55% of Americans support climate pact

[rightwinger]

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.

 

[Bern80]

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.

 

[Si modo]

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.

 

[DiamondDave]

As we could tell by the asshole Obama getting elected... many Americans can get duped into believing a lot of shitty things

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I want to see the ACTUAL questions that were asked.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

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

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

Once again RETARD no one argues that a rapid rise in temperature would not be bad for man kind. We argue that first there is NO rapid rise in temperature occurring and second that what temperature increase that did occur can not be proven to be the responsibility of man.

If as the supposed scientific data claims, CO2 has caused the latest increase which QUIT in 1998, why is it that since 1998 C)2 has continued to rise yet temperature has not?

Why is it that when one looks at past periods CO2 FOLLOWS the rise in temperature it does no precede it?

 

[Bern80]

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

Oh you and you disingenuous environmental fruit cakes and your word games. Acknowledging the impact of global warming is a bit different than discussing the impact of MAN on global warming, you itellectually dishonest twit.

 

[Bern80]

Once again RETARD no one argues that a rapid rise in temperature would not be bad for man kind. We argue that first there is NO rapid rise in temperature occurring and second that what temperature increase that did occur can not be proven to be the responsibility of man.

Actually one can not deny that warmer temperature would have some great benefits for the world. There would be the potential to end world hunger due to longer growing seasons and the availabiity of more arid land. Imagine if they could grow potatoes in Greenland.......again!

 

[Political Junky]

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

There's no convincing the flat-earthers, they're a lost cause.

 

[del]

get back to me when 66% of the senate feels that way.

i'll leave the light on.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Once again RETARD no one argues that a rapid rise in temperature would not be bad for man kind. We argue that first there is NO rapid rise in temperature occurring and second that what temperature increase that did occur can not be proven to be the responsibility of man.

Actually one can not deny that warmer temperature would have some great benefits for the world. There would be the potential to end world hunger due to longer growing seasons and the availabiity of more arid land.

Some warming, However the supposed threat is that we will see run away warming, a degree a decade or so. 8 to 10 degrees in 100 years would not bode well as it would not be stopping in 2100.

The problem with that supposed theory is that the temperature is NOT rising anymore. And it only rose about 1 degree over the entire century of the 1900's. As was predicted to occur.

The hysteria came from a 1/3 of a degree rise in temperatures in about 15 years. At that rate we would have been looking at 6 to 7 degrees a century. The problem being we also have 10 to 15 year periods where the temperature went DOWN. The earth runs in cycles. We do not kow enough about the Earth to know these cycles and some people have over reacted to one of them.

 

[rightwinger]

Now.

If we could only convince the scientists at FoxNews that global warming is real

"I know global warming doesn't exist because FoxNews told me so"

Rush Limbaugh told me that only liberals and elitists believe in global warming

 

[WillowTree]

Now.

If we could only convince the scientists at FoxNews that global warming is real

"I know global warming doesn't exist because FoxNews told me so"

Rush Limbaugh told me that only liberals and elitists believe in global warming

forget fox news, fuck, convince Al Gore and John Travolta, they are still running around in their private jet aeroplanes!

 

[DiamondDave]

Now.

If we could only convince the scientists at FoxNews that global warming is real

"I know global warming doesn't exist because FoxNews told me so"

Rush Limbaugh told me that only liberals and elitists believe in global warming

Care to deal in any fact or just more winger chants and slogans?

 

[Bern80]

Now.

If we could only convince the scientists at FoxNews that global warming is real

"I know global warming doesn't exist because FoxNews told me so"

Rush Limbaugh told me that only liberals and elitists believe in global warming

Why must you continue this dishonesty? If you want to continue this discussion at least have the integrity to use the right terminology. One more time. NO ONE IS SAYING GLOBAL WARMING HASN'T HAPPENED. What is debated is man's contribution to it. MAN MADE global warming, dimwit. 8 key strokes. Get with the program.

 

[rightwinger]

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

 

[DiamondDave]

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

And as we have known since you started posting here.. you have nothing of value to add to the conversation...

bye bye

 

[rightwinger]

Now.

If we could only convince the scientists at FoxNews that global warming is real

"I know global warming doesn't exist because FoxNews told me so"

Rush Limbaugh told me that only liberals and elitists believe in global warming

Why must you continue this dishonesty? If you want to continue this discussion at least have the integrity to use the right terminology. One more time. NO ONE IS SAYING GLOBAL WARMING HASN'T HAPPENED. What is debated is man's contribution to it. MAN MADE global warming, dimwit. 8 key strokes. Get with the program.

I feel the same way about cigarettes causing cancer. I am the first one to admit that lung cancer exists. I just can't be sure that smoking causes lung cancer. I know some people who smoke who did not get cancer. I also heard about a 90 year old woman who smoked three packs a day and is still healthy.
There are also scientific studies that show that the link between smoking and lung cancer is inconclusive. Until every study shows that smoking causes lung cancer we should not do anything to discourage smoking.

 

[Navy1960]

First let me explain a few things China and the US are far apart on a any climate deal and to express otherwise is a stretch. China wants the US and other developed nations to help fund changes need to meet any agreement. People do realize that an agreement reached in Denmark will be non-binding anyway and is more or less a promise and is far from a treaty. Think about this a moment on a rational basis, first you have China who holds a vast majoirty of world and US debt asking the US and other nations it hold debt too, to borrow more money from them, going into debt deeper, in order to return that money in the form of helping China build its industrial infrastructure up to standards based on a set of scientific conclusions. The other issue is that China nor India have made NO specific treaty commitment other than verbal ones and even those are just verbal to limit CO2 emissions and in fact have surpassed the US in over production of coal fired plants and CO2 emissions. Even if the US should decide to impose upon itself retrictions on these gases based on this set of principles it will risk economic ruin as expressed in the survey. I've expressed this view many times, and will contimue to express it, that the science of MMGW is far beyond conclusive and to set about tasking and mandating on a specific conclusion especially one that is as yet unproven would be a poor decision at best. I submit that our nation has the ability to meet and exceed environmental standards laid down in Japan many years ago and without legislation we are already half way there. Imagiine if you will, how far we can go, if we actuallt decided to use ALL the resources available to us as a nation and actually focused on that for a little while rather than the actual scientific debate. It takes little to be a good steward of the environment it takes a lot to mandate and exclude discovery.