Why are repubs still hand waving around Global Warming?

[Neosutra]

Ok, so with the new climate bill, I have gotten into several debates with alot of repubs about how they think these new changes will "destroy the free market". When it comes down to it, pretty much all of them just believe that man made global warming is a "hoax" by the liberal media, and thus oppose changes that will hurt their ability to buy Hummers. Seriously, I assumed that the repubs gave this shit up when Bush admited we really need to take is seriously and the United Nations pretty much said in unison "we need to do something now".

With thermal satelite imaging, and the shit ton of other evidence, how are the repubs still using the "lol global warming hoax" argument?

Do people really think that economic regulations are going to "destroy the american industry and remove american rights to buy what they want!?"

Im finding it harder and hard to respect any stance the repubs have nowadays.

[ZarakiKujata]

Well one segment of mainstream GOP has accepted that global warming is real, but going by what Newt Gingrich said during his testimony in front of the House during the writing of this bill they are of the belief that we can not truly do anything to fix shit because it is too expensive and we do not currently have the money to address it.

What I want to know is why you ever had any respect for the GOP stances since like 1999?

[*Shinzon*]

Really the only problem I have with any of the global warming stances? I guess is the way to put it, is the way the world is changing their views of the automotive industry and how cars should be built. Americans in particular have this view that all of a sudden battery powered cars and trucks will save the planet alone and everything else will be ok. Some of these global warming regulations have instant impacts on the automotive industry and areas where these regulations need to be in place get over looked.

For instance, I had a debate on a class two semesters ago about the differences between battery powered/Hybrid cars vs. clean diesel and hydrogen power. Many people believe that there's no reason to continue the development of clean diesel and hydrogen when we can just plug everything thing. I agree with you in saying it's like talking to a brick wall and arguing seems almost pointless. I mean what happens to the battery waste? All that non-biodegradable fluid, the batteries themselves, the factories that produce the batteries, the damn powerplants that produce the electricity.

I think to hold a serious debate with anyone about changes in global warming regulations people need to become much more informed.

[avelle]

I haven't done any amount of research on it at all, so I'm not going to get into some huge debate over it. I saw some "expert" come on the news talking about how there have been recent studies suggesting that there wasn't global warming going on or maybe they had some kind of explanation for it. I don't really remember what was said, I just remember them talking about it. I can only assume most of them are referring to this study when they argue about it.

That said, I think both sides of the fence are pretty retarded on most issues these days!

edit: Sorry I couldn't be more specific, I saw this on the news 2 months ago or so.

[Deftscythe]

I think I'm about to make your day.

Let's see what John Shimkus (R-Illinois) of the House subcommittee on energy and environment had to say about global warming and it's possible consequences in March of this year.

YouTube - What's the harm? Let's ask Congressman John Shimkus

[Alleya]

I ask myself the same question about evolution, space exploration, and all the other anti-science gambits of the GOP. The answer is always the same. They don't understand what science actually is and use fallacious logic to justify their predetermined political end. They care nothing for the truth, only for unchanging 'principles' and an imaginary status quo that never existed. To them, 2 studies that agree with their viewpoint > 100 studies that say otherwise.

[Dimmauk]

Ok, so with the new climate bill, I have gotten into several debates with alot of repubs about how they think these new changes will "destroy the free market". When it comes down to it, pretty much all of them just believe that man made global warming is a "hoax" by the liberal media, and thus oppose changes that will hurt their ability to buy Hummers. Seriously, I assumed that the repubs gave this shit up when Bush admited we really need to take is seriously and the United Nations pretty much said in unison "we need to do something now".

With thermal satelite imaging, and the shit ton of other evidence, how are the repubs still using the "lol global warming hoax" argument?

Do people really think that economic regulations are going to "destroy the american industry and remove american rights to buy what they want!?"

Im finding it harder and hard to respect any stance the repubs have nowadays.

The world will end when God wants it to. Until then, pollute the fuck out of the Earth, and make money in the process.

[Mizango]

Science unite!

[_chuchu]

Oh my Science.

[*Shinzon*]

I ask myself the same question about evolution, space exploration, and all the other anti-science gambits of the GOP. The answer is always the same. They don't understand what science actually is and use fallacious logic to justify their predetermined political end. They care nothing for the truth, only for unchanging 'principles' and an imaginary status quo that never existed. To them, 2 studies that agree with their viewpoint > 100 studies that say otherwise.

It's not just the GOP though. At least lately its both Dems and Reps who have adopted these retarded stances on some aspects of global warming regulations and some of it just doesn't make sense at all.

[Alleya]

It's not just the GOP though. At least lately its both Dems and Reps who have adopted these retarded stances on some aspects of global warming regulations and some of it just doesn't make sense at all.

They are both fucking retarded, but I have it in for the GOP especially for making anti-intellectualism and anti-science an integral part of their entire agenda. You need only look so far as Sarah Palin to see just how far they've sunk.

I also can't recall the last time I saw a democrat making a serious argument on a congressional panel by citing the bible like the guy above.

[Tristam]

For this, I'm convinced it's special interest groups. Developing alternative fuels, biofuels, energy efficient buildings, safer emmisions, etc. would be economically valuable in its own right. Why should we support failing and unsustainable technologies simply because they're american when we can develop alternatives? It's just another way to sell the country short and profit in the short term.

We have such a robust R&D infrastructure that supports itself on a relative pittance of taxpayer dollars, and not using it would be a severe waste, to say nothing of losing competitiveness in a global market which will eventually demand alternative energy and materials out of necessity. That much is a certainty we can prepare for.

[*Shinzon*]

For this, I'm convinced it's special interest groups. Developing alternative fuels, biofuels, energy efficient buildings, safer emmisions, etc. would be economically valuable in its own right. Why should we support failing and unsustainable technologies simply because they're american when we can develop alternatives? It's just another way to sell the country short and profit in the short term.

We have such a robust R&D infrastructure that supports itself on a relative pittance of taxpayer dollars, and not using it would be a severe waste, to say nothing of losing competitiveness in a global market which will eventually demand alternative energy and materials out of necessity. That much is a certainty we can prepare for.

Exactly yet we're stuck using fucking age old converted battery power. Hydrogen is the fuel of the future and the most abundant element in the universe, yet we can't get funding to develop the technology.

[Celeste]

I think I'm about to make your day.

Let's see what John Shimkus (R-Illinois) of the House subcommittee on energy and environment had to say about global warming and it's possible consequences in March of this year.

YouTube - What's the harm? Let's ask Congressman John Shimkus

Hahahaha, I love my state. XD

[Absolutely Virtue]

What I have never understood is the way the right wing has managed to turn environmentalists into pussies.

You can find any number of American heroes who were, effectively, environmentalists. Be they cowboys or farmers or explorers or pioneers, these were people who understood the balance between man and nature. These were big, tough fucking guys- be they historical figures (Lincoln, Lee, Washington) or folk heroes (Paul Bunyan, John Wayne). If these men were alive today, they wouldn't drive down the road in their gigantic SUV shitting up the landscape.

Yet somehow if you suggest you care about the earth, and our connection to it, you get labeled a douchebag. If I prefer a Hybrid to a gas guzzler, it must be because I'm not man enough to appreciate all that horsepower, right? If I'd prefer to know where my food comes from, and that the animals that produced it were treated humanely, I must be a big fucking sissy, because real men only eat gigantic, synthetic hormone-filled steaks.

Typical right wing bullshit. Ridicule what you don't understand or can't control by fear.

[Effluo]

The world will end when God wants it to. Until then, pollute the fuck out of the Earth, and make money in the process.

This... and that end will come in 2012.

I've had a few discussions lately about global warming. Some people refuse to believe we have a hand in it, can do anything about it, or that it even is real. Open your eyes people, if you think the human race hasn't had an impact on this issue, well, then....

I haven't done much research on the bill, but something HAS to be done. Sure, the changes may be hard in the begining, but hell, change isn't always easy. We made the step from leaded to purely unleaded gas, we have cleaner Diesel fuel, and now E85; yea those changes weren't the easiest, but it's been beneficial to reduce carbon emissions.

Get over your damn need for "big toys" and make sure you leave behind a planet for future generations...

[Leif]

"global warming", "climate change", or the apocalypse legislation is silly. Here's why:

- "All the evidence" and those "hundreds of studies" can't seem to explain why current trends show that the earth is currently getting cooler.
- Capping CO2 emission (also known as plant food) is silly, considering that it composes only a small portion of greenhouse gasses.
- Temperatures have increased like 1 degree over the past century. So next time it is 105 in Phoenix.... it will be... 106!!! Oh the heat!!!
- Forcing people to live their lives in a government-approved, environmentally-friendly way is extreme. Nobody wants to have low-flow showers, electric cars, solar panels, and windmills.
- Electric cars are powered by electricity. Electricity is produced by burning coal. Ta da~ It's maaggiccc! Oh wait, we're STILL "killing" the environment
- Cap and Trade - A fine strategy if you think this is a serious problem and we can do something about it (see below). Otherwise, it is a serious energy tax, potentially the largest tax in American history, raising energy prices for all of Americans.
- Regulation = government = money = taxes.
- Cap and trade will cost millions of jobs, decrease growth, and shorten the gap between America and other competing countries.
- Companies will simply outsource manufacturing to China and other countries that are more concerned with economic growth than making sure that sea levels don't gain a couple inches in a few centuries.

If you believe in climate change legislation you have to believe two things:
1) That global warming is a serious threat
2) That the US enacting policies will inspire other countries to follow suit and suddenly "care for the earth"

Nobody has proved either one of those. Nobody has proved if global warming will be a serious problem. Nobody has proved that we can do something about it if it's a serious problem. Nobody has considered whether or not we need to prioritize economic prosperity over saving the earth and to what degree. Nobody has been able to show if this potential climate change is due to natural shifts on Earth or man-made stuff.

There are dozens of questions that need answers, scenarios that need considering, evidence (or lack thereof) that needs to be analyzed, costs versus benefits, etc.

People advocating climate change legislation have not begun to even answer these questions. Who? What? Why? Where? When? How?

Right now it seems like the next excuse to expand government for the sake of expanding government. I can honestly say I am open minded on the issue of this hypothetical "climate change". Until someone has answers to key questions, nobody can responsibly take harsh actions. It's premature and completely inappropriate.

Typical right wing bullshit. Ridicule what you don't understand or can't control by fear.

I couldn't help but laugh when I read this.

You don't seem to understand quite a lot about conservatives. See, we don't want control. We want people in control of how they live their lives and spend their own money. Al Gore, on the other hand, parades around with images like this, showing New York City underwater

http://gothamist.com/attachments/jen..._floodmap3.JPG

It seems to me that we're not the ones who are trying to scare people and gain control.

[zoobernut]

"global warming", "climate change", or the apocalypse legislation is silly. Here's why:

- "All the evidence" and those "hundreds of studies" can't seem to explain why current trends show that the earth is currently getting cooler.
- Capping CO2 emission (also known as plant food) is silly, considering that it composes only a small portion of greenhouse gasses.
- Temperatures have increased like 1 degree over the past century. So next time it is 105 in Phoenix.... it will be... 106!!! Oh the heat!!!
- Forcing people to live their lives in a government-approved, environmentally-friendly way is extreme. Nobody wants to have low-flow showers, electric cars, solar panels, and windmills.
- Electric cars are powered by electricity. Electricity is produced by burning coal. Ta da~ It's maaggiccc! Oh wait, we're STILL "killing" the environment
- Cap and Trade - A fine strategy if you think this is a serious problem and we can do something about it (see below). Otherwise, it is a serious energy tax, potentially the largest tax in American history, raising energy prices for all of Americans.
- Regulation = government = money = taxes.
- Cap and trade will cost millions of jobs, decrease growth, and shorten the gap between America and other competing countries.
- Companies will simply outside manufacturing to China and other countries that are more concerned with economic growth than making sure that sea levels don't gain a couple inches in a few centuries.

If you believe in climate change legislation you have to believe two things:
1) That global warming is a serious threat
2) That the US enacting policies will inspire other countries to follow suit and suddenly "care for the earth"

Nobody has proved either one of those. Nobody has proved if global warming will be a serious problem. Nobody has proved that we can do something about it if it's a serious problem. Nobody has considered whether or not we need to prioritize economic prosperity over saving the earth and to what degree. Nobody has been able to show if this potential climate change is due to natural shifts on Earth or man-made stuff.

There are dozens of questions that need answers, scenarios that need considering, evidence (or lack thereof) that needs to be analyzed, costs versus benefits, etc.

People advocating climate change legislation have not begun to even answer these questions. Who? What? Why? Where? When? How?

Right now it seems like the next excuse to expand government for the sake of expanding government. I can honestly say I am open minded on the issue of this hypothetical "climate change". Until someone has answers to key questions, nobody can responsibly take harsh actions. It's premature and completely inappropriate.

The bold text is the only worthwhile thing you said but even then if they change the way the electricity is made then that point is moot too.

[Diamicles]

Global warming is funny.

It's not like the earth has never undergone a climate change before. We don't have the statistical data do back up that we are causing the earth's temperature to rise...150 years of temperature readings, in the grand scheme of things, isn't even a drop in the bucket.

Personally, until someone proves it to be true, I think 'global warming' is just a coincidence in terms of weather patterns.

Plus, the 'greenhouse gases' still only compose - rounding up to get a tangible maximum- 1% of our entire atmosphere.

Sorry, I'm a very liberal person, but the scientist in me says that it is no more than a coincidence at this time.



edit: Well played, Leif.

[Dimmauk]

Other countries better care about the Earth, or we will fucking sanction, bomb, and/or take over their country.