Ice Age shouldn't have had a sequel anyway

Depending on one's perspective of "rich", I found another blog, aptly named "An Honest Climate Debate", concerned with (you guessed it!) a so-called "honest" climate debate.

I'm gonna go Glenn Beck on anybody foolish enough to read my post and simply assert that there is no such thing as an honest climate debate. Global Warming is a vast hybrid - so vast that there's always something at stake with Global Warming.

Given that, I don't believe that it is possible anymore to remain purely scientific concerning global warming, if it ever was at all. Why? GW is now a definitive boundary in American domestic politics. It is a cornerstone of an ideology among many. So much so that it, like many other aspects of ideology, can necessarily reproduce our conceptions of reality in a way that doesn't seem obvious. Everyone's drinking a different flavor of the same kool-aid.

Anyway - the blog post (http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/global-warming-may-prevent-approaching-ice-age/) I found was a re-posting of a news article that that references a scientific claim that our pollution will stave off the next probable ice age in a couple thousand years. They're quick to point out that this isn't an argument attempting to prove that the release of C02 into the atmosphere is a good thing - however, I've already seen this argument get re-appropriated for the exact opposite.

During the fall semester, I coach debate for a local high school. The topics can range from a number of different areas, but global warming often rears its ugly head. A number of times, teams in response to arguments that global warming is bad, will say the exact opposite, that global warming is good - one of the reasons being that it will prevent the next coming ice age.

My point is that information goes through a number of processes that construct, amplify, dampen, and misconstrue the true essence of the information. But even beyond that, the way in which ideology shapes our realities also shapes our reception to these arguments. Clearly my ideology affects the way in which I judge and resolve high school global warming debates at the end of the round. Impartiality is a myth, but it doesn't mean that a partisan belief has to birth a schism.

Does anyone really think that we'll be around for the next ice age even if it was to happen?