Republicans, Democrats, and Global Warming

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Aug 9 2006, 06:47 PM) [snapback]300545[/snapback]</div>

There are a lot of reasonable things we can be doing re: climate change - but some stupid ones too that potentially cost lives. Kyoto, for instance. Check out this link if you would like a comparison of urgent world priorities on an economic basis. Malnutrition and disease-related projects rank way above Kyoto - thus in a world of finite resources, if you pursue Kyoto you absolutely spend dollars that *could* otherwise help people who are starving and dying.

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=158

See item # 16, Kyoto protocol. It is second to last (among 2 other climate change proposals, all ranking at the bottom). Not to say all climate change actions are all bad - but on an economic basis some are much better than others (for instance - methane capture which can be net positive economically in addition to reducing CH4, a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2). There are others as well that make economic sense. Kyoto does not, but has wrongly been the primary focus many governments and environmental advocacy groups.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 10 2006, 12:48 AM) [snapback]300681[/snapback]</div>

In what way does signing the Kyota agreement lead to people dieing?

I know how Global Warming will lead to people dieing. And animals. And plants. And fish. And birds.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 10 2006, 12:48 AM) [snapback]300681[/snapback]</div>

This is a common misconception. The Kyoto protocol would not be expensive for governments or taxpayers. You know who would be most affected?

OIL and CAR COMPANIES. To begin with, it would have us match the rest of the world in terms of minimum mpg limits.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 10 2006, 12:48 AM) [snapback]300681[/snapback]</div>

(You are looking at the 2004 report. The 2006 report is at http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=694)

Here is an exerpt from Professor Gary Yohe, the economics expert on Global Warming in the 2006 Copenhagen Consenses, in a statement to the Senate on March 20, 2006:

My primary complaint is not that our gov't is not ahering to the Kyoto treaty specifically, it is that they are pleading ignorance of the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions to GW as a justification for doing NOTHING.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 10 2006, 12:17 AM) [snapback]300710[/snapback]</div>

Well you can argue it doesn't DIRECTLY and I will respect that argument. However, if you rank global priorities and spend money accordingly (as both the 2004 and 2006 Copenhagen Consensus do) you will see that dollar for dollar, programs to address disease and sanitation rank far above Kyoto and will deliver much greater benefits to humanity.

The problem with Kyoto is it really has neglible impact on climate change - so it's really not going to save people - or the animals, plants, fish and birds. So if you are concerned about climate change - which presumably most people on this forum are to one degree or another, you should hitch to a different horse than Kyoto.

Here is the 2006 CC ranking: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=728

Kyoto ranks 27th out of 40 urgent world priorities. 3 other climate change initiatives rank 38, 39, and 40.

Again, there are reasonable things we can do in regard to climate change, but spend $ on things with almost no impact is just not smart. That is the message of the CC and my argument.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 10 2006, 11:44 PM) [snapback]301319[/snapback]</div>

Can you please back up this statement with some kind of evidence.

 

Just because Global Warming and Kyoto don't rank #1 or even the top #10 doesn't mean they are insignificant or not as important. That's linear thinking. A lot of those issues should all be #1.

Let's say while the world is working on disease and sanitation....Global Warming continues.

And lets say the scientists are right.

That means we'll be healthy and clean when we finally die.

I was listening to the radio today and they were interviewing a researching who was doing global polling on evolution. Here is an article with the same stats. Stupid Americans

You know where the U.S. ranks in belief in evolution? Just in front of Turkey. Now granted they did not do surveys in every country and Turkey was the only major muslim country.

But 39% of U.S. citizens do NOT believe in evolution and 21%just aren't sure. Only 40% of Americans accept evolutionary theory. Huh?

The Japanese (78%) are looking at us funny. They just can't get their heads around why such a supposedly advanced country like the U.S. doesn't believe in evolution. Yep, the Japanese are up there with Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and France (80%) and we're down there with Turkey. The reason given was that science in this country had become so politicized. If science contradicts religion, science was obviously wrong. Same thing is happening here. I'm not sure what part of Global Warming is in contradiction the bible. But it's obviously in conflict with some platform of the GOP. So Global Warming must be wrong.

It's so funny that so many of these people believe in "faith based" this and that....but when it comes to science there has to be 100% proof. Well, in science nothing is 100%. The closest you get is 99.9999999...% and that is rare.

And yeah, I believe in evolution, I believe in Global Warming and I believe that humans have had a significant impact in Global Warming. I also believe that if we don't start doing something fast it will be too late because it will take a LOOOOOOOOOOG time to reverse the damage. That is IF the damage can be reversed before it's too late. This is where the stupid delays come in. By the time there is enough "proof" to make the naysayers finally admit they were wrong....it may be too late. And "told you so" is and empty consolation when you're looking at extinction. It's the only lose/lose scenario.....global warming is true and we do nothing. Can we really take that chance? Because if we do and it's true....we'll be the cleanest, healthiest, best fed, best clothed corpses.

My Father didn't raise no stupid children. (And he's a Republican.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eyeguy13 @ Aug 3 2006, 12:50 PM) [snapback]297074[/snapback]</div>

I did my part- got rid of the Ford Windstar and bought the Prius.

 

Here's a post with a link to an article with the same information I heard on the radio.

Priuschat post

It isn't the liberals of this country keeping people barefoot, stupid and huddling in fear.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Aug 11 2006, 11:23 AM) [snapback]301521[/snapback]</div>

You mean our right wing neocon fundamentalist Christians are really close to the fundamentalist Muslims?

Protestant Fundamentalism and Muslim Fundamentalism?

Duh.

And when this country becomes a Theocracy...we'll be that much closer to Iran.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 9 2006, 10:48 PM) [snapback]300681[/snapback]</div>

Well said TimBikes! Well said.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 11 2006, 07:49 PM) [snapback]301904[/snapback]</div>

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:

Rom 1:21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 12 2006, 01:35 AM) [snapback]301991[/snapback]</div>

The so-called Copenhagen Consensus. More false dichotomies from the quitters. Yes, its going to be costly - but its doable. Quit whining and start helping.

Also from your book of fairytales:

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

Huh??

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Aug 12 2006, 01:12 AM) [snapback]302004[/snapback]</div>

It means no more shrimp, clams, oysters, muscles, abalone, calamari.

Did you read the one about mixing threads? We're supposed to stone people that wear polyester/cotton blends.

Oh and all football players. They touched pigskin. Or do they still use pigskin in regulation footballs? I'll bet they did in the old days. I'll bet Ronald Reagan touched pigskin.

I love how fundamentalist are such selective readers, picking and choosing the parts that are relevant.

Did you notice all of the quotes were from Romans? I don't believe Romans is one of the gospels of Jesus. It's someone else's opinion. Uh....Paul I think. In fact...I don't recall Paul even being one of the apostles. Which makes me beg the question what makes Paul think he can speak for Jesus? I notice Paul gets quoted a lot by certain circles wanting to use Religion to back up a certain political or social point. (It's also an interesting historical and philosophical debate as to why Paul's writings were included in the bible and other writings were not. That is a whole other agenda...what did and did NOT become part of the bible.)

And did you get the connection to those bible verses and Global Warming? Or maybe I'm going to go to hell? Well, try again. I have a get out of hell free card. It arrived yesterday!



The Story

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 10 2006, 10:14 PM) [snapback]301327[/snapback]</div>

Wow -Godiva, did that last little statement of yours take the thread off in a tangent or what?!

OK - back to my point, the CC people aren't saying climate change is not important (and neither am I), they are saying "solutions" like Kyoto are not effective. And how could it be? It has been calculated that the effect of fully implementing Kyoto would be an immeasurable impact on global average temperature in the year 2100. Or looking at it another way...

"...the Kyoto agreement does not prevent global warming, but merely buys the world six years. Yet, the cost of Kyoto, for the United States alone, will be higher than the cost of solving the world's single most pressing health problem: providing universal access to clean drinking water and sanitation. Such measures would avoid 2m deaths every year, and prevent half a billion people from becoming seriously ill."

See link: http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=718860

By the way, this is stated by a European in a European publications so it must be accurate, right? Isn't that one of the arguments here - how enlightened the Europeans are?

And speaking of Europeans, kind of ironic that after all of their lambasting Americans about Kyoto, they can't even hit their own targets on it. Hmm. See the link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4561576.stm

So I hear these arguments about basing decisions on "faith", and I agree. Yet when the left does it I guess it is OK?

The science says there is an immeasurable impact in fully implementing Kyoto - but you're arguing we should do it anyway? Isn't that faith? Shouldn't this be based on facts and science?

 

If 60% of the U.S. population can't get their heads around evolution....what does that mean to convincing them that Global Warming is something that needs to be addressed quickly and seriously?

Sorry, I scored really high on abstract logic. I can see the connection.

Saying, oh Kyoto won't do any good and it's too expensive anyway just enables the head in the sand stand. Whatever we do won't show immediate results anyway, no matter what extreme measures we take, because the healing process will be really slow. It may take a few decades to really show a reversal. And the attention span of the average American just isn't that long. America can't seem to think or plan beyond the end of the fiscal year or the next election.

Kyoto would at least be a start to recognizing there *is* a problem and committing to doing something about it. Don't like Kyoto? Fine, don't sign it. But recognize the problem and take action to do something, not because Kyoto is forcing you to, but because it's the right thing to do.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Aug 13 2006, 12:01 PM) [snapback]302624[/snapback]</div>

First - I didn't say we shouldn't do anything - just that we be smart about it and base our decisions on science.

Kyoto is not effective - except for use in flogging the US and Bush - which probably explains why Europe and the left like it so much, given that it otherwise does so little.

As for Europe, it is a mixed bag - some countries are doing better than the U.S., some not.

 

I agree with TimBikes, there is a political component and boon doggles built in. How much climate change would occur from anything humans do ? Unknown. The European priority list (Copenhagen) on what's most important to least important to spend money on in terms of problems for humanity should settle it. Don't get suckered into the lobbying efforts by the Enviomental-Industrial Complex to move climate change up the priority list. Much like the Military Industrial Complex they want to scare you into spending $$$ on thier equipment, services or legal opinions.

I'd much rather see an all out effort made on alternative fuels to free ourselves and the world from oil. That would free up a lot of resources now going to the Middleast, oil companies and wars to do the good stuff for humanity at the top of the list. We would need great leadership for that and unfortunately I for one don't see any leadership from any party or country on the horizon.