What will it take to force political action on climate change?

[alienlovechild 75]

Fortunately, the Far Right ideologues who pounce on these types of threads represent a small minority. There is an overwhelming majority of Americans that want us to address Climate Change. We're seeing another battle by the Far Right to try and mislead the public about the facts. There are many Republicans who have acknowledged the threat of Climate Change and are in support of policies to address it.

A minority quickly becomes a new majority when they find out what the Democrats have in store for them. The last time a Democratic Pres. Carter addressed the energy crisis and a coal strike, I went to school wearing a coat all day, ate cold meat sandwiches and half the lights were turned off. Record unemployment and no real plan to meet growing energy needs are a looming disaster. At least, our GHG emissions will drop because the economy is sputtering along as the Democrats find news ways to ship jobs overseas. Cap and dump the Democrat Party.

[DEDixon 39]

It's almost impossible, as you have essentially two diametrically opposed views on the issue & each one thinks the other are a bunch of morons (kind of like what you see in the VJ OT forum on nearly every issue).

Fortunately, the Far Right ideologues who pounce on these types of threads represent a small minority. There is an overwhelming majority of Americans that want us to address Climate Change. We're seeing another battle by the Far Right to try and mislead the public about the facts. There are many Republicans who have acknowledged the threat of Climate Change and are in support of policies to address it.

this is getting old steven especially coming from the FAR LEFT... you have absolutely no ground to stand on here.

I take it you've never heard of this organization:

Republicans for Environmental Protection

We are Republicans. We share a deep concern for the environment. We know that a healthy environment and a sound economy are both essential to our nation’s prosperity. We believe that by working together, we can preserve both our environment and our economy for current and future generations of Americans.

We Want:

Clean air and water

Food free from harmful chemicals

Clean, efficient businesses & industries

A high quality of life in our cities & rural communities

Strong, results-oriented enforcement of environmental laws

Economic development for communities without the ravages of sprawl

High priority for funding of natural resource stewardship & environmental protection

Protection for posterity of our national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, wild lands & waters

Effective legal protection for threatened & endangered plants & animals in their native habitats

We support and vote for Republican elected officials and candidates who share these values and concerns.

How does REP answer those who believe that no "real Republican" wants to protect the environment or believes in conservation? How do we respond to those who insist that regulatory reform and property rights are more vital than laws to prevent the extinction of species? 1. We point with pride to the great GOP leaders of the past who fought to save natural treasures, signed landmark environmental-protection laws, and established many of the policies we take for granted today. We remember Teddy Roosevelt, who established our unmatched system of wildlife refuges and national parks. We remind people that Barry Goldwater, the father of conservatism, was a lifelong conservationist (and also a REP America member). We recall that Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and also established the Environmental Protection Agency.

2. We talk of the bi-partisan efforts of previous decades, which eliminated burning rivers, toxic waste dumps, DDT and other environmental horrors. Republicans had no special exemption from polluted air and contaminated water, so they made sure their leaders heeded their concerns.

3. We remind skeptics that nothing is more conservative than conservation. True conservatives should safeguard the resources on which the health, recreation, and economic prosperity of present and future Americans depend. There is nothing conservative—and certainly nothing wise—in squandering our energy, clean air and water, beloved landscapes, wildlife, wilderness, wetlands, and other natural treasures.

If you are a conservation-minded Republican, we invite you to join REP. Help us grow a greener GOP from the ground up!

http://www.rep.org/

this isn't my point. my point is you have no ground to stand on when complaining about the Far Right since you are the Far Left.

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

It's almost impossible, as you have essentially two diametrically opposed views on the issue & each one thinks the other are a bunch of morons (kind of like what you see in the VJ OT forum on nearly every issue).

Fortunately, the Far Right ideologues who pounce on these types of threads represent a small minority. There is an overwhelming majority of Americans that want us to address Climate Change. We're seeing another battle by the Far Right to try and mislead the public about the facts. There are many Republicans who have acknowledged the threat of Climate Change and are in support of policies to address it.

this is getting old steven especially coming from the FAR LEFT... you have absolutely no ground to stand on here.

I take it you've never heard of this organization:

Republicans for Environmental Protection

We are Republicans. We share a deep concern for the environment. We know that a healthy environment and a sound economy are both essential to our nation's prosperity. We believe that by working together, we can preserve both our environment and our economy for current and future generations of Americans.

We Want:

Clean air and water

Food free from harmful chemicals

Clean, efficient businesses & industries

A high quality of life in our cities & rural communities

Strong, results-oriented enforcement of environmental laws

Economic development for communities without the ravages of sprawl

High priority for funding of natural resource stewardship & environmental protection

Protection for posterity of our national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, wild lands & waters

Effective legal protection for threatened & endangered plants & animals in their native habitats

We support and vote for Republican elected officials and candidates who share these values and concerns.

How does REP answer those who believe that no "real Republican" wants to protect the environment or believes in conservation? How do we respond to those who insist that regulatory reform and property rights are more vital than laws to prevent the extinction of species? 1. We point with pride to the great GOP leaders of the past who fought to save natural treasures, signed landmark environmental-protection laws, and established many of the policies we take for granted today. We remember Teddy Roosevelt, who established our unmatched system of wildlife refuges and national parks. We remind people that Barry Goldwater, the father of conservatism, was a lifelong conservationist (and also a REP America member). We recall that Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and also established the Environmental Protection Agency.

2. We talk of the bi-partisan efforts of previous decades, which eliminated burning rivers, toxic waste dumps, DDT and other environmental horrors. Republicans had no special exemption from polluted air and contaminated water, so they made sure their leaders heeded their concerns.

3. We remind skeptics that nothing is more conservative than conservation. True conservatives should safeguard the resources on which the health, recreation, and economic prosperity of present and future Americans depend. There is nothing conservative—and certainly nothing wise—in squandering our energy, clean air and water, beloved landscapes, wildlife, wilderness, wetlands, and other natural treasures.

If you are a conservation-minded Republican, we invite you to join REP. Help us grow a greener GOP from the ground up!

http://www.rep.org/

this isn't my point. my point is you have no ground to stand on when complaining about the Far Right since you are the Far Left.

I'm not opposed to trying different approaches to a problem, so long as everyone first recognizes there is a problem. Those who turn their nose up to science and Climate Change, don't see the problem. There's the difference between extremism and pragmatism.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

It's almost impossible, as you have essentially two diametrically opposed views on the issue & each one thinks the other are a bunch of morons (kind of like what you see in the VJ OT forum on nearly every issue).

Fortunately, the Far Right ideologues who pounce on these types of threads represent a small minority. There is an overwhelming majority of Americans that want us to address Climate Change. We're seeing another battle by the Far Right to try and mislead the public about the facts. There are many Republicans who have acknowledged the threat of Climate Change and are in support of policies to address it.

this is getting old steven especially coming from the FAR LEFT... you have absolutely no ground to stand on here.

I take it you've never heard of this organization:

Republicans for Environmental Protection

We are Republicans. We share a deep concern for the environment. We know that a healthy environment and a sound economy are both essential to our nation's prosperity. We believe that by working together, we can preserve both our environment and our economy for current and future generations of Americans.

We Want:

Clean air and water

Food free from harmful chemicals

Clean, efficient businesses & industries

A high quality of life in our cities & rural communities

Strong, results-oriented enforcement of environmental laws

Economic development for communities without the ravages of sprawl

High priority for funding of natural resource stewardship & environmental protection

Protection for posterity of our national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, wild lands & waters

Effective legal protection for threatened & endangered plants & animals in their native habitats

We support and vote for Republican elected officials and candidates who share these values and concerns.

How does REP answer those who believe that no "real Republican" wants to protect the environment or believes in conservation? How do we respond to those who insist that regulatory reform and property rights are more vital than laws to prevent the extinction of species? 1. We point with pride to the great GOP leaders of the past who fought to save natural treasures, signed landmark environmental-protection laws, and established many of the policies we take for granted today. We remember Teddy Roosevelt, who established our unmatched system of wildlife refuges and national parks. We remind people that Barry Goldwater, the father of conservatism, was a lifelong conservationist (and also a REP America member). We recall that Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and also established the Environmental Protection Agency.

2. We talk of the bi-partisan efforts of previous decades, which eliminated burning rivers, toxic waste dumps, DDT and other environmental horrors. Republicans had no special exemption from polluted air and contaminated water, so they made sure their leaders heeded their concerns.

3. We remind skeptics that nothing is more conservative than conservation. True conservatives should safeguard the resources on which the health, recreation, and economic prosperity of present and future Americans depend. There is nothing conservative—and certainly nothing wise—in squandering our energy, clean air and water, beloved landscapes, wildlife, wilderness, wetlands, and other natural treasures.

If you are a conservation-minded Republican, we invite you to join REP. Help us grow a greener GOP from the ground up!

http://www.rep.org/

this isn't my point. my point is you have no ground to stand on when complaining about the Far Right since you are the Far Left.

I'm not opposed to trying different approaches to a problem, so long as everyone first recognizes there is a problem. Those who turn their nose up to science and Climate Change, don't see the problem. There's the difference between extremism and pragmatism.

Translated. "I'm not opposed to trying different approaches to a problem as long as they all come from left wingers or its a liberal republican agreeing with the liberal left wingers"

Liberalism is all about creating a problem, or the appearance of a problem - coming up with a solution which will ALWAYS be more government control over said area.

GM, Chrysler

Banks

Health Insurance

Wall Street

TBA

Walmart

Bass Pro Shops

Ford

Plastics Industry

Meat Consumption (2fer with healthcare and global warming)

The list goes on and on. Whatever it is, to a liberal it is broken and needs the government to fix it. Yet they never fix anything on the domestic front. Bring up Medicare all you want but its bankrupt and benefits were not raised this year, and its about to get 400 billion to 500 billion dollars in cuts with your precious healthcare bill.

[Craneman 2]

And I believed them 30 years ago when they said we were headed for another ICE AGE.

Same names same data, different outcome????????????

David Bielo, Scientific American

As utilities fire up their "clean coal" machines and international negotiators haggle over the precise definition of a tree, only one entity has the courage to stand and deliver the hot air the world so desperately craves on climate change: the U.S. Senate. After a hectic couple of weeks, filled with Republican walkouts and Democratic intransigence, the Senate's Environment and Public Works committee has pushed a bill to the Senate floor that would cut carbon dioxide.

Unfortunately, Republicans (other than Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina) are dead set against it. "My colleagues have advanced a bill with potentially serious economic harm without a comprehensive analysis of its costs," wrote Ohio Senator George Voinovich to Senate Majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "My request [for an economic analysis of the proposal] could have shown whether the bill would have any appreciable impact on global climate change."

And Democrats from coal country are skeptical of a bill that would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. "I'm not for either bill," either the House or Senate version, known alternately as Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer respectively, said Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia at an event to unveil the world's first demonstration project to both capture and store CO2 (albeit just 1.5 percent of the attached power plant's total emissions). "It's too much too soon."

And Rockefeller is just one of 32 senators from the 16 states that produce coal—to say nothing of the many more states that rely on the dirty black rock to produce cheap electricity—some of whose votes will be needed to pass any bill. Rockefeller's price tag is not low: he's calling for another $10 billion to develop carbon capture and storage to make coal cleaner (on top of the $3.5 billion in the recent stimulus package) followed by another $20 billion to $25 billion over the long term, "which is nothing. Health care is $850 billion and we're talking about the future of the world," Rockefeller said.

Nevertheless, the coal country Senator is no contrarian about climate change. "Some thinks it's a hoax," he said. "Well, it isn't. It just isn't." And he feels the time is coming for climate legislation, if not quite yet (or in time for international negotiations in Copenhagen this December). "The climate change legislative piece is going to be pushed off to next year."

Meanwhile, the House Science and Technology Committee looked into what might be done if the world fails to act before climate change becomes catastrophic: geoengineering. "If geoengineering is ever used, it should be as a short-term emergency measure, as a supplement to, and not as a substitute for, mitigation and adaptation," testified environmental scientist Alan Robock of Rutgers University. "And we are not ready to implement geoengineering now." Sounds like exactly the kind of thing the Senate is looking for.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/pos...tica-2009-11-06

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Climate change isn't a "product of liberalism", its a product of the scientific community.

[Craneman 2]

Most of our resources are now spent upon trying to develope markets in China.

The U.S. market has been effectively killed in the past 2 years.

Fortunately, the Far Right ideologues who pounce on these types of threads represent a small minority. There is an overwhelming majority of Americans that want us to address Climate Change. We're seeing another battle by the Far Right to try and mislead the public about the facts. There are many Republicans who have acknowledged the threat of Climate Change and are in support of policies to address it.

A minority quickly becomes a new majority when they find out what the Democrats have in store for them. The last time a Democratic Pres. Carter addressed the energy crisis and a coal strike, I went to school wearing a coat all day, ate cold meat sandwiches and half the lights were turned off. Record unemployment and no real plan to meet growing energy needs are a looming disaster. At least, our GHG emissions will drop because the economy is sputtering along as the Democrats find news ways to ship jobs overseas. Cap and dump the Democrat Party.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Climate change isn't a "product of liberalism", its a product of the scientific community.

Who are overwhelmingly liberal. Any scientist who disagrees is thrown out of said "club" and deemed "not a scientist". These are soviet tactics.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Climate change isn't a "product of liberalism", its a product of the scientific community.

Who are overwhelmingly liberal. Any scientist who disagrees is thrown out of said "club" and deemed "not a scientist". These are soviet tactics.

Do you have a rabbit in your hat along with that bunch of old ####### you pulled out?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Climate change isn't a "product of liberalism", its a product of the scientific community.

Who are overwhelmingly liberal. Any scientist who disagrees is thrown out of said "club" and deemed "not a scientist". These are soviet tactics.

Do you have a rabbit in your hat along with that bunch of old ####### you pulled out?

Only problem is you know its true. Should I post the long list of those fired or stripped of tenure because of disagreeing with the GW Church?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Climate change isn't a "product of liberalism", its a product of the scientific community.

Who are overwhelmingly liberal. Any scientist who disagrees is thrown out of said "club" and deemed "not a scientist". These are soviet tactics.

Do you have a rabbit in your hat along with that bunch of old ####### you pulled out?

Only problem is you know its true. Should I post the long list of those fired or stripped of tenure because of disagreeing with the GW Church?

No I don't know its true. And neither do you for that matter - despite what spurious nonsense you might have dredged up from weirdo blog sites.

[alienlovechild 75]

Climate change isn't a "product of liberalism", its a product of the scientific community.

The scientific community doesn't balance economic concerns nor does it care about international politics. If they are mistaken then they lose nothing. If they're right, they save the planet but if CGC countermeasures don't work, they'll claim more are needed at any price. If the global temperature drops as if has. . . it's an unexplained statistical anomaly.

Reread projections by experts on AIDS deaths, the rate of global population growth, food production, Lake Erie dead for hundreds of years were all off but let's pretend otherwise and just ignore previous predictions.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

More like let's hold the entire scientific agenda as being corrupt and self-serving.

No wonder so many BS conspiracy theories abound with that attitude.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

I am curious. why do the liberal members of this board, like Col. Batsh1t and Private Pyle of ####### feel the need to change their names so much? Is it to make us think there are more people that think like them? I mean, can't you just go by your own name and state your position?

Gary <------- always Gary, the one and only

[lostinblue 1,989]

What will it take? A majority of conressman ans Senators that imagine they can make difference in the earth's climate by making a law.

Just like congrss ended poverty, racism,drug problems, crime (several times!) I can't wait for the US government to "fix" climate change.

Soon to be health care also.Government workers can always things run better than the private sector.