outcome".

And yet, on June 25th, I wrote: "Could the kind of examination I am advocating be turned into some kind of 'reverse witch hunt'? Yes. And Ms. Page is right to be cautious in this regard."

And yet, you think I am not aware of this possibility....? Even though I explicitly admitted this possibility...? (And I am, in fact, quite aware of it, and am quite concerned about it.)

I am perplexed. Please explain. "

Sandra wrote on Jul 18, 2009 8:05 AM:

" "Blind" in the sense that you see this as a very possible and dangerous outcome, yet insist on proceeding as if blind. Concerned? If your concern outweighed your insistance on doing this, you would realize it is foolish to continue. Amps there are so many reasons I think what you advocate is a wasted, and foolish effort. I have explained all of them to you. You disagree. You have that right. This is why I agree that further debate between us on this isuue is not needed. Both of us have explained as adequately as possible to each other why we think as we do. We disagree on this subject. I get that, you get that....lol... everyone else (who has no life, because if they did, they would of moved on from sheer bordom long ago) and has been reading our exchange gets that. "

ampsthelena wrote on Jul 18, 2009 8:51 AM:

" Sandra, you said you "implied that what I read in your letter had the danger of leading to that, and that I hoped that was NOT what you were advocating".

"Implied"...???

In your letter you wrote:

"what other...views do we look at and question whether they should be allowed to have influence in our government?....to even question whether they even have a right to be a viewpoint is very disturbing to me....Who is this person to say those who follow a Bible and are influenced by it should not let it guide them in their views and influence their decisions? I certainly hope that is not what he is saying....So while debating the role of the Bible may be an interesting discussion, it should not be about whether those who follow it are justified in using it to back their opinion".

Yes, you did say, in one line, in the middle of it all-- "I certainly hope that is not what he is saying"--right after saying "Who is this person to say....", and right before saying "When did we become a society that only wants to allow certain views to influence...our government"....

And "I certainly hope"....well, that is not quite the same as saying, "And, of course, he may not in fact be advocating that". Is it?

It took QUITE A BIT of back and forth before you DID explicitly accept the fact that I was NOT advocating denying people the right to believe what they believe.

No, you really did twist my words and push them to absurd extremes. And the accusation were you making I take very seriously indeed: that I even MIGHT be denying people the right to believe what they believe. "

Sandra wrote on Jul 20, 2009 8:32 AM:

" Amps....I repeat, we have gone back and forth over this issue many times. After speaking with you, I did get that on a personal level you do not wish to remove anyones religious freedom. Yet at the same time, you continue to advocate actions that have the very possible outcome of doing just that...... Because what you propose is not controllable by you. So I think in light of that, the points my letter made were valid. While on a personal level, you were not saying what I was worried about, there are others who would take those actions that worry me and run amouk with them. I did not twist your words to absurd extremes. I wrote a letter because I was very worried others, who have a hatred towards Christianity, would do just that. And you seem blind to that posibility. You keep wanting to make this about you, on a personal level. I am trying to address what your words could invoke in people who have extreme views. In that regards the points my letter made, needed to be made. "

ampsthelena wrote on Jul 21, 2009 9:11 AM:

" Sandra,
Yes, I do recognize what my words "could invoke in people who have extreme views".

But, almost anything can incite extremists. We have no control over the effects of any of our words--even the most judicious of words. I think all we can do is speak the truth to the best of our ability. I am optimistic: I think truth really does have great power.

Have you considered the effect that your words, too, might have on extremists? There are plenty of fundamentalist Christians out there who would take away all gay rights if they could--and they don't need anyone to "incite" them. They are already incited. Just the sight of two men holding hands in public is enough to enrage them. And words such as you used in your letter could indeed fan the flames of that kind of intolerance. It feeds into their already over-blown persecution complex.

We may just have to agree to disagree on this one: you believe I don't see how my words could incite extremists, and I believe you don't see how your words could incite extremists.

Time to stop, I'd say. And I assume you agree. I look forward to discussion on other topics. And feel free to have the last word..... "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: