Conservatives may not believe in global warming,
By on Aug 16th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
Conservatives may not believe in global warming,
but it’s tough to argue with numbers like these. “The five named tropical storms recorded in July were the most on record for that month, and worldwide it was the second warmest July on record,” AP reports.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
What? Does anyone here really believe that a few straight forward verifiable facts will change a NeoKon’s mind?
Their heads are stuck so far up… er… nevermind… You get my point. :-(
August 16th, 2005 at 3:50 pmWasn’t it just last month (at the G8 thing)that bush43 admitted that humans & fossil fuel use DO effect climate?
I know if you go to some conservative sites, they would as soon admit to being gay (many of them are) than admit that global warming might be a possibility.
Then again, what do you expect from an administration that is a schill for the oil & mineral extraction industries….
August 16th, 2005 at 3:53 pmBush and his neocons are not interested in science. Here is an article from the New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050822ta_talk_hertzberg
August 16th, 2005 at 3:54 pmI’m sure the Right Wing Dinosaurs also denied that the climate was changing 65 million years ago…
August 16th, 2005 at 3:55 pmLMAO @ Robert!
August 16th, 2005 at 4:02 pmScience, mathematics, philosophy all require critical thinking skills. This is a trait that the conservatives are genetically devoid.
August 16th, 2005 at 4:22 pmThat the conservatives would reduce themselves to the levels of today in renouncing science and study would be laughable if it all weren’t so darn serious.
August 16th, 2005 at 4:23 pmThey would regress to teaching creationism (I.D.) in place of evolution and call it science.
They would deny climate change due to man’s assault on the environment and put it on the level with Chicken LIttle’s cries.
They would reverse changes in the workplace so as to favor the corporation at the expense of the worker, reverting back to the days of the early 20th century before labor unions and fair wages.
We are the Progressive party and they are the regressive.
Historically they have denied women’s rights, minorities’ rights, worker’s rights – they have been pro business, pro slavery, pro segregation.
You sillies! You must live in the reality based world.
August 16th, 2005 at 4:40 pmHow long have we been keeping data? 100 years, maybe 150 years. Scientists have admitted that we do not have enough data to provide proof that there is global warming. Most people do not realize how very little time that we have existed on the Earth. It is something like .05% if you go back 2 million years. I believe that we don’t know as much about mother Earth as some believe we do. If global warming is true, then why aren’t all liberals riding their bikes and driving electric cars to stop further pollution? It seems that Bush is the only one I see riding his bike lately.
August 16th, 2005 at 4:51 pmI’m not sure I qualify as a neocon, but I have a few questions regarding global warming. Let’s assume that there is global warming and it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels — it is not some natural cycle as we have seen in the past. I am not totally sold on this, but let’s say it is true.
August 16th, 2005 at 4:54 pm1. How much is the average climate preojected to rise over the next 100 years. 1-2 degrees?
2. If that happens, do we really know what the effect will be? I have read all kinds of predictions from catastrophe to longer growing cycles in some key areas.
3. How much can we slow down the warming. I have read that if we adopt the Kyoto accords we can reduce the warming by about 10%.
4. What would the cost be to the world economy to do this? Who gets hurt the most?
Why not do something to curb global warming regardless, instead of bickering over whether or not it is natural, or if we even can do anything about it, let alone trying to deny that it is even happening.
Better safe than sorry, right? Thats what I keep hearing about homeland security.
August 16th, 2005 at 5:10 pmSkid — I would suggest a cost/benefit analysis on both global warming and homeland security
August 16th, 2005 at 5:14 pmExactly Skid. By their logic since we’re not to blame for terrorism we shouldn’t try and do anything about it.
The debate needs to be this: What is the ideal environment and how do we get to a point where we can maintain it?
August 16th, 2005 at 5:22 pmI’m not saying we shouldn’t do anything about it, but let’s have an examination of what can realistically be done and at what cost.
WITHOUT the hysteria.
August 16th, 2005 at 5:29 pmThe only hysteria I hear is the right calling those that can SEE global warming happening “chicken littles”, rather than accepting it as probable and DOING something to curb it.
August 16th, 2005 at 6:04 pmRed,
How many centuries of data would be enough?
AC,
How important is the world economy if you you can’t breath the air or drink the water or the ice caps collapse?
You people are living for the present without regard to the future of the environment or the earth. Granted. there have been corrective cycles in the past, but there weren’t 6 billion people on the earth then and we were not in the 2nd or 3rd industrial revolution, we did not consume limited resources and produce waste at the rate we are now. Perhaps the earth won’t be able to correct our sins this time, perhaps the damage will be too great.
Skid’s point is correct, we must look for an answer now because taking an option of doing nothing may make it too late to say, I guess we were wrong. Hanging your argument on not enough data or the economy is a cop-out for doing cutting back or doing without the consumption for the earht that our children and grandchildren will inherit.
August 16th, 2005 at 6:05 pmWhile cost is an issue, keep in mind that until we find an alternate, easily accessable world to live in besides a fantasyworld, its the only one we have. What cost is that worth?
August 16th, 2005 at 6:08 pmAC: the answers to your questions are known.
1. Predictions have recently increased. I forget the exact number, but 5 degrees or so. Check nature.com for the real number.
2. Thermal expansion of water is well known. The volume of the ocean is estimateable. The rise in sea level is simple mathematics from those two numbers. One meter would wreck havoc, or in Bush’s words, devestate our economy.
Today, we measure ocean temperature to predict the intensity and paths of hurricanes. If you choose to ignore global warning, then I suggest next hurricane you also ignore evacuation orders.
3. 100 years ago the Wright brothers invented a device that could carry one man 100 yards, and it broke upon landing. Is it so preposterous that 100 years later we can all travel around the country by jet for a nominal cost?
4. Who is hurt the most: People living in low lying areas first. The Bahamas could be deserted or wiped out if ocean levels and hurricane intensity increases enough. Everyone else would be hurt by mass migrations of people escaping the hard hit areas.
That’s just the simple answer to your questions. Read nature.com for more in-depth analysis.
August 16th, 2005 at 6:16 pmAnd everyone knows how 100 years of records compares with the age of the earth (at least non-creationists do). No need to point that out. The best evidence is the shrinking glaciers. Those leave a geological record that goes back to the last ice age. The fact that glaciers are retreating at an alarming rate should tell you this isn’t just a quirk of our record-keeping.
August 16th, 2005 at 6:21 pmAC, I think your questions are reasonable, and I wish the media would ask scientists these same questions, and broadcast the answers.
August 16th, 2005 at 6:23 pmRed – what cost is a good planet worth?
How do you put a value on something like that? Do you have another planet (in your back pocket perhaps) that we can use if we screw this one up royally?
Here’s our deal. Until we’ve found better nonpolluting energy (which we should fund aggressively, we aren’t), there are ways to mitigate what we do do already. Higher efficiency ratings for autos & trucks helps ALOT. Battery operated vehicles. Putting the best scrubbers on smokestacks costs more, but what is the price of a good planet nowdays? Does Walmart have them cheap this week?
That’s what we want. We want a combined approach to help us through this period of our technology and we want to usher in the next period so that our kids and grandkids (and many more thereafter) can enjoy this jewel we have too.
August 16th, 2005 at 6:40 pmBTW – they have data going back thousands of years just from core samples from the ocean floors, glaciers and soil.
100 years…yuk yuk yuk. Turn of Rush, he’s rotting your brain.
August 16th, 2005 at 6:42 pmCONCERNS THAT BUSH IS “LOSING IT”
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7218.shtml
“Buy beleaguered, overworked White House aides enough drinks and they tell a sordid tale of an administration under siege, beset by bitter staff infighting and led by a man whose mood swings suggest paranoia bordering on schizophrenia. They describe a President whose public persona masks an angry, obscenity-spouting man who berates staff, unleashes tirades against those who disagree with him and ends meetings in the Oval Office with ‘Get out of here!’
In fact, George W. Bush’s mood swings have become so drastic that White House emails often contain ‘weather reports’ to warn of the President’s demeanor. ‘Calm seas’ means Bush is calm while ‘tornado alert’ is a warning that he is pissed at the world. Decreasing job approval ratings and increased criticism within his own party drives the President’s paranoia even higher. Bush, in a meeting with senior advisors, called Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist a ‘god-damned traitor’ for opposing him on stem-cell research. ‘There’s real concern in the West Wing that the President is losing it,’ a high-level aide told me recently.
‘I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching everything he did and reading what he wrote and watching him on videotape. I felt he was disturbed,’ (psychiatrist) Dr. Justin Frank said. ‘He fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated.’ Dr. Frank’s conclusions have been praised by other prominent psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School.”
August 16th, 2005 at 8:06 pmScarey TAC, I just hope he keeps his hands off the “nuclear football”.
August 16th, 2005 at 8:17 pmrepublican talking points.republican talking points.republican talking points.republican talking points.republican talking points.republican talking points.republican talking points.republican talking points.republican talking points.republican talking points.republican talking points.republican talking points.republican talking points.republican talking points.republican talking points.republican talking points.republican talking points.republican talking points.republican talking points.republican talking points.
August 16th, 2005 at 9:13 pmWe lost an election. I think that means we should just shut up and take our hurricanes.
August 17th, 2005 at 12:20 pm