Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Giving Global Warming The Cold Shoulder
#1
This is an interesting article, on what to look for when the C&Gs regain control of congress this November. The campaign against AGW/Climate Change is going to really heat up. And the Brits can keep their heads buried in the 'whatever', it will not be done here in the US.

Also, look for the AGW Kooks to Really, Really, come out of the woodwork and strut their stuff. S5

Quote:GOP Gives Climate Science A Cold Shoulder
by Ronald Brownstein
Saturday, Oct. 9, 2010

When British Foreign Secretary William Hague visited the U.S. last week, he placed combating climate change near the very top of the world's To Do list.

"Climate change is perhaps the 21st century's biggest foreign-policy challenge," Hague declared in a New York City speech. "An effective response to climate change underpins our security and prosperity." The danger was no longer just distant thunder, he suggested, warning that the recent devastating floods in Pakistan heralded the sort of extreme events that will become more common in a warmer world. "While no one weather event can ever be linked with certainty to climate change," he said, "the broad patterns of abnormality seen this year are consistent with climate-change models."

William Hague is not a holdover from the left-leaning Labor Government that British voters ousted last spring. He's not even from the centrist Liberal Democrats who are governing in a coalition with the Conservative Party of Prime Minister David Cameron. Hague is one of Cameron's predecessors as Conservative Party leader.

His strong words make it easier to recognize that Republicans in this country are coalescing around a uniquely dismissive position on climate change. The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones.

This change has proceeded in two stages. First came a hardening of Republican opposition to cap-and-trade legislation intended to limit the emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to climate change. Most congressional Republicans had always opposed such legislation, but that position wasn't monolithic: In 2005, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and five other Republicans voted for a cap-and-trade bill that he co-sponsored. Several GOP governors also acted on climate-change issues.

This year, when Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., spent months negotiating bipartisan cap-and-trade legislation, he could not attract any Republican co-sponsors -- not even McCain. And when National Journal recently surveyed the 21 GOP Senate challengers with a serious chance of winning this fall, each opposed cap-and-trade (including Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois, who voted for it in 2009).

Even many climate-change activists prefer alternatives to cap-and-trade, such as a carbon tax. But virtually all of the serious 2010 GOP challengers have moved beyond opposing cap-and-trade to dismissing the scientific evidence that global warming is even occurring.

Senate nominees with tea party roots, such as Nevada's Sharron Angle, have expressed these views most emphatically. But the pattern of repudiation extends to more-measured nominees such as Ohio's Rob Portman and California's Carly Fiorina who pointedly insisted, "I'm not sure," when asked whether climate change was happening. Of the 20 serious GOP Senate challengers who have taken a position, 19 have declared that the science of climate change is inconclusive or flat-out incorrect. (Kirk is the only exception.) With sentiments among rank-and-file Republicans also trending that way, it's no coincidence that two Republicans who affirmed the science -- Rep. Michael Castle in Delaware and Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska -- were defeated in Senate primaries this year.

Just for the record, when the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences last reviewed the data this spring, it concluded: "A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems." Not only William Hague but such other prominent European conservatives as French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have embraced that widespread scientific conviction and supported vigorous action.

Indeed, it is difficult to identify another major political party in any democracy as thoroughly dismissive of climate science as is the GOP here. Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, says that although other parties may contain pockets of climate skepticism, there is "no party-wide view like this anywhere in the world that I am aware of."

It will be difficult for the world to move meaningfully against climate disruption if the United States does not. And it will be almost impossible for the U.S. to act if one party not only rejects the most common solution proposed for the problem (cap-and-trade) but repudiates even the idea that there is a problem to be solved. The GOP's stiffening rejection of climate science sets the stage for much heated argument but little action as the world inexorably warms -- and the dangers that Hague identified creep closer.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#2
OK, then -

there is at least this one reason to support the GOP.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#3
JohnWho Wrote:OK, then -

there is at least this one reason to support the GOP.

Agreed. But they are still a sorry lot.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#4
John L Wrote:Agreed. But they are still a sorry lot.

Which would be better than the lot we now have.

Depressing, isn't it?
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#5
JohnWho Wrote:
John L Wrote:Agreed. But they are still a sorry lot.

Which would be better than the lot we now have.

Depressing, isn't it?

Terribly so. That is why I am so oft pissed.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#6
So, this guy answers the phone and it is a pollster:

Pollster: "Do you intend on voting for a Democrat or Republican?"

This guy: "You need to add more choices in your poll?"

Pollster: "Why?"

This guy: "I'll be voting against someone."



S4
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#7
Climate change is real. The science behind it is rock solid.

But what the climate change activists don't realize is that the time-scale of the Earth is much different than the time-scale of human being. It won't really matter if we release all of the carbon from fossil fuels over the next 50 years, 200 years, or 500 years. That is still a tiny blip on the Earth's timeline.

The fact remains - we will continue to use fossil fuels, and this use will continue to release carbon. Any cap & trade, or carbon tax will only slow it down to us, not to the Earth.

Climate change is coming, and the only thing we can do is delay it. That isn't really worth it if you ask me.
Reply
#8
Brooklyn -

your post implies that something we are doing is having an effect on "climate change".

Exactly what are we doing and exactly what effect is it having?

If you mean the release of CO2 into the atmosphere through our use of fossil fuels, then the only thing "rock solid" about that possibility is that it is extremely minor and of very little overall consequence.

We should be spending our billions of dollars on feeding the hungry, eliminating diseases, and, from the US's standpoint, developing alternative energy source's that remove our dependence on foreign sources.

We should not be wasting all of these billions of dollars forcing restrictions on CO2 emissions when it will not make any appreciable difference to the climate. Indeed, the additional CO2 is a positive factor when it comes to producing more food to feed the hungry. (Well, except when the food is used for fuel - "ethanol".)

Oh, and you mention that "climate change" is coming - well, yeah, and it may be in the form of a long-term cooling trend. In this case, all the CO2 we can possibly emit into the atmosphere won't affect the cold much, either. Brrrr.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Global Warming Bill in Trouble John L 41 6,742 01-04-2010, 06:02 PM
Last Post: JohnWho
  "global warming" and "climate change": f jt 2 1,277 05-03-2009, 11:09 PM
Last Post: scpg02
  GOP platform may have global warming plank scpg02 15 3,075 09-02-2008, 03:39 PM
Last Post: scpg02
  Not Evil, Just Wrong: Next Shot In The Global Warming War John L 4 1,825 07-11-2008, 10:12 AM
Last Post: John L
  Weather Channel Founder's Take on Global Warming Scam John L 24 5,264 06-17-2008, 10:17 PM
Last Post: John L
  John McCain outlines a plan to tackle global warming JohnWho 2 1,271 05-13-2008, 04:32 PM
Last Post: JohnWho
  Why Won't AlGore Debate Global Warming? John L 68 16,129 11-21-2007, 07:16 AM
Last Post: drgonzaga
  Alan Caruba on The Year the Global Warming Hoax Died John L 15 2,984 11-15-2007, 09:26 AM
Last Post: drgonzaga
  Put up or shut up on global warming scpg02 12 2,340 08-14-2007, 10:46 PM
Last Post: Lithium
  Video of a great lecture on global warming Jsharp29 3 1,214 06-08-2006, 02:55 AM
Last Post: Independents4Bush

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)