"The constant repitition of the Litany and the often heard environmental exaggerations has serious consequences. It makes us scared and it makes us more likely to spend our resources and attention solving phantom problems while ignoring real and pressing (possibly non-environmental) issues."
--Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist, 1998

One could say the same for terrorism.

Or any issue for that matter that doesn't fit one's idelogical view of the world.

Yes, hehe. (You know that a tu quoque doesn't disprove your opponent, don't you?) Anyway, I think the point is that environmentalists have a history of exaggeration, a history of crying wolf, a history of dire predictions that never come to fruition.

I agree that the War Party has done this a bit about terrorism, but the reason they are more successful electorally with their exaggerations is that everyone knows that Islamic terrorists exist and we have in recent history seen their work.

I agree enviornmentalists have a history of crying wolf, particually their Malthusian predictions of resource scarcity.

But past performence is not nessecarily an indicator of their correctness now.

They are correct now on global warming, and it is a far bigger threat to the security of the US.

GB survived daily German bombing during the war.

The fact is that the US could have a 911 every two years and still survive, still persevere.

We just can't say that about global warming.

Why wouldn't the US be able to survive global warming?

"They are correct now on global warming..." And they wouldn't have said that ever other time, too? See, that's the trouble with crying wolf.

It is not in my power to believe you about this time, given an even cursory knowledge of the history of environmentalist scares.

And the idiocy/ignorance of the resident pontificator.

You know someone's trying to sound smarter than he is when the break out the word "cursory".

You know someone's lost the argument when he has been reduced to ad hominems.

You know it was a joke not an argument.

Dude, if you think 'cursory' needs 'breaking out', you aren't as smart as I thought.

That's funny you mention that about Skeptic's use of cursory HeHe, as I was thinking the same thing about your iterative use of the term "anthropogenic" in earlier threads on global warming.

"I was thinking the same thing about your iterative use of the term 'anthropogenic' in earlier threads on global warming."

Indeed. It was noticeably out of place. I keep waiting for him to drop "antidisestablishmentarianism."

hehe bruce.

Yeah its pretty much the same thing.

It'm at least half joking though when I use that instead of "man-made", hope it is with "cursory" too.

Hehe -- What would you think of a guy who made fun of your use of "persevere" in you initial post?

"Initial" post? Is that some kinda fancy word for "first"?

And I did the same HeHe by carefully choosing to use "iterative" in my comment above. I am glad you let me slide on that one though!