This is despicable. As I have often said in the past, if you truly disagree, put forth your evidence and let’s debate this. If you stifle dissent you only reinforce their point. The Bush administration’s efforts to bowdlerize this issue is frightening. Don’t you care about your children?
A former White House official accused of improperly editing reports on global warming defended his editorial changes Monday as reflecting views expressed in a 2001 report by the National Academy of Sciences.
House Democrats said the 181 changes made in three climate reports reflected a consistent attempt to emphasize uncertainties surrounding the science of climate change and undercut the broad conclusions that manmade emissions are warming the earth.
Philip Cooney, former chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, acknowledged at a House hearing that some of the changes he made were “to align these communications with the administration’s stated policy” on climate change.
I have a novel idea. Instead of attacking the source, let’s look at some of the evidence and discuss that.
Does this sort of thing really surprise anyone about this administration anymore? Impeach the whole lot of ’em.
Hmmm…. They lie to get us into a war that costs tens of thousands of human lives to protect the right of soccer moms to continue to drive enormous gas-guzzling SUVs.
They lie to continue to burn fossil fuels, thus furthering mass extinction and catastrophic climate disruption that will continue to kill humans in floods, hurricanes, and through decreased food production due to desertification and further loss to ocean habitat.
When Bill lied about sex we impeached him. Isn’t it time to impeach a mass murderer? Or, should we just declare ourselves to be a nation committed to the burning of every bit of oil, coal, and natural gas on the planet or dying in the effort?
Perhaps in ’08 we’ll get to do something we haven’t done since ’96, elect a president. Wouldn’t that be nice for a change?
Yeah, the soccer moms should drive smaller cars so when they run over me and my bicycle while talking on their cell phones, I’ll at least have a fighting chance.
3,
I’ve been hit twice on bikes by cars, once a motorcycle when I was stationed at Fort Monmouth, NJ, for USMAPS (killed my bid), and once on a bicycle in Munich on my way home from work (remembering the first time, the moment I saw the car in the corner of my eye I pulled up my legs, only suffering a bruised hip as a result).
“Don’t you care about your children?”
Yeah, that’s rational scientific debate. Just in case you care? That kind of nonsense is exactly why so many people are unwilling to listen. That’s not science. That’s politics and hyperbole. If Bush & Co. are wrong for doing it, so is the other side.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
5,
If you don’t understand my point, I’ll reiterate: Don’t you care enough about your children to debate the issue instead of censoring debate wherever possible?
One of the solid references to science in Gore’s film (yes, unlike most of the critics, I’ve actually seen the film, warts and all) is the comparison between means used by supporters and critics to draw their conclusions.
Those using scientific journals and papers – there were 928 noted – found exactly zero sources in opposition to the analysis and bases for initiating action. Those using newspapers and other non-science media – there were another several hundred noted – split into a 53% majority concluding there was no need to react.
None of which surprised me.
I spent a few years in debate and discussion with scientists online and off before I reached my personal conclusion. I would mostly thank the good folks at the Max Planck Institute in Germany for producing the most readable work. I question if comparable effort/interest exists among most of the “loyal opposition”.
I read a study in computational analysis, this morning, that simply concluded – what we know so far requires an annual expenditure of 1% of the world’s GDP to likely effect a solid result in dealing with global warming.
If we don’t do that, an annual minimum of 5% of the world’s GDP will be needed to try to stave off the effects of doing nothing. But, then, what’s 4% to people who think all significant differences somehow come down to two parties of opportunist pimps called Democrats and Republicans?
For the children” is for me right up there with calling the person you disagree with a natzi. It has no relationship to the issue but it makes the person saying it feel superior. I personally go the oposite way when someone uses the “For the children” reasoning. And hide my wallet
5,8 I understand the basis of your argument, certainly. A whole lot of bunk has been sold to us “for the children,” and I myself start looking for lies, caveats, and traps as soon as those words escape someone’s lips. However, sometimes it is a rhetorical necessity to talk about the future when people are so callously bartering it away for a gilded present. Perhaps this is better:
“Do you care about the future, and the consequences of your actions, or do you care only to protect your profit model?”
Think of all the people who couldn’t answer that question? Most of the villains you see around here, for instance: the MPAA/RIAA, suing the fans, the telcom companies, stifling innovation and the free flow of data, the car companies, sticking to bottling explosions while their end (Tesla, Zap, Feel Good) tools up factories. Or the executive branch/oil and weapon industry (only God knows where the one ends and the other begins anymore) covering up climate change. The only possible result is that we would be left unprepared when the change hits, and this does beg the question.
However, please leave the children out of the argument for now. It’s bad enough that we are giving them this future, without selling our current folly in their names.
#5, Malren
As a matter of fact, I have stopped beating my wife. Although I would prefer to say that she is now beating me and regularly. With my arthritic wrists I just don’t have the mobility to handle the controllers like I used to and she has definitely gotten better. Hey, the one to watch though is our kid. Now she beats both of us most of the time.
But hey, thanks for asking.
And global warming? I want my kid to have a planet she can live on when she gets my age.
[Edited – violation of posting guidelines.]
This is try #5 and each time I waited at least 15 seconds.
Darned gubmint is lying to us again, and we’re actually surprised? I suppose that depends on what your definition of ‘warm’ is.
Real scientists / astronomers are still debating this issue (ie., people with brains) including friends of mine that have time on the Hubble and Kitt Peak / Sac Peak, and the current consensus is: Sun, 50%, us 50%. So even though it’s not all our fault, we could still do a lot better.
Perhaps most folks are smart enough to realize that politicians lie when their lips move, but that just opens another debate.
Just my 2 newly minted ‘gold’ dollars worth…
BubbaRay,
I’m glad you’re paying that level of attention. I’d try scholar.google.com as your search engine for this topic though. I saw one peer-reviewed paper claim as high as 30% sun, 70% us. Most seem to be in the 5-10% sun, 90-95% us range.
I also see a lot of debate about specific effects, especially local ones, and about the expected amount of global temperature change. However, I see no debate at all about whether anthropocentric global climate change is happening.
It is. And, it is due mostly to us.
Even if the global warming advocates are wrong, and I suspect that they AIN’T wrong, does that give the OK to poison the bejesus out of the planet in the name of conspicuous consumption?
Get real. Global Warming or not, the environment has to be our #1 priority or war and famine will destroy us (that is if Dubya doesnt do it sooner).
Yadda yadda yadda.
When one side in a given dispute has proven, time and time again, to lie, dissemble, cheat, misinform, stonewall and fabricate, all in the service of helping corporations and their shareholders get and keep as much money as possible, by any means available –
then it is logically sound to recognize and factor in the strong probability that they’re doing the same thing here.
I’ll repeat; When one side has the motivation of protecting trillions of dollars of profit, pretending that they are not overwhelmingly more likely to be lying is idiotic. They’re proven liars. Trillions in their profits are at risk. They have criminally cause environmental disaster before and will do so again.
Objective observers, scientists, say “A”. Proven pathological liars with a demonstrated absence of moral scruples, and motivated by insatiable greed, say “B”.
Who stands to profit?
A: The owners of the industries involved – the constituency of the current administration.
Which side has already, countless times, caused environmental disasters in their relentless search for monetary gain?
A: The owners of the industries involved – the constituency of the current administration.
Who have consistently demonstrated utter contempt for truth and the welfare of the environment?
A: The owners of the industries involved – and the current administration.
Before even having to so much as glance at the evidence, it is glaringly, blatantly obvious that “A” is far more probably true. When the evidence is factored in, the likelihood approaches near-certainty.
Motives DO matter. Why do you keep up the pretense that they don’t, John C?
Smartalix – what in the world does that have to do with anything, let alone this topic…
It seems to me that if you can impeach a president for lying you ought to do that. How else are you going change directions other than just waiting like a dummy for more critical years
who cares were all gonna be dead before the real trouble starts (if the bs is actually true ) I say we live it up and let the grandkids worry about it
[edited – violation of posting guidelines.]
#16 – fluxie
“I say we live it up and let the grandkids worry about it”
That’s the actual Republican attitude, the one they all acknowledge to one another with a nod and a wink, but don’t dare say out loud.
“Ahhh, science’ll figure out some way to fix it. But in the meantime – there’s money to be made, boys!”
#14,18 – Lauren the Ghoti,
Excellent points. Just figured I’d add my support. You’ve got it pretty much covered.
I want all the children of the world to grow up in a world worth living in – which is why I support bigger homes, more urban sprawl, larger trucks/SUVs and absolutely zero sacrifice on the fictional alter of Global Warming.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54783
Oh my, it’s the Republicans silencing debate on global warming? Anyone check out Al Gore’s statements that the media should ignore the skeptics? By the way, you keep referencing 928 articles. Go back to your talking points and take another look. The talking point claims it was all articles dealing with climate change, but what they really looked at was ‘global climate change’. Searching for ‘climate change’ yields 10000 articles. So let us know when they look through the other 90% of the articles.
Lauren nails it. BTW – what’s a “Ghoti” & how did you become one?
I’m just waiting for Dvorak to chime in here now, and – somehow – start dragging Gore’s name through the mud. His batting average on that is really up there.
#23 – there’s something fishy about Lauren….
–VOPG–
#25, Malren
Are you suggesting you can dish it out but can’t take it?
So did you stop?
Hysterical. I point out a violation, and *I* get edited. Fusion just gets to be an insulting jerk whenever he wants, regardless of the topic. meanwhile:
No, political belief plays no part in how the rules get applied around here…
27,
Sorry, I’ve been busy. I removed the offending comments. You know I don’t like that stuff either. Please note though, Fusion was replying to your “wife beating” comment.