Austinist: It Ain't No Air America...

mdahmus

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:27:00 -0600

More talking points. Sigh. There aren't any credible climatologists who wouldn't agree to this statement: "unacceptably high likelihood of drastic consequences without action soon". That's pretty much what Gore says. We don't know exactly how bad it will get, but we know that there's too high a chance it will get too bad to not do anything about it. Anybody who still believes Random's tripe, go ahead and check out realclimate.org.

Random

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:39:49 -0600

Perhaps some clarification is necessary - "inevitable catastrophe without drastic action" would probably be a better way to say it. And you are absolutely wrong to say that any uncertainty about the long term impact of global warming is false. It's obvious that to you global warming stopped being about the science and more about the politics of it.

mdahmus

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:28:50 -0600

Well, Gore doesn't say "inevitable catastrophe" either - that's what people slightly to the left of Limbaugh like to claim he says because it's a helpful caricature. And, yes, "you guys", because it's very clear that the climatologists are saying pretty much what Gore said - people who assert otherwise are playing the false-uncertainty game.

mdahmus

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:27:07 -0600

Well, Gore doesn't say "inevitable catastrophe" either - that's what people slightly to the left of Limbaugh like to claim he says because it's a helpful caricature.

Random

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:56:05 -0600

"uh, no, legitimate climatologists all line up with variants of "some minor quibbles but overall we agree", and that goes for the tone as well. This is a particularly effective talking point you guys have come up with, though. Bravo. I'll salute you as I sweat." "You guys"...this is what I'm talking about, any amount of variance in the party line and you get lumped into the science fearing non believers. And I do believe you are mistaken on what all scientist agree on, because it sure isn't the inevitable catastrophe scenario.

mdahmus

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:21:19 -0600

:The science in the film is solid, but it's the catastrophic inevitability of it all that has legitimate climataologist questioning it.: Uh, no, legitimate climatologists all line up with variants of "some minor quibbles but overall we agree", and that goes for the tone as well. This is a particularly effective talking point you guys have come up with, though. Bravo. I'll salute you as I sweat.

mdahmus

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:19:21 -0600

skc

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:27:51 -0600

I agree with you about Boortz being entertaining, though I disagree with him on some things. Boortz has had April Fool's pranks of "all cemeteries should be abolished in America because they use up prime real estate in metropolitan areas" and "The Georgia State Cat Parachuting Finals" - a contest in which parachutists dive after de-planed felines before they hit the ground in a theatrical manner that would make Orson Welles proud, but absolutely Humane Society safe. I listen to him just to hear what's next. Boortz is fresh air to the same ol' news radio. I'm a FairTax Loving, Pro-Choice Conservative.

Ursel

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:09:06 -0600

Boortz "intelligent"...for real?.....Limbaugh "facinating"?.......lady ...please go away

DiedInSuburbia

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:13:05 -0600

Funny..I'm planning a move out to Austin next year, from Boortz' home town of Atlanta. Was hoping to get away! Boortz is occasionally tolerable, as you mention, but no more. He's behind the flaky "Fair Tax" proposal, there's the global warming "hoax" thing, and of course, nothing good can come from a Democrat in his eyes. That in itself (as also evidenced frequently by Atlanta suburbanites in general) is really the most annoying part.

DiedInSuburbia

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:12:45 -0600

helloali

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:04:59 -0600

(well that was weird - i didn't even hit submit.. cont'd) terry gross, i switch over to jeff ward. it was inevitable, but austin radio suffered a huge blow when 590 switched from abc news to fox. anyone know another station that does abc?

helloali

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:03:17 -0600

yeah, another left-leaning, 590-listener here. can't stand boortz, and i definitely wouldn't use the word 'intelligent' to describe him (unless you mean in relation to his callers). but if you can stomach the grandstanding blowhardness, limbaugh does have decent political analysis - or at least an interesting perspective (one that you rarely get in austin, as a previous commenter mentioned). and ward is just great. when i can't stand to listen to terri

gnubeewonkanobie

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:50:52 -0600

I have to take a break from Morning Edition (and All Things Considered) every now and again. Mostly because all the negative news sorta ruins my(natural) high. But instead of tuning in to the other side of the spectrum, I usually just jam out instead. I've been rocking Mahavishnu Orchestra to and from work the last few days and living up the morning traffic on 360 in righteous 70s jazz/rock/fusion style. :-) When I get curious about the right-slant on things news related, I sometimes skim the headlines at Fox, but I rarely click any of the links. The headlines are so worrisome I just can't bring myself to read the article. I do wish there was a better internet resource for local news, though. Anyone have any suggestions?

chetlemon

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:14:56 -0600

Undrum... It sounds like you know plenty about Jeff Ward's show. What year did you graduate and did you play ball? It sounds like his interestes keep you at least interested enough to know his interests.

undrum1

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:00:19 -0600

The utter garbage that spews from KLBJ-AM is emblematic of the rapidly declining quality and influence of terrestrial radio. Now that they've syndicated Alex Jones around the country they've lost all credibility and may as well rename the station K-Rush. How Jeff Ward's show attracts anyone beyond the UT alumni roster is beyond me. Unibrowed shirtless AC/DC fan persona aside, his interests are just too pedestrian to keep this longtime Austinite interested. It's like he pulls his material from the Talk Show Host's Daily Primer or something. And the small gang of anti-government/right-leaning young professionals (who fancy themselves libertarians) that call in almost every day is enough to make one gag. He should stick to more local and germane issues, and leave the reactionary rhetoric, Oprah-bashing, and washed-up movie reviewer from Dallas (!) for Sgt. Sam's Sunday show.

Random

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:47:26 -0600

The science isn't what people take issue with, it's the tone. And when you're dealing with a potentially catastrophic issue, tone makes a big difference. The science in the film is solid, but it's the catastrophic inevitability of it all that has legitimate climataologist questioning it. What's sad to me is that once something is a partisan political issue, there is no room for nuance. In the case of climate change, you're forced to either believe that man made warming will cause the destruction of the planet or that man made climate change has zero long term impact on the planet. No one is allowed to complicate this lest they betray the left or the right.

mdahmus

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:50:41 -0600

Here's a typical take from real climate scientists on Gore's "alarmism": http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/ Note that he takes care to point out several errors, but goes on to say that: "For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right, just as he did in Earth in the Balance. The small errors don't detract from Gore's main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change." If you pay any attention at all to what climatologists actually say about this movie, you will see that 99% of them say something like the above, which is: "a few things wrong; but overall very accurate and quite well done".

debimama

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:08:35 -0600

I've been listening to them for years and I agree, Mark, Ed and the bunch are great esp. on local stuff and Jeff Ward rocks my socks. I can't do Neal B. or Rush though. That's when I take a break switch over to 1370AM for Dr. Laura. I'm sure lots of people would shame me for that!

mdahmus

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:28:30 -0600

"How disappointing that the people working to solve the problem resort to simplifying and emotionalizing the topic to the point of leaving themselves open for debate." The people who really do the science are about one step away from Gore on the continuum between Gore and Limbaugh/Boortz. Yes, they'll tell you about that one step - but to say that Gore is simplifying and emotionalizing in an attempt to let Boortz et al off the hook for simply LYING is just beyond the pale.

smack

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:26:00 -0600

Jeff Ward is the diggity, man. I just wish it wasn't quite so footbally.

Jooley Ann

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:54:29 -0600

Random

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:51:59 -0600

I have no idea what this Boortz fellow says, but it is not a right wing reactionary take to claim that some of the claims in an Incovenient Truth are either slightly exagherated, or are cases of presenting debatable points as fact: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7049377.stm This is part of what I was talking about earlier, and is no idfferent that what you see on conservative talk radio - legitimate questions and concerns being silenced because they conflict with or complicate an ideology's point of view on the topic.

mdahmus

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:16:49 -0600

"overly manipulative language and imagery employed by Gore & Co," That's pretty much a Limbaughian talking point right there, and it shows the damage they've done. Gore & Co are, for the most part, fairly restrained in what they say - it's far more grounded in the actual science than what Boortz himself retorts.

mdahmus

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:13:32 -0600

Jooley Ann

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:01:48 -0600

Random, yes, what you describe is what I was experiencing. Exactly! Tim, who says I don't think we'd be better off nuking the planet? And yes, I'll confess that Limbaugh's unbelievable repetitiveness (sometimes I think he's not quite right in the head, he repeats himself so much) forces me to turn the radio wayyyy down. Except for lately, when he has been quite interesting. I hate to admit. Kenneth, I'm not sure why Boortz, who is otherwise incredibly smart, buys the global warming "hoax" argument. I suspect his usually logical sensibilities are disrupted by the overly manipulative language and imagery employed by Gore & Co, not to mention proposed legislation that is anti-Libertarian. It's a disappointment, though. I will say -- at least his call screener, who participates very frequently on the show, is the polar opposite (buys carbon offsets, etc.), and he allows her to speak about it.

kenneth1

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:48:11 -0600

So Neal Boortz is a "fascinating guy" whose "intelligence shimmers," yet he claims climate change is a hoax. Tell me, where does he stand on the holocaust? How about the round Earth vs. flat Earth debate?

tim

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:34:42 -0600

I listen from time to time to all those shows. Preferring Bortz and Ward. I don't know how you do it every day. I can barely listen to Rush for an hour he spends so much time repeating himself. I couldn't listen to Air America either. They both get me so worked up. And I find their venom just isn't healthy for me to listen to. That said I tune in every few months just to find out what the current talking points are. I don't think you're weird though. They're pretty entertaining if you can listen without thinking we'd be better off nuking the planet.

Random

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:12:53 -0600

It's funny that you talk about being pushed to the left. When I first came to Austin I was an ardent Libertarian: pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, low tax, less government type of guy. When I first got here I found the liberal slant to the town very refreshing. I came from south Texas - a Democratic strong hold, but hardly what I would call liberal. To hear people fired up about liberalism was something I had never experienced. Though something weird happened around 2004. After several years in Austin I noticed a tendency towards preaching to the choir. There aren't very many vocal conservatives in this town and I started to get the impression that liberal Austinities sometimes pushed aside dissenting points of view and tended to enjoying arguing to agreement to any actual discussion, which sounds a lot like what you were experiencing. I started to veer more towards the right during this time, not because I actually believed a lot of it, but more because I felt it was a point of view that was sorely missing. Which is odd now, because I've since left town (my family has remained) and I've gone right back towards the moderate libertarian center. There is no point to this other than to relate to the notion of going further to the left (or right) when immersing yourself in the opposing viewpoint.