Do any republicans believe in global warming?

Ok, if you have not been keping up it is clear that the earth has had a climate range that swings much hotter or colder than the present. But man likes the present climate. No matter who is causing the problem the scientits need to give options on how to manipulate the climate to keep it near the present. There was an article in Popular Science a few months ago ( close to a year or more) that gave examples of methods to control CO2. Stuff like sticking CO2 emmisions underground or promoting some plant growth in the ocean to suck up CO2. There were about 10 options in the article. But please realize that earth and life will continue, it is just keeping man happy that we are talking about (which I am for). Also keep in mind that economics will decide the solution, whatever option is cheapest, either doing nothing and allowing a level of warming or controlling CO2 or finding an alternative engery; WHATEVER IS CHEAPEST WILL WIN.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Jun 4 2006, 04:25 PM) [snapback]265702[/snapback]</div>

Yes, Earth has been both warmer and cooler than it is now. But never before has the change been so rapid. This has dire consequences for all life forms, including us and those that support us. The planet isn't going to lose orbit anytime soon, but the life on it is changing, and not for the better.

 

The endless debate about global warming and/or climate change begs a critical question: What would be the consequences if, in fact, Al Gore and company are right and we did nothing? We have only one; count 'em: ONE ecosystem/planet. Given that the consequences of inaction in the face of climate change will be catastrophic, I think it's SUICIDALLY IDIOTIC for ExxonMobil, Repuglicans, GM, Apoclypse Fundamentalists, and the majority of unconscious Americans, to try hanging on to the status quo.

The questions then become more like: "Is GM's market share worth a 20ft rise in sea level?"...."Is America's self indulgent lifestyle worth 20 million lives in Bangladesh?"..."Could any of us look a Congolese subsistence farmer in the eye and tell him that, while we're sorry his country is virtually unihabitable and his farm has evaporated, we could hardly be expected to reduce our fossil fuel consumption?"

It's time to end the enviro-smugness and think beyond the Prius, which is only a baby step in the right direction.
Bob

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jun 3 2006, 05:20 PM) [snapback]265266[/snapback]</div>

I ask myself that same thing. Then I have my qualifiers... Do we have a stiff enough east wind to blow the smoke off the property... Will the next rain carry this stuff down stream far enough?

If those questions come back yes, then the marginal things can be ok for today....

:lol:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jun 3 2006, 05:20 PM) [snapback]265266[/snapback]</div>

Same here. I'm glad it doesn't pollute more... I'm not that jazzed up about how much it does or does not... I'm just glad it gets great mpg and saves big $$$

 

It's more hype than fact, as most scientists would argue. Yes, I am aware of the climate shifts, however, this is nothing new to God's green earth.

Yes, I am a Republican and I believe in conservation not extreme fundamentalist environmentalism. If we can do more with less, go for it. Nevertheless, do not let politically motivated treaties like Kyoto bully us to one side. It is as if we in America are guilty of being successful. As a liberty loving American, I have a right to drive what I want. If consumers want more fuel efficient cars they will vote with their wallets and car companies will have to address that or face their share holders. Toyota is successful because they are smart and meet consumer demands.

Let us be real, I can not pull a boat with a hybrid and until they come out with a full size truck/SUV that can give me the power and fuel economy I need then I am stuck driving (in moderation) my gas guzzler and I don't feel guilty doing so. It is my right as an American to make that choice. I know that I must meet clean air standards in my county in order to get new tabs every year (which it does) and I know that I will be paying higher fuel costs because of the poor fuel economy. Am I happy about that, no, can I do anything to change it, not yet. I know Toyota has a hybrid truck in the works and I will gladly look into it when it becomes available.

Yeah, I feel good that I am consuming less foreign oil when I drive my Prius. That is not the answer though. What I would like to see is more domestic drilling in North America (go for it Alaska!). With today’s strict environmental standards, some say extreme, we are not able to keep up with the demand we create. We need more nuclear energy plants, more domestic drilling (how is it that Cuba can drill off the East Coast, but our American oil companies can not?), and add more refinery capacity. Instead of subsidizing farmers not to grow crops they should be raising soybean or other bio-diesel producing crops as well as further exploration into the world of hybrid technology.

I will not being seeing Al Gore’s mock-umentary. :angry: After all, he did not have a problem burning all that fossil fuel going back and forth across the country in his private jumbo jet to spread the hype about his film. At what cost has he furthered our impact on the environment for his own ideological miss-truths. Go back and look at what scientists said in the 70’s, back then it was “Here comes the next Ice age and anyone want more Kool Aid?â€

The earth warms and cools itself. I doubt our impact is as severe as Hollywood or Al would have us believe. They have been wrong before (need I remind anyone about the Pacific Northwest Spotted Owl) and they will be wrong this time. I say use common sense not fascism to regulate the environment.

A good article by the Denver Post, http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807 B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bob Allen @ Jun 4 2006, 07:33 PM) [snapback]265787[/snapback]</div>

Bob,

This is the real world. Do not believe everything Hollyweird tells you.

For those of you who think Doomsday is around the corner (I'm sure the alphabet channels are working on the mini-series as we speak or maybe Al's network has beaten them to the punch, oh wait I meant Kool Aid :lol: ) read the Newsweek article I mentioned in a previous post.

I like the “Repuglican†comment too, that was a nice touch.

Geoff

The sting of a reproach is the truth of it. - Ben Franklin

 

"The sting of a reproach is the truth of it. - Ben Franklin"

A cute quote, but it doesn't work in your favor.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_sc/hot_arctic

SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer 10 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Scientists have found what might have been the ideal ancient vacation hotspot with a 74-degree Fahrenheit average temperature, alligator ancestors and palm trees. It's smack in the middle of the Arctic.


First-of-its-kind core samples dug up from deep beneath the Arctic Ocean floor show that 55 million years ago an area near the North Pole was practically a subtropical paradise, three new studies show.

The scientists say their findings are a glimpse backward into a much warmer-than-thought polar region heated by run-amok greenhouse gases that came about naturally.

Skeptics of man-made causes of global warming have nothing to rejoice over, however. The researchers say their studies appearing in Thursday's issue of Nature also offer a peak at just how bad conditions can get.

"It probably was (a tropical paradise) but the mosquitoes were probably the size of your head," said Yale geology professor Mark Pagani, a study co-author.

And what a watery, swampy world it must have been.

"Imagine a world where there are dense sequoia trees and cypress trees like in Florida that ring the Arctic Ocean," said Pagani, a member of the multinational Arctic Coring Expedition that conducted the research.

Millions of years ago the Earth experienced an extended period of natural global warming. But around 55 million years ago there was a sudden supercharged spike of carbon dioxide that accelerated the greenhouse effect.

Scientists already knew this "thermal event" happened but are not sure what caused it. Perhaps massive releases of methane from the ocean, the continent-sized burning of trees, lots of volcanic eruptions.

Many experts figured that while the rest of the world got really hot, the polar regions were still comfortably cooler, maybe about 52 degrees Fahrenheit.

But the new research found the polar average was closer to 74 degrees. So instead of Boston-like weather year-round, the Arctic was more like Miami North. Way north.

"It's the first time we've looked at the Arctic, and man, it was a big surprise to us," said study co-author Kathryn Moran, an oceanographer at the University of Rhode Island. "It's a new look to how the Earth can respond to these peaks in carbon dioxide."

It's enough to make Santa Claus break into a sweat.

The 74-degree temperature, based on core samples which act as a climatic time capsule, was probably the year-round average, but because data is so limited it might also be just the summertime average, researchers said.

What's troubling is that this hints that future projections for warming, several degrees over the next century, may be on the low end, said study lead author Appy Sluijs of the Institute of Environmental Biology at Utrecht University in the Netherlands.

Also it shows that what happened 55 million years ago was proof that too much carbon dioxide — more than four times current levels — can cause global warming, said another co-author Henk Brinkhuis at Utrecht University.

Purdue University atmospheric sciences professor Gabriel Bowen, who was not part of the team, praised the work and said it showed that "there are tipping points in our (climate) system that can throw us to these conditions."

And the new research also gave scientists the idea that a simple fern may have helped pull Earth from a hothouse to an icehouse by sucking up massive amounts of carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, this natural solution to global warming was not exactly quick: It took about a million years.

With all that heat and massive freshwater lakes forming in the Arctic, a fern called Azolla started growing and growing. Azolla, still found in warm regions today, grew so deep, so wide that eventually it started sucking up carbon dioxide, Brinkhuis theorized. And that helped put the cool back in the Arctic.

Bowen said he has a hard time accepting that part of the research, but Brinkhuis said the studies show tons upon tons of thick mats of Azolla covered the Arctic and moved south.

"This could actually contribute to push the world to a cooling mode," Brinkhuis said, but only after it got hotter first and then it would take at least 800,000 years to cool back down. It's not something to look forward to, he said.

 

I think we need a constitutional amendment to decide this question.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Jun 5 2006, 04:33 PM) [snapback]266308[/snapback]</div>

Notice I gave you a link to an article to read and did not try to force it down your throat by posting it in its entirety. For every end-of-the-world scientist theory you throw at me I can give you an equally academic researched point of view, which opposes yours. Where is your definitive smoking gun? You do not have one. Once you own up to the fact that Global Warming is a theory not a law then we can talk.

It is okay, go ahead and commence with the name-calling and attacks of my intelligence. That would be your next move, right?

 

Get a clue... there is no equivalent to A SMOKING GUN! What I can say, from what I've read and courses I have taken that there is sufficient evidence to say that humans are indeed accelerated contributing to global warming.

You are the who is name-calling... terms like "environmental extremists" and whatnot. You know yourself what labels you've used.

Please do not say that of me... I do my utmost best to respect people with opposing opinions. I think if you searched my posts you would find that I strive to at least try to do that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chinook-hybrid @ Jun 5 2006, 09:25 PM) [snapback]266365[/snapback]</div>

I'll cite you the evidence that I know of aside from what I've already mentioned:

-shifting migration patterns
-poision ivy expansion (more due to CO2 rather than as a side effect of warming
-net loss of ice in the artic/antarctic
-reports by the PENTAGON about the security check of climate-changing effects that go push past the tipping points (in terms of a national security threat)
-increasing habitat areas of illness-carrying mosquitoes
-the ozone situation in which reducing CFC contributions have essentially reversed the ozone depletion trend (this is more something that supports that human emissions can alter the climate)
-studies of different concentrations of CO2 and how temperature is impacted
-ice core samples

 

Wow, I can't believe people would WANT more pollution, would WANT more consumption of a depleting resource. Drill more? That's the answer? I'm afraid you're not paying attention to what our old rock is telling us.

Good luck to all of us trying to curb the global climate change brought on by those who'd rather stick their heads in the samd and ignore ALL the signs, ALL the evidence...the truth is scary, but we can do something.

The staus quo will NOT save us. Neither will more, more, more extraction of fossil fuels. THAT's the problem, get it.

Use less, pollute less.

cheers,

Curt.

 

I have taken a (very) small step by installing solar yard lights around the house. These are pretty elegant little devices. They soak up sunlight in the day and turn on at night. Stick them in the ground and forget about them.
You have to like something that works off sunlight. Also, I just read an article about how popular solar water heaters are becoming in China. Things like these can save an awful lot of power.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 2 2006, 08:12 PM) [snapback]264943[/snapback]</div>

Do you mean the global warning which has occurred naturally many times over the history of the earth, or the "global warming" that Al Gore and Co(flying around the world in private jets and limousines) are trying to promote? Maybe Al is right, but if he is why did he not do anything about it when he was VP. The more I read about the topic the more I think it is about 90% a political maneuver. Oh and I am a conservative-leaning independent politically.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finman @ Jun 6 2006, 04:14 PM) [snapback]266840[/snapback]</div>

HOw do you know our planet is "old"? In fact in and astronomical way it is probably pretty young - and our real worry is our something happening to alter its orbit and our sun rather that the natural and normal variations in its climate that may or may not be due to humans. And if it is due to humans how do you go about fixing it without addressing how humans use fossil fuels in the rest of the world? Or are you just going to regulate humans living in the United States? And will that apply to all the undocumented humans in the U.S.?

And there is enough fossil fuels to propel us well towards the next millenium - and the technology is available to burn it cleaner than before and that will also improve as we move forward. How about nuclear energy - that is climate neutral - what are your views on that.

I don't think we need to be saved from anything but Islamofascism at this point - they have a much greater chance of killing or ruining my life and my childrens life than what at this point is science fantasy based human induced global warming. So if you are really worried about you or your families risk of surviving the next 20 or 30 years I would advise you to direct your energies and efforts towards ridding the planet of Islamofascism and let the planet take care of itself - its a pretty big young rock.

Cheers

 

Yeah, that's really the way to go. THEY are the problem. Sure, whatever. Live in fear. That's what the Repubs thrive on.

And climate change is not some made-up, unsubstantiated fear. It's called reality. Ya might want to breathe it in (pun intended). In case it's not obvious, humans struggle when the air and water ain't right!

Haven't heard of Peak oil, either, huh? Wow, I do hope the rest of us are able to work around those that want to do nothing. Stay the course. It'll all work out.

And please, all the ignorant, stop saying if Al's serious about the whole global climate thing he should stop flying and driving to promote it. Maybe a report on Fox news will suffice, no travel needed? Yeah, that's got us real far.

Nuclear. Where does the waste go? Spent fuel? The water that has to be contained, etc.? Seems a little bad for all humans to "store" radioactive material. Most creatures don't do so well with that around.

Al's doing more than W could ever dream of doing. And he's not even in the office he won! See, when u win by cheating, it's not winning, it's cheating.

Impeach bush now!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 2 2006, 09:12 PM) [snapback]264943[/snapback]</div>

It is a scientific concept that has become politicized. So, as a chicken and egg sort of thing - it is, strictly speaking, a scientific concept.

For an excellent read, "The Climate Makers" by Tim Flannery. This book is supposed to contain enough scientific evidence to put a sock in the mouths of nay sayers.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 3 2006, 01:26 PM) [snapback]265188[/snapback]</div>

Saw one of those really good shows on the Science Channel (or at least I think it was the Science Channel) that addressed this. Antarctica used to be connected to South America. When it was connected, the global oceanic currents were, according to scientific evidence, quite different. In fact, the earth supposedly had a much more moderate climate all over at that time because the cool water from the antarctic circulated around the globe, and warm water from the rest of the globe circulated around Antarctica. Now, the cool water mainly circulates around Antarctica and does not intermingle with the water from the rest of the globe. Therefore, it is much cooler around the antarctic now than it was in that age. Even so, this still does not mean that global warming is not occurring.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Jun 7 2006, 08:15 AM) [snapback]267147[/snapback]</div>

At least Gore is doing something about it. His actions are far better than Dan Quayle who gutted environmental laws as vice-president, or Dick Cheney who kisses the you know what of the oil companies who pretend they don't hear the words pollution, CO2, global warming, ...

Typical actions of a party that is waiting to be saved. Unfortunately for the rest of us, they don't realize that they can save themselves, and that waiting to be saved is like waiting for your next beer from your alcoholic co-dependent. Sheesh. When will the realization strike that promises of being saved are like the promises of the snake oil sellers from early america that were designed to drain your pocket of your hard-earned money to support institutions that exhalt themselves as "THE" voice of the almighty? Sure, go ahead, sit around and wait for someone else to do the right thing. Well, I'll probably be banned from the board for that. :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finman @ Jun 7 2006, 09:26 AM) [snapback]267170[/snapback]</div>

How do you propose to generate the electricity we need today and for the next ten years?

Stop crying about algore - he couldn't even win his home state and he did nothing about your global warming crisis when he was in office for 8 years - not even introduce Kyoto - i hope he translated his movie into chinese and urdo, etc,etc

 

Republican conservative here. Global warming is obvious. Ability of man to stop it...not so obvious. Evidence that the earth went through climate change before man...obvious. Is this global warming man made or natural...not so obvious.


The global watming activists ruined their credibility when, about 30 or so years ago, they said the earth would be dead in 30 years....well, here we are.

With credibility shot....now all we can hope for is slowly educating people again with NON-ALARMIST methods.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 7 2006, 09:00 AM) [snapback]267155[/snapback]</div>

Another doctor joins Michael Crichton in offering his "expert" opinion on global warming. :lol: I didn't set out to pick on you today dbermanmd, but I can't help it if you are making some exceptionally obnoxious remarks.
There may be debate on the magnitude of the effects, and what measures we should take to contend with the problem, but global warming is a real phenomenon (to those of us who live in the "fact-based" world.) And while I'm sure that you are more knowledgable (in your own mind) than the vast majority of the world's leading climatologists, oceanographers, and ecologists- anthropogenic-induced global warming is not "science fantasy based."


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Jun 7 2006, 12:04 PM) [snapback]267265[/snapback]</div>

Well, as a scientist (if science matters to anyone) I prefer not to use alarmist methods; certainly not if talking to a knowledgable audience. The downside, in dealing with the public, is that it can immediately discredit you. On the other hand, sometimes you can't get people's attention unless you hit them over the head first. The first studies that showed the rising levels of atmospheric CO2 and corresponding climate changes were done 40 years ago. Perhaps if there was more noise about this sooner, we would have had a better chance of dealing with it.