Comments on: We Call it Life

By: Collin Cerbus

Collin Cerbus — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:21:39 +0000

The mere fact that you are connecting the dots between liberalism and walruses is an outrageous endeavor. Walruses have nothing to do with being a liberal. I am a full fledged republican, who also happens to find a fascination with walruses ever since the 5th grade.

By: The Liberal Walrus » Blog Archive » Republicans Promote Gore’s Movie

Mon, 22 May 2006 14:28:49 +0000

[...] Mallaby also nails the CEI ads I wrote about earlier: In other words, the ads are nonsense. So are some of the assertions on the CEI Web site. The group suggests, for example, that polar bears have nothing to fear from the melting of their habitat. But the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment , a top-notch peer-reviewed source on this subject, has something different to say: “the reduction in sea ice is very likely to have devastating consequences for polar bears.” [...]

By: walrus

walrus — Sun, 21 May 2006 05:56:19 +0000

Patrick,

Let’s put aside any question of global warming for a moment. The CEI advertisements dealt with CO2, and specifically made the claim that it is a compund that is part of the cycle of life. This is no doubt true. It also made the claim that using fossil fuels has made human lives more comfortable and productive, which is also no doubt true. The problem arises when they try to sidestep any question of the advisability of limitless CO2 emissions by invoking the fact of CO2′s involvement in the cycle of life.

There are many compounds involved in living organisms. The relevant question is: should we assume that changing the constitution of our atmosphere is always fine provided the compounds involved are related to living things?

As for the question of what I am advising, it is simply this: to ensure that our home planet remain healthy and inhabitable, and then to do our best to enhance the lives of the humans that live on it. It is a fact that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been rising, and it is worth looking into the reasons and possible consequences to ensure that all is well.

I am sure that we can find sources of energy that do not release as much CO2 (clean coal, solar, wind, nuclear) while we study the question. I am a great believer in American ingenuity and creativity. The CEI does nothing to promote these virtues with their simplistic ads.

By: Patrick Keating

Patrick Keating — Sun, 21 May 2006 00:33:57 +0000

Walrus:

You have restated CEI’s position as an invalid syllogism and then attacked your own restatement as invalid. Bravo! Why not deal with the actual point made by the CEI? The use of fossil fuels has lead to remarkable economic growth that has allowed the West to improve both the enviornment and the lives of average citizens. Furthermore, the evidence of global warming is, at best, problematic.

Wadard echoes your lampoon of global warming skeptics but neither of you offer an alternative. Since you both agree that it “would be hard and painful” to change our present dependence on carbon based fuels, are you advocating greater reliance on nuclear energy? Or are you advocating scarcity and consequent economic decline? Please advise.

By: Wadard

Wadard — Sat, 20 May 2006 09:01:43 +0000

Exactly right Mr Walrus ... an arguement for laziness. I disliked the CEI's disingenuity so much I wrote a counter ad: :::[C02 spot, they call it an ad, we call it a lie]. If you like it it would be great if you could link it.