Post Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
Switch to Forum Live View Bad Climate News for Perry, Cain, Bachmann ...
3 years ago  ::  Nov 03, 2011 - 5:02PM #11
mountain_man
Posts: 39,313

Nov 3, 2011 -- 4:31PM, Girlchristian wrote:

Most of the conservatives I personally know believe that climate change is real, but where they argue with liberals is how much of it is due to man and what policies do we put in place to deal with it. Things like laws on light bulb efficiency that will cause the average American to spend more on light bulbs than they can afford, cap and trade, etc...


They're just repeating what they've been told to believe. I bought some new bulbs that cost LESS than the old style. So, that old whine about the cost is not going to work. "Cap and trade" makes sense, which is one of the primary reasons the Republicans are against it. The other is that the Republicans want NO rules on big business, not even ones that help the environment.


Here's an interesting article regarding Reagan....


The problem with Reagan is that he was senile his whole time in office. Anything that got done was through his wife or his puppet masters. Some conservatives are currently rewriting history to make Reagan look better than he ever thought he was. If he got something right environmentally, it was purely by accident.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 03, 2011 - 5:20PM #12
TemplarS
Posts: 6,778

Nov 3, 2011 -- 4:31PM, Girlchristian wrote:



Some of the thoughts from the article and what conservatives seem to ignore:


Reagan, when faced with mounting scientific concern about ozone depletion, listened to all sides, carefully weighed the facts, and ultimately sided with the climate scientists who were urging him to take prudent action to safeguard our atmosphere.



Despite strong opposition from Interior Secretary Don Hodel and other skeptics within his administration, President Reagan chose to push through a strong international treaty to begin phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals.



That 1987 treaty, the Montreal Protocol, is widely regarded as the most successful environmental treaty of all time.


It would probably come as quite a shock to Limbaugh and Beck, not to mention the tea party crowd and some GOP leaders, that the cap-and-trade method has a conservative lineage that can be traced back to the Reagan White House.



Well, as it happens, GC, this is a subject I know quite a bit about.  And one that those who automatically think "regulation bad for business" do not really want to think about.


I do not want to mention a lot of details for obvious reasons, but my company has made some very nice profits in selling alternates to the CFCs which were depleting the ozone.  And, in the process, provided quite a number of American jobs in R&D developing these alternatives, and in engineering and constructing the plants to make them.  


A similar initiative is now underway regarding alternatives to similar products which have been found to be global warming gases.


Regulation can be a spur to this sort of growth, for those who can think beyond DRILL, BABY, DRILL.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 03, 2011 - 5:26PM #13
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,158

Nov 3, 2011 -- 5:20PM, TemplarS wrote:


Nov 3, 2011 -- 4:31PM, Girlchristian wrote:



Some of the thoughts from the article and what conservatives seem to ignore:


Reagan, when faced with mounting scientific concern about ozone depletion, listened to all sides, carefully weighed the facts, and ultimately sided with the climate scientists who were urging him to take prudent action to safeguard our atmosphere.



Despite strong opposition from Interior Secretary Don Hodel and other skeptics within his administration, President Reagan chose to push through a strong international treaty to begin phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals.



That 1987 treaty, the Montreal Protocol, is widely regarded as the most successful environmental treaty of all time.


It would probably come as quite a shock to Limbaugh and Beck, not to mention the tea party crowd and some GOP leaders, that the cap-and-trade method has a conservative lineage that can be traced back to the Reagan White House.



Well, as it happens, GC, this is a subject I know quite a bit about.  And one that those who automatically think "regulation bad for business" do not really want to think about.


I do not want to mention a lot of details for obvious reasons, but my company has made some very nice profits in selling alternates to the CFCs which were depleting the ozone.  And, in the process, provided quite a number of American jobs in R&D developing these alternatives, and in engineering and constructing the plants to make them.  


A similar initiative is now underway regarding alternatives to similar products which have been found to be global warming gases.


Regulation can be a spur to this sort of growth, for those who can think beyond DRILL, BABY, DRILL.




I support R&D (and, in fact, the tax breaks for R&D are one of the only two types of tax breaks for corporations that I support) and I also support regulations. What I don't support are knee-jerk regulations that aren't fully thought out and based on 'fearmongering' over climate change. Nor do I support people like Gore that have made a ****-ton of money from that 'fearmongering.'

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 03, 2011 - 5:50PM #14
TemplarS
Posts: 6,778

Well, I will agree about "knee-jerk" reactions.


But then there is the opposite, paralysis by analysis,  where we sit around and study things until Miami is quite conclusively under 3 feet of water.


Sometimes is makes sense to...


be afraid...be very afraid.


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 03, 2011 - 6:16PM #15
mountain_man
Posts: 39,313

Nov 3, 2011 -- 5:26PM, Girlchristian wrote:

....What I don't support are knee-jerk regulations that aren't fully thought out and based on 'fearmongering' over climate change.


So, when did telling the truth become "fear mongering"?


Nor do I support people like Gore that have made a ****-ton of money from that 'fearmongering.'


How much money did he make on that film? If you bothered to look around, you'd find that he has not kept one penny of the profits from the movie or the book. All proceeds have been donated to climate change education groups.


Now, WHO is doing the fear mongering?

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 03, 2011 - 7:29PM #16
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,158

Nov 3, 2011 -- 6:16PM, mountain_man wrote:


Nov 3, 2011 -- 5:26PM, Girlchristian wrote:

....What I don't support are knee-jerk regulations that aren't fully thought out and based on 'fearmongering' over climate change.


So, when did telling the truth become "fear mongering"?


Nor do I support people like Gore that have made a ****-ton of money from that 'fearmongering.'


How much money did he make on that film? If you bothered to look around, you'd find that he has not kept one penny of the profits from the movie or the book. All proceeds have been donated to climate change education groups.


Now, WHO is doing the fear mongering?




Gore does a lot more than just the movie. You know he makes $100k every time he speaks about the topic and that money doesn't all get donated. Plus when you look into his investments, he makes a ****-ton of money investing in companies that, of course, have the answer to the climate change issue. He's not exactly pure in his motives.

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 03, 2011 - 7:35PM #17
mountain_man
Posts: 39,313

Nov 3, 2011 -- 7:29PM, Girlchristian wrote:

Gore does a lot more than just the movie. You know he makes $100k every time he speaks about the topic and that money doesn't all get donated.


How do you know that?


Plus when you look into his investments, he makes a ****-ton of money investing in companies that, of course, have the answer to the climate change issue. He's not exactly pure in his motives.



You're fear mongering again, and attacking the messanger while ignoring the message.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 11, 2011 - 11:00PM #18
rangerken
Posts: 16,406

This thread was moved from the Hot topics Zone

Libertarian, Conservative, Life member of the NRA and VFW
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 15, 2011 - 11:25AM #19
BeerLover
Posts: 1,241

Nov 2, 2011 -- 8:08PM, TemplarS wrote:


www.washingtonpost.com/politics/apnewsbr...



and the Romney-flopper (or else another chance to stick their oversized heads in the sand). 

Not to mention, bad news for the rest of us.

 


For a world already weary of weather catastrophes, the latest warning from top climate scientists paints a grim future: More floods, more heat waves, more droughts and greater costs to deal with them.


A draft summary of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press says the extremes caused by global warming could eventually grow so severe that some locations become “increasingly marginal as places to live.”




Edit: to fix link



This isn't new news.  Climate scientists have been saying this since global warming became popular back in the 80's.  The latest warning is the same as all previous warnings.  Al Gore warned us about more frequent and intense hurricanes back in 2006.  A scientist at the University of East Anglica CRU predicted that by 2010, snow would be a "very rare and exciting event."


www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfa...


Tipping points have come and gone since 1999.  Usually, we only have ten years to address the problem or it will be "too late."


 
epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseActi...


I'm not saying anything about the reality of global warming or AGW, just that warnings about weather catastrophes due to global warming have been with us since the late 1980's.  So what's the big deal about one more?

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook