The Grand New Party

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You hear all the tree hughing nuts but you just don't see a hugh push to their agenda.

There are a initiatives that Obama and the Dems are pushing through that will raise energy costs and hurt U.S. industry. I also believe a new version of Kyoto is being negotiated or will be soon and the President is all for it. All this pushed heavily by the environmental lobby. There is also a video mentioned on the front page of Fox News today, All About Stuff I think it was, it's basically a 20 minute rant on how bad the U.S. is for the environment (using a bunch of bogus statistics, as usual) and this is being shown in schools throughout the country. Don't underestimate the power of the environmental lobby (Dark Side).

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

There are a initiatives that Obama and the Dems are pushing through that will raise energy costs and hurt U.S. industry. I also believe a new version of Kyoto is being negotiated or will be soon and the President is all for it. All this pushed heavily by the environmental lobby. There is also a video mentioned on the front page of Fox News today, All About Stuff I think it was, it's basically a 20 minute rant on how bad the U.S. is for the environment (using a bunch of bogus statistics, as usual) and this is being shown in schools throughout the country. Don't underestimate the power of the environmental lobby (Dark Side).

Lobbyists ruin governments regardless of which side they're on. It's quite a shame that the people that make such key decisions often have no knowledge on them and rely on what somebody who swoons them feeds.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Could you please explain how the environmental issues are not a concern? Why are we one of what, 2 civilized countries who haven't ratified the KP? It is time for a new Kyoto Protocol, though I haven't reviewed any new version, so I'll have to look into that.

The difference between the U.S. ratifying a treaty and France or China doing likewise is that we would probably endeavour to live up to it.

The question concerning global warming is do you want to stifle an already struggling economy with rules that under the best scenario would have a marginal impact on global warming(assuming global warming is real)? I would prefer to keep the economy going and try to adapt to any changes that occurr with our climate through other means. Even if we did everything Al Gore wants right now, they tell us we're still screwed.

I believe that global warming is merely a rationale from the left to impose policies they've been in favor of since before anyone ever noticed global warming. Capitalism just works better, so they've latched onto a quasi-religious movement to even the playing field. If the data suggested global cooling, they would offer exactly the same solutions they're giving us now.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I believe that global warming is merely a rationale from the left to impose policies they've been in favor of since before anyone ever noticed global warming. Capitalism just works better, so they've latched onto a quasi-religious movement to even the playing field. If the data suggested global cooling, they would offer exactly the same solutions they're giving us now.

I agree with you. Here's a little more info on Kyoto:

Ten Second Response: The Cost of Kyoto

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

The difference between the U.S. ratifying a treaty and France or China doing likewise is that we would probably endeavour to live up to it.

The question concerning global warming is do you want to stifle an already struggling economy with rules that under the best scenario would have a marginal impact on global warming(assuming global warming is real)? I would prefer to keep the economy going and try to adapt to any changes that occurr with our climate through other means. Even if we did everything Al Gore wants right now, they tell us we're still screwed.

I believe that global warming is merely a rationale from the left to impose policies they've been in favor of since before anyone ever noticed global warming. Capitalism just works better, so they've latched onto a quasi-religious movement to even the playing field. If the data suggested global cooling, they would offer exactly the same solutions they're giving us now.

Well without global cooling we really don't have that leg to stand on. The Kyoto treaty was not brought up in a time like now, the economy was much better, but I do agree that it could have a major economic impact. It's not so much that we need to ratify a treaty, just we need to take better steps towards preserving the environment.

People call talk about skewered facts or whatever they'd like, but the huge emission of pollutants teamed with deforestation can certainly not be helping or neutral.

Even aside from all of this, whether global warming be a scare tactic or not, it is pushing innovation in some stagnant industries and helping speed along the development and research of more efficient energy and processes to help us. In turn that is helping create jobs and technologies from which we can benefit.

Global warming is real -- it's just debated whether man has anything to do with it or not. I'd be inclined to say yes, it's just to what level we are.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Global warming is real -- it's just debated whether man has anything to do with it or not. I'd be inclined to say yes, it's just to what level we are.

There's a large , uncrackpot contingent of the scientific community who thinks you're wrong. The data on global warming from everything I have read really is pretty debatable.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

There's a large , uncrackpot contingent of the scientific community who thinks you're wrong. The data on global warming from everything I have read really is pretty debatable.

Those scientists can usually be put into a list, the ones supporting man's impact is too long of a list to generate. It seems that quite a number of those who don't agree either say that it's too inconclusive or that man isn't the MAIN cause of it, which I didn't say that we were. In addition, a number of these professionals are geologists (many petroleum geologists) and many others are meteorologists, which may seem surprising, but they're more familiar with short term changes.

It is still of advantage of us to look into more efficient and responsible practices.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Those scientists can usually be put into a list, the ones supporting man's impact is too long of a list to generate. It seems that quite a number of those who don't agree either say that it's too inconclusive or that man isn't the MAIN cause of it, which I didn't say that we were. In addition, a number of these professionals are geologists (many petroleum geologists) and many others are meteorologists, which may seem surprising, but they're more familiar with short term changes.

It is still of advantage of us to look into more efficient and responsible practices.

Are you so sure about that?
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Those scientists can usually be put into a list, the ones supporting man's impact is too long of a list to generate. It seems that quite a number of those who don't agree either say that it's too inconclusive or that man isn't the MAIN cause of it, which I didn't say that we were. In addition, a number of these professionals are geologists (many petroleum geologists) and many others are meteorologists, which may seem surprising, but they're more familiar with short term changes.

It is still of advantage of us to look into more efficient and responsible practices.

I didn't state my self well there. There exists a large contingent of uncrackpot scientists who would argue that Global Warming doesn't even exist. Forget who or what caused it. The main arguments that I have studied, and as far as I can tell don't have any real dog in the fight, go like this.

Warming data collected over the last 100 years is rather spotty. Think about it. A 100+ years ago there was widespread, accurate and scientifically relevant amounts of temperature data available that could be used in a definitive manner? Sounds dubious to me. Forget about using data from before that...it doesn't even really exist. Most of the global climate change data is built using human-derived models. Models are really a fancy way of saying...we drew a picture and this is what it looks like. They're human-made. Maybe they're accurate and maybe they're not. But from a scientific standpoint they aren't evidence of anything other than the model-builder's ability to use a computer and code. The large "consensus" who "believe" in global climate change are driven by contingents just as politically motivated as the ones driven by the oil companies. In fact there is probably more money in total at stake on the climate change side than the other. All of this isn't to say that global climate change is a crock. I have no idea...but I am not willing to go blindly down a path that will cost the human existence enormous time, effort and money just to fix a problem that may or may not exist.

Now your point about finding energy alternatives anyways, I can get on board with. From a political standpoint we need a strategy for extricating ourselves from the tyranny of oil. It puts us in harms way when we have to rely on others for our basic needs. We ought to really be pursuing energy independence in a serious way.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Well without global cooling we really don't have that leg to stand on. The Kyoto treaty was not brought up in a time like now, the economy was much better, but I do agree that it could have a major economic impact. It's not so much that we need to ratify a treaty, just we need to take better steps towards preserving the environment.

People call talk about skewered facts or whatever they'd like, but the huge emission of pollutants teamed with deforestation can certainly not be helping or neutral.

It could be well be neutral. We have evolved in an environment that contained a certain amount of CO2. More CO2 might be bad, or it might be good for humans. Who knows. We're on our own, hurtling through spacetime on a big unfriendly rock. The pretense of control displayed by the political Left reminds me of my fundamentalist Christian grandmother. The Liberals will fix everything. Bullshit. Don't sell me a cup of bullshit and call it progress.

If you eliminate God from the equation, I can argue freely for the Chomskyite anarchist position which is really easy intelectually. "We're all alone so **** you". My opinion is just as valuable as yours and don't talk to me about your bloody science because that's just religion by another name. Fairy stories made up by crotchety old men trying to get a leg up. You see where this leads.

[Beemnseven]