[1250ships]

I agree that if you look at the mainstream media in America you are not going to get in depth discussion of issues. You will get extended coverage of Paris Hilton getting out of jail. But frankly I don't think that there was some golden age when the media was composed solely of dedicated journalists who served the public good by carefully presenting both sides of a reasoned debate. If you want to see real partisan politics go look at the stuff from the early 1800's in America where we had Congressmen physically beating each other on the floor of the House over slavery.

Al Gore is hardly above criticism on this front. His nickname is now "The Goracle" reflecting his almost religious crusade on climate change. You don't have to be a skeptic on global warming to find his efforts more propaganda than rational, enlightened debate. That nickname came from his supporters, not his opponents.

I admire his passion and his long standing efforts to promote a cause he believes in- promotion that I think he has followed in a very American, Democratic way (Democracy the system not the party). But a book insisting that he is a great supporter of reasoned debate is a bit much.

Here in the US if you want depth of discussion on the issues of the day you are better served reading blogs and a few of the better newspapers, something easy to do with most articles online. The key is always to read multiple sources and to know the biases of the authors. The vast majority of TV and radio are little more than political spin from one party or the other.

[Captain Eddie]

Well, pardon me Cardinal, I'm all for reasoned discourse, consider myself pretty well informed on politics, and on global warming (I do read newspapers, editorials, and such every day)...but such discussions here tend to end up in flame wars, so humor, and showing my appreciation of another member's humor, is, generally, about as far as I go on this forum.

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by 1250ships

I agree that if you look at the mainstream media in America you are not going to get in depth discussion of issues. You will get extended coverage of Paris Hilton getting out of jail. But frankly I don't think that there was some golden age when the media was composed solely of dedicated journalists who served the public good by carefully presenting both sides of a reasoned debate. If you want to see real partisan politics go look at the stuff from the early 1800's in America where we had Congressmen physically beating each other on the floor of the House over slavery.

Al Gore is hardly above criticism on this front. His nickname is now "The Goracle" reflecting his almost religious crusade on climate change. You don't have to be a skeptic on global warming to find his efforts more propaganda than rational, enlightened debate. That nickname came from his supporters, not his opponents.

I admire his passion and his long standing efforts to promote a cause he believes in- promotion that I think he has followed in a very American, Democratic way (Democracy the system not the party). But a book insisting that he is a great supporter of reasoned debate is a bit much.

Here in the US if you want depth of discussion on the issues of the day you are better served reading blogs and a few of the better newspapers, something easy to do with most articles online. The key is always to read multiple sources and to know the biases of the authors. The vast majority of TV and radio are little more than political spin from one party or the other.

Great post 1250ships, with perfect reasoning I might add . Your statement that "The key is always to read multiple sources and to know the biases of the authors" is absolutely correct, yet requires a mindset that prefers logical debate and reasoning to emotional exchanges bent on supporting or rejecting one or other point of view. The all too prevalent approach of "if you're not with us, you're against us", as espoused by a certain President who should remain nameless, is not conducive to a dynamic democracy and the protection of the freedom and noble ideals as espoused in the US Constitution.

[MoMo]

Cardinal

I guess that everyone is scared by the increasing weight of evidence that points to a gloomy future, Cardinal, and that taking on some measure of personal responsibility for our planet's well-being is too much hassle for some.

It is much easier to be seduced by the manure which feeds the popular press and keeps the Proles quiescent. As long as everyone gets their daily dose of Somma on the crystal bucket, all sense of ownership regarding what we do to destroy, or benefit, the Earth will be lost in the Purple Haze of collective and frenetic consummerism and the waste- strewn Dance of Death.

Keep burning those lights, Guys! The quicker it bites; the sooner the rites.

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by Captain Eddie

Well, pardon me Cardinal, I'm all for reasoned discourse, consider myself pretty well informed on politics, and on global warming (I do read newspapers, editorials, and such every day)...but such discussions here tend to end up in flame wars, so humor, and showing my appreciation of another member's humor, is, generally, about as far as I go on this forum.

Cap'n Eddie, I didn't intend to offend you and apologise if that was the case. I appreciate the role of humour (one needs it in a cynical world) and regrettably you're right when you say such discussions can spin out of control (when there is no need for them to do so as I believe that we're generally all reasonable people). It is just that occasionally I get fed up with some of the asinine comments that are made, not out of a sense of humour, but usually out of an intolerance of divergent viewpoints.

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

The all too prevalent approach of "if you're not with us, you're against us", as espoused by a certain President who should remain nameless, is not conducive to a dynamic democracy and the protection of the freedom and noble ideals as espoused in the US Constitution.

What does that quote have to do with Al Gore and global warming?? There are enough Eco-Nazis / Enviornmental Terrorists out there that take the same stance when it comes to this topic. This planet has survived worse and it will survive us. Perhaps its the us out there that don't like the idea that our natural time on this planet is up. As if we are the sole reason for this planet even being here.
Afterall the other postings on this and similar topics, is it any wonder we choose to be humorous. The topic is beginning to be the nagging wife of the forum.
- Shawn

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

What does that quote have to do with Al Gore and global warming?? There are enough Eco-Nazis / Enviornmental Terrorists out there that take the same stance when it comes to this topic. This planet has survived worse and it will survive us. Perhaps its the us out there that don't like the idea that our natural time on this planet is up. As if we are the sole reason for this planet even being here.
Afterall the other postings on this and similar topics, is it any wonder we choose to be humorous. The topic is beginning to be the nagging wife of the forum.
- Shawn

Shawn, the book "The Assault on Reason" isn't about 'global warming' which, as you've pointed out, has been discussed ad nauseum. It does seem to be a sincere attempt at discussing what is required to have a democracy informed by reason i.e. a well informed citizenry that is equipped with the ability to critically analyse crucial issues in a non-partisan and reasonably objective/dispassionate manner.

[Captain Eddie]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

Cap'n Eddie, I didn't intend to offend you and apologise if that was the case. I appreciate the role of humour (one needs it in a cynical world) and regrettably you're right when you say such discussions can spin out of control (when there is no need for them to do so as I believe that we're generally all reasonable people). It is just that occasionally I get fed up with some of the asinine comments that are made, not out of a sense of humour, but usually out of an intolerance of divergent viewpoints.

Thanks for the clarification, Cardinal. I now fully understand what you are saying. I wasn't terribly offended, but my nose was out of joint a bit!

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by MoMo

I guess that everyone is scared by the increasing weight of evidence that points to a gloomy future, Cardinal, and that taking on some measure of personal responsibility for our planet's well-being is too much hassle for some.

It is much easier to be seduced by the manure which feeds the popular press and keeps the Proles quiescent. As long as everyone gets their daily dose of Somma on the crystal bucket, all sense of ownership regarding what we do to destroy, or benefit, the Earth will be lost in the Purple Haze of collective and frenetic consummerism and the waste- strewn Dance of Death.

Keep burning those lights, Guys! The quicker it bites; the sooner the rites.

Yes, but let's keep in mind that there have been no bigger manure-spreaders than the Ecologists/Environmentalists in the past 40 years or so. I remember Paul Ehrlich and the "Club of Rome" predicting in the 60s that by the mid to late 80s (1980s, that is), everyone on Earth would be starving as a consequence of environmental catastrophe and over-population. Environmentalists have lost all credibility in my court. It has been lie after lie for too long. Which in a way is too bad, because there are real environmental problems to be sure. But anything coming from the likes of Al Gore has to be treated strictly as more manure (even if one can find some truth in what he says. Too many lies in there to make the message credible as a whole).

FVD

[jim]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

Shawn, the book "The Assault on Reason" isn't about 'global warming' which, as you've pointed out, has been discussed ad nauseum. It does seem to be a sincere attempt at discussing what is required to have a democracy informed by reason i.e. a well informed citizenry that is equipped with the ability to critically analyse crucial issues in a non-partisan and reasonably objective/dispassionate manner.

Whoa Cardinal, a well informed population will not do at all. The powers that be want a stupid ill informed population. It just would not do at all if the general population were allowed to think for themselves.

Whatever next, people making their own decisions?

The government in Britain has spent a lot of time and effort to ensure we dont think for ourselves.

Dont worry everything will be OK, the nanny state will take care of everything , wont it?