I’m no fan of Thompson’s climate change policy, but he asked her for the opportunity to provide a more detailed answer and she said “I just want a yes or no answer”. And so he refused to answer.
We complain about the standard of political debate, but it doesn’t help when the media wants to simpifly everything into yes/no answer. They’re having a kazillion of these debates, you think they’d have time for a candidate to outline their specific position on an important but complicated issue.
Anyway, what do you guys think? Yes or no?
Yes BUT… I’d need more time for an extended answer...
I’m sorry, it’s a simple question, Senator sl0re. Yes or no? If you equivocate on this issue, what other things might you hesitate on.
Not on talking to you, your done.
You there in the back, whats your question, this guy had more than his time.
Not on talking to you, your done.
You there in the back, whats your question, this guy had more than his time.
Yeah, uhh, *Quickly removes “Vote for Billary” button*, uhh, so should the Don’t ask/Don’t tell policy be rescinded?
(In other words, what BS cause did Democrats have to feel afraid about appearing on a Fox News debate?)
No. That would keep gays from being able server under current rules. You don’t hate gays / don’t want them to not be able to serve in the military.. right? :)
Don’t forget to keep calling on the same faces that you know have softball questions.
“Exactly how great are you, Mr President?”
Oh yeah, I hear ya. But sometimes you need to call Helen Thomas for comic relief… and to remind the country of SDS (sl0re derangement syndrome) as that creates sympathy for my government due to the irrationality of my opponents. :)
At least you no longer have Rumsfeld asking himself the questions and then answering them in long jumbled sentences.
Hey! There are the known Rumsfeld known, and there are the unknown Rumsfeld knowns that you think you know, and then there are the unknown Rumsfeld unknowns that lead you to go to war with the Rumsfeld knowns you have. :P
I am surprised. I kind of expected more of a reaction to the IPCC info based on previous discussions we’ve had here. The summary is basically complete bunk and draws erroneous conclusions. Further, at least 100 of the world’s top scientists dispute the evidence for man-made global warming and/or the ability of man to affect global climate.
Yet folks like rj keep on believing the matter is settled from a scientific standpoint when it’s far from it.
At least you no longer have Rumsfeld asking himself the questions and then answering them in long jumbled sentences.
Hey! There are the known Rumsfeld known, and there are the unknown Rumsfeld knowns that you think you know, and then there are the unknown Rumsfeld unknowns that lead you to go to war with the Rumsfeld knowns you have. :P
I am surprised. I kind of expected more of a reaction to the IPCC info based on previous discussions we’ve had here. The summary is basically complete bunk and draws erroneous conclusions. Further, at least 100 of the world’s top scientists dispute the evidence for man-made global warming and/or the ability of man to affect global climate.
Yet folks like rj keep on believing the matter is settled from a scientific standpoint when it’s far from it.
I think the actual UN report only claims the earth is about 1 degree warmer and that human activity had something to do with it.... sooo, it doesn’t seem that controversial a claim.
I get more worked up over the proposed ‘solutions’ to the ‘problem’.
I am surprised. I kind of expected more of a reaction to the IPCC info based on previous discussions we’ve had here. The summary is basically complete bunk and draws erroneous conclusions. Further, at least 100 of the world’s top scientists dispute the evidence for man-made global warming and/or the ability of man to affect global climate.
Yet folks like rj keep on believing the matter is settled from a scientific standpoint when it’s far from it.
Check out the Time peace (sarcastic pun intended) on their Man of the Year. Messiah Gore is runner up to Putin and they declare that “green” is the new “red, white and blue”. I got it now, if you decline baptism into the Church of Man-made Climate Change, you’re not a Global Patriot (trademark pending). You’re a heretic, a denier and less human than human…
Check out the Time peace (sarcastic pun intended) on their Man of the Year. Messiah Gore is runner up to Putin and they declare that “green” is the new “red, white and blue”. I got it now, if you decline baptism into the Church of Man-made Climate Change, you’re not a Global Patriot (trademark pending). You’re a heretic, a denier and less human than human…
I did find the labeling of him as apostle interesting, almost ironic. Guess I just don’t have enough faith.
I guess I haven’t said more about the IPCC report because I assumed everyone around here knows that I think it’s a POS. When half the scientists allegedly on board with the report fly down to Bali to tell the conference that a) they aren’t on board with it, and b) it’s a bunch of silly hokum, you know that the IPCC report isn’t worth the paper or the disc it’s written on. Only an attention whore like Algore and the people who stand to make lots of money off it have the chutzpah to stand up and claim it’s the death knell for the Earth as we know it.
As I have said before, I am not so much disputing the idea of global warming (although I had to chuckle this morning when I read a headline in the local rag that much of the world is currently experiencing record cold) as I am the idea that humanity is causing it and humanity can end it. (Just for giggles, Google DDT and how many millions of people have died from malaria since the “noble pregressives” began hyperventilating over it.)
As somebody else on this board wrote: Who decided that the temperature in Berkeley, CA in 1968 is the eternal ideal temperature?
If indeed global warming is occuring, it does need to be adressed. But gutting the global economy and reducing the US to a third world country isn’t the solution. The world needs to plan for the results of global warming. Is Bangladesh going to suffer more and more crippling hurricanes? Then the world needs to help Bangladesh erect buildings that can stand up to killing hurricanes, build dykes and canals to lessen the effects of flooding and maybe try to create industry that will motivate Bangladeshis to move out of these hurricane prone areas into safer ones. We’re going to see more deserts? Start planting xeric grasses and plants that will help cut down on soil erosion and begin drilling for underground water. The oceans will eat away at coastlines? Make people stop building on vulnerable coastlines—or at least make them provide their own flood insurance instead of expecting me to shell out every time their pricy beachfront house gets washed away.
Running around whinging and wailing that the sky is falling is useless. Let’s get off our duffs and do some actual, concrete planning—not some pie-in-the-sky wishing and hoping.
Yes, we do need to get away from fossil fuels—but not for the reasons the utopians cite. We need to get away from fossil fuels to eliminate the world’s dependence on dysfunctional countries and leaders such as the Saudis, Chavez and Putin. Putin has already used oil more than once to coerce a sovereign country into toeing his line. Chavez and Ahmadinijad both use oil revenues to sponsor terrorism and promote their political goals. The Saudis—both the Royal familiy and commoners—are the world’s biggest sponsors of terrorism and have poisoned the world by exporting Wahhabism to the four corners. Ending global dependence on oil will instantly cut away the ground under the Saudis, the Iranians and Putin. Without Saudi and Iranian money, I’m betting the Islamist movement will collapse like a punctured balloon. The Muslims will still hate because that is what the Koran and their societies teach them, but they will no longer have the money to pay for weapons and the parasitical class of jihadi.
I am surprised. I kind of expected more of a reaction to the IPCC info based on previous discussions we’ve had here. The summary is basically complete bunk and draws erroneous conclusions. Further, at least 100 of the world’s top scientists dispute the evidence for man-made global warming and/or the ability of man to affect global climate.
Yet folks like rj keep on believing the matter is settled from a scientific standpoint when it’s far from it.
Check out the Time peace (sarcastic pun intended) on their Man of the Year. Messiah Gore is runner up to Putin and they declare that “green” is the new “red, white and blue”. I got it now, if you decline baptism into the Church of Man-made Climate Change, you’re not a Global Patriot (trademark pending). You’re a heretic, a denier and less human than human...
Check out the Time peace (sarcastic pun intended) on their Man of the Year. Messiah Gore is runner up to Putin and they declare that “green” is the new “red, white and blue”. I got it now, if you decline baptism into the Church of Man-made Climate Change, you’re not a Global Patriot (trademark pending). You’re a heretic, a denier and less human than human…
I did find the labeling of him as apostle interesting, almost ironic. Guess I just don’t have enough faith.
Double your number of struggle sessions until the treatments bear fruit brother.
Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.
I wonder if the Senate knew that with Kyoto they’d be able to increase emissions by 20% and still be hailed as saving the world, would they still have voted overwhelmingly against it.
The other is a new peer-reviewed study saying that changes in the climate are due to natural events and that greenhouse gases released by man have a negligible effect.
I wonder if the Senate knew that with Kyoto they’d be able to increase emissions by 20% and still be hailed as saving the world, would they still have voted overwhelmingly against it.
I wonder if the Senate knew that with Kyoto they’d be able to increase emissions by 20% and still be hailed as saving the world, would they still have voted overwhelmingly against it.
On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[66][67] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States”. On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[68] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.
They voted overwhelmingly for a Resolution that was not Kyoto, and that somehow equals Kyoto being sent to the Senate, and them voting against it? Okay…
I am surprised. I kind of expected more of a reaction to the IPCC info based on previous discussions we’ve had here. The summary is basically complete bunk and draws erroneous conclusions. Further, at least 100 of the world’s top scientists dispute the evidence for man-made global warming and/or the ability of man to affect global climate.
Yet folks like rj keep on believing the matter is settled from a scientific standpoint when it’s far from it.
I think the actual UN report only claims the earth is about 1 degree warmer and that human activity had something to do with it.... sooo, it doesn’t seem that controversial a claim.
I get more worked up over the proposed ‘solutions’ to the ‘problem’.
I don’t disagree. The IPCC report, although weak in some respects, is a pretty solid document for what it is (a summary document from scientific experts to policy makers). The Kyoto Protocol is a much better target for criticism.
I am surprised. I kind of expected more of a reaction to the IPCC info based on previous discussions we’ve had here. The summary is basically complete bunk and draws erroneous conclusions. Further, at least 100 of the world’s top scientists dispute the evidence for man-made global warming and/or the ability of man to affect global climate.
Yet folks like rj keep on believing the matter is settled from a scientific standpoint when it’s far from it.
Anyone who says the document has flaws is right. Anyone who says the process has been politicised is right. Anyone who says that we don’t know everything about global warming is right. Anyone who says that many of the proposed solutions may be problematic is right. Anyone who says that we need to consider the costs of regulations is right. Anyone who says that we need to consider the cost/benefit of mitigation V the cost/benefit of adaption is right. I could go on and on about legitimate areas of debate.
But anyone who say that global warming isn’t a serious threat based on the best available science are full of shit. That doesn’t mean I think it is definitely happening, just that I think the science is good enough to say that it is definitely a serious threat to happen. My main problem is with people who are so far up their own %$^ that they think patently ridiculous junk science is somehow worthy skepticism. The vast majority of skeptical criticism of the mainstream ideas about global warming are so pathetic they are laughable.
Thus, in that very broad sense I think the science is settled. We can be pretty confident that CO2 heats the atmosphere and that there is more CO2 around now than before the industrial revolution and that we put it there. The climate is changing (beyond normal natural variations) and the cause is anthropogenic. The details of the science of that change are not settled and more research should always be done. Now how we address this problem is completely up in the air. If you are a conservative and you don’t want to fight this with regulations and so on, then go right ahead and make that point. That is a legitimate POV.
