Huckabee And Thompson: Global Warming Is ‘Overblown’
Huckabee And Thompson: Global Warming Is ‘Overblown’
Tonight on CBS Evening News, each of the 10 leading presidential candidates will be asked, “Do you think the risks of climate change are at all overblown?” According to an advance transcript, every single candidate acknowledges the threat — except Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson.
Huckabee responds that “scientifically,” he doesn’t know whether global warming is “overblown.” Thompson goes a step further, claiming that the “state of entitlements” and “extremists” who “want to do drastic things to our economy” are the real problems:
THOMPSON: There are a lot of unanswered questions. We don’t know to the extent this is a cyclical thing. This may or may not effect very much. The extremists are the ones who want to do drastic things to our economy before we have more answers as to how much good we can do and whether people in the other parts of the world are going to contribute. It’s the fact that our entitlements are bankrupting the next generation. We’re spending the money of those yet to be born and we can’t continue that way.
Thompson and Huckabee are wrong. The debate is over about whether manmade global warming is a threat. Even members of the Bush White House have admitted so.
It’s unclear how committed to fighting global warming the other Republican candidates are as well. Al Gore and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) recently announced that they were convening a bipartisan New Hampshire presidential forum on climate and energy. Yet of the Republicans, only Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) agreed to participate.
Giuliani never even returned calls to the forum organizers. While he admits to CBS that there “is global warming,” his solution is to rely more heavily on U.S. coal reserves. Giuliani has received more than $400,000 from employees of companies in the oil, gas, and energy industries. His law firm, Bracewell and Giuliani, also recently led the lobbying campaign on behalf of the utilities companies against the Senate energy bill.
The Sierra Club has more on the presidential candidates’ commitments to a clean energy future.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
105 Responses to “Huckabee And Thompson: Global Warming Is ‘Overblown’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Dear Republican Morons,
What if you are wrong?
December 11th, 2007 at 4:36 pmGeeze, someone tell Fred Thompson to stop sleeping with a coat hanger in his mouth.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:36 pmHuckabee responds that “scientifically,†he doesn’t know whether global warming is “overblown.†- - Wait, NOW Huckabible believes in science? C'mon Mike, this global warming is just a buncha burning bushes. (Yes, that pun was intended.)
December 11th, 2007 at 4:38 pmSince none of them stands a snowball's chance, I guess it won't matter what they think.
Ghouliani will purchase the nomination, and go down in flames to whoever the D's end up running. Glad to hear the Energy Industry is pissing its money away on Rudy - it'll keep them from spending it on something even dirtier.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:39 pmHere we go again with the close minded “the debate is over†commentary. The debate is far from over. See 244 links here: http://schnittshow.970wfla.com/globalwarming.html
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 11, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
Some dope's radio show? Why do you keep trotting out the same tired, stupid citations? Could it be because you have no real scientific evidence you can use?
December 11th, 2007 at 4:39 pmThat photo pretty much defines what we mean when we say "sh!t eating grin."
December 11th, 2007 at 4:40 pm"There are a lot of unanswered questions. We don’t know to the extent this is a cyclical thing. "
Then why make a declarative statement that the case for global warmongering, er, warming is overblown if you don't know?
December 11th, 2007 at 4:40 pmMeanwhile if you want to know how the environmental policies of democrat candidates compare, so you could find out which one to support on that issue, you have to go somewhere else.
Comment by Kilo — December 11, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
Off you go, then. Don't let us keep you!
December 11th, 2007 at 4:41 pmTHOMPSON: It’s the fact that our entitlements are bankrupting the next generation.
------------------------------------
No, you moron -- it's tax cuts for the rich coupled with endless spending on unnecessary wars that are bankrupting the next generation. Get a clue.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:42 pmhttp://epw.senate.gov/ public/ index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 11, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
Bwahaha. It's Inhofe's press blog! Hysterical.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:43 pmCold Hard Left is right. The radio guy obviously knows his stuff. The other side is dopes like the American Meteorological Society that spout off quotes like the one below. What do they know about whether? You need to trust disk jockey and not meteorites or whatever the heck they call themselves.
"Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond. Focusing on the next 30 years, convergence among emission scenarios and model results suggest strongly that increasing air temperatures will reduce snowpack, shift snowmelt timing, reduce crop production and rangeland fertility, and cause continued melting of the ice caps and sea level rise. Important goals for future work include the need to understand the relation of climate at the state and regional level to the patterns of global climate and to reverse the decline in observational networks that are so critical to accurate climate monitoring and prediction."
Link: http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html
December 11th, 2007 at 4:43 pmNo wonder Grampa Fred's handlers have kept him from smiling...
December 11th, 2007 at 4:45 pmAll I have to say is if someone can find me a peer reviewed paper that disputes the effects of global warming and that has been submitted to any one of a number of reputable publications and has not been refuted by said peer review, then maybe I'll start believing the trolls.
But some Lord offering a 'refutation' without peer review to a sunday paper does nothing for me.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:46 pmThompson and Huckabee have been advised on this by Chuck Norris.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:46 pmHuckabee and Thompson are going to lose anyway. Next?
December 11th, 2007 at 4:46 pmAh...chl and his magic links again. Hey, CHL--why are you so against America going full-charge against climate change? There is no downside. If we succeed we get to tell Iran and Saudi Arabia to shove it, not to mention Hugo Chavez. I would think you would relish the opportunity to get out from under their thumbs. Even if the polar meltdowns don't occur to disastrous levels we still win. Even if ee could defeat every last islamofascist by pouring every penny in the American treasury into Iraq--and we would still be pwned by the very people that have funded the radical muslims. They are the real enemy--and are goal should be to stick it to them
December 11th, 2007 at 4:47 pmCold Hard Left,
Let's have a contest. You name scientific organizations that doubt global warming. I'll list those that take the consensus position. Note we're not talking about individuals. We're talking about SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS.
Ready ... set ... go.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
The American Astronomical Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
BTW, I can't believe I misspelled 'weather'. :)
December 11th, 2007 at 4:48 pmVinnie -- don't forget; CHL also has a TV weatherman on his side!
http://www.therant.us/staff/phyrillas/11162007.htm
December 11th, 2007 at 4:48 pmHey come on, Bushs still a Christian
December 11th, 2007 at 4:48 pmWhat does Thompson care? he'll be dead soon anyway.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:49 pmWhy is CHL taking the side he is? Money, pure and simple. Just start talking about a carbon tax and these guys go ape. They also can't comprehend that someone like Gore is doing what he's doing out of a sense of decency. Someone acting decently is incomprehensible to them.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:50 pmHere we go again with the close minded “the debate is over†commentary. The debate is far from over. See 244 links here: http://schnittshow.970wfla.com/globalwarming.html
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 11, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
That's evidence?? That post alone proves you are a complete and utter moron (not that all the others didn't as well)
December 11th, 2007 at 4:50 pm"It’s the fact that our entitlements are bankrupting the next generation."
Just wondering, when did the environment become an entitlement?
December 11th, 2007 at 4:51 pmCHL,
LOL! Find some "evidence" that isn't funded by one very upset scientist (Fred Singer)who was unable to continue his GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT and subsequent FUNDED RESEARCH.
So in his jealous rampage, he attacks anything and everything which IS currently funded.
Kinda like a cornered rat, or Neocon watter-carrier.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:51 pmCHL, I said SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS. We'll accept anything from any respected scientific journal. You must be able to find something in such a journal if you're so right!
December 11th, 2007 at 4:51 pmSee 244 links here: http://schnittshow.970wfla.com/globalwarming.html
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 11, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
Sorry -- that link won't open on this computer, since the network I'm on blocks all internet radio and TV sites. I can try to check it once I get home.
But in the meantime -- just tell me: Are these 244 links to peer-reviewed studies? Actual scientific research? Rebuttal of the global warming evidence with equally compelling evidence?
Or are they just 244 links to bloviators and other naysayers with no backup?
December 11th, 2007 at 4:58 pmCHL has his list of obfuscations but he will never say why exactly he is so dead-set about taking action. Remember CHL it was your beloved Dick Cheney who had the 1% doctrine--if there was a 1% chance that Iraq had wmds then the invasion was necessary. What do you think? Do you believe that catastrophic human-augmented global warming is less than a 1% possibity? SHouldn't we take action if there is a more than 1% chance? If we are corect, we will get to be the "greatest generation" for our grandkids. If we do nothing and are wrong we will be revilled as the self-centerd people who could have made a difference but dropped the ball.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:01 pmok - who taught c_h_l to post links!??
yer in for it this time, whoever you were!!!!
December 11th, 2007 at 5:01 pmI know it sounds weird. I'm not a tin foil hat kind of guy. But I almost believe people like CHL are paid to come here. These guys obviously can't argue on his own but only provides links that others have created. (Maybe this is true of right-wingers on almost any subject.) When I've gotten them to go off script they tend to go way off of the deep end. Many times they end up admitting that global warming is real and even that it's man made. (But the carbon tax is still a bad idea.) And they appear to come with the same script every time.
So, CHL, please no more links. We really have seen them all before. Maybe you could tell us why you are so motivated on this topic to come post on a board where you know you will get a hostile reception?
December 11th, 2007 at 5:04 pmI suppose the rapidly diminishing snows on Kilimanjaro have nothing to do with global warming.
Or maybe it just it doesn't count. It is, after all, in Tanzania, a third world country.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:05 pmLord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.
“Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing,†Monckton told participants.
***
Dude, Monckton has no formal scientific training. He's a rich dilettante who inherited his title and money. Try again.
***
"Monckton's claims about climate change have been challenged by climate scientists, including Gavin Schmidt of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Dr. Stephen Harrison, Senior Lecturer in Physical Geography at the University of Exeter and Senior Research Associate at the Oxford University Centre for the Environment.[2], [3]"
The Courage To Do Nothing.
Man that must be soothing to someone like you.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:06 pmCHL, do you really think that your "over 250 more links" couldn't be matched a hundred times over by statements supporting the theory of global warming?
Would it make any difference to you if we posted any number of statements like this:
"We're getting very close to a tipping point in the climate system. If we don't get off our 'business as usual' scenario and begin to reduce our greenhouse emissions, we're going to get big climate changes".
-- James Hansen, NASA
or
"The GHG problem is extremely dangerous to our civilization because we are predisposed to ignore it. We are visual animals, and have evolved over the last few million years to respond to immediate and visible threats (predators or enemies). Indeed, the success of your ancestors in dealing with these threats has allowed you to read this column. GHGs, however, are an invisible and slowly increasing threat, and they are all the more dangerous because their inevitable consequences come decades after the pollution itself."
-- Peter Barrett, Victoria University, NZ
Quit pretending that, because you have the willingness to google global-warming denier statement all day, you win some kind of argument.
You don't. Your argument is built on decpetions and misdirections, and depends on minimizing the vast cross-discipline agreement on the effects of human activity on global climate, and on maximizing the uncertainty that's inherent in any scientific exploration.
My question is, why?
The upside of doing something is that we may avert or mitigate potentially catastrophic climate change, and generate some new technologies to boot. If there is no climate crisis, we still get new energy sources and a less polluting human society.
The upside of doing nothing is the status quo. The downside, if global climate change is real, is REALLY big.
And, by the way, the economic costs of taking action are completely unkown and the doomsday scenarios never take into account new industries that will grow up around this effort and threaten the dominance of the oil companies... oh... never mind. I get it now.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:09 pmThe very first "paper" I clicked to started in about 'we've all seen Al Gore's movie' in the first friggin' line. That is not the way a scientific paper begins. no need to dig any deeper into that one.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:09 pmI'm curious. If Fred hates the fact that future generations' money is being spent on "entitlements", is he going to do away with any of those, such as Social Security? Is old Fred really going to get up and tell older people their SS checks will no longer be coming, and they have to fend for themselves? After all, we're wasting the money of future generations, right? And blowhards like Thompson wouldn't just give lip service about "entitlements" while doing nothing about the problem, right?
December 11th, 2007 at 5:12 pmFred Thompson is rapidly debeloping into this campaign's Crabby Old Man, yelling at squirrels to get off his damn lawn.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:12 pmJust a sample of the dozens of articles that come up on Science Daily. NOT ONE written from the perspective of doubt about it.
Rising Surface Ozone Reduces Plant Growth And Adds To Global Warming
Death Rates Will Rise Because Of Global Warming, Researchers Warn
Global Warming Increases Wind Shear, Reduces Hurricanes, Climate Model Shows
Stopping Climate Change Is Possible, According To WWF Report
Metro Boston's Flora And Fauna Reveal Global Warming's Effect
Cirrus Disappearance: Warming Might Thin Heat-trapping Cloud
Crops Feel The Heat As The World Warms
City Ants Take The Heat
What Can We Do With All The Carbon Dioxide?
Antarctic Warming To Reduce Animals At Base Of Ecosystem, Shift Some Penguin Populations Southward
Study Sheds New Light On Global Warming
Astronomer Backs Link Between Greenhouse Gases And Climate Change
Is Global Warming Causing An Increase In Hurricane Activity?
Antarctic Temperatures Disagree With Climate Model Predictions
Health Toll Of Climate Change Seen As Ethical Crisis
Oceans Could Slurp Up Carbon Dioxide To Fight Global Warming
Global Warming Threatens Pacific Northwest Coast
Statistical Analysis Debunks Climate Change Naysayers
Climate Change Research Recognized In 2007 Nobel Peace Prize
2006 Was Earth's Fifth Warmest Year, Say NASA Climatologists
Chesapeake Bay's Habitats Threatened By Global Warming
Flesh-eating Disease Is On The Rise Due To Global Warming, Experts Warn
December 11th, 2007 at 5:14 pmTell the truth, CHL: you guys are assigned specific threads to poop on, aren't you?
Obviously, Frank M got assigned the Mukasey torture thread and you got the global warming thread. Do you get to choose, or do they just tell you your assignments?
December 11th, 2007 at 5:15 pmHuckabee and Thompson are 'overblown'.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:15 pm"New peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce global warming"
That's one of your top sources, CHL? How is that even relevant to your point?
Come on man, you're not even trying.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:17 pmOH, Good Lord, That SMILE!! Satan Begone!
December 11th, 2007 at 5:19 pmchl-
Dude, from your own link:
"The study does not question the fact that CO2 plays a key role in climate."
December 11th, 2007 at 5:20 pmDude, from your own link:
“The study does not question the fact that CO2 plays a key role in climate.â€
Comment by J — December 11, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
CHL doesn't actually read the things he is listing, he just spams them to this site.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:24 pmre 56, that part is propaganda. the part that chl takes out of context is the real science. get with the program.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:24 pmWhen their great grandkids are drowing, let the record show that these imbeciles who have zilch background in science have decided that, for sheer personal convenience, the horrific consequences of global warming were overblown. Can't imagine the kind of karma which these two dweebs will suffer.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:25 pmCHL will never answer the whys or the wherefores he just keeps posting his silly links which he obviously keeps bookmarked to spam these threads. But has CHL read as dilligently the hundreds, thousands of other articles that do see the effects of human activities on global climate? I think not. I hope he looks back fondly on these days with a chuckle as his granddaughter tearfully asks him..Why grandpa why? the computer says people knew back at the end of the 20th century that this might happen but decided to keep driving their SUVs when they could have changed their habits."
Everybody do need a thnead, I guess.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:25 pmGoodnight.
Comment by cold_hard_left
just one more cut and run repbulcian. he comes here and regurgitates what the whitehouse has vomited into his mouth and runs away.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:25 pmI need to get this straight.
1)they'll torture a kid on the outside chance that it's useful....
but NO WAY
2) would they see higher SAFE standards passed on the outside chance they'd be useful
let's see....what's the word for that.......OH! here it is....
Adj. 1. incoherent - without logical or meaningful connection; "a turgid incoherent presentation"
December 11th, 2007 at 5:26 pmillogical, unlogical - lacking in correct logical relation
irrational - not consistent with or using reason; "irrational fears"; "irrational animals"
coherent, consistent, logical, ordered - marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts; "a coherent argument"
2. incoherent - (physics) of waves having no stable definite or stable phase relation
natural philosophy, physics - the science of matter and energy and their interactions; "his favorite subject was physics"
coherent - (physics) of waves having a constant phase relation
3. incoherent - unable to express yourself clearly or fluently; "felt tongue-tied with embarrassment"; "incoherent with grief"
tongue-tied
inarticulate, unarticulate - without or deprived of the use of speech or words; "inarticulate beasts"; "remained stupidly inarticulate and saying something noncommittal"; "inarticulate with rage"; "an inarticulate cry"
CAFE standards.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:27 pmThere's no point debating the science. It's been accepted internationally as evidenced by the treaties being signed right now. Singed brains like our trolls here just flap their jacks off to try to have something relevant to say. There's no longer a debate, among scientific communities, that is. The only debate is political at this point - Bush's cronies don't want to conserve and change their polluting ways, simple as that. Sick, twisted, greedy misanthropes - all they care about is the almighty dollar and themselves. When they have no concern for their offspring and the continued lineage, then you know they are also soul-less.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:28 pmThe problem, C_H_L is that the clouds in the northern hemisphere are moving north and clouds in the southern hemisphere are moving south. The result is record precipitation in the most northern and southern climes while the southern USA and northern Australia are experiencing drought. This also applies when one crosses over to Europe and Northern Africa.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:28 pmAs the clouds move further north or south, thy have less effect in blocking solar energy in the winter season and since the extreme northern and southern climes receive perpetual daylight, the clouds there are burned off during their respective summers.
Hey Huckabee and Thompson, global warming isn't a political issue, it's a scientific issue, so stop debating whether or not it's 'real' or not. Any intelligent person can tell you there is not really a debate.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:29 pmBobwurst: CHL can't take the heat. He cuts and runs as soon as the slapdown becomes more than he can sustain.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:29 pmright mr baker. they also will defend to the death (well, someone else's death anyway) the second amendment, but will throw away the 4th amendment in a heartbeat if someone yells boo! They'll quote chapter and verse from the bible about men not lying with men, but ignore the verse a little further down about stoning children. in short, these are goosestepping idiots who have worked tirelessly to ruin this country.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:30 pmAmen #67! I love these moron repukes pretending they have a brain, don't you. Arm-chair scientists. Misanthropes - would be more appropriate.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:30 pmVeritas: Yup. he'll pop up on another thread, regurgitate his talkingpoints and run there too.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:31 pmHuckleberry and ThompSin are such experts on this issue, they are world famous scientist on weather patterns and such. Or just maybe they know they will be long gone when the real trouble begins.
Bush/Cheney/Frank M/CHL
Hague Trials '09
Buck Fush
December 11th, 2007 at 5:32 pmBobwurst: And ruin they have. Can you begin to imagine all of the incompetence which we'll be left with in Gee Dubya's wake? Can you imagine all of the laws which have been broken by him and his cadre of criminals? It will take all of the personal strength of the next president to even begin to right this sinking ship and begin to restore our constitution. I can't imagine why anyone would want to take on the challenge. It's sloppy seconds if you ask me to come on the scene of another's mess.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:32 pmLord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 11, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
Um, you might want to check your basic facts. Lord Monckton is NOT a "climate researcher" at all. He is a conservative JOURNALIST and BUSINESS CONSULTANT who formerly worked for Margaret Thatcher's administration. That's like posting an article by Bill O'Reilly on global climate change, then calling him a "US climate researcher".
December 11th, 2007 at 5:32 pmBobwurst: I'm beginning to think that this schizophrenic troll is one person using about a dozen monikers. What's your take on this idiot?
December 11th, 2007 at 5:33 pmBrianFl - If you're new to the thread, may we welcome you with a huge "hoorah!". You've managed to "out" our resident moronic troll in one fell swoop. He just spouts out facts which are half-truths (the ones with the links) and hopes that no one will care about him enough to check the link. This is fool's play for anyone to doubt the now overwhelming consensus of international scientists. As far as most people are concerned, there is NO debate. It's scientific fact.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:35 pmCHL is a jackoff of all trades - master of none - except the fine art of baiting.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:36 pm75 - it sure has a familiar ring - someday we'll find out that all the trolls who've ever visited are actually 4 dudes from the same dorm floor somewhere, who swill jagermeister and watch Fox and high-5 each other all the way through these threads.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:37 pmCHL ignores the fact that many of the supposed "skeptics" are on the take from Big Oil. They're not called "biostitutes" for no good reason.
All CHL is trying to do is mandate that the scientific thought on global warming be 100% universal to a man. With that standard, all he has to do is link to some charlatan making 6 figures.
Republicans have sought to undermine the truth as an idea. This is the reason they try to politicize everything. If everyone is partisan then there is no truth, just partisan opinion. And the press plays right into this.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:42 pmBrianFl points out an amazing thing. That there are conservative front groups posing as climate skeptics.
The only other organizations that need a front group are terrorists and the mafia.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:47 pmFred is really scary when he smiles.
Yikes.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:56 pmRemember when Fred was the horseborn savior and many of the freaks around here where announcing his inevitable success? What a freakin' riot
December 11th, 2007 at 6:09 pmW/ a smile like that, Fred must be related to Elizabeth Dole and the Joker.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:09 pmThe only other organizations that need a front group are terrorists and the mafia.
Comment by lefty — December 11, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
And the GOOP... don't forget the GOOPers.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:10 pmWhat is it with these idiots? How is it that switching to fluorescent lights, implementing existing technologies, and modernizing our energy infrastructure, is a bad thing? The only part of the economy which is "jeopardized", by environmentalism, is the short-term profits of the energy industry.
I guess I fail to see why Exxon should be considered a victim when they stand to continue earning from alternative energy long after the oil is gone. Plus, the energy industry will always be profitable for the giants.
Yet somehow they've managed to sell the message that, "if you car-pool, modern civilization will end and the terrorists win". And, "a puppy dies every time a car gets 40mpg". "Compact fluorescents, halogen, and LED lighting is the work of Satan".
The simple fact is that any measures we take, to reduce pollution and consumption in general, will pay dividends. And the only reason to deny it is political.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:11 pmRemember when Fred was the horseborn savior and many of the freaks around here where announcing his inevitable success? What a freakin’ riot
Comment by dbadass — December 11, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
Valiant Venus, in particular, was highly enamored of him as a "serious conservative". I'm not hearing much of that these days. From anyone.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:18 pmClimate change is happening.
Climate change has happened.
Climate change will happen.
The only thing new is that I need to pay more for something or buy something because it is, has and is still happening.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:30 pmI don’t believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 11, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
Shoot your toes off much?
December 11th, 2007 at 6:33 pmHistorically, when politics trump science, it ends badly. I seem to recall a story about a Roman Doctor who wondered if Rome's water supply was to blame for an increase in "dull children" among the elite. There is widespread (and debatable) speculation that Rome fell, in part, due to widespread systemic lead poisoning due to lead in the plumbing.
Imagine if his writings had been pursued, and headed, when people argued that lead, in paint, didn't pose any particular danger? How about asbestos? PCB's?
Atmospheric CO2 aside; we won't know what our current intake of synthetic chemicals is doing, to the human population, for generations. But, one thing is certain. Any number of chemicals, which are now part of the environment, have been proven to have dramatic long term effects. The number of those compounds rises almost daily.
So, don't worry too much about global warming. Humans can adapt to temperature fluctuations. It won't become a real issue until the chemical induced genetic damage starts "thinning the herd".
December 11th, 2007 at 6:33 pmAh, yes, Humans can adapt, but will their economics and markets continue to work when food scarcity begins class warfare?
December 11th, 2007 at 6:36 pmThompson goes a step further, claiming that the “state of entitlements†and “extremists†who “want to do drastic things to our economy†are the real problems:
Who is the extremists responsible for the failing dollar?
December 11th, 2007 at 6:37 pmWho are the extremists for corporate welfare?
Who are the extremists for earmarks [entitlements]?
Who are the extremists that outsource jobs?
Who are the extremists that created the sub-prime mess?
Yikes! The bounceback from those flubbery cheeks is gonna be massive!! Jebus - Freddy's liable to put an eye out or something.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:39 pmAnd we have Al Gore to thank for CHL,and I really most sincerely do.
When 'ecology' first became common parlance about 1970, the conservatives were angry about its being co-opted by the hippies, and a number of industries had protozoa-like defensive reactions to anything that would cost them money--but conservatives with brains read the scientific papers and saw there was real danger. Richard Nixon created the EPA, and, while they continued to deride the hippies, implemented many reforms.
Now, of course,conservatives with brains (and they exist, just not in government) have been looking at the numbers, and they're concerned. What they'd like to do (and what they'd been doing) was pooh-pooh it while moving around (eventually) to some real reforms. (If you hadn't noticed, the run-up in oil prices this time hasn't seemed to have crippled industry (except for trucking) the way it did in the Seventies--and that's because industry has quietly but significantly been streamlining its energy budget.)
But enter President Al and his inconvenient movie. Suddenly global warming is tied to an arch-progressive and an object of right-wing hatred. They've been maneuvered into a corner. They just can't agree with Al--they just can't.
And so they go after Mr. Love Story the way they went after Mr. Balanced-the -Budget. War-whoops and ThakyuhJesus!, and the cross of Limbaugh going on before.
And they find that they're fighting the world scientific community. Whoops.
And they can't back down. They just can't.
Some of them just weigh in to the attack. trot out the bought ones and the crackpots; impugn their integrity; say the world scientific community is on the take, headline hungry, bought by the Norwegian Government or, better yet, Al Gore!
And the Republican Party looks the the American public like a cross between UFOlogists ("There are six sightings that cannot be convincingly explained away!") and those distinguished folks who kept denying that smoking causes lung cancer.
They're alone out there in the arena. The matador has moved the red cape and deflected their charge, and the world snorts in derision as they bellow in rage.
Olé, Al.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:42 pmOf course it would make sense for the "Ray-gun Republicans" to like Fred. They hope he can "Act" like a candidate.
It's, almost, enough to make one feel pity for them. After all, Fred is the "electable" one of the bunch!
December 11th, 2007 at 6:45 pmThose guys are out of the race now, anyway...
The National Review has endorsed Romney,
(here comes the punchline)
because he's the most like Bush!!!!!!
December 11th, 2007 at 6:48 pmHuckabee said that he doesn't know "scientifically" if global warming is "overblown". While he may not be in a position to know if it is overblown, does he at least believe the many scientists whose consensus is the global warming is happening, and that there are important man-made factors at work?
December 11th, 2007 at 6:53 pmOnly a Republican would suggest relying "more heavily on U.S. coal reserves" as a means to fighting global warming.
Dear god.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:14 pmThese guys will rush us into war based on flimsy evidence, but risk the human race along with lots of other species because there isn't any way they can make money off the latter catastrophe
December 11th, 2007 at 7:22 pmEh, wingnuts, don't let statistical data effect your holier than thou-wrong as usual attitude.
Even if these were "normal fluctuations", what makes you think a 100year period of warming on the scale we're witnessing is something you'll/we'll survive?
December 11th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Heck, if if you take the unorthodox opinion that all that melting water is a good thing? Keep in mind that we are polluting water at a faster rate. Not to mention the entire atmosphere.
Explain to me why it's more important to support short-term profits over long-term efficiency? Should it not be a duty of successful corporations to devote a portion of their income to "green" technologies? Why should we have spent billions, largely wasted, to secure radiation from nuclear energy?
I guess I just fail to see any long-term advantage to degrading the environment any more than necessary. I certainly don't see why U.S. corporations, and government, should be allowed to reject a public mandate to invest in "green" technology. Implementation of many of those technologies will make huge amounts of income.
Oil, gas, and coal won't suffer much. Reduced consumption will extend the profit window. And more efficient consumption will reduce gross energy costs to consumers.
And there's no reason the net cost to consumers will exceed what "the free market" determines to be a fair price.
Maybe I'm slow in the uptake but, I can't see one, rational, reason why every energy dependent industry isn't required to spend all they can afford on minimizing emissions.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:53 pm#88 Comment by Xisithrus — December 11, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
Shoot your toes off much?
HaaaaaHaaaaaHaaaaa...ROTFLOL
Candidate: Funniest remark on the thread!
December 11th, 2007 at 8:23 pmI can't wait to see cold_hard_left's reaction when ignorant, obstructionist, GOP idiots like Dubya are finally out of office, and the rest of us in the world can finally think forward, and tackle global warming head on.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:07 pmFor a man who is supposed to be an actor, Thompson doesn't seem to have mastered the smile yet. Or did he just sit in something wet and squishy?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:34 pm#95, tombaker, thanks for the laugh! That's effing hysterical!
December 11th, 2007 at 10:52 pmI wonder how much Thompson paid for those teeth? And I wonder how his child-bride likes how those teeth look in a glass of water?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:58 pmBTW, Huckabee doesn't believe in evolution, either. 'Nuff said.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:11 pmMan, I love ol' Grandpa Fred! I mean, look at the man! He's as virile, as vibrant, as charasmatic as any corpse I've ever seen. Hope I look that well when I'm dead!
December 12th, 2007 at 2:01 amI see that CHL has been lying a mile a minute here. CHL is a paid propagandist. The truth means nothing to him.
December 12th, 2007 at 3:37 amAnd of course, everyone who doubts the Goracle is labeled a crony of big oil, big business, or whatever. There’s no room for not believing in Gore! If you don’t, then you’re a Holocaust-denier or a person who stood by while the Nazis took over your country.
Comment by DreamCrusher — December 12, 2007 @ 3:37 am
Once again a pathologically dishonest propagandist (you, DC) implies that we are debating what Al Gore says and what Al Gore believes. We aren't. We are talking about the overwhelming consensus of the world's scientific community, where this debate has been over for at least seven years now, since the 2000 IPCC report. Al Gore is just one of many messengers.
December 12th, 2007 at 3:41 amTo doubt Al Gore on global warming is to doubt all of modern science.
End of story.
December 12th, 2007 at 3:43 amAfter U.S. Senators Rockefeller and Snowe wrote a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of ExxonMobil asking him to stop funding scientists who reject global warming, Lord Monckton wrote a letter to the senators reminding them of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and calling on them to reverse their position or resign.
December 12th, 2007 at 7:58 amEven assuming that you are right (and you aren't--the debate has just begun; just because the Libs try to force all opposition to shut up doesn't mean they have won the intelllectual argument), what do you want to do about it? Is America supposed to cut it's economy by 30% just to see the developing nations (all those exempted by the Kyoto treaty) swallow up any reductions we achieve? The solution cannot be to destroy our economy in favor of the economies of developing nations.
I agree that temporatures are slightly rising, and there is no doubt that people contribute to greenhouse gasses. But nobody has proven that the human contribution is a deciding factor and all these scare tactics just harm your own credibility.
Why not make this argument: "We know we can't solve the problem on our own, but it just makes good sense not to make things worse."
Even I would buy into that. Just don't try to scare me into destroying our economy.
December 12th, 2007 at 8:48 am116... Why is the argument always that it would destroy our economy? If there was any better source for the next big boom than developing the technologies and infrastructure to switch to a green economy, I'd like to hear what it is. I know where I'm putting my speculative investment dollars. What about you? I just want the upswing in the value of my holdings to result from gains that American companies made and patents that they own, but in the end I will take the gains even if they come from Chinese, Japanese or German companies. Suit yourself.
December 12th, 2007 at 8:53 amIf Katie Couric had a brain, she would have asked them what evidence they have to support their beliefs that are at odds with the rest of the world and leading scientists.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:19 amFred should really really really really really really really really try to avoid smiling.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:04 amOoh, O Bigfoot put up an O Big comment. Just when exactly did mankind manage to avert "plagues, floods, droughts, famine, pollution, ice ages, etc." Sounds pretty impressive, but then why are some Southeastern states suffering from drought right now?
December 12th, 2007 at 1:12 pmRemember global cooling hysteria from 30 years ago? lol The global-warmists are going to look so silly when their impending doomsday scenerio gives way to the next trendy liberal hysterical nonsense.
December 12th, 2007 at 1:20 pm#122, and you're going to look so silly in your water wings.
Can you give us one good reason why we shouldn't curb the pollution in the atmosphere, stop tearing up a perfectly good planet in search of the last drop of oil, and develop renewable energy technologies to make energy cheaper and make us independent of Mideast oil? And don't give us any crap about the economy. The bases for economies have changed and evolved over the millenia, or didn't you notice that we're no longer an agrarian society?
December 12th, 2007 at 1:40 pmI actually don't have any problem with any of your ideas Jane, I simply think that the current global warming hysteria is out of control and clearly political. In typical fashion, the global warmists refuse to entertain any dissent or debate from scientists who have come to alternative conclusions about man's role in global warming. Then you've got Al Gore out there asserting terms like "Global Warming Denier" and insisting that the debate is over because he say's its over. Listen, if you want to believe this warming stuff and make changes to your own lifestyle, go for it. More power to you. Just don't for a minute think that you are going to be allowed to legislate any changes to my lifestyle in the name of curtailing global warming. No way. I love my SUV and I will be keeping it. I also prefer traditional light bulbs because they simply provide better quality light. Additionally I'll purchase and use whatever natural resources I so chose and I won't tolerate some pinhead environmentalist extremists telling me otherwise. The warmist alarmists really need a strong dose of skepticism when looking at this issue. And when Al Gore starts practicing what he preaches, then maybe I'll take him seriously. Currently he's the biggest joke out there. Carbon credits indeed.
December 12th, 2007 at 4:55 pmI love my hunting rifle and I will be keeping it. Just don't think just by legislating, anyone can stop me adopting a way of life that involves me using it against anyone I please.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:37 pmHeck, I might even go get me some o that yoorayneeumm, try a few experiments of my own, see if those pinko-liberal "scientists" are right about its effects.
...
Seems to me that with the science settled (and, never mind lists of links, it is - as much as plate tectonics, or evolution; and we all know it's obvious really: CO2 etc are known greenhouse gases, we're adding more to atmosphere, so not rocket science to predict outcome [predicting exactly, now that's different]), problem now with such crass selfishness, people who don't give a rats-a about rest of the planet and the future - which far more prevalent than just CWIAS.
And, problems with a bunch of scaredy-cats; just too darn scared to do the right thing.
Oh yeah, I've been collecting some of the worst global warming lies and hysteria, from various righties, and several people whose claims to be "experts" re climate change turn out to be dodgy or bogus:
http://www.drmartinwilliams.com/global-warming/global-warming-lies-and-climate-change-hysteria.html
- aiming for lies n hysteria from around the world; but striking how much originates from US of A - a world leader??
Plus gathering some other info re climate change, inc news on science, and observed impacts:
December 12th, 2007 at 9:41 pmhttp://www.drmartinwilliams.com/global-warming/