I emphathize with Rove in this case- in my experience the people most likely to turn nasty on you are those that think they can talk you into believing what they believe. Anybody that thinks like that almost certainly believes the following:

- the other side has no genuine argument, which usually means the person doesnt know much about the facts (aside from those that support their own beliefs).

- if the other person continues to hold to their position after being properly instructed, they must most certainly be doing so because they are a bad, selfish person.

Who wants to argue with someone that doesnt know very much, isnt willing to learn more, and thinks you are being willfully sinister?

If the two parties showed the condescension to Rove that they show in their blog post, his reaction is predictable, no matter how wrong he might be. The problem with the Kumbuya school of politics is that it assumes that one side posesses the truth, and the other is just misguided (usually for reasons that could be resolved with some therapy). Folks like this cannot fathom why somebody might be offended by their cheerfully oblivious good intentions.

(One can see them talking among themselves: "I don't know, should we. I hear he's really evil." "Yes, of course. It's for the good of his planet. Plus, we don't know why he got this way." "Well, what's the harm It's not like its Cheney" "*Giggle* Maybe we should talk to him to" "No, he's really evil." "Worse than the Weinsteins?""Weeeeellll, that's kind of hard..."

Can you imagine the freaking hysteria that would have ensued had Rove grabbed Crow's arm?

I would have mentioned that the Summary for Policymakers is a political document written for politicians by politicians (or, at least, political bureaucrats.)

I'd also point out that a small army of economists has shown that it is much more likely that adaptation to changes will be infinitely cheaper and less futile than attempts to mitigate climate change.

But then, I'm no Karl Rove.

Rove may have objected to Crow touching him because he may have heard about Crow's plan to save the planet by using only one square of toilet paper per bathroom trip.

I hope that she washed her hands.

chsw

What Mike Foley said.

Grabbing people you don't know to make them listen to you is a no-no, and doing it to someone you know would be pilloried for doing it to you is crass at best.

Then again, I'm also with Bartman on the benefits of adaptation rather than change, and possibly (he doesn't say explicitly) in my doubt about the significance of the entire issue.

Does Rove really have a rational reason for his position? Would anybody care to explain what it is?

"Let's wait until the evidence is clearer" was probably reasonable 10 years ago. Possibly even 5. That ship has sailed and promptly sank, along with "There's nothing to worry about" and "The warming is just a natural cycle."

It is now plain that climate change is a huge threat to the long term, and probably not all that long a term, security of the US and the entire developed world. Actually doing something about it might, in the short term, cause some pain to the economic elites that Bush/Rove represent. Ignoring the problem will pose a far greater threat, even a threat to the survival of modern society. It is exactly the socioeconomic elites that should rationally be the strongest advocates of enduring some pain now for a more stable society in the future.

It is now plain that climate change is a huge threat to the long term, and probably not all that long a term, security of the US and the entire developed world. Actually doing something about it might, in the short term, cause some pain to the economic elites that Bush/Rove represent. Ignoring the problem will pose a far greater threat, even a threat to the survival of modern society.

It's far from clear to me that 'ignoring the problem will pose a far greater threat, even a threat to the survival of modern society'. I don't really doubt that warming has happened, but I do doubt how severe it will be (as I should--the predictions concerning severity are anything but certain and are undergoing constant revision).

It's also far from clear to me that 'doing something about it' assuming that means something along the lines of Al Gore's 90% reduction will cause just a little short-term pain or that the pain will be primarily to 'economic elites'. The pain of economic harm is, after all, virtually always visited more heavily on the poor than the rich.

And lastly, is global warming a security threat to the U.S.? I'm really skeptical about that claim since it seems quite possible that a warmer climate would even benefit, rather than harm, the U.S. (Bangladesh is another matter).

There really is no point to "arguing" with the likes of Crow, David, or Alex. Their minds are made up regardless of the gap between what the media says and what the IPCC summary says, the gap between what the summary says and what the underlying papers say, the gap between what the papers say and what is actually scientifically supportable, etc.

If we really believed that global warming were a problem, we'd devote the couple of hundred million dollars necessary to research stratospheric particle injection. Blocking incoming radiation with particulates is bound to be orders of magnitude cheaper, faster, and more flexible than reducing emissions. But the whole point of the warming hysteria is to create centrally planned restrictions on energy production and consumption.

I have a feeling that David & Crow never got to be the Alpha Girl in their respective high school cliques. Now they are the Alpha Girls in The Clique That Will Save The World - if only Rove will let them.

But instead, Rove is insulting their alpha-ness. He's gotta pay for that - mealtime confrontations an snubs are just the beginning ...

Guys,

Sheryl Crow's snide self-righteousness is irritating to read, but so are the reflexive defenses of Rove earlier in this thread. Whatever her motivations, it's clear she pressed him on an issue he was uncomfortable with, and that he handled it poorly.

It turns out that the issue is not an either or choice between conservation and the free market. By the same token, people with opinions on the issue aren't divided into tree-hugging hippies and the bloated fatcats of industry.

I think it's possible to agree that the environment is a public good, and that it's possible take measures that improve our air quality and cut down on carbon emissions without hamstringing our competetiveness. Having spent some time in Beijing, I can assure you that there is a definite negative impact on quality of life provided that your definition doesn't include respiratory ailments and boogers the texture and color of anthracite coal.

I think it's possible to agree that the environment is a public good, and that it's possible take measures that improve our air quality and cut down on carbon emissions without hamstringing our competetiveness. Having spent some time in Beijing, I can assure you that there is a definite negative impact on quality of life provided that your definition doesn't include respiratory ailments and boogers the texture and color of anthracite coal.

Yes, of course. But there's a fundamental difference between pollution of the kind that plagues Beijing and carbon dioxide. The U.S. has done very well in controlling smog, acid rain, fine particulates, etc. But carbon dioxide is fundamentally different in that A) It does not harm human health directly, and B) It is a global rather than local or regional issue. Nobody is harmed by breathing CO2, and we cannot prevent warming in the U.S. by restricting CO2 emissions in the U.S.

I don't doubt that we can manage marginal decreases in CO2 emissions without decreasing competitiveness, but a 90% reduction is not marginal. And a 90% reduction while China is continuing to increase its own CO2 output? That won't hurt out competitiveness with respect to China? Do you really believe that?

No use toilet paper no get hugs. Nose overrides eyes.

It was a social occasion. David and Crow were out of line demanding that anyone present pay attention to their screeds.

Whatever happened to

All I wanna do
is have some fun
and I have a feeling
I'm not the only one

That's a Sheryl Crow that I can live with, if she'd just revoke that restraining order.

And lastly, is global warming a security threat to the U.S.? I'm really skeptical about that claim since it seems quite possible that a warmer climate would even benefit, rather than harm, the U.S. (Bangladesh is another matter).

By saying that Bangladesh is another matter, you seem to agree that sea levels will rise. A rise of only a few meters will take out most of Florida, along with sizable chunks of several other states. That could pose some problems for the US.

It's true that some benefits do occur from warming - for instance large parts of Canada, Russia, and the US will actually become more habitable. If human beings were totally rational, I think the adjustments could be made with only moderate problems. Regrettably, we're not. Diamond has shown how repeatedly the decline in an environment's carrying capacity, due to drought suche causes as drought or deforestation, doesn't result in population smoothly cutting back to the new maximum. It causes wars, civil wars, and societal breakdowns.

Those people in Bangladesh aren't going to agree to peacefully drown in order to maintain a healthy Dow Jones. They're going to become waves of refugees that neighboring countries with their own displaced populations won't be able to absorb, and eventually recruits for some Al Qaeda offshoot.

" A rise of only a few meters will take out most of Florida"

Only a few meters? Which prediction says that is likely?

Crow the environmentalist reminds me of the girl in English Lit class with a "NO FUR" button on her leather jacket. Yes, I did ask her "what did cows do wrong?" Crow's recommending that that people cut down on consumption, to include toilet paper, and she's the marketing face for Revlon, or is it Maybelline? Holy crap, how does someone so stupid write such good music?

"Laurie David is 100% correct on one thing -- no one should ever say "don't touch me" to Sheryl Crow. I mean, really, that's just wrong."

Ugh. You've never dated an attractive b****, I take it.

Sk

Alex,

Are you aware that ice core data indicates that global temperatures increase about 800 years before CO2 does?

Do you believe that human beings are currently causing global warming or just that we will in the future?

Just wondering...

A rise of only a few meters will take out most of Florida

And what's the downside?

I think every citizen has the duty to do what David and Crow did if they have the opportunity to meet Bush or, God forbid, Rove. Maybe they'll begin to understand what the American people do want.

" A rise of only a few meters will take out most of Florida, along with sizable chunks of several other states. "

And a rise of ocean temperatures only a few hundred degrees would boil the oceans and turn Earth into Venus. So what? Its trivia. This kind of non sequitar is EXACTLY the problem. Ocean levels have been rising since the last ice age- 150m in the last 18000 years. Right now they are rising at about 3mm per year. Thats 1/3rd of a meter in the next century at this rate. What evidence is there except for wild theories that this process will suddenly increase by 10 fold or more?

The IPCC predicts an increase of .09 to .88 meters in the next century- which was revised downward from their previous estimate. Thats 100 years. We think we can predict the climate and ocean levels 100 years out, but nobody bothers to think about human technology, which we know is moving orders of magnitude faster. In 1900 i would imagine people were worried about how to dispose of the horse dung generated by a projected population of hundreds of millions of Americans in the horse drawn carriage age. Of course by now that is humorous. The idea that the ocean rising perhaps a meter in the next century is 'civilization threatening', or even a major problem, is ludicrous. How many people die of malaria every year? Its an insult to humans living in truly dire straights TODAY to spend so much time and energy on this nonsense.

You can't miss the genuine sense of entitlement and superiority in the "you work for me" comment.

I'm not sure I want to take advice on public policy from a singer who hasn't had a hit in ten years, or from a talent booker who married Larry David.

Nanonymous,
Sheryl Crow was defly pushy dealing with Rove, but dont tell me she has not had a hit in 10 years - Wild Flower, C'mon, C'mon were pretty good hits.

gkoqmixtf pbcdx pjfit zrijlfp ltpji txnwflvq cxst