I just wanted to say nice work on the Inconvenient Truth post Daniel. I flipped through some of the threads here and was amazed at how many people are really clueless about this issue. Unfortunately I think poker players as a group tend to be very ignorant on social and environmental issues. I hesitate to link this to being "right-wing", as social justice and environmentalism are universal issues, not limited to one political ideology, but it is clear that many on the right buy-in to a lot of the disinformation spread on these issues. As a prominent voice in a community that apparently needs to be educated more than most, I hope you continue to push issues like this and don't get discouraged by those who cite discredited science against you or claim that you should not speak about anything beyond poker.

Keep up the good work.

im not against most of what he says in this blog, although he does seem to take al gore's word for it pretty quickly. This is the stuff that upsets me more:



Gore DID NOT get cheated...what he DID do, however, was lose multiple recounts...If you dont want to take mine or any other persons word for it, heres a link to some of the material...btw, i think the US Supreme Court is a credible source

link

I don't trust the dirt bag that is in office right now. He is the scum of the Earth. A complete bafoon. His brother being in Florida, and several other things I don't want to get into, make me believe that he was CLEARLY cheated. Bush is a piece of... well, you know.

well, i dont know, why dont you tell me....i believe him to be an incredible president. I think he has done more fo r this country since Ronald Reagan

if you dont rtust him...than thats your opinion, and you are by all means entitled to it....but remember, they were not all republicans on the bench in 2000

Wow dude, I don't know what to say. I hate the man and think he's the worst president this country has ever had. You don't. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Gore may have claimed to invent the internet, but your boy is the only man I know that actually reads the internets.

Your credibility just went out the window with this ridiculously general statement. Based on what do you to surmise that this statement is accurate?

I for one am insulted. There are a great many here with above average intellect, and I find that the fact that we all don't agree on every point makes for a healthy and valid debate.

He is a gold mine for putting his foot in his mouth, I'll give ya that.

I prefer "Strateegery", lol.

that is a good one...i hear them say that on the news sometimes now, lol

sorry for the double post, but come on people, the break off of the Larsen B ice shelf comined with the view of the majority of scientists points to the fact that something is going on. If you choose not to see that, well maybe you'll know better next time...

If DN is right and we do nothing, what happens? We, the human race becomes extinct. If the other side is right and we do nothing, what happens? NOTHING; we're none the worse. Doesn't it make sense to at least start trying to save this planet? Just in case?

There was a leader in Germany who DID A LOT TOO, but that hardly made Hitler an INCREDIBLE CHANCELLOR.

I think that we should act, but not for the reasons you state. That's like believing in God "just in case" he's real and you want to avoid hell. If we want to do something to save the environment, we do it not because it "might" help, we do it because there is an overwhelming abundance of evidence to suggest that our failure to do anything will be catastrophic.

Are you sure you want to discuss the merits of the 2000 election and the actions of the Supreme Court? This is one of the Court's greatest debacles.

Ironic how you say we shouldn't rush to accept what Gore says yet you deem the Supreme Court credible based on the fact that it's the 'Supreme Court'.

How about Bush getting to stack the Supreme Court for the next 20-25 years with conservative judges?


That's got to hurt

Although that plan has essentially failed thus far, harriet mier ring a bell?

I'm not sure why I would have credibility to start with, or why this would hurt it if I did. It is a general observation from knowing quite a few poker players, online and in-person, who seem as a group to be more disconnected from these issues, and worse informed, than other groups of people I know. The sentence is qualified quite clearly with "I think..." so it's not like I'm making an empirical claim. I'd be happy to be wrong.



This is quite right. However, the original post is right to. I would draw an analogy to the "One Percent Doctrine". This is the relevant quote from **** Cheney:

If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response.

In the case of catastrophic climate change, we might call it the 90% doctrine. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that:

The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since
the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net
effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming

Where "very high confidence" is define as "at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct". This is a report produced and endorsed by virtually all reputable climate scientists, and I believe the Bush White House has even endorsed it, though I'm not sure. You can read their summary report for yourself if you'd like.

So if you believe that Cheney is correct in his above statement, we've got an 89% leeway here in treating climate change as a certain threat, and this threat is a species-wide threat - the first credible threat to the survival of our species since we left Africa. That sounds very alarmist, but I think it is quite realistic to assume that if we continue to behave as we have for the last century, the Earth could become unsuitable for human life within a few centuries. Catastrophic consequences, largely to the world's poor, will probably occur within decades.

I have been recommending a book, "The Upside of Down" by Thomas-Homer Dixon to everyone I can. It is a very educational look at the state of the world, environmentally and socially, and what is likely to occur in the near future, and finally what can be done about it. Just from a learning perspective, this is one of the best books I've read in quite a while (and as a philosophy student and student magazine editor I do *a lot* of reading).

Not as much as John Roberts and Sam Alito.

I would bet ther will be at least one, maybe two more

So you plan on going with Farmers or State Farm when you graduate?

Just kidding, you made a fun point with the Cheney 1% statement. I don't agree but I like your thinking.

And who will they be replacing? No one else is leaving while bush is in office unless they die suddenly between now and 09.

Roberts is way less conservative that bush thought he would be, and alito is too conservative to have an impact.

I think Congress should confirm Judge Judy..see seems tough, plus shes a nice old grandmother in real life!

Give me a break. You weren't hesitant about anything. The entire basis of your statement is to paint the right in a bad light. Get off your moral high horse.

Please identify a single moral statement I made.