Originally Posted By friendofdd This is a report from the US Senate. It is of interest to those concerned about climate change. Well researched, and backed by many links, it will take some time to read, but should be worth the effort.
Originally Posted By friendofdd Oops! Somebody forgot to post the link. Sorry! <a href="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb" target="_blank">http://epw.senate.gov/public/i ndex.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb</a>
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, I have seen that. It's rubbish by the Republican party which has been trying to lie about this for their corporate benefactors. Supposedly 30 or so of the scientists are on Exxon's payroll. But even assuming they are not, consensus does not mean unanimous. Apparently some people, including Republican Senators, don't seem to grab onto this little clue. Or, more likely, they do understand it, and are trying to create a wedge where none really exists. Even President Bush is now on board with this, to some degree. The only people who aren't really are ignoring a whole mountain of evidence. Furthermore, it is not just the IPCC that is saying this. It is also the belief of every major scientific organization that exists. So, please. Stop trying to pretend it doesn't exist or that there is some debate. There is none, except by those who want to stick their head in the sand at the expense of our children. And who better than the Republicans who are happily spending our children's money with their profoundly damaging economic policies.
Originally Posted By jonvn Here is the story on Bush. If even an utter incompetent like he is understands what is going on, then it's pretty clear and convincing. <a href="http://www.heraldextra.com/component/option" target="_blank">http://www.heraldextra.com/com ponent/option</a>,com_contentwire/task,view/id,2351/
Originally Posted By friendofdd You read the report and it's links very quickly, Jonvn. Congratulations for being able to digest all that is said and being able to make a judgement is such a remarkedly fast manner. And thank you for reminding me that, if it is said by a Republican, it is obviously mindless drivel. It is my hope that people of all political persuasions may read this and see that some questioning of the "consensus" is legitimate. I certainly have no ax to grind in this matter. But when I am told there can be no further discussion about a topic, I tend to be a bit skeptical.
Originally Posted By jonvn "You read the report and it's links very quickly, Jonvn." I saw it before. I don't need congratulations. It is an utterly biased piece of dung. If someone is trying to make it seem like there is no consensus, it is drivel. And it is no surprise that a Republican is trying to do it, because that political party is very much trying to turn aside the real science that this is all based on. What you want people to read here is a biased, political paper that is not science based. It's crap. Much like all the WSJ editorials and Washington Times articles that are also not science based and also are garbage. Complete, unadulterated garbage. And, NO, there is no further debate on this, and anyone who is not a complete tool understands that. How many times does it need be said that every scientific organization on the planet of any credibility agree on what is happening? How many times do these same things need to be repeated over and over again? How stupid do you have to be to not be able to absorb this basic information? What is wrong with people? They sit here and use the internet, watch tv, use their microwave ovens, but hey, I guess there is no consensus on how those things work, either. Let's continute to debate how radio waves can be used to broadcast sound. I think in just a few centuries we'll have that one nailed down, unless there is some clown somewhere who still won't agree, and then we'll just have to keep waiting until absolutely every nitwit who wants to disagree for whatever reason has been dealt with. Maybe then we can start building radios. So, sure, go find some people out there who have a different idea, a few hundred out of many, many thousands. That completely tosses out what basically the entire scientific community has to say, because these few people want to be contrary. Yeah, latch onto them, while time ticks away. Meanwhile, every branch of scientific research takes this as a given. takes it as not a debate, not a question, but an accepted fact. All of them. And they all say we need to start doing something about it because we're doing so much damage that millions of people are going to suffer and die from this. Eh, why listen to them. What do they know...
Originally Posted By woody >>Supposedly 30 or so of the scientists are on Exxon's payroll.<<< Out of 400 scientists, 30 are suspect. I guess this is the perspective that deserves some scrutiny. If you think this is bad, then maybe the scientists are compromised. Or maybe they DO believe what they are doing since they are still there and haven't resigned, been fired or shot.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Okay all you climate change deniers, here's a question - what's in it for you? Why would you adopt a position that is counter to the "consensus"? And the weight and volume of hard scientific evidence that supports it? I can understand why republican "politicians" would oppose it - there's something in it for them. Specifically, money and power provided to them through geo-corporate support. But the rank and file voter - I don't get that. You live on this planet too, right alongside the rest of us. Why would you stand in opposition to efforts to reduce carbon emissions? What are you thinking?!
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Why would you stand in opposition to efforts to reduce carbon emissions? What are you thinking?!<< Why do they vote for the off-shoring of jobs, or an economy that doesn't benefit them but only benefits the wealthy? Why do they vote for a poorer education for their children? Why do they vote for weaker security here at home to fight a war that hasn't made us any safer? Because talk radio pundits have convinced the GOP faithful that the liberal boogeyman is out to get them. If a liberal becomes President, their children will be kidnapped by gay pedophile illegal immigrants who'll make them have abortions. So time and time again, Republicans vote against themselves and their own best interests. And on the issue of global warming, like so many other issues, they get whipped up into an absolute frenzy about a topic that they know little about. It's not enough that they simply disagree; they have to take it personally. So the talk radio pundits and conservative noise machine has made global warming synonymous with Al Gore. And Al Gore once ran for President with a (D) after his name. He clearly can't be trusted.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Why do they vote for the off-shoring of jobs< Oh this is a GOP deal huh ? As someone involved heavily with this at a corporate level - the heavy off shoring of white collar jobs started while we had a Dem in the White House - sorry to disilussion you. However I do not blame the Dems for this - I blame both parties because NEITHER has doen squat, and BOTH are in the pockets of major corproations on this one. I am close enough to this one to tell you this is a fact, not an opinion. Which Dem candidate is going to stop this ? ( less Kucinich who at least talks about it ) - and no, there is no GOP candidate stepping out on this either ...
Originally Posted By vbdad55 a vote for either parties leading cadidates is a vote to continue off shoring of jobs to Brazil / China / Inida / and Southest Asia. It's a very sad statement, not only for us, but for our kids futures
Originally Posted By DlandDug It is pointless to engage in any attempt to discuss this issue with those who see it only in black and white. Clearly, some minds are closed. >>Okay all you climate change deniers, here's a question - what's in it for you? ...the rank and file voter - I don't get that. You live on this planet too, right alongside the rest of us. Why would you stand in opposition to efforts to reduce carbon emissions?<< Now this, on the other hand, is a reasonable question. First of all, the provided links are not disputing climate change-- just the idea that there is no longer any debate on its cause. Man made climate change is the issue at hand. To some, it is a closed issue: man's activities are causing world wide temperatures to rise, and man must enact drastic changes to avert disaster. Others, however, believe that climate change may be a naturally occurring cycle. There are any number of reputable climatologists who hold this view. Alas, whenever their names or research are invoked, the noise machine immediately begins braying about what a load of "dung" it is. There are many reasons that some prefer to look at all the information about the causes of global warming, rather than rely on whoever happens to be the loudest, or uses the most vituperative language. A chief reason is the nagging feeling that this issue has been highjacked by social scientists and political operatives who wish to impose their views about the distribution of wealth, consumption and economic systems on everyone else. Speaking for myself, I have no problem with anyone who wishes to propose changes to address social inequities. I also believe very strongly that our record on caring for the environment is very poor. But I believe it is inherently dishonest to coopt an issue as important as global change to address these issues. Indeed, there are some thoughtful people who believe that using vast resources to enact social change in the guise of averting global warming is, in itself, an invitation to disaster. If, as many climatolgists believe, global warming is inevitable (as it was as recently as the Middle Ages and as long ago as the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum*), using our resources to address social issues will ultimately be wasteful and ineffective. But that's just my opinion, and hey, what do I know? Perhaps, as some here will immediately bellow, I am simply in the thrall of talk radio, evil politicoes, and industry paid shills. Or am I just being cynical? * <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new s/main.jhtml?xml=</a>%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F06%2Fnclim06.xml <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060802-primates.html" target="_blank">http://news.nationalgeographic .com/news/2006/08/060802-primates.html</a>
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, some minds are closed. Those would be the ones who actually study this matter, and every single scientific agency that exists. This does not seem to sink in. "hey, what do I know? " Very little, obviously, and you also seem to not be able to understand what real information. Not a new activity from you.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Oh this is a GOP deal huh ?" The off shoring is not, but the denial of science seems to be.
Originally Posted By Maxxdadd I have said all this before: 1. Climate change is real. 2. Arguments abound regarding what caused it all.... so what. 3. We should all be active in doing what we can to relieve the problem. Why make it a political thing? There are plenty of people on both sides of the aisle who want to do something. As for it being bad for business, and therefore that's why every living Republican opposes it, well... that is pure bunk. Just as every Democrat is the environment's friend. 'Taint so. Quit the penny ante squabbling and just try to reduce your carbon footprint. It isn't that hard, and it is every person's responsibility. Wasting time arguing about it is totally fruitless. Sometimes, the arguments here just make me tired all over.
Originally Posted By woody The minds are closed for those that believe in Global Warming, which to me is about politics rather than a scientific understanding of the so-called problem. >>1. Climate change is real.<< No dispute here. >>2. Arguments abound regarding what caused it all.... so what.<< This is important. >>3. We should all be active in doing what we can to relieve the problem.<< Not clearly defined from cause and effect. You said so from #2 that you don't care. We should have more studies before we arrive at any solution. I agree that Republicans don't want to do anything is the wrong way of looking at the situation. I'm a conservative in the real sense. I don't own a SUV. I use resources carefully. I would reduce the use of fossil fuels to save money AND keep them out of the hands of the dangerous middle east countries (not necessarily about harming the oil industry). The reduction of the carbon footprint is a foolish way of looking at this situation. Carbon is the result of living. Unless we are prepared to stop the world as in not support life as we know it with the comforts we take for granted, we will have a miserable existent and then die. That's the future with this Global Warming crap. Plus, the people who are concerned about this GW deal will leave the earth to those who don't care.
