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

[lostinblue 1,989]

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.

Not to mention all the money that is pushed their way for agreeing with this madness. Disagree and you are unemployed and have no status in the scientific community .

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

If you want a straight answer, ask a straight question.

Though something tells me that you don't really care.

[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

If you want a straight answer, ask a straight question.

Though something tells me that you don't really care.

Why do liberal members change their names?

[lostinblue 1,989]

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

If you want a straight answer, ask a straight question.

Though something tells me that you don't really care.

Future acorn workers getting practice in making sure the dead have a vote

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

For fun.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

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/

I am conservative on many issues, NOT Republican, but I see no parralel here. Where do they say they want congress to pass laws to prevent climate change? I want clean water and air and I want species protected and yes it is foolish to waste energy, especially when you have to pay for it, but what has that got to do with climate change (except collaterally) ????

[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/

I am conservative on many issues, NOT Republican, but I see no parralel here. Where do they say they want congress to pass laws to prevent climate change? I want clean water and air and I want species protected and yes it is foolish to waste energy, especially when you have to pay for it, but what has that got to do with climate change (except collaterally) ????

If you would click on the link to their website, you'd see this right on the front page:

[DEDixon 39]

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

it just also might be a vehicle for the scientific community to get more funding too.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

it just also might be a vehicle for the scientific community to get more funding too.

It might - but you have no way to know that either. Of course that's probably more likely to be true in regard to specific individuals and institutions than a blanket conspiracy of the entire "scientific community".

There is nothing inherently corrupt or dishonest about science and the work of scientists - nor should people approach them as if they were indistinguishable from party politics.

[SuperDuper! 230]

Ahh, so the buzz word is "Climate Change" now, instead of "Global Warming?" Perhaps because the planet was actually cooling during Al Bore's fiery speeches during cool days in August??!

Same thing as Pelosi calling it a "Consumer Option" instead of a "Public Option."

Folks, I'm really worried that the politicians are pulling the wool over your eyes! (Esp., Booyah/Mr. Bill/ Pikester/Scandal/and yes, even Cleo)

[alienlovechild 75]

It might - but you have no way to know that either. Of course that's probably more likely to be true in regard to specific individuals and institutions than a blanket conspiracy of the entire "scientific community".

Aren't you going to feel a silly posting in say the year 2030 and there's no major change in the global climate or that the change cannot be stopped by international law?

Nah, you'll post the same thing and that's what is in store for all of us.

Don't forget about the killer bees, Gene. They'll be NYC next yeaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr argh, ugh.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It might - but you have no way to know that either. Of course that's probably more likely to be true in regard to specific individuals and institutions than a blanket conspiracy of the entire "scientific community".

Aren't you going to feel a silly posting in say the year 2030 and there's no major change in the global climate or that the change cannot be stopped by international law?

Nah, you'll post the same thing and that's what is in store for all of us.

Don't forget about the killer bees, Gene. They'll be NYC next yeaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr argh, ugh.

Balls, Dave.

[alienlovechild 75]

It might - but you have no way to know that either. Of course that's probably more likely to be true in regard to specific individuals and institutions than a blanket conspiracy of the entire "scientific community".

Aren't you going to feel a silly posting in say the year 2030 and there's no major change in the global climate or that the change cannot be stopped by international law?

Nah, you'll post the same thing and that's what is in store for all of us.

Don't forget about the killer bees, Gene. They'll be NYC next yeaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr argh, ugh.

Balls, Dave.

My mistake. You're right. Most of us will perish beneath the waves but you'll continue posting from New Atlantis as long as there's still an airpocket.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's nothing wrong with what I said, Dave.

[SuperDuper! 230]

Sometimes people look/sound like old, married couples around here...