“Global warming is liberal scare tactics”
-Some suburban republican who keeps a gun under his pillow against burglars and believes Obama wasn’t born in the US.
I’ll probably be as successful as with trying to get Harley to explain his agenda, but here goes: Etocme, what possible reason would “liberals” have in trying to scare people about global warming if it wasn’t true?
We know that the deniers of global warming are backed by the oil companies, who have a profit motive, but I don’t see any benefits for the liberals…unless global warming is true, in which case the benefits are obvious…for everyone.
(I put “liberals” in quotation marks because obviously all the scientists who have proven global warming aren’t liberals).
Anthony, by definition “open to new ideas and concepts”- science IS a “liberal” activity. Science also demands peer review, and proofs, before acceptance. This is quite unlike the acceptance of dogma, and resistance to change, that defines “conservative”. This has nothing to do with political leanings, it’s just the meaning of words.
Shows internal memos from an industry group that fought against the idea of global warming:
““The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.”
I’m getting tired of this, people (especially you, harley, etocme): www.realclimate.org.
The ice is shrinking rapidly, waters are rising, climate is shifting – it’s not just “weather” when (to take just one example) six of the eight hottest years on record are in the last decade. It is forming a pattern. Yes, there is variation – that’s weather. But the overall pattern is climate, and it is changing.
The conservative “view” on this bemuses me: (1) it doesn’t exist, which became (2) maybe it does, but it’s natural causes; which became (3) well, we can’t do anything about it anyway, and it’s too expensive to try.
What planet do these people live on? The responses, incidentally, are:
(1) Yes, it does, and finally some people are admitting it
(2) So what? Even if this were true (and it isn’t) closing our eyes won’t make it go away
(3) Also not true, and not NEARLY as expensive as having to deal with the climate chnge!
anng628 about 15 years ago
I am glad that Earth Day is almost over!
danielsangeo about 15 years ago
“To bad the the ice is growing.”
No. It isn’t.
riley05 about 15 years ago
Harley, you never told us what you have to gain by telling lies about global warming. What’s your agenda?
etocme about 15 years ago
His agenda is to stop liberal scare tactics like global warming
CorosiveFrog Premium Member about 15 years ago
Better safe than sorry.
“Global warming is liberal scare tactics” -Some suburban republican who keeps a gun under his pillow against burglars and believes Obama wasn’t born in the US.
riley05 about 15 years ago
I’ll probably be as successful as with trying to get Harley to explain his agenda, but here goes: Etocme, what possible reason would “liberals” have in trying to scare people about global warming if it wasn’t true?
We know that the deniers of global warming are backed by the oil companies, who have a profit motive, but I don’t see any benefits for the liberals…unless global warming is true, in which case the benefits are obvious…for everyone.
(I put “liberals” in quotation marks because obviously all the scientists who have proven global warming aren’t liberals).
Dtroutma about 15 years ago
Anthony, by definition “open to new ideas and concepts”- science IS a “liberal” activity. Science also demands peer review, and proofs, before acceptance. This is quite unlike the acceptance of dogma, and resistance to change, that defines “conservative”. This has nothing to do with political leanings, it’s just the meaning of words.
riley05 about 15 years ago
That’s very true, Dtroutma, but I was referring to the political definition, and certainly not all scientists are politically liberal.
(Actually, I was referring to Etocme’s version of the political definition!)
riley05 about 15 years ago
Great article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
Shows internal memos from an industry group that fought against the idea of global warming:
““The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.”
Motivemagus about 15 years ago
I’m getting tired of this, people (especially you, harley, etocme): www.realclimate.org. The ice is shrinking rapidly, waters are rising, climate is shifting – it’s not just “weather” when (to take just one example) six of the eight hottest years on record are in the last decade. It is forming a pattern. Yes, there is variation – that’s weather. But the overall pattern is climate, and it is changing. The conservative “view” on this bemuses me: (1) it doesn’t exist, which became (2) maybe it does, but it’s natural causes; which became (3) well, we can’t do anything about it anyway, and it’s too expensive to try. What planet do these people live on? The responses, incidentally, are: (1) Yes, it does, and finally some people are admitting it (2) So what? Even if this were true (and it isn’t) closing our eyes won’t make it go away (3) Also not true, and not NEARLY as expensive as having to deal with the climate chnge!