55% of Americans support climate pact

[Maple]

I guess Americans aren't as ignorant about science as the Republicans think they are.

Most back a treaty on global warming - USATODAY.com

WASHINGTON — A solid majority of Americans support the idea of a global treaty that would require the United States to reduce significantly greenhouse gas emissions, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, although many also express concern about the potential impact on the economy.
The results provide some encouragement for President Obama, who attends the United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen on Friday. By 55%-38%, those surveyed endorse a binding accord to limit the gases tied to global warming.

Perhaps one should read beyond the first paragraph lest one end up looking like a complete fool....

The results provide some encouragement for President Obama, who attends the United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen on Friday. By 55%-38%, those surveyed endorse a binding accord to limit the gases tied to global warming.

By a lopsided 7-1, however, Americans say the administration should put a higher priority on improving the economy than reducing global warming. And they are split on the likely economic impact of enacting new environmental and energy laws to address climate change: 42% say they will hurt the economy; 36% say they will help.

Libs never do that, they do not have a long enough attention span.

 

[Misty]

Everything we've ever been taught is merely someone else's opinion.

1+2=3. Or does it. It's just what we've been told.

Global warming is the same thing.

When told it enough times, people come to accept it as fact.

 

[Maple]

As a Republican I am comfortable in my convictions that a round earth, evolution and global warming do not exist. I really think we need another century or so of study before we can start to make a decision.

Republicans and science.....perfect together

My 80 year old mother told me that in the 40's and 50's they were worried about another ICE Age, she was right. Hopefully you can read past the 1st paragraph and absord it all.

BMI Special Report -- Fire and Ice

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.

The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.”

Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting – blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.

Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”

Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories

 

[California Girl]

I guess Americans aren't as ignorant about science as the Republicans think they are.

Most back a treaty on global warming - USATODAY.com

WASHINGTON — A solid majority of Americans support the idea of a global treaty that would require the United States to reduce significantly greenhouse gas emissions, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, although many also express concern about the potential impact on the economy.
The results provide some encouragement for President Obama, who attends the United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen on Friday. By 55%-38%, those surveyed endorse a binding accord to limit the gases tied to global warming.

If they think the climate science supports such an action, yeah, they are.

If the science substantiates it, I'll support it. I have no problem with the WORLD reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But.... let's be honest.... unless the major polluters - like China and India - commit to radical reductions, then there is no point in the rest of the world making such an undertaking. It's all or nothing. The US has its role - and we certainly are a wasteful society - but it's not our responsibility to fix the world - we didn't break it by ourselves.

 

[rightwinger]

The US has its role - and we certainly are a wasteful society - but it's not our responsibility to fix the world - we didn't break it by ourselves.

Along with China and India, we are the major contributors

 

[California Girl]

The US has its role - and we certainly are a wasteful society - but it's not our responsibility to fix the world - we didn't break it by ourselves.

Along with China and India, we are the major contributors

No shit Sherlock?

But, both China and India want the US to carry the majority of the burden. Fuck that.

 

[California Girl]

I guess Americans aren't as ignorant about science as the Republicans think they are.

Most back a treaty on global warming - USATODAY.com

If they think the climate science supports such an action, yeah, they are.

And oddly, all of Europe and even India and China acknowledge the impacts of global warming.

It seems only the Flat Earth Republicans still need more convincing

You are either:

1. really naive
2. totally fucking stupid

Are you actually saying that everyone in Europe, India and China agrees with their government? Cuz they don't.... it's not just 'flat earth republicans' that still need convincing... there are lots of people all across the world who think the science is 'hinky' - particularly since the email debacle. Claiming that the only people on the planet who are sceptical are 'flat earth republicans' makes you look either one of the above. Personally, I lean towards 2, but I'm open to be convinced that you are just naive.

 

[Navy1960]

NEW DELHI: Russia is planning to set up 12 to 14 nuclear reactors in India, with the Russian Ambassador to India Alexander Kadakin saying his country had no issues with transferring enrichment and reprocessing technologies (ENR) to New Delhi.
"We do not have domestic laws as strict as in some other countries. We do not see many problems in this field," he said.
He, however, said Moscow would act according to international conventions, but these would not impede nuclear cooperation with India.
"Some modus operandi will be worked out so as not to prevent us from pursuing full nuclear cooperation with India," Kadakin replied when asked about the status of Russia's reprocessing pact with India.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

The World Bank Group has come under fire from environmentalists for approving financing for a 4-billion-watt coal-fired power plant in Mundra, Gujarat, India, which will be funded in part by money intended to reduce carbon emissions.

World Bank backs massive India coal plant, calls it "clean development" / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired power plants need to be installed as well.

Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.

China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.

China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants - WSJ.com

It's pretty obvious that China nor India intend to abide by any big restrictions on CO2 emissions especially ones that will hamper their economies. So it would be foolish of the United States to do so and expect that by simply reducing our own we have done something. It's also worht noting that without legislation since Kyoto we as a nation are already about halfway to meeting the emission standards set down there. If it takes, no legislation and little effort ininnovation, imagine what legislation that actually pointed to using our own energy resources in an innovative way would do. You would have those on the environmental side somewhat happy, although, I suspect that with all things there are some who would never be happy, but in the end it would result in a positive outcome for our nation that is needed. Why limit possibility when you don't have too.

 

[Bern80]

The US has its role - and we certainly are a wasteful society - but it's not our responsibility to fix the world - we didn't break it by ourselves.

Along with China and India, we are the major contributors

The problem is those are developing nations. Now consider what we would have to do to lower the temperature by any significant amount (And considering it's a sweltering 5 degrees here today I think we need to consider whether even doing that is a great idea). Doing so would require massive global restrictions on energy consumption and you are asking these countries that are in the process of developing which really means it's citizens live's are starting to improve, to take a giant step backward in what is just starting to become a decent standard of living.

Not many people, including Republicans, believe that we should not be stewards of the environment. Should we do it at the expense of reducing our standard of living, indeed the worlds standard of living? That is another question entirely.

I don't know if you got to watch Stossel's first episode which was on climate change, but it was rather even handed I thought and it simple points out the realities behind these various courses of actions. The reality is that there is a lot of suffering on this planet simply because undeveloped and developing nations don't have modern conveniences. Energy policy on the scale that the likes of Gore would like us to undertake would cause massive suffering on a global scale.

 

[rightwinger]

The problem is those are developing nations. Now consider what we would have to do to lower the temperature by any significant amount (And considering it's a sweltering 5 degrees here today I think we need to consider whether even doing that is a great idea).

Once again showing the rights inability to distiguish between weather and climate

 

[del]

The problem is those are developing nations. Now consider what we would have to do to lower the temperature by any significant amount (And considering it's a sweltering 5 degrees here today I think we need to consider whether even doing that is a great idea).

Once again showing the rights inability to distiguish between weather and climate

once again showing your inability to lighten up, francis.

it was a joke. you know, a joke.

joke (jk)
n.
1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
2. A mischievous trick; a prank.
3. An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.
4. Informal
a. Something not to be taken seriously; a triviality: The accident was no joke.
b. An object of amusement or laughter; a laughingstock: His loud tie was the joke of the office.
v. joked, jok·ing, jokes
v.intr.
1. To tell or play jokes; jest.
2. To speak in fun; be facetious.

 

[Bern80]

The problem is those are developing nations. Now consider what we would have to do to lower the temperature by any significant amount (And considering it's a sweltering 5 degrees here today I think we need to consider whether even doing that is a great idea).

Once again showing the rights inability to distiguish between weather and climate

Really right winger? That's the intellectual extent of your response? Taking the easy way out and finding some single sentence you can take out of context? You keep accusing the right of intellectual inferiority, but this is the chicken shit route you take?

Fact: To effect climate change on the level your buddy Gore would like would cause incredible suffering on a global scale.

Fact: More people die from cold weather each year than they do warm weather.

Fact: The avg. global temperature is about 24 degrees. Considering the conditions most food needs to grow I think it would be prudent to conisder whether going much lower than that is a great idea.

Fact: There would be considerable benefits to a warmer climate. Reduced energy costs on heating. Longer growing seasons. More land to grow food. etc.

 

[Oddball]

The problem is those are developing nations. Now consider what we would have to do to lower the temperature by any significant amount (And considering it's a sweltering 5 degrees here today I think we need to consider whether even doing that is a great idea).

Once again showing the rights inability to distiguish between weather and climate

once again showing your inability to lighten up, francis.

it was a joke. you know, a joke.

joke (jk)
n.
1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
2. A mischievous trick; a prank.
3. An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.
4. Informal
a. Something not to be taken seriously; a triviality: The accident was no joke.
b. An object of amusement or laughter; a laughingstock: His loud tie was the joke of the office.
v. joked, jok·ing, jokes
v.intr.
1. To tell or play jokes; jest.
2. To speak in fun; be facetious.

The last thing leftist whack-jobs can compute is joviality...Unless, of course, it's at the expense of someone else, preferably a republican.

 

[saveliberty]

There was a period from 1000 to 1350 that was just as warm. Man had absolutely NO impact on the climate then. The global warmer junk scientists know about it, why don't you?

Apocalypse Fatigue: Losing the Public on Climate Change by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger: Yale Environment 360

Last month, the Pew Research Center released its latest poll of public attitudes on global warming. On its face, the news was not good: Belief that global warming is occurring had declined from 71 percent in April of 2008 to 56 percent in October — an astonishing drop in just 18 months. The belief that global warming is human-caused declined from 47 percent to 36 percent.

 

[ihopehefails]

I fear that a slight majority of people in this country seem to think that government control over our lives is OK even when it is being down in foreign countries. That is what this poll is really saying. It is saying that a majority of the people think its OK to sign treaties that give foreign organizations control over our lives and that is just plain sad but the problem is is that they need 2/3 of senators to sign onto the treaty so a simple majority means jack.

 

[rightwinger]

I fear that a slight majority of people in this country seem to think that government control over our lives is OK even when it is being down in foreign countries. That is what this poll is really saying. It is saying that a majority of the people think its OK to sign treaties that give foreign organizations control over our lives and that is just plain sad but the problem is is that they need 2/3 of senators to sign onto the treaty so a simple majority means jack.

Or maybe they understand the magnitude of unchecked global warming and are willing to do what is necessary to protect the environment for their children and grandchildren

 

[ihopehefails]

I fear that a slight majority of people in this country seem to think that government control over our lives is OK even when it is being down in foreign countries. That is what this poll is really saying. It is saying that a majority of the people think its OK to sign treaties that give foreign organizations control over our lives and that is just plain sad but the problem is is that they need 2/3 of senators to sign onto the treaty so a simple majority means jack.

Or maybe they understand the magnitude of unchecked global warming and are willing to do what is necessary to protect the environment for their children and grandchildren

In other words if the Earth's tempature rises naturally due to mother nature then it is unchecked which implies that it has to be controlled to keep it back in check or at a temperture the government wants it to be at.

The extent that you guys wish to control things never ceases to amaze me.

 

[rightwinger]

I fear that a slight majority of people in this country seem to think that government control over our lives is OK even when it is being down in foreign countries. That is what this poll is really saying. It is saying that a majority of the people think its OK to sign treaties that give foreign organizations control over our lives and that is just plain sad but the problem is is that they need 2/3 of senators to sign onto the treaty so a simple majority means jack.

Or maybe they understand the magnitude of unchecked global warming and are willing to do what is necessary to protect the environment for their children and grandchildren

In other words if the Earth's tempature rises naturally due to mother nature then it is unchecked which implies that it has to be controlled to keep it back in check or at a temperture the government wants it to be at.

The extent that you guys wish to control things never ceases to amaze me.

What the fuck are you rambling about?
That has got to be one of your most inane posts ever

 

[Freedomlover]

Hogwash!

 

[keee keee]

The only thing full of more shit than global warming is the Obama Administration!!!!!!