The GOP has reached the point of no return on Climate Change

[bendog]

US emissions will be stable and falling according to climate scientists. What do you propose we do to China? Should we invade and stop their coal plants?

Well, what could have been done is to have an agreement with the other industrialized countries .... say 15 years ago .... that tied not placing tariffs on Chinese goods to their not building so many coal fired electrical plants.

That's true. We could stop pretending that our iPhones are so clean, while the production of our consumer goods muddies up rivers in China. We could stop pretending celebrities taking fuel wasting helicopter rides around waterfalls is okay because those same celebrities made stone-age tribal natives promise not to drive automobiles (that's an actual silly thing that happened on some silly late 1990s MTV show) and call it "Carbon Trading".

We could stop a lot of nonsense. It would be to our benefit. Why don't we?

Neither the left nor right are "pure," but the thread is about the gop, and the OP goes to the point of the GOP having denied there is anything of substance to "climate change," despite facts to the contrary, that they are now:

"So why would the senator make such a statement? The answer is that like that ice sheet, his party’s intellectual evolution (or maybe more accurately, its devolution) has reached a point of no return, in which allegiance to false doctrines has become a crucial badge of identity." NYT times quote

The answer is simple. especially given the effects of Citizens United, an entire political party was for sale, and the rubes were especially gullible after being lied to by the party establishement during the Bushii years, and that coupled with changing demographics, required candidates take pledges of "false doctrines."

 

[bedowin62]

The planet is not in danger. It was around billions of years before people and will be around billions of years after we are gone. It's the arrogance of man to think that he has the power to destroy a whole planet.

Okay, let's start small...
Does man have the power to pollute an entire river valley?
Does man have the power to start a Dust Bowl effect in the Plains States?
Does man have the power to deforest a region wide enough to introduce sandstorms to Beijing?

Just how wide an area can man affect, if not the whole surface of the Earth?

OK LET'S START SMALL

IS A river valley a planet?
Was the Dust Bowl created by man?
were there ever Dust bowl conditions before man came along?
is anything you posted; all the questions; proof of AGW?

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

OK LET'S START SMALL

IS A river valley a planet?

Straw Man, and doesn't answer the question.

Was the Dust Bowl created by man?

Are you asking me to google that for you?
In the Age of Information, ignorance is a choice.
"The Dust Bowl, also known as the Dirty Thirties, was a period of severe dust storms that greatly damaged the ecology and agriculture of the US and Canadian prairies during the 1930s; severe drought and a failure to apply dryland farming methods to prevent wind erosion (the Aeolian processes) caused the phenomenon."

were there ever Dust bowl conditions before man came along?

Are you appealing to the tradition of dust bowls?

is anything you posted; all the questions; proof of AGW?

Straw Man, never said it was. I was addressing man's potential power to affect the planet.

Let's try another question, one on a thing a bit larger...
What would happen to the planet if there was a full-out nuclear war?
Does man have the ability to affect the planet by hurling powerful nuclear warheads at one another?

 

[marsnow]

Well, what could have been done is to have an agreement with the other industrialized countries .... say 15 years ago .... that tied not placing tariffs on Chinese goods to their not building so many coal fired electrical plants.

That's true. We could stop pretending that our iPhones are so clean, while the production of our consumer goods muddies up rivers in China. We could stop pretending celebrities taking fuel wasting helicopter rides around waterfalls is okay because those same celebrities made stone-age tribal natives promise not to drive automobiles (that's an actual silly thing that happened on some silly late 1990s MTV show) and call it "Carbon Trading".

We could stop a lot of nonsense. It would be to our benefit. Why don't we?

Neither the left nor right are "pure," but the thread is about the gop, and the OP goes to the point of the GOP having denied there is anything of substance to "climate change," despite facts to the contrary, that they are now:

"So why would the senator make such a statement? The answer is that like that ice sheet, his party’s intellectual evolution (or maybe more accurately, its devolution) has reached a point of no return, in which allegiance to false doctrines has become a crucial badge of identity." NYT times quote

The answer is simple. especially given the effects of Citizens United, an entire political party was for sale, and the rubes were especially gullible after being lied to by the party establishement during the Bushii years, and that coupled with changing demographics, required candidates take pledges of "false doctrines."

Tea Party people view liberal views on the environment to be anti-thetical to their economic interests. They are wrong in the long run -- but in the short run, environmentalists should actually listen to these guys and think about a way to bargain with them on immigration or something else. If global warming is so important than why can't we compromise on immigration?

 

[westwall]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/opinion/krugman-points-of-no-return.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

I just don't see how the GOP can continue to deny the obvious. But I guess the Koch brother's money can change a lot of minds....until Rubio has to boat to his home in Florida.

There are actually several very good reasons for making the planet practically uninhabitable for all but the very wealthy. For the very wealthy that is.

So why have you jumped on the global warming fraud then? The whole thing is a scam to make wealthy people SUPER WEALTHY...all on the backs of the poor. It's a shame you're to intellectually dishonest to see that.

In other words the IPCC wants the world to spend 76 trillion dollars in the vain hope that we can lower the global temp by one degree in 100 years. That won't hurt the wealthy one iota, but it will absolutely screw the poor.

And all on a tall tale that a one degree rise in temp is somehow bad when every shred of historical evidence says exactly the opposite.

 

[westwall]

The planet is not in danger. It was around billions of years before people and will be around billions of years after we are gone. It's the arrogance of man to think that he has the power to destroy a whole planet.

Okay, let's start small...
Does man have the power to pollute an entire river valley?
Does man have the power to start a Dust Bowl effect in the Plains States?
Does man have the power to deforest a region wide enough to introduce sandstorms to Beijing?

Just how wide an area can man affect, if not the whole surface of the Earth?

Does man have the ability to control the Sun?

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Neither the left nor right are "pure," but the thread is about the gop, and the OP goes to the point of the GOP having denied there is anything of substance to "climate change," despite facts to the contrary, that they are now:

"So why would the senator make such a statement? The answer is that like that ice sheet, his party’s intellectual evolution (or maybe more accurately, its devolution) has reached a point of no return, in which allegiance to false doctrines has become a crucial badge of identity." NYT times quote

The answer is simple. especially given the effects of Citizens United, an entire political party was for sale, and the rubes were especially gullible after being lied to by the party establishement during the Bushii years, and that coupled with changing demographics, required candidates take pledges of "false doctrines."

True, about the OP and the GOP and the fact that the rhetoric on both sides gets a bit lofty.
The GOP has made a party issue about denying the existence of Global Warming as opposed to seeking out business interests in mitigating the effects which are now inevitable. Where is the talk about job creators in terms of larger levies and private rights to fresh water or desalination plants?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/opinion/krugman-points-of-no-return.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

I just don't see how the GOP can continue to deny the obvious. But I guess the Koch brother's money can change a lot of minds....until Rubio has to boat to his home in Florida.

People with brains understand that the climate has been changing for millions of years and we're not going to affect it. Keep on with the scare tactics though if it makes you feel good about yourself.

 

[bendog]

That's true. We could stop pretending that our iPhones are so clean, while the production of our consumer goods muddies up rivers in China. We could stop pretending celebrities taking fuel wasting helicopter rides around waterfalls is okay because those same celebrities made stone-age tribal natives promise not to drive automobiles (that's an actual silly thing that happened on some silly late 1990s MTV show) and call it "Carbon Trading".

We could stop a lot of nonsense. It would be to our benefit. Why don't we?

Neither the left nor right are "pure," but the thread is about the gop, and the OP goes to the point of the GOP having denied there is anything of substance to "climate change," despite facts to the contrary, that they are now:

"So why would the senator make such a statement? The answer is that like that ice sheet, his party’s intellectual evolution (or maybe more accurately, its devolution) has reached a point of no return, in which allegiance to false doctrines has become a crucial badge of identity." NYT times quote

The answer is simple. especially given the effects of Citizens United, an entire political party was for sale, and the rubes were especially gullible after being lied to by the party establishement during the Bushii years, and that coupled with changing demographics, required candidates take pledges of "false doctrines."

Tea Party people view liberal views on the environment to be anti-thetical to their economic interests. They are wrong in the long run -- but in the short run, environmentalists should actually listen to these guys and think about a way to bargain with them on immigration or something else. If global warming is so important than why can't we compromise on immigration?

I don't think there's any rational way to deal with these folks. First, you cannot ignore the fact that they are funded by rich people who benefit from their ideology. Second, the core of their ideology is the govt is evil, and devoted to the interests of those who wish them harm. We have people on social security griping about the 47%, apparently either ignorant or dismissive of the fact that that's them.

The only way to deal with them is what the gop establishment is doing. The mainstream challangers like McConnell and Thad Cochran are being provided with more money that the tea party backers can muster. And candidates, like Sasse in Nebraska, are embracing "repeal obamacare" even though in reality they're about "replacing it."

As far as climate change goes, imo its a waste of time and assets to deal with it from the dems side. At some point in time, the multi-nationals and insurers will have to force the govt to address the economic costs. But the opportunity to actually ameliorate the impact by forging a global consensus is long past, imo. Mission accomplished.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

The planet is not in danger. It was around billions of years before people and will be around billions of years after we are gone. It's the arrogance of man to think that he has the power to destroy a whole planet.

Okay, let's start small...
Does man have the power to pollute an entire river valley?
Does man have the power to start a Dust Bowl effect in the Plains States?
Does man have the power to deforest a region wide enough to introduce sandstorms to Beijing?

Just how wide an area can man affect, if not the whole surface of the Earth?

Does man have the ability to control the Sun?

Straw man, but...

Man does have the power to turn sun light into electric current (Photovoltaic effect, thanks Einstein!).

Man has the power to create both large and small structures providing artificial shade.

etc... etc... etc...

So while man cannot "control" (qualifiers?) a ball of nuclear fusion many times the size of our planet (what would demonstrate "control"? Control rods inserted into the sun?), man has demonstrated the ability to "control" (direct manipulation) how the resultant rays from the sun effect the surface of the earth.

 

[marsnow]

Neither the left nor right are "pure," but the thread is about the gop, and the OP goes to the point of the GOP having denied there is anything of substance to "climate change," despite facts to the contrary, that they are now:

"So why would the senator make such a statement? The answer is that like that ice sheet, his party’s intellectual evolution (or maybe more accurately, its devolution) has reached a point of no return, in which allegiance to false doctrines has become a crucial badge of identity." NYT times quote

The answer is simple. especially given the effects of Citizens United, an entire political party was for sale, and the rubes were especially gullible after being lied to by the party establishement during the Bushii years, and that coupled with changing demographics, required candidates take pledges of "false doctrines."

Tea Party people view liberal views on the environment to be anti-thetical to their economic interests. They are wrong in the long run -- but in the short run, environmentalists should actually listen to these guys and think about a way to bargain with them on immigration or something else. If global warming is so important than why can't we compromise on immigration?

I don't think there's any rational way to deal with these folks. First, you cannot ignore the fact that they are funded by rich people who benefit from their ideology. Second, the core of their ideology is the govt is evil, and devoted to the interests of those who wish them harm. We have people on social security griping about the 47%, apparently either ignorant or dismissive of the fact that that's them.

The only way to deal with them is what the gop establishment is doing. The mainstream challangers like McConnell and Thad Cochran are being provided with more money that the tea party backers can muster. And candidates, like Sasse in Nebraska, are embracing "repeal obamacare" even though in reality they're about "replacing it."

If the republican party compromises on immigration they are done for and we are in for some serious political turmoil. Perhaps democrats can build a stable one party rule, but republicans wont survive it in my opinion.

The main issue driving the hard right and tea partiers are economic and cultural ones. Liberals demand that they accept their beliefs in global warming (which hurts their interests in their view) and allow for unlimited Mexican immigration (ditto). Which one do tea parties really care about? Immigration. So why the heck can't liberals see that and say fine -- in order to pass cap and trade we shut down the border? Tea partiers would probably agree.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Neither the left nor right are "pure," but the thread is about the gop, and the OP goes to the point of the GOP having denied there is anything of substance to "climate change," despite facts to the contrary, that they are now:

"So why would the senator make such a statement? The answer is that like that ice sheet, his party’s intellectual evolution (or maybe more accurately, its devolution) has reached a point of no return, in which allegiance to false doctrines has become a crucial badge of identity." NYT times quote

The answer is simple. especially given the effects of Citizens United, an entire political party was for sale, and the rubes were especially gullible after being lied to by the party establishement during the Bushii years, and that coupled with changing demographics, required candidates take pledges of "false doctrines."

Tea Party people view liberal views on the environment to be anti-thetical to their economic interests. They are wrong in the long run -- but in the short run, environmentalists should actually listen to these guys and think about a way to bargain with them on immigration or something else. If global warming is so important than why can't we compromise on immigration?

I don't think there's any rational way to deal with these folks. First, you cannot ignore the fact that they are funded by rich people who benefit from their ideology. Second, the core of their ideology is the govt is evil, and devoted to the interests of those who wish them harm. We have people on social security griping about the 47%, apparently either ignorant or dismissive of the fact that that's them.

The only way to deal with them is what the gop establishment is doing. The mainstream challangers like McConnell and Thad Cochran are being provided with more money that the tea party backers can muster. And candidates, like Sasse in Nebraska, are embracing "repeal obamacare" even though in reality they're about "replacing it."

With a govt that takes us into endless wars and social engineering, failed policies littering the landscape, inept leadership that continually lies and deceives its populace I would think that's pretty evil. If you want to avoid the emotional term.....just pure incompetence. I do not think there's any rational way to compromise with the govt anymore.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Of course we've reached the point of no return. We aren't returning to this BS you call 'science.' Admit it, this whole AGW thing is a sham.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Of course we've reached the point of no return. We aren't returning to this BS you call 'science.' Admit it, this whole AGW thing is a sham.

Ain't got no use for none of that fancy, pointed-haided book larnin', huh?

Whatever is going to be done, will be done with these types in the rear-view mirror.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Blinders on, earmuffs engaged. Nutters taking the wrong side of another issue.

 

[Zander]

It's too vague a question. ...give an example or shut the fuck up.

Are we destroying the planet is too vague?

Planet. Destroy.

You're right, who can figure that out?

He can't answer the question because he knows the answer is a resounding "NO!" And that would dismantle his partisan talking points. You see.

Provide an example of how "we are destroying the planet" and we can talk. Otherwise, shut yer pie hole....

 

[bendog]

Tea Party people view liberal views on the environment to be anti-thetical to their economic interests. They are wrong in the long run -- but in the short run, environmentalists should actually listen to these guys and think about a way to bargain with them on immigration or something else. If global warming is so important than why can't we compromise on immigration?

I don't think there's any rational way to deal with these folks. First, you cannot ignore the fact that they are funded by rich people who benefit from their ideology. Second, the core of their ideology is the govt is evil, and devoted to the interests of those who wish them harm. We have people on social security griping about the 47%, apparently either ignorant or dismissive of the fact that that's them.

The only way to deal with them is what the gop establishment is doing. The mainstream challangers like McConnell and Thad Cochran are being provided with more money that the tea party backers can muster. And candidates, like Sasse in Nebraska, are embracing "repeal obamacare" even though in reality they're about "replacing it."

If the republican party compromises on immigration they are done for and we are in for some serious political turmoil. Perhaps democrats can build a stable one party rule, but republicans wont survive it in my opinion.

The main issue driving the hard right and tea partiers are economic and cultural ones. Liberals demand that they accept their beliefs in global warming (which hurts their interests in their view) and allow for unlimited Mexican immigration (ditto). Which one do tea parties really care about? Immigration. So why the heck can't liberals see that and say fine -- in order to pass cap and trade we shut down the border? Tea partiers would probably agree.

No one is arguing for unlimited Mexican immigration, and the Chamber of Commerce supports immigration reform, nor were they initially opposed to some climate change efforts. Beck, Rushbo, the Kochs, Freedom Works are never going to compromise. What happened isn't rocket science. W's presidency sold an elective war and unlimited govt and deficts unheard of. The base of the gop openly rebelled. Some unscrupulous rich people took advantage of the rubes. We had a sort of French Revolution where a lot of mainstream conservatives "lost their heads."

The dems have problems of their own. As Obamacare illustrates - when the party is led by a community organizer who never had a real job, Nancy Pelosi, who never worked outside of being an elected official and comes from a family of elected officials - solutions to problems don't come from outside of govt.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Blinders on, earmuffs engaged. Nutters taking the wrong side of another issue.

Hey, we'll leave the fairy tale for you moonbats... what are we calling it now? Climate chaos?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Of course we've reached the point of no return. We aren't returning to this BS you call 'science.' Admit it, this whole AGW thing is a sham.

Ain't got no use for none of that fancy, pointed-haided book larnin', huh?

Whatever is going to be done, will be done with these types in the rear-view mirror.

That's funny. I've probably studied more science and literature than you have in your natural life, my friend. While you sit there worshiping the IPCC Gods, I'm here down on Earth-an AGW Atheist-readily debunking this stuff you pass off as actual peer-reviewed science. The church of IPCC will be brought low.

 

[marsnow]

If the republican party compromises on immigration they are done for and we are in for some serious political turmoil. Perhaps democrats can build a stable one party rule, but republicans wont survive it in my opinion.

The main issue driving the hard right and tea partiers are economic and cultural ones. Liberals demand that they accept their beliefs in global warming (which hurts their interests in their view) and allow for unlimited Mexican immigration (ditto). Which one do tea parties really care about? Immigration. So why the heck can't liberals see that and say fine -- in order to pass cap and trade we shut down the border? Tea partiers would probably agree.

No one is arguing for unlimited Mexican immigration, and the Chamber of Commerce supports immigration reform, nor were they initially opposed to some climate change efforts. Beck, Rushbo, the Kochs, Freedom Works are never going to compromise. What happened isn't rocket science. W's presidency sold an elective war and unlimited govt and deficts unheard of. The base of the gop openly rebelled. Some unscrupulous rich people took advantage of the rubes. We had a sort of French Revolution where a lot of mainstream conservatives "lost their heads."

The dems have problems of their own. As Obamacare illustrates - when the party is led by a community organizer who never had a real job, Nancy Pelosi, who never worked outside of being an elected official and comes from a family of elected officials - solutions to problems don't come from outside of govt.

Republicans will become a minority party if they pass any immigration compromise. I said mexican immigration for reason. I find it unreasonable to expect border conservatives to have their culture and economic situation change so rapidly -- while also supporting liberals on a huge undertaking like tackling global warming. Liberals claim to be interested in class -- but push an issues like global warming that does not help the short term interests of lower or middle class people.