Climate-gate... and other created issues

Tom Friedman writes in the New York Times today:

"Frankly, I found it very disappointing to read a leading climate scientist writing that he used a “trick” to “hide” a putative decline in temperatures or was keeping contradictory research from getting a proper hearing. Yes, the climate-denier community, funded by big oil, has published all sorts of bogus science for years — and the world never made a fuss. That, though, is no excuse for serious climatologists not adhering to the highest scientific standards at all times."

I hate reasoning that states, "your logic or system of analysis only only applies to me when I choose." As Mr. Friedman states so well above, the climate-deniers can use scientific evidence against the climate-change scientists when it is in their favor. When it is not they will use pseudo-science to fight as much as possible. What is the difference between their pseudo-science and what the scientists in this Climate-gate scandal did? Nothing.

I have no real opinion about the climate debate. I am a conservative and take the practical conservative approach. Protecting the environment is a logical approach as in one case we are affecting the climate, and therefore we should do something about it. In the other view we not affecting the climate, but we are still pushing away from petrocratic rulers. Better to be safe... Mr. Friedman states it beautifully in his article.

My basic thoughts on IR

This is an over-simplification of my basic look at IR policy. I base this on foreign policy decisions as well as ideology that these politicians more or less believed if for no other reason than there Secretary of State appointees. Liberal and Conservative are the terms I used, but they are a bit... open-ended. Liberalism and Conservatism have different meanings in America then they do elsewhere and generally just support the political leanings of the two major political parties there.

Realism and Altruism are more easily defined. Realism is the fact that foreign policy is nothing more than a system of communicating with the international community with the realization that countries will act within their means to better their standings. Altruism (which I will show my bias against) is an over-simplification of foreign policy that in my opinion looks more like an "Axis vs. Allies" game board. It involves the concepts of good vs evil and other... politically-inclined wording. Although a good balance between all ends is the best policy (like in most cases of everything,) in my opinion if you have to head towards one end liberal realism or conservative realism always prevail.

I know there are holes in the idea. JFK may have thought that the "realist" approach to the Cold War was prevent the spread of communism anywhere, in any form. To me it just seems to be an oversimplification in the same vein as good vs evil, all black or white (no gray.)

"Frankly, this town and the way the political dialogue is structured right now is not conducive to what we need to do to be globally competitive. And all of you are leaders in your communities -- in the business sector and the labor sector, in academia, we even have a few pundits here -- it is important to understand what's at stake and that we can't keep on playing games. I mentioned that I was in Asia on this trip thinking about the economy, when I sat down for a round of interviews. Not one of them asked me about Asia. Not one of them asked me about the economy. I was asked several times about had I read Sarah Palin's book. (Laughter.) True. But it's an indication of how our political debate doesn't match up with what we need to do and where we need to go," -Barack Obama

Whether you believe in this or not it stings me personally here in Afghanistan. Let's keep talking about Tiger Woods and Sarah Palin... that's going to make us world leaders in the future.