All of the Republican candidates agree man is responsible for climate change

[Chadman]

So, I guess if you righties still maintain that man has no influence on climate change, and that it's all just hogwash, you can't even vote republican this year. All of the candidates said they believe man to be contributing to it.

Just a thought...

:SIB

 

[Chadman]

Before you fellas jump on it, the header to this is a little too extreme. Didn't mean totally responsible, for the record, but it should start a flashfire of posts, at least. A contributor, is the accurate phrasing - which some here even dispute.

 

[gardenweasel]

Before you fellas jump on it, the header to this is a little too extreme. Didn't mean totally responsible, for the record, but it should start a flashfire of posts, at least. A contributor, is the accurate phrasing - which some here even dispute.

glad you added that addendum,chad...

what i don`t understand is why the republicans continually let moonbats hold their debates.....even on fox,the unfair bastion of conservatism...they get some moonbat/lesbian-looking editor from some liberal rag to frame the debate... .asking questions on "global warming"(in a yes or no format when the issue is so complex...a gotcha question,like asking,"when did you stop beating your wife?"),and other silly stuff about the bible and homosexuals in the military in the other debates....

and the dems?...the won`t let fox have one of their debates...sooo,they get nothing but democratic fluff....

i understand why the dems do it..because it allows the moonbats to frame each debate and thusly,frame the issues put before the public......smart move....

but the republicans?.....they really are lost...letting "nurse ratched" frame the debate like that.....with questions that really don`t register with conservatives...

the republicans will lose...because they`re stupid....

and all legit conservatives will suffer....we have nowhere to turn...

 

[smurphy]

you are a legit conservative, weasel?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Skeptics Speak

As the United Nations climate conference winds down in Indonesia, a group of more than 100 scientists has sent a letter to Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon urging him to quit wasting time and resources fighting climate change, which the letter says cannot be stopped, because it is a natural phenomenon that has been around forever.

The letter maintains there has been no net global warming since 1998 and that, "significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypotheses of dangerous human-caused global warming."

Meanwhile, skeptical scientists say they were frozen out of much of the proceedings in Bali. the heartland institute says members of the international climate science coalition were kicked off the press schedule twice this week ? and threatened with physical force if they did not vacate the press room.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Keep eating what Fox is feeding you...the fact that you harp on "liberal blogs" and all you post is New Republic and Fox bullshit is such a fvcking joke.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316914,00.html

 

[Jabberwocky]

you are a legit conservative, weasel?

gw, no offense, but your politics would make Goldwater puke.

 

[buddy]

"...and other silly stuff about the bible..."

:nono:

 

[Jabberwocky]

sorry..wrong thread

 

[Chadman]

So, I guess in your estimation, the only scientists that can be correct about any of this, Wayne, are the "skeptical" scientists? Of course, none of them have anything to gain, right? None of them are funded by any groups interested in ridiculing of non-"skeptics," right?

Again, giving credit to theories that only forward your current political leanings...kind of like defending freedoms as a soldier that no longer are important, etc. Cool...er...warm...er...whatever.

That's fine, if you and Wheeze think that years of man-made pollution has no effect on our atmosphere. I don't personally think that could possibly make much sense, but as long as the industries aren't bothered financially, I guess that's all that's important. Long live the skeptics!!!

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

No Chad what I'm saying is no one has yet to prove global warmimg is man made--show me one article that confirms it--every one says-could-may-probably- almost certainly ect.

Neither side has facts either way--

Only thing we have is history--and we have always had peaks and valleys back before emissions--so I ask myself-what makes this any diff.

In fact events in past before man made emisions that spewed pollutants in the air-(meteors and valcano's) caused just the opposite--intense global cooling.

Remember after Katina--and those that predicted doom and gloom the past 2 years only to have no major storm hit??

So IMO it is certainly not worth intense drain on economy with all these major expensive items they want--especially on hyped criteria with no proof.

--but am in agreement we owe it to future generations to clean up environment and have controls and penalties in place for those that don't-just not drastic ones within such limited time frame--over hypothetical presumptions.

 

[Chadman]

I would say that proving global warming/climate change - in this forum or elsewhere - is an effort in futility when it comes to people who choose (for whatever reason) to not believe in it. I personally, and others, have posted scientific findings and articles showing man-made effects against the atmosphere, and specific climate changes that have occured during the industrial age - when most of the pollution has occured. What that is usually followed with are extensive attempts by you and others to discredit the source, rendering the findings non-factual.

We could probably rehash this, I suppose we should, but we have done it before. And I can do the same the other way, exposing those who discredit science proving it, showing where they get their funding and why their logic is toned the way it is. Inclusive of the White House which has doctored more than one non-partisan scientific report to leave out the damaging parts to their mission.

The FACT is, which is your fixation term these days, all of the republican candidates for office (other than Thompson who avoided it) are in agreement that man is at least partically responsible for climate change. Which tells me that you are very much in the minority on this, and in my opinion, to dismiss man's role over the past 100 or so years is simply political in nature.

 

[Mahoney]

Is Al Gore's commie agenda dervied from the facts about 'global warming' or is Global Warming upholstery around commie Al's hobbyhorse? What do you think? If you were a betting man, what would you say is likelier. I make this line:

GW as laid out by the Gorists is true +2000

GW is the latest way for commies to sell high-tax socialism to the easily duped -2400

The earth has been around forever. It's not going anywhere. It's not fragile or weak - unlike the minds of GW advocates.

If the earth warms up a bit, so what? We'll adjust to it.

Suckers abound. Half the people are scared by "Terrorist" shrieked by Bush. The other half are scared by "Global warming" shrieked by Gore.

Both threats are imaginary.

 

[Mahoney]

When did America become a nation teeming with morons and cowards?

 

[Chadman]

I always have to note when terms like "easily duped" are tossed around at the same time blanket theories based on essentially nothing of value are lobbed at others - both sides of most fences are represented in this, here and elsewhere. Very little in the political realm or important topics of the day are easy, black and white items. Probably a lot of truths on both sides, if any truths are even allowed by individuals. A lot of irony here locally, in viewing some who yell "duped!"

 

[Mahoney]

Back in the seventies, Chadman, the gore types were bleating about the new ice age. The cover stories come and go, but the scam remains the same.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Time magazine runs a story about the cooling of the earth, and this translates to the Gore minions were bleating about the earth's cooling in the 70's. Brilliant. This has nothing to do with Gore. This has to do with an overwhelming majority of scientists in the world and irrefutable proof. I know. Its all a big conspiracy to raise taxes and get funding.

 

[Mahoney]

You got it.

Acid rain, peak oil, global warming - whatever you're buying, they're selling. The agenda never varies: a stream of money and power flowing from you to Al Gore and his super-rich socialist-capitalist-commie hypocrite ilk.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Heres a few that were prob hoping for a little global warming---
You can find extremes either way- if you look for them.



Doom and Gloom

And 2007 will go down as the year when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for dire warnings about the effects of global warming.

But geophysicist David Deming of the University of Oklahoma writes in The Washington Times that 2007 is also the year that Buenos Aires, Argentina saw snow for the first time since 1918. It is the year that saw 200 people in Peru perish from the cold. It is the year that killing freezes destroyed almost $1.5 billion of produce in California, 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest.

2007 was the third-quietest hurricane season since 1966. Last month Meacham, Oregon broke its record low temperature set in 1952 by 12 degrees, and the plains states are still trying to recover from a destructive autumn ice storm that has left at least 36 people dead.

? FOX News Channel's Martin Hill contributed to this report.