Climate Change

Discussion in 'Political Discourse' started by Michael Scally MD, Oct 21, 2010.

  1. #1
    Michael Scally MD

    Michael Scally MD Doctor of Medicine

    Climate Change Doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faith

    October 20, 2010

    JASPER, Ind. — At a candidate forum here last week, Representative Baron P. Hill, a threatened Democratic incumbent in a largely conservative southern Indiana district, was endeavoring to explain his unpopular vote for the House cap-and-trade energy bill.

    It will create jobs in Indiana, reduce foreign oil imports and address global warming, Mr. Hill said at a debate with Todd Young, a novice Republican candidate who is supported by an array of Indiana Tea Party groups and is a climate change skeptic.

    “Climate change is real, and man is causing it,” Mr. Hill said, echoing most climate scientists. “That is indisputable. And we have to do something about it.”

    A rain of boos showered Mr. Hill, including a hearty growl from Norman Dennison, a 50-year-old electrician and founder of the Corydon Tea Party.

    “It’s a flat-out lie,” Mr. Dennison said in an interview after the debate, adding that he had based his view on the preaching of Rush Limbaugh and the teaching of Scripture. “I read my Bible,” Mr. Dennison said. “He made this earth for us to utilize.”

    Skepticism and outright denial of global warming are among the articles of faith of the Tea Party movement, here in Indiana and across the country. For some, it is a matter of religious conviction; for others, it is driven by distrust of those they call the elites. And for others still, efforts to address climate change are seen as a conspiracy to impose world government and a sweeping redistribution of wealth. But all are wary of the Obama administration’s plans to regulate carbon dioxide, a ubiquitous gas, which will require the expansion of government authority into nearly every corner of the economy.

    “This so-called climate science is just ridiculous,” said Kelly Khuri, founder of the Clark County Tea Party Patriots. “I think it’s all cyclical.”

    “Carbon regulation, cap and trade, it’s all just a money-control avenue,” Ms. Khuri added. “Some people say I’m extreme, but they said the John Birch Society was extreme, too.”

    Whatever the party composition of the next Congress, cap and trade is likely dead for the foreseeable future. If dozens of new Republican climate skeptics are swept into Congress, the prospects for assertive federal action to control global warming gases, including regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency, will grow dimmer than they already are.

    Those who support the Tea Party movement are considerably more dubious about the existence and effects of global warming than the American public at large, according to a New York Times/CBS News Poll conducted this month. The survey found that only 14 percent of Tea Party supporters said that global warming is an environmental problem that is having an effect now, while 49 percent of the rest of the public believes that it is. More than half of Tea Party supporters said that global warming would have no serious effect at any time in the future, while only 15 percent of other Americans share that view, the poll found.

    And 8 percent of Tea Party adherents volunteered that they did not believe global warming exists at all, while only 1 percent of other respondents agreed.

    Those views in general align with those of the fossil fuel industries, which have for decades waged a concerted campaign to raise doubts about the science of global warming and to undermine policies devised to address it.

    They have created and lavishly financed institutes to produce anti-global-warming studies, paid for rallies and Web sites to question the science, and generated scores of economic analyses that purport to show that policies to reduce emissions of climate-altering gases will have a devastating effect on jobs and the overall economy.

    Their views are spread by a number of widely followed conservative opinion leaders, including Mr. Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, George Will and Sarah Palin, who oppose government programs to address climate change and who question the credibility and motives of the scientists who have raised alarms about it.

    Groups that help support Tea Party candidates include climate change skepticism in their core message. Americans for Prosperity, a group founded and largely financed by oil industry interests, has sponsored what it calls a Regulation Reality Tour to stir up opposition to climate change legislation and federal regulation of carbon emissions. Its Tea Party talking points describe a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions as “the largest excise tax in history.”

    FreedomWorks, another group supported by the oil industry, helps organize Tea Party rallies and distributes fliers urging opposition to federal climate policy, which it calls a “power grab.”

    “Any effort to make electricity and fuel more expensive or to cap or regulate CO2 will only exacerbate an already critical situation and cause tremendous economic damage,” FreedomWorks says on its Web site.

    The oil, coal and utility industries have collectively spent $500 million just since the beginning of 2009 to lobby against legislation to address climate change and to defeat candidates, like Mr. Hill, who support it, according to a new analysis from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a left-leaning advocacy group in Washington.

    Their message appears to have fallen on receptive ears. Of the 20 Republican Senate candidates in contested races, 19 question the science of global warming and oppose any comprehensive legislation to deal with it, according to a National Journal survey.

    The only exception is Mark Steven Kirk, the Republican Senate nominee in Illinois, who was one of only eight Republicans to vote for the House cap-and-trade bill sponsored by Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats. (One of the other Republican “yes” votes was cast by Representative Michael N. Castle of Delaware, who blames that vote in part for his primary election defeat by Christine O’Donnell, the Tea Party candidate and a global warming skeptic.)

    A large majority of Tea Party-supported House candidates also doubt global warming science and oppose energy legislation designed to address it.

    Mr. Young, the Indiana Republican nominee trying to unseat Mr. Hill for the Ninth Congressional District seat, strongly opposes cap and trade and other unilateral measures to combat global warming. He says he is uncertain what is causing the observed heating of the planet, adding that it could be caused by sunspots or the normal cycles of nature.

    “The science is not settled,” he said in an interview in his headquarters in Bloomington, Ind. And he said that given the scientific uncertainty, it was not wise to make major changes in the nation’s energy economy to reduce carbon emissions.

    A third candidate in the Indiana Congressional race, Greg Knott, a libertarian, said he accepted the scientific consensus on climate change but opposed a nationwide cap-and-trade system as the answer.

    Lisa Deaton, a small-business owner in Columbus, Ind., who started We the People Indiana, a Tea Party affiliate, is supporting Mr. Young in part because of his stand against climate change legislation.

    “They’re trying to use global warming against the people,” Ms. Deaton said. “It takes way our liberty.”

    “Being a strong Christian,” she added, “I cannot help but believe the Lord placed a lot of minerals in our country and it’s not there to destroy us.”
    pumpingiron22 likes this.
  2. #2

    james2012 Member

    Climate-gate exposed the myth of Global Warming. If anyone is science based this expose across multiple articles from American Spectator should give them extreme pause: The American Spectator : Topics : Global Warming

    Also read many of the articles here: [ame=]climate gate emails american spectator - Google Search[/ame]

    As someone in the computer field, when a line of code admits to fudging data color me skeptical.

    Then there is this: Pajamas Media ? Climategate Computer Codes Are the Real Story

    Lastly, the leaked IPCC emails where IPCC members conspired to destroy the careers of global warming deniers is pathetic in itself. This alone tells a great deal of the story - that global warming is a political gig. When science becomes politicized we all lose and lose big.

    IPCC has been exposed. The lawsuits are flying. Just because it is off the radar screen does not mean it is over. Heads will roll and I'll be damned if I am goign to pay one extra cent of my money for some cap-and-trade crap based on junk science from a bunch of idiots who deliberately manipulated data and conspired to ruin the careers of those who did not align with them - not scientifically because the science is demonstrably not there - but poltically.

    And I don't care if we have to use science, religion, or Wicca witchcraft to destroy this beast - I'll take anything to save the economy and the people from mindless robots with an agenda.

    Nuff said.
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2010
    devildog93 and Big R like this.
  3. #3

    Jeton Active Member

    geez, spare us ur Big Oil apologia, wingnut. the modern era has seen an inexorable global heating, and the religiously-based conceit that "God would never let us destroy the Earth" is simply on Earth has continuously transformed the Earth's environment.

    single-celled life created the oxygen-rich atmosphere that multicellular life (like us) depends on, and now one multicellular organism (homo sapiens) has begun transforming that atmosphere back into something less suited to multicellular life.

    "it's all the Sun's all cyclical, maaaaan....if it's gonna happen, it's gonna happen anyway, maaaan....why spoil all those rich, tasty fossil-fuel profits, maaaaan??"

    thanks, wingnut.:rolleyes:
    ShredMN and ronin17 like this.
  4. #4

    wannapitchabettertent Junior Member

    Im not really sure about mans affect on global temps, but Ive seen a whole lot of this world.
    Ive been to many different countries. So,what I am sure about is this: Its not the USA that is
    responsible for the greater amount of contamination in the air and water. Anyone who says we
    are is ignorant or lying. There is an adgenda out there meant to drag our standard of living down using global warming as it pointman.
    We have a clean and beautiful country. We are not guilty of destroying the world, or wanting to destroy the world......
  5. #5

    Jeton Active Member

    :rolleyes: who is this "we" u refer to? are u secretly holding a controlling interest in DuPont or Exxon? what data can u cite to substantiate ur claim that "we" (the USA, presumably) contribute a non-significant amount of pollution to the Earth's grievous man-made pollution problem? it doesn't sound like u've done any significant research into the issue, besides your "travels around the world".

    patriotism is a last refuge for all sorts of bullshit artists, and when it comes to scientific data and argument, i'll take the consensus of the scientific community over this or that ideological bullshit artist who wraps him- or herself in Old Glory...particularly when the stakes r as gigantic as The Fate Of Life On Earth.
  6. #6

    james2012 Member

    Reading is fundamental. Try it - you might learn something. Let's make $1000 bet right here, right now that that I can prove via the leaked emails that the IPCC inserted code to "hide the decline", that I prove via those same emails that scientists conspired to ruin careers of those who disagreed with them, that the "hockey stick" so often used to prove global warming turned out to be a hoax and took years to get the original data and another scientist then showed how that data was manipulated with a very simple mathematical trick to get the results he wanted. Put your money where your mouth is. The emails are damning. You want to up the bet just let me know.

    Waiting for your response.

    I "thought" this site was about science. If it is, then stick to its principles not just when you want to. Objectivity in looking at the data and the emails are so damning lawsuits are flying all over the place. This is junk science at its worse. The cold fusion bozos were small potatoes compared to this scheme to suck western economies dry. And spare me the liberal echo chamber BS about big oil. We get it - if its profitable socialists hate it. You want to stick you nose and sniff the a$$ of the liberal in front in a giant circle jerk formation go right ahead. If you don't want to learn how think for yourself I won't stop you. Don't be surprised when you end up looking like a halfwit.

    Keep talking, someday you'll say something intelligent.
    devildog93 likes this.
  7. #7

    james2012 Member

    This is a game of chess, not checkers. Keep that in mind. I've debated more liberals and watched them skulk away than you have masturbated. It's a hobby of mine. I've debated Tea Parties and conservatives as well. The number of sites I've been banned from are higher than you can count. When you start making the site owner and moderators look like idiots suddenly your not so popular. I love this sh*t.

    The game is up on Global Warming. Australia figured it out - an ENTIRE country turned its back of pseudoscience. The only ones who still believe it are either blind ideologists or are incapable of reading. Climategate killed the anthropogenic Global Warming BS. Dead. Dead. Dead. And the facts proving this case are enormous. The amount of data is huge. Denying the data when it is thrown in your face is the equivalent of believing in a flat earth or that 1+1=5. Good luck with that.
  8. #8

    wannapitchabettertent Junior Member

    Yeah man, that "we" represents the average citizen in the USA. The culture here is a culture of cleanliness. "We" pick up after ourselves and generally think in the future and the results of our actions. Of course you can find examples of peoples and companies that have been short sited, but over all most will do their part volunterily.

    As for (data to substantiate) my claim. Think of it like this if you will. Just like it doesnt take a doctor to know if someone is sick, a physicologist to know that someone is crazy, or a mathematician to figure out the grocery bill is overcharged, my claims are also sound. The filth and lack of respect for the earth that I have seen outside this country is horrible.

    Ive delibertly made it a point to travel, see, learn and understand this world. Its a priority to me.
    This is just one of the things I have learned. "Our" USA culture is more forward thinking than most. "We" think in tomorrow and act accordingly.

    "The Fate Of Life On Earth" come on Jeton. You were drinkin a few last night. right?:)
  9. #9

    zkt Member

    You are a moron.
    The united states doesnt contribute to global pollution because we pick up after ourselves?
    We invented pollution. Pollution is the chemical runoff from the giant corporate farming industry, the CO2, nitrogen oxides , sulfur compounds billowing out of the coal fired power plants, the exhaust fumed from a million cars.
    The USA is the largest single source of pollution in the entire world, but China is catching up fast by following our example.
    Self-rightous and ignorant, yea thats what we need

  10. #10

    james2012 Member


    Google Mt. Saint Helen pollutant and Krakatoa pollutants. It has been surmised that Krakatoa alone put more greenhouse gasses in the air in a very short period of time than the ENTIRE man-made pollutants since the industrial revolution. The earth is quite capable of maintaining homeostasis with us humans on board. The entire planet/space environment with the ecosphere and biosphere is in a fairly stable state and whipping around what in chaos theory (or complexity theory to some) calls a strange attractor. If those two volcanoes could not knock it out, we certainly won't. What has the energy to move mountains? Solar flares. Now were talking major energy.

    Solar activity affects the earth far more than humans. I'm all for controlling pollution at a local level because I drink water and breathe the air. But this nonsense about human being affecting global temperatures is now the stuff of derision in most scientific circles after the lead of the IPCC emails. These guys are a joke and there pants are around their ankles. As a man who obviously admires science and truth, take a little time reading the emails. When done, I am certain you will come to only one conclusion as did the entire government of Australia. Man-made global warming is a political tool and a scientific myth.
    MaxSeg likes this.
  11. #11

    CubbieBlue Active Member

  12. #12

    james2012 Member

    Read the emails. They are damning and no amount of attempting to make them otherwise will withstand scrutiny of any kind. Plus, check the sources of the stories: The Guardian? Reuters? Newsweek? Come on dude.

    Rather than let others make up your mind - read the emails and the code. As I work with code, if I ever came across anything remotely like "the following correction factor is inserted to fit the data. No rationale currently exists for the current value or algorithm to cause data to fit" I would be calling my boss and someone's head would be on the chopping block. That is not science. Period. End. Of. Chat.

    An entire country - Australia - has had plenty of time to digest the data. Its scientists, political figures and the populace are calling BS.

    Nice try though.
  13. #13

    james2012 Member

    Debunked, now that's funny. Here is just one of thousands of examples in the code:

    Climategate: The Smoking Code | Watts Up With That?

    Artificial? What's also artificial is the political whitewashing being attempted to debunk climategate. It's so frigging obvious and people are still falling for the cover-up BS -well, some are anyway.
  14. #14

    james2012 Member

    Wow, I just checked out the story about Mann being cleared by - guess who? An academic board made of members who are global warming believers. Given the leaked emails that show these types of academics coordinated the destruction of climate change denier's reputations, this is the biggest laugh of all. It's like reading that a murderer was cleared by fellow murderers of committing the crime of murder. [:eek:)]

    Thank God tomorrow is Tuesday. :popcorn:
  15. #15

    james2012 Member

  16. #16

    james2012 Member

  17. #17

    wannapitchabettertent Junior Member

    Invent a crisis
    Scar the hell out of people
    Use it to tax and control the people
    Belittle the cattle (people) that dare to take their faces out of the grass they have been told to eat
    And of course, tell them its to save the children.
  18. #18

    james2012 Member

    And don't forget if a crisis arises which outs the scheme, rely on the same people who put you there to begin with to tell you everything is okay and watch in amusement as some sheeple jump on the new propaganda machine without even looking at the facts.

    Saul Alinksy would be proud.
  19. #19

    CubbieBlue Active Member

    So whether or not "climategate" is real - what is your problem with mitigating factors that may or may not cause global warming - like developing fuel efficient vehicles, curbing urban sprawl, increasing mass transit use, emphasizing rail and barge traffic over truck traffic, recycling, etc.?
  20. #20

    wannapitchabettertent Junior Member

    Ive got no problem with it at all. None. Zip. Nada. As long as the above items are done in a free-market and can support and pay for themselves. Not forced down our throats by a government that is over reaching into all aspects of our lives. Telling us we cant live w/o the government, when the truth is just the opposite.
    These people(government) feed off our bones, and the larger the beast gets the more it eats.

© 1997–2015 MESO-Rx. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer.