Yeah so global warming huh...

[Kevin Seitzer]

I am so embarrassed he's from Oklahoma.

I'm pretty sure I voted for Jim Inhofe when he was first elected to the Senate in 1994.

:shrug:

[Lucky]

And it should be a fairly simple litmus test. Apply whatever character issues may be absolutely necessary for your particular club, and then ask "do they believe in science?". "Do they believe in the value of education?" "Do they accept intellect as a good thing?"

(Bonus questions: How many walkers have you killed? How many people? Why?)

[GwynnInTheHall]

It is embarrassing but we elect dipshits like this because a huge portion of our country is full of total morons. We can criticize politicians all we want but until our citizenry as a whole pulls its collective head out of its ass, we'll continue to put complete morons into positions of power.

Idocracy, it's real.

[Kevin Seitzer]

My political views have changed a lot in 21 years.

I like to think they've gotten a lot more sophisticated. Some may feel otherwise. My family certain thinks otherwise.

[james33]

My political views have changed back and forth a bit. My views on science haven't changed. I'm unashamedly pro-science.

[Kevin Seitzer]

My political views have changed back and forth a bit. My views on science haven't changed. I'm unashamedly pro-science.

I don't remember what the science or the politics of global warming were 21 years ago when Inhofe joined the Senate.

[james33]

I don't remember what the science or the politics of global warming were 21 years ago when Inhofe joined the Senate.

Sorry - Didn't mean this as criticism of you or your support of Inhofe. I could be wrong, but I don't remember global warming being discussed in Washington 21 years ago.

I was just being generally snarky.

[onejayhawk]

Republicans do have a better understanding of priorities concerning climate change.

J

[GwynnInTheHall]

Republicans do have a better understanding of priorities concerning climate change.

J

Too Easy.....

[swampdragon]

Republicans do have a better understanding of priorities concerning climate change.

J

unfortunately from your previous posts , I know that you actually believe this - yikes

[bryanbutler]

Republicans do have a better understanding of priorities concerning climate change.

J

at the risk of stepping into something that i can't shake off my sandal, which priorities are those that the republicans understand?

first priority, i would think, is that we should reverse the trend of climate change. to do that takes an understanding that we are actually affecting it, which is pretty undisputably shown by the research, and then the will to legislate the things that will reverse it. the republicans don't seem to be willing to embrace any of these, which would make me think they don't have a better understanding of priorities.

[chancellor]

Let's assume for a moment, despite the failure of every major model over the last 20 years, and the gross exaggerations and outright lies by the IPCC, that we accept your premise on climate change. The problem we have is we aren't going to reduce it. Well, unless you're going to advocate nuking China or something similarly radical. Fact is, despite our non-signing of Kyoto, we've made more progress than over 90% of the signatories.

[johnnya24]

Let's assume for a moment, despite the failure of every major model over the last 20 years, and the gross exaggerations and outright lies by the IPCC, that we accept your premise on climate change. The problem we have is we aren't going to reduce it. Well, unless you're going to advocate nuking China or something similarly radical. Fact is, despite our non-signing of Kyoto, we've made more progress than over 90% of the signatories.

That is just not true.

China are the largest providers of renewable energy in the world, and they have the most wide reaching plans for the future. China are one of the few major nations in the world taking renewables seriously on an industrial scale. And China are always up front in their assessment of the limitations of renewable power in an economy that has growth as ridiculously fast as China over the last 20 years. US propaganda is very effective it seems.

The reasons behind China's push for renewables is not specifically to do with the environmental policy, but rather a desire to be self sufficient, and not have their future energy needs held ransom by geopolitical factors (as well as factors like air pollution which is a massive problem). But even though China are taking it seriously, they are still barely scratching the surface due to its enormous size and rate of expansion of their economy.

You are right about one thing though, we aren't going to do enough about it to save us. We are basically doomed. The effects of future climate change will be catastrophic, and we will not do enough to stop it (even to arrest the rate of decline), and we will be helpless to prevent it. IMO we have, in practical terms, already reached the point of no return because of the lack of political will and the retardation of the general public who want to believe "everything will be OK", especially if we all stick our heads in the sand ... and we've gotten good at that over the last 15 years! The general public are now pros at self delusion.

Most of the older models for future climate change don't even take into account the massive population explosion over the next 100 years, that will see the need for cheap fossil fuels rise and rise (not decrease) ... especially in Africa. Did you know that Nigeria is predicted by the UN to have a population of close to 1 billion by the end of the century. Does anyone seriously think they'll be building their economy and supplying cheap energy with renewables? Not a chance.

Unless there is a massive coordinated global program to actually slow down fossil fuel burning, and unless that starts now, it's all over bar the shouting (and screaming, mass starvation, pollution and disease) ... there is not the political will to make this happen, because a politican's number one priority is to to get re-elected and the general public don't want to hear about sacrifice when it comes to elections.

We're fucked. We're just debating whether we want to see the iceberg that will sink us, or whether we'll sit in first class drinking champagne, pretending that it won't happen. Greed and selfish interest kills human civilization ... who'd a thunk it.

[GwynnInTheHall]

We're fucked. We're just debating whether we want to see the iceberg that will sink us, or whether we'll sit in first class drinking champagne, pretending that it won't happen. Greed and selfish interest kills human civilization ... who'd a thunk it.

This is the state of our society in a nutshell.

And actually many people have thought it and spoke it, but few have actually listened and acted on it.

[onejayhawk]

at the risk of stepping into something that i can't shake off my sandal, which priorities are those that the republicans understand?

first priority, i would think, is that we should reverse the trend of climate change. to do that takes an understanding that we are actually affecting it, which is pretty undisputably shown by the research, and then the will to legislate the things that will reverse it. the republicans don't seem to be willing to embrace any of these, which would make me think they don't have a better understanding of priorities.

We do not understand we are causing it, because there is no scientific consensus that we are. There is consensus among scientists on some things, but not this. Anthropogenesis is the most hotly contested subject. One problem is that if there had never been a human on the planet, the climate would be changing, trending warmer. The north polar cap would be melting, because it is an unstable aberration. Nothing we can do would change either fact.

The question is not what we should do to stop global warming or climate change. The question is how we should deal with the inevitable.

J