of stupid politicians araç sorgulama were sure the NVA

was in bed with the Russians (minimal help) and/or the Chinese (ancient enemy of the vietnamese). ssk sorgulama You would think he would have learned from others’

mistakes. Guess not. Republicans need an enemy. key ödemeleri This

century it apparently will be all Muslims, health all of whom must

be alQaeda operatives.

I believe in the possibility that man is having a significant impact on global climate change. And support those efforts that reduce carbon emissions that don’t pose significant economic disruption or transfers of wealth.

But, because some climate change proposals present significant economic consequences and others propose artificial transfers of wealth based on the needs to address climate change; the debate should continue to ensure the negative consequences of climate change policy are worth the potential benefits.

If and when studies, scientists, and understanding point to one of the competing positions; our answers will evolve and become progressively evident. In due course, without regard to rhetoric or reaction to alarmism.

I suggest that what may be happening is a rhetorical battle between the two positions.

Proponents don’t consider their arguments rhetorical, because they say their arguments are based on science. (blockquotes from wikipedia).

In contraposition to scientific debates, rhetorical arguments, as in politics or even justice, do not make use of demonstrable or tested truths, but resort to fallible opinions, popular perceptions, transient beliefs, chosen evidence or evidence at hand (like statistics)…

But, I suggest that the idea of rhetoric may be broadening to include science:

So while rhetoric has traditionally been thought of as being involved in such arenas as politics, law, public relations, lobbying, marketing and advertising, the study of rhetoric has recently entered into diverse fields such as humanities, religion, social sciences, law,[1] science, journalism, history, literature and even cartography and architecture. Every aspect of human life and thought that depends on the articulation and communication of meaning can be said to involve elements of the rhetorical.

I do trust science, but I believe that selecting those studies (and scientists) that support your arguments, while dismissing those that don’t, can be a rhetorical tool use by either side.

Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or “whitewashing” their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric.

Apologist (not in the pejorative sense) techniques employed on either side to further the competing arguments.

Immediately, proponents will assert that the opposing studies are suspect and funded by groups that have an interest in the status quo. And they will also assert that the studies that indicate man’s role in climate change are objective, conducted free of any motivation.

I recognize that some or possibly many of the inconclusive or opposing studies (and scientists) are funded by entities with a vested interest. But, I find it difficult to believe that all or even most are.

Additionally, for those that believe the proponents of the man made climate change theory have no interest in its promotion, I would offer two.

I believe that it’s possible that environmentalists that want to improve or protect the Earth’s environment, irrespective of whether man’s activities are inducing climate change, may see the issue as a valuable tool and worthy means to an end.

Another quite objective motivation is money. As it is easy to see the financial stake that oil companies have in dismissing man made climate change, it should be equally apparent that the same motivation could tempt some proponents, if you consider a 3 trillion dollar carbon credit market and the incalculable value of political power that will be entrusted to those that promise to solve the crisis.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2021745/posts

They get up to a thousand feet, really, of snow in the Cascade Mountains of Washington each year. But, the rise in temperature means that the snow pack melts faster in the Summer and tends to fall at higher altitudes. This prevents mass from being added to the glaciers so we see them recede a little more each year.

The glaciers are receding. Global warming is a leading theory. It is for the climate change deniers to propose an alternate theory. The popular “God does not like glaciers any more” theory espoused by most climate change deniers is not convincing from either a religious or scientific viewpoint.

a. CO2, (a “greenhouse gas”), levels are at an at least, 800,000 year high, and rising. Human activities are a significant, if not sole, source of increased atmospheric CO2.
b. Average temperature is at a historical high and rising.
c. Average temperature goes up when more heat is retained by the Earth.
d. The “greenhouse effect” is one mechanism by which more heat is retained by the Earth.
e. At a certain, unknown, level; higher temps will release vast amounts of CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” (Methane is prominent among them) in a cascade reaction. This is believed to have happened many times, with many different causes and effects, in Earth’s history. Worst possible case is a worldwide mass extinction event which would tend to hit humans, as today’s “top of the food chain”, especially hard.

Still with me? Good. Here’s the hard part, and it ain’t hard:

a+b+c+d+e=X

X= A major problem which we should do everything in our power to prevent or mitigate.

A “major problem” is a variable which could be anything from: an inconvenient change in longterm weather systems to; the sudden end of higher life as we know it.

What possible cause is there to deny the reason of perusing every prudent, affordable, alternative to current idiotic uses of fuels both fossil and otherwise combustible?

You know — the same witch doctors who provided him with steroids. Which didn’t work. Year after year.

Ahh–nold must repent and go with magical thinking. You know, the right wing’s version of “science.”

Wouldn’t THAT be entertaining??????

04/07/08
Dick Cheney’s EPA Scam
By Mike Papantonio
In 2007, the most right wing reactionary Supreme Court America has seen since the 1930’s had to admit that George Bush’s crony hack EPA was intensely ignoring the fact that they had a responsibility to regulate global warming pollution from carbon fuels. In fact, even this industry lapdog US Supreme Court had at least a moment of inspiration when they directed the White House last fall to take action to begin regulating the problem.
Not long after the EPA was directed to do their job, Dick Cheney and George Bush figured out a way to protect their energy industry pals who are saturating our atmosphere with carbons from power plants and carbons from their 4 dollar a gallon fuel.
Here’s their plan – Direct the EPA and its industry-trained monkey EPA administrator Stephen Johnson – direct them to use a delay tactic that would add years to any activity from the EPA. The delay tactic is where the EPA pursues a meticulously detailed drawn out administrative process called the advance notice of proposed rule making. What that means is the EPA is telling industry that they can draw out their objections, demand hearings, demand delay studies, file lawsuits, and basically for years ignore any need to actively clean up their mess that is slowly melting our planet.
So think about this – you might believe that all progressives need to do is win back a veto-proof Congress to reverse the sick, twisted years of George Bush and Dick Cheney. But do you really think that if John McCain were calling the shots around the EPA anything would really be different?

http://airamerica.com/ringoffire