Republicans seek to 'neuter' new global warming committee

[Dr_LHA 3]

I love the fact that right wingers on here are quick to shout "conspiracy" when liberals are saying global warming is bad, but when the Oil Companies, Car Companies, Chemical Companies and everyone else who stand to loose the most if there are strong restrictions put on emissions say "everything is fine" and fund bogus scientific studies, they don't see any problem.

Lets use the scientific principle of Occam's razor here (the simplest answer is usually the correct one), and decide which of the follow theories is likely to be true:

1. A world wide conspiracy of scientists, scientific journals, thermometers, my Auntie Anne who tells me winters were much colder when she was a kid, Al Gore, left wing nations are colluding to fake global warming in order to raise your taxes.

2. Big companies who stand to lose money, use lobbiests to persuade Republican politicians that global warming is a hoax so they can continue to pollute and reap the cash rewards, rather than having to spend money figuring out how to be more "Green".

You know, even if Global Warming turns out to be wrong, it wouldn't hurt to pollute less and conserve more.

Edited March 11, 2007 by dr_lha

[Alex+R 0]

I love the fact that right wingers on here are quick to shout "conspiracy" when liberals are saying global warming is bad, but when the Oil Companies, Car Companies, Chemical Companies and everyone else who stand to loose the most if there are strong restrictions put on emissions say "everything is fine" and fund bogus scientific studies, they don't see any problem.

Lets use the scientific principle of Occam's razor here (the simplest answer is usually the correct one), and decide which of the follow theories is likely to be true:

1. A world wide conspiracy of scientists, scientific journals, thermometers, my Auntie Anne who tells me winters were much colder when she was a kid, Al Gore, left wing nations are colluding to fake global warming in order to raise your taxes.

2. Big companies who stand to lose money, use lobbiests to persuade Republican politicians that global warming is a hoax so they can continue to pollute and reap the cash rewards, rather than having to spend money figuring out how to be more "Green".

You know, even if Global Warming turns out to be wrong, it wouldn't hurt to pollute less and conserve more.

That's the mystery. I'm sure Gary or someone else will have an answer...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Since I discovered Conservapedia its become a source of utter comedy to me. Check out their entry on global warming...

Global warming is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and to political proposals that follow if the theory is accepted. The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a liberal talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with.

More specifically check out their thoroughly authoritative list of five reference articles... :lol:

Now compare to the Wikipedia entry.

Who is stifling debate here I wonder?

Edited March 11, 2007 by erekose

[bostonparis 0]

Since I discovered Conservapedia its become a source of utter comedy to me. Check out their entry on global warming...

Global warming is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and to political proposals that follow if the theory is accepted. The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a liberal talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with.

More specifically check out their thoroughly authoritative list of five reference articles... :lol:

Now compare to the Wikipedia entry.

Who is stifling debate here I wonder?

Is conservapedia serious??

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Is conservapedia serious??

Unfortunately.

[fozzie 41]

Surely not?

[GaryC 7]

There does seem to be a strong scientific consensus reflected in the peer-reviewed literature and statements by the world's scientific academies. Unless one is going purely by ideology, paranoia, or fossil-funded pseudoscience, you can't help but conclude this is a real issue. Those who think (or want to believe) it's all a hoax have quite a case to prove - that thousands of researchers worldwide have conspired over almost three decades to corrupt an open scientific process.

As for cyclones, it's true that there's no clear trend in global frequency, but there does seem to be an intensity trend, and at least some of the data arguments were addressed here). When other conditions are favorable for storm development, warmer air carrying more water vapor is bound to have an effect. Whether it's very strong at this point seems to be a matter of some controversy and continuing research, but we are in the early stages of the warming trend. Thermal lag along with such a large CO2 accumulation means more in the "pipeline". This doesn't mean, though, that we can't limit it's severity, or that we have an excuse to continue pumping out billions of tons of CO2 a year. One reason climate projections are expressed as a range is because they're based on different emission scenarios. In any case, I'm not inclined to take scientific analysis from Pat Michaels, considering his past material and affiliations (here, here, and here. On that last one, these NASA anomaly maps are a bit inconvenient too):

Your map is interesting but not accurate, Notice something missing? How about the southern hemispher? Nothing changing there. That is not reflective of the true global temps and is only showing a short term change. They are just cherry picking what they want. Like I said before, I can show you a study that disputes anything you post but you will just dismiss me as a "right wing nut" so whats the use. You will believe what you want to believe and what you are spoon fed by the ones that want GW to be true. However, lets assume we are having GW. My position has always been that if we are having GW then it's natural not man-made. That is the real issue. GW, if it is happening is a natural cycle.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why does everyone want to *stop* global warming? Even if we caused it, it's already too late.

We should just accept it as a fact and be ready to deal with the consequences.

You're missing the point - it's about recognizing the cause and effect of human activity with regard to the environment. Science and history have demonstrated most definitely the detrimental affect humans can have on the environment - to the point of irreversability. So what you really should be asking is...

Why is the idea of a sustainable future so foreign to some? Because it means conserving now for the sake of our children's children. It's the 'we want it all and we want it now - and f#ck the future' attitude that will be our demise. Farmers can't farm like that. Small businesses can't run like that. Hmmmm...wonder where that attitude permiates from? *cough* corporatization.

[GaryC 7]

I love the fact that right wingers on here are quick to shout "conspiracy" when liberals are saying global warming is bad, but when the Oil Companies, Car Companies, Chemical Companies and everyone else who stand to loose the most if there are strong restrictions put on emissions say "everything is fine" and fund bogus scientific studies, they don't see any problem.

Lets use the scientific principle of Occam's razor here (the simplest answer is usually the correct one), and decide which of the follow theories is likely to be true:

1. A world wide conspiracy of scientists, scientific journals, thermometers, my Auntie Anne who tells me winters were much colder when she was a kid, Al Gore, left wing nations are colluding to fake global warming in order to raise your taxes.

2. Big companies who stand to lose money, use lobbiests to persuade Republican politicians that global warming is a hoax so they can continue to pollute and reap the cash rewards, rather than having to spend money figuring out how to be more "Green".

You know, even if Global Warming turns out to be wrong, it wouldn't hurt to pollute less and conserve more.

I have nothing to gain by taking the side of the oil companies. I don't care if my views are the same as theirs or not. The point is if, and thats a big if, GW is true there is still no proof that humans are causing it. To dismiss me because I am conservitive makes no sense. The science isn't there. There is no proof that GW is caused by man. My conservitive side is the one that is balking at the taxes that the left wants to impose because of this fantacy is what I object to. Human caused CO2 is less than 4% of the total CO2 emmited by nature. We are not to blame, nature is.

[GaryC 7]

Why does everyone want to *stop* global warming? Even if we caused it, it's already too late.

We should just accept it as a fact and be ready to deal with the consequences.

You're missing the point - it's about recognizing the cause and effect of human activity with regard to the environment. Science and history have demonstrated most definitely the detrimental affect humans can have on the environment - to the point of irreversability. So what you really should be asking is...

Why is the idea of a sustainable future so foreign to some? Because it means conserving now for the sake of our children's children. It's the 'we want it all and we want it now - and f#ck the future' attitude that will be our demise. Farmers can't farm like that. Small businesses can't run like that. Hmmmm...wonder where that attitude permiates from? *cough* corporatization.

Oh yeah Steven. The EVIL CORPORATIONS ARE TO BLAME!!!! You really trip me out by your anti-capitalistic views. Everything evil in the world is caused by "big corporations"!

I WANT GW! I want things to get warmer! I think it would be a better world without the nasty winters! But the most important thing is: Our climate is changing (if it's changing) because of natural forces and not man-made ones. Leave it alone and let nature take its course. And stay out of my wallet just because you want to believe in junk science! Jeez! Liberals and taxes. Your solution to everything is to tax what you don't like.

[bostonparis 0]

I love the fact that right wingers on here are quick to shout "conspiracy" when liberals are saying global warming is bad, but when the Oil Companies, Car Companies, Chemical Companies and everyone else who stand to loose the most if there are strong restrictions put on emissions say "everything is fine" and fund bogus scientific studies, they don't see any problem.

Lets use the scientific principle of Occam's razor here (the simplest answer is usually the correct one), and decide which of the follow theories is likely to be true:

1. A world wide conspiracy of scientists, scientific journals, thermometers, my Auntie Anne who tells me winters were much colder when she was a kid, Al Gore, left wing nations are colluding to fake global warming in order to raise your taxes.

2. Big companies who stand to lose money, use lobbiests to persuade Republican politicians that global warming is a hoax so they can continue to pollute and reap the cash rewards, rather than having to spend money figuring out how to be more "Green".

You know, even if Global Warming turns out to be wrong, it wouldn't hurt to pollute less and conserve more.

I have nothing to gain by taking the side of the oil companies. I don't care if my views are the same as theirs or not. The point is if, and thats a big if, GW is true there is still no proof that humans are causing it. To dismiss me because I am conservitive makes no sense. The science isn't there. There is no proof that GW is caused by man. My conservitive side is the one that is balking at the taxes that the left wants to impose because of this fantacy is what I object to. Human caused CO2 is less than 4% of the total CO2 emmited by nature. We are not to blame, nature is.

That tells me that you don't read or listen to anything other than right wing rhetoric. There is so much incontrovertible evidence, and you refuse to see it by saying, "I can show you a study for every study you show me," when in fact there are so many more studies, done by so many more reputable scientists, showing what causes global warming and what will happen in the future.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why does everyone want to *stop* global warming? Even if we caused it, it's already too late.

We should just accept it as a fact and be ready to deal with the consequences.

You're missing the point - it's about recognizing the cause and effect of human activity with regard to the environment. Science and history have demonstrated most definitely the detrimental affect humans can have on the environment - to the point of irreversability. So what you really should be asking is...

Why is the idea of a sustainable future so foreign to some? Because it means conserving now for the sake of our children's children. It's the 'we want it all and we want it now - and f#ck the future' attitude that will be our demise. Farmers can't farm like that. Small businesses can't run like that. Hmmmm...wonder where that attitude permiates from? *cough* corporatization.

Oh yeah Steven. The EVIL CORPORATIONS ARE TO BLAME!!!! You really trip me out by your anti-capitalistic views. Everything evil in the world is caused by "big corporations"!

I WANT GW! I want things to get warmer! I think it would be a better world without the nasty winters! But the most important thing is: Our climate is changing (if it's changing) because of natural forces and not man-made ones. Leave it alone and let nature take its course. And stay out of my wallet just because you want to believe in junk science! Jeez! Liberals and taxes. Your solution to everything is to tax what you don't like.

It's not in the best interest of a corporation to look for long term solutions - are you arguing against that? What do you suppose would happen to the CEO of a corporation if he were to make changes in production where the benefits wouldn't be felt directly by the shareholders, would cost some money up front and the gains would take 20-30 years to mature? What's the average length of tenure for a corporate CEO? It's the nature of the beast, Gary - corporations sole purpose of existence is for profit - and will operate to maximize that profit as quickly it can. Do you not agree? Restructering a corporation for a more sustainable future doesn't fit into that scheme.

[GaryC 7]

I love the fact that right wingers on here are quick to shout "conspiracy" when liberals are saying global warming is bad, but when the Oil Companies, Car Companies, Chemical Companies and everyone else who stand to loose the most if there are strong restrictions put on emissions say "everything is fine" and fund bogus scientific studies, they don't see any problem.

Lets use the scientific principle of Occam's razor here (the simplest answer is usually the correct one), and decide which of the follow theories is likely to be true:

1. A world wide conspiracy of scientists, scientific journals, thermometers, my Auntie Anne who tells me winters were much colder when she was a kid, Al Gore, left wing nations are colluding to fake global warming in order to raise your taxes.

2. Big companies who stand to lose money, use lobbiests to persuade Republican politicians that global warming is a hoax so they can continue to pollute and reap the cash rewards, rather than having to spend money figuring out how to be more "Green".

You know, even if Global Warming turns out to be wrong, it wouldn't hurt to pollute less and conserve more.

I have nothing to gain by taking the side of the oil companies. I don't care if my views are the same as theirs or not. The point is if, and thats a big if, GW is true there is still no proof that humans are causing it. To dismiss me because I am conservitive makes no sense. The science isn't there. There is no proof that GW is caused by man. My conservitive side is the one that is balking at the taxes that the left wants to impose because of this fantacy is what I object to. Human caused CO2 is less than 4% of the total CO2 emmited by nature. We are not to blame, nature is.

That tells me that you don't read or listen to anything other than right wing rhetoric. There is so much incontrovertible evidence, and you refuse to see it by saying, "I can show you a study for every study you show me," when in fact there are so many more studies, done by so many more reputable scientists, showing what causes global warming and what will happen in the future.

This tells me you are listening to nothing but left wing rhetoric. This is a political issue not a scientific issue. There is NO credible evidence that man made CO2 is causing GW. You only accept what you want to see and disregard anything else. There are pleanty of reputable scientists that don't hold with man made GW.

[GaryC 7]

Why does everyone want to *stop* global warming? Even if we caused it, it's already too late.

We should just accept it as a fact and be ready to deal with the consequences.

You're missing the point - it's about recognizing the cause and effect of human activity with regard to the environment. Science and history have demonstrated most definitely the detrimental affect humans can have on the environment - to the point of irreversability. So what you really should be asking is...

Why is the idea of a sustainable future so foreign to some? Because it means conserving now for the sake of our children's children. It's the 'we want it all and we want it now - and f#ck the future' attitude that will be our demise. Farmers can't farm like that. Small businesses can't run like that. Hmmmm...wonder where that attitude permiates from? *cough* corporatization.

Oh yeah Steven. The EVIL CORPORATIONS ARE TO BLAME!!!! You really trip me out by your anti-capitalistic views. Everything evil in the world is caused by "big corporations"!

I WANT GW! I want things to get warmer! I think it would be a better world without the nasty winters! But the most important thing is: Our climate is changing (if it's changing) because of natural forces and not man-made ones. Leave it alone and let nature take its course. And stay out of my wallet just because you want to believe in junk science! Jeez! Liberals and taxes. Your solution to everything is to tax what you don't like.

It's not in the best interest of a corporation to look for long term solutions - are you arguing against that? What do you suppose would happen to the CEO of a corporation if he were to make changes in production where the benefits wouldn't be felt directly by the shareholders, would cost some money up front and the gains would take 20-30 years to mature? What's the average length of tenure for a corporate CEO? It's the nature of the beast, Gary - corporations sole purpose of existence is for profit - and will operate to maximize that profit as quickly it can. Do you not agree? Restructering a corporation for a more sustainable future doesn't fit into that scheme.

What a cynical view! What do you think, that people that run big business live on the moon? They live on the same planet that the rest of us do and they don't want it f#cked up any more that we do. Your hatred of big business shows just how out of touch you are Steven. WAKE UP!!

[fozzie 41]

I refer you to the 'whats your motto' thread.

"2) Never trust a man with facial hair"