I think something important to think about is the level of responsibility that should be part of an on-line comment when it is on a serious issue that might impact someone else’s business, character, or public perception of either of those.

Griff tries, although sometimes we don’t like it, to educate people about their personal responsibility to this issue, and he often also regulates it, but in the nature of being educational as he explains what he finds improper.

A facet of the discussion on the MNPR program I spoke of above dealt with technology as an extension of humanity.
How do YOU want your humanity to be perceived?
And therein lies my problem with anonymous comments.

Attaching your name to your comments functions as a social contract in that it puts consequences to your public behavior; anonymous comments allow you to evade that conformance to societal, or your community’s ”norms’.

With respect to anonymous comments, John Logie, the UofM professor speaking at the time, talked about technology creating “2nd life landscapes”…

Which ‘life landscape’ is the most responsible to engage in? One in which you have a responsibility to? or one which is a virtual, created landscape, possibly not reflecting fact or reality ?

Tracy: I would appreciate you getting back in here on these points … Thanks

Take a listen…

If Griff et al. want to start a global warming hoax/scam thread, fine. I have no objection to people questioning received wisdom.

I do not view the current mainstream view of the serious threat that man-made global climate change poses to be received wisdom. It is the mainstream view of the signficant majority of scientists studying the issues. Are they infallible? Of course not. Does some of their research funding perhaps affect the perspective of some of the researchers? No doubt. However, it is the best that current scientific knowledge can tell us, and we question it at our peril, as the mainstream, consensus view is that we must begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions significantly, beginning now.

I took the 10 minutes required to watch The Great Global Warming Swindle video (on YouTube) you mentioned, Norman. I have not seen the full-length DVD. However, nothing they talked about was news to me, and essentially everything the skeptics talked about is accounted for in the modeling conducted by climate scientists who view human-caused global climate change as a major issue. The maker of the video, The Nicene Council, has as its motto (?):

“The sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth” Athanasius, Defender of orthodoxy, Council of Nicaea A.D. 325

I take scientific advice from eminent scientists (e.g. Nobel Laureate physicist Steven Chu, Obama’s pick for Secretary of Energy) more seriously than scientific advice from Christian faith-based organizations such as The Nicene Council. 

Maybe some of the scientists are paid by the fossil fuel industry. However it is also true that a lot of those that came up with the doomsday global warming scenario are very much depended on government grants.
Of course they have an interest to keep up the scare tactics in fear of losing that funding..hhmm???

For what it’s worth. I don’t think you are a liberal whack job for believing in global warming.
I am as concerned as you are I don’t believe we should be destroying the planet either.

What I do oppose is some of the prescribed remedies and the political witch hunt that goes hand in hand with this.
I do oppose that we pump tax money in to one particular alternative at the cost of taxpayers. I do oppose that some elitist stand on their podium and attack those that chose to drive an SUV. I do oppose those that want to turn this issue in to an attack of the free markets for their own political and financial gains i.e. Gore or Pickens.

Should we strive to be energy independent? of course we should, but not by dreaming up some unsustainable utopian scenario that has no chance of ever succeeding.
This issue is too important to be an “us against them” but the environmental nazis have made a balanced dialog impossible.
It is either solar, wind ethanol or nothing and we don’t care who get’s hurt in the process. That seems to be the mantra that makes people like me get defensive.

A comprehensive and economically sustainable energy policy in combination with national energy security has to include ALL sources of energy.
It can not be successfully implemented if we don’t consider the economical impact of it. it will create resentment and will hit the poor and working families the most.

Today’s scientists concerned about human-caused global climate change are not terribly similar to the flat-earth crew of the 15th century, who were for the most part in no way, shape or form scientists. Today’s research tends to be a bit more rigorous and is open to continual challenge and review (including by global climate change skeptics).

Again, this is not a leftist conspiracy. Why, even our very own beloved Governor T-Paw, not generally considered a leftist, accepts that human-caused global climate change is a major problem. He was a strong supporter of The Next Generation Energy Act of 2007, which established, among many related things, a state policy goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2005. This bill was passed by a vote of 125-9 in the House, and a vote of 59-5 in the Senate. David and Peter, when you have only 14 allies in the Minnesota Legislature (out of 70 Republicans, and 200 members overall), I think you are hangin’ out with Senator Inhofe well to the right of Attila the Hun on this issue.

That’s OK with me. However, I don’t buy your argument that I, and others in Northfield, are liberal whack-jobs because we think global climate change is a legitimate issue, and have managed to convince our elected officials that it’s worth paying attention to this issue. (Or that LoGroNo is a “liberal blog” because we express our liberal points of view.) You two don’t seem bashful about expressing your points of view here, so why the complaint that this is a “liberal” blog?

What seems to frustrate you is that you don’t have that much company. That perhaps has more to do with the community than the blog as it is run by Griff, Tracy and Ross. This remains a free country, and you both are doing an excellent job of exercising your right of free speech.

Henny Penny Excerpt:

So Henny-penny, Cockylocky, Ducky-daddles, Goosey-poosey, Turkey-lurkey, and Foxy-woxy all went to tell the king the sky was a-falling. So they went along, and they went along, and they went along, till they came to a narrow and dark hole. Now this was the door of Foxy-woxy’s cave. But Foxy-woxy said to Henny-penny, Cocky-locky, Ducky-daddles, Goosey-poosey, and Turkeyturkey: ‘This is the short way to the king’s palace: you’ll soon get there if you follow me. I will go first and you come after, Henny-penny, Cocky-locky, Ducky-daddles, Goosey-poosey, and Turkey-turkey.’ ‘Why, of course, certainly, without doubt, why not?’ said Henny-penny, Cocky-locky, Ducky-daddles, Goosey-poosey, and Turkey-lurkey.

You are right about Inhofe, but are you ignoring the 600 scientists?

Yes there is a connection between the liberal logro blog and the article.
This discussion goes a few posts back.
Let me summarize.

Northfield is a liberal town and policies and government actions reflect that. This blog reflects the town’s sentiment.
The absence of thinking outside of what is considered liberal dogma gives no room for any other voices unless they are liberal.

I used global warming to illustrate the point. We as a town have bought in to the global warming frenzy without considering the implications of following some of the remedies.
Opposing voices are being drowned out by the well financed media blitz of interest groups.
Some of the extreme environmental groups use the issue of global warming to further a much larger agenda then simply protecting the environment.

Northfield media and leadership does not provide any data or info that is outside of the widely generated global warming frenzy.
There in lies the danger. My biggest concern is that local government will bow to those fanatics and put us in an even deeper financial hole, by financing “green projects” without merit and with money we don’t have.
As a result of miss guided policies we will have to raise taxes on all or artificially increase cost of energy, which will hurt everybody.

Two different critters. Don’t obfuscate by confusing the two.

http://www.katu.com/blogs/weather/35932349.html

“Inhofe is to the right of Attila the Hun on climate change,” says the Reverend Jim Ball, director of the Evangelical Environmental Network.

You advise

Before we rush into and onto the “green wagon” we should have a serious discussion surrounding the premise that has gotten us there in the first place.

The local, statewide, national, and international scientific and policy-making communities HAVE been having a serious discussion for many years on the premise(s) that anthropogenic global climate change

• is real,
• presents a clear and present danger to civilization, and that
• urgent action is warranted to prevent potentially catastrophic threats to the well-being of humanity (not to mention the rest of the biosphere)

Representatives of nearly 190 countries are meeting this week in Poznan, Poland to lay the groundwork for a new global climate change treaty to be hammered out over the next year or so (with the goal being a completed treaty at a conference in Copenhagen next year). Global climate change is not a hoax being perpetrated by Al Gore and a bunch of other elitist US lefties. This is mainstream, peer-reviewed science, and sober, responsible public policy informed by the science.

Are there global climate change skeptics? Yes. Are their views taken seriously enough by the mainstream international scientific and policy-making communities to warrant serious doubt concerning the premises above, and delay on taking action? No.

I’m not sure why you inject this comment in this discussion thread, Peter, since this thread is ostensibly about whether or not LoGroNo is a “liberal blog.” What’s your point?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Before we rush into and onto the “green wagon” we should have a serious discussion surrounding the premise that has gotten us there in the first place.

This affects the local and national level. Why it makes everybody feel good to be green the current cost of it needs to be managed prudently so we don’t put ourselves deeper in to the hole.

Of course I respect the choice of the voters, which doesn’t mean I have to agree with them.

So far, both on the national and the local, the word “spending” has been used quiet frequently but I haven’t heard”cut spending” enough.
In that regard it’s “more of the same”.

The next two years will be telling on how serious we are on “change”. We can’t afford to go from from “borrow and spend” to simply “borrow, tax and spend”.

This is reflected in this blog, my guess is that 80% of the people that post here are social liberals ( as opposed to a liberal in the classic sense).

Traci I do disgaree with your statement that local issues don’t lend themselves to partisan ship. One of the dilemmas with Northfield is that we don’t have enough conservative voices in our city government.

This lack of opposing views has gotten us in to our current mess. If you go thru live never being exposed to thoughts that run in the opposite of yours people tend to develop an inbred thinking pattern, and any new thought or idea just becomes a modification of an old idea or thought.

A good example is our current economy. I hope our city leadership has a broad enough horizon to think outside the box.
I am afraid that we will see more of the same…..the further raising of taxes to “fix” the problems. Rather then looking for other ways. To do that you need ideas outside your own comfort zone, it will be interesting to see if the city is capable of that.
Since in essence we have just elected “more of the same”, which is social liberal thinking.

It seems that this blog just echoes and confirms what our leaders think already. In that sense it would be nice if we could provide some original ideas.