Uhoh..looks like liberals fear campaign was all for not..

Drew263

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/35266/Global-warming-It-s-the-coldest-winter-in-decades

I guess we won't be losing NYC to a rise in sea levels just yet.....

sorry Al.

polaris

right ... no climate change going on at all ... :rolleyes:

godpt3

articles such as this show a complete lack of understanding for basic scientific concepts.

Kann

"Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation."

Or you can take specific cases, in which case witnessed one of the warmest winters of my life.

Collin

Well, here in Belgium and perhaps also the Netherlands it's one of the warmest winters ever, it might even be a new record.

W.C. Carter

So, I forget, is global warming something created by Al Gore and the liberals for their "fear campaign" or a theory generally accepted my most of the scientific community? It gets confusing sometimes.

inmytree

who'd a thunk Global Warming and WMD's would be one in the same...

jeffbr

I know it is hard for some people to wrap their heads around, but there are plenty of us who can both acknowlege the existance of global warming AND see that is can and had been used as fear mongering to increase size and scope of government - just like neocons did with WMDs.

polaris

jeffbr wrote:

I know it is hard for some people to wrap their heads around, but there are plenty of us who can both acknowlege the existance of global warming AND see that is can and had been used as fear mongering to increase size and scope of government - just like neocons did with WMDs.

uhhh ... what do you have to back this up with?? ... i didn't know an environmentalist's wet dream was to increase the size and scope of gov't!??

good grief ... people need to read the UN Human Development Report on climate change - many have died and many more will continue to die from the developed world's inaction and this is the debate we are having?

jeffbr

polaris wrote:

uhhh ... what do you have to back this up with?? ... i didn't know an environmentalist's wet dream was to increase the size and scope of gov't!??

good grief ... people need to read the UN Human Development Report on climate change - many have died and many more will continue to die from the developed world's inaction and this is the debate we are having?

Pick up the paper. Lots of silly doomsday scenarious meant to scare the hell out of people. And the problems can be solved by simply adopting new CAFE standards, or through carbon taxes. Miracle cures. All it takes is just a little more government.

EDIT: and it isn't necessarily environmentalists wet dreams to grow the government, it is the governments wet dream to grow itself, and if it needs to do it with tales of WMD or tales of NYC being underwater in 5 years it will. And if it gives enough money to any particular sector, they'll be happy to oblige.

MasterFramer

jeffbr wrote:

I know it is hard for some people to wrap their heads around, but there are plenty of us who can both acknowlege the existance of global warming AND see that is can and had been used as fear mongering to increase size and scope of government - just like neocons did with WMDs.

Al Gore's goal with his global warming campaign is to create more government? That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have read on here in days... ok minutes... but still stupid none the less...

polaris

jeffbr wrote:

Pick up the paper. Lots of silly doomsday scenarious meant to scare the hell out of people. And the problems can be solved by simply adopting new CAFE standards, or through carbon taxes. Miracle cures. All it takes is just a little more government.

with all due respect - you're misguided and jaded beyond belief - i have no interest in increasing the scope of gov't and i've been screaming the ills of climate change for years here ... similarily - WMD's has nothing to do with increasing the scope of gov't ... it's about war profiteering ...

i can understand people not wanting to change their lifestyle ... but using some kind of poor correlation to continue to derail a political idealogue serves no purpose ...

the reality is - if you read news from around the world - that we already are suffering greatly from climate change ... it's no longer whether we will suffer - it's how much ... here in north america - where we are wealthy beyond belief - it's easy to ignore the signs (drought in georgia; extreme cold; heat waves; floods; etc) ... but in the developing countries like bangladesh - it's already too late ...

Its Evolution Baby

Whether or not there is Global Warming is irrelevant. Go to any major city and there is ton of pollution in the air and trash on the streets which is not good for the environment.

It doesn't matter if it leads to the end of the world or not but I want to be able to go outside in LA and see a few miles down the road. Breathing that air can't be good for you no matter what you believe.

So why the reistance to new technology that will make the environment cleaner? Even if they are wrong about global warming won't it still be good to breath cleaner air???

jeffbr

polaris wrote:

with all due respect - you're misguided and jaded beyond belief - i have no interest in increasing the scope of gov't and i've been screaming the ills of climate change for years here ... similarily - WMD's has nothing to do with increasing the scope of gov't ... it's about war profiteering ...

War on terror led to the Patriot Act, which certainly helped increase size and scope. It wasn't just corporations that benefitted.

polaris wrote:

i can understand people not wanting to change their lifestyle ... but using some kind of poor correlation to continue to derail a political idealogue serves no purpose ...

Eh, it isn't just lifestyle. For me it actually does have to do with governement scope, and runaway regulation. I know lots of people here are perfectly happy to have government attempting to solve their problems.

polaris wrote:

the reality is - if you read news from around the world - that we already are suffering greatly from climate change ... it's no longer whether we will suffer - it's how much ... here in north america - where we are wealthy beyond belief - it's easy to ignore the signs (drought in georgia; extreme cold; heat waves; floods; etc) ... but in the developing countries like bangladesh - it's already too late ...

Again, I don't dispute global warming. And I don't dispute some of the signs. I do dispute others (like Kann's observation that his winter was warm - mine was fucking cold until this week, so do we cancel each other out?). I will always question solutions which involve more regulation. Some may end up being meaningful, but I certainly won't accept something just to do something.

jeffbr

MasterFramer wrote:

Al Gore's goal with his global warming campaign is to create more government? That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have read on here in days... ok minutes... but still stupid none the less...

Let's try to keep up. Al Gore's campaign helps government point to reasons to grow itself. I'm sure Al Gore is making enough money with his campaign to have that be sufficient motivation for himself.

farfromglorified

Conservatives seizing on a cold winter is just as stupid as liberals seizing on a single hurricane......

I hate this issue.

polaris

jeffbr wrote:

War on terror led to the Patriot Act, which certainly helped increase size and scope. It wasn't just corporations that benefitted.

that's like saying asking for less gov't = anarchy ... the patriot act was designed to not make anyone accountable by law ...

jeffbr wrote:

Eh, it isn't just lifestyle. For me it actually does have to do with governement scope, and runaway regulation. I know lots of people here are perfectly happy to have government attempting to solve their problems.

but what is your solution then? ... let corporations "voluntarily" curb emissions?

jeffbr wrote:

Again, I don't dispute global warming. And I don't dispute some of the signs. I do dispute others (like Kann's observation that his winter was warm - mine was fucking cold until this week, so do we cancel each other out?). I will always question solutions which involve more regulation. Some may end up being meaningful, but I certainly won't accept something just to do something.

this is where your understanding of climate change fails you ... again - it's not about everywhere getting warmer ... it's about disrupting the climate cycle to bring about more extreme weather scenarios - it means some places are gonna be really cold and some really warm ...

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

it's about disrupting the climate cycle to bring about more extreme weather scenarios - it means some places are gonna be really cold and some really warm ...

11. Thou shall not "disrupt the climate cycle".

Hehe...

GreenTeaDisease

godpt3 wrote:

articles such as this show a complete lack of understanding for basic scientific concepts.

here here.

As someone who has a graduate degree in environmental management, I take very large issue to this.

ALSO: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE OR WITH PARTISAN POLITICS.

Some of this country's greatest environmentalist have been conservative republicans.

Please don't post shit when you know nothing about the science or policy in question.

MasterFramer

jeffbr wrote:

Let's try to keep up. Al Gore's campaign helps government point to reasons to grow itself. I'm sure Al Gore is making enough money with his campaign to have that be sufficient motivation for himself.

Lets try to make some fucking sense skippy...

jeffbr

MasterFramer wrote:

Lets try to make some fucking sense skippy...

Let me know when you're ready to make your first attempt sparky...

Hinny

People who deny this should be forced to permanently relocate to Tuvalu or Maldives. By permanently, I mean exactly that- stay there as the seas rise until the islands are no more.

HermanBloom

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Whether or not there is Global Warming is irrelevant. Go to any major city and there is ton of pollution in the air and trash on the streets which is not good for the environment.

It doesn't matter if it leads to the end of the world or not but I want to be able to go outside in LA and see a few miles down the road. Breathing that air can't be good for you no matter what you believe.

So why the reistance to new technology that will make the environment cleaner? Even if they are wrong about global warming won't it still be good to breath cleaner air???

Completely agree; not totally sold on global warming (this was the hottest summer ever), but we need to clean up the environment; the resources are not endlessly renewable, contrary to popular belief. Get rid of the big trucks.