State of the Union

User Forum Topic
Submitted by masayako on January 23, 2007 - 10:42pm

Why were the democrats standing and cheering for Bush's prep talk when they don't even support the Bush's Iraq plan?

This is amazingly crazy and stupid.

masayako

Submitted by BuyerWillEPB on January 23, 2007 - 10:59pm.

It seems the housing crash and mortgage fraud will be mentioned in NEXT years' State of the Union speech.

Submitted by masayako on January 23, 2007 - 11:25pm.

In my humble opinion:

I will vote for Al Gore as the president. Global warming is the most important subject concerning THE EARTH we (and our children) live in.

So, "Mr. future president", here is the plan you should be working on:

1. Fix global warming and cut green house gases
2. Regulate and lower healthcare/insurance cost; reform social security
3. Get the heck out of Iraq right the way
4. Rapidly support alternative energy and regulate oil consumption
5. Cut military spending; we don't need more army/weapons than what we already have

masayako

Submitted by PerryChase on January 24, 2007 - 8:44am.

Masayako, I have no children but I agree with you priorities.

The bushies will tell you that there's nothing that America can do about global warming because whatever emmission reduction we achieve, China and India will undo with their development.

There are enormous business opportunities with going green. I agree with the US Climate Action Parnership (the 10 corporate CEOs). America has a chance to dominate green technologies. But we run a risk of handing that leadership to foreign companies if we don't take action today.

About the speech, Bush looked like a lame duck to me.

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 24, 2007 - 9:38am.

If you mean stopping environmental pollution then you have a point. As far as global warming goes.... well you've bought into another trend. But it's a trend that is popular with left leaning individuals and they are the best at stifling their critics.

example:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossi...

The are just as many articles debunking the "inconvient truth" mentality as those that propagate it. What is "convenient" is how the data was cherry-picked. If you can't/won't both investigate and question the information that you are being fed by the Global Warming crowd, then you are entitled to your opinion, just qualify it with " in my uneducated" opinion.

You want lower health care? Reign in the Trial Lawyers lobby first. Then move onto other "reforms"

Get out of Iraq right away? lol, I won't revisit that at this time.

Support and encourage alternative energy? Yes, we should, however, as far as alternatives that can be implemented relatively quickly, some of the main obstructionists are the environmentalists.

Cut military spending? Very short-sighted opinion, in brief it will certainly not improve the quality of life for those in our country, certainly not when there are so many willing to use force in the world. Maybe you think that if
"we" go away there will be peace throughout the world....LOL

back to work now.

Submitted by lindismith on January 24, 2007 - 9:52am.

The are just as many articles debunking the "inconvient truth" mentality as those that propagate it.

Actually, there aren't. Please show us your source.

The fact is, denialists of climate change are in the minority.

Denialists are found in almost every field of science. You can google Duesberg who holds uncommon views on AIDS for one.

Support and encourage alternative energy? Yes, we should

Thanks!

Submitted by deadzone on January 24, 2007 - 10:09am.

Really it is only the religious and other right wing fanatics that deny global warming. There is concensus among the world's scientific community. It has nothing to do with some sort of liberal agenda wanting to "ruin" profits of oil companies. That is only what college dropouts like Rush Limbaugh and his other uneducated chronies want you to think.

Submitted by lindismith on January 24, 2007 - 10:18am.

Yeah, in fact just last week, Exxon said they would no longer be funding their 'anti-global warming think-tank.'

If Exxon's not going to even fund it, you know the arguement's dead in the water. Geez, even our Pres said last night it's a problem we've got to solve.

Submitted by PerryChase on January 24, 2007 - 10:31am.

It's not just about preserving the Earth. It's about money making business opportunities.

The thing about global warming is that we've got the lead in green technologies right now but we're not taking advantage of it because we are complacent.

The Chinese have a horrible pollution problem but they are coming to grips with that. Do we allow them to leapfrog us in green tech? Green technologies are the growth businesses of the future. Do we want the foreign companies to develop and own all the green patents?

Submitted by PerryChase on January 24, 2007 - 10:36am.

I liked Jim Webb's response the W last night. His speech was well delivered, concise and forceful.

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 24, 2007 - 10:50am.

Actually yes, there are. Go and google away on it. I would recommend that you use a least three other search engines.
As with everyone, google has it's own agendas and often the results are skewed. By the way, dissenting opinion isn't necessarily denialist.

this is a good introduction;
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/glob...

In the mid 70's it was another ice age... now it's global warming.

dz, lol.

Submitted by lindismith on January 24, 2007 - 10:39am.

I have a friend who produces organic pesticide from orange oil. They are a local firm. Business is booming!

Submitted by greekfire on January 24, 2007 - 10:51am.

Our mark as a civilization (and species) will not be how much we develop the earth or how rapidly we do it...it will be how well we develop it and coexist in harmony with our environment. With that said, I think it is premature to blame America for something like global warming. Yes, we do consume and waste a lot. But we are pretty good about trying to do it in a more environmentally friendly way when compared to many other nations. We certainly can do better, but to constantly blame America (particularly Republicans) for global warming is just misguided and tired.

Submitted by PD on January 24, 2007 - 11:16am.

Global warming does seem to be happening. However, blaming humans exclusively ignores the fact that world’s climate is constantly undergoing change as a natural process. Did humans cause previous warming? No. Did they cause previous cooling? No. We MAY be affecting the climate at this time but it has not been proven that the current warming is not natural (if warming is not natural, the earth would still be covered in ice). Further, if it is natural, there probably is very little that we can do to stop it.

Having said all that, I do think we need to do everything possible to explore energy that does not pollute the earth. We also need to get rid of our dependence on oil because of political reasons.

As for the rest of it, I second sdnativeson.

Submitted by PerryChase on January 24, 2007 - 11:51am.

Republicans would say that we should pray to Almighty God. Global warming or not, as long as we pray real hard, God will be come to help us.

Submitted by blahblahblah on January 24, 2007 - 12:00pm.

Nawww Perry, you've got it wrong. The rapture is just around the corner, so it doesn't matter anyway. Go ahead and run your SUV up and down the freeway all day long. I'm sure the Easter Islanders were counting on the return of their ancestors to rescue them as they cut down the last of their trees back in the 17th century.

Growing up as a Baptist in Texas back in the 70s and 80s, it seemed that the rapture was always just a few days away. I asked my mom recently what church in Texas was like back in the '40s, and she reported that, yes, back then, the rapture was imminent as well. After all you had wars, famines, droughts, children disobeying their parents, all of the signs were there.

Submitted by greekfire on January 24, 2007 - 12:39pm.

Perry, your last post does not seem to be in line with the calls for tolerance and civility from some of your other posts. I just thought that mocking people's religious beliefs was beneath you.

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 24, 2007 - 12:57pm.

Thats a rather myopic view PC. Rapture? How is that pertinent CONCHO?

Submitted by blahblahblah on January 24, 2007 - 1:15pm.

Many people feel that there is no need to take care of the environment because rapture is imminent. Think of all of the people in this country (and around the world) reading those "Left Behind" books. Why worry about CO2 levels when armaggedon is just around the corner? Why take responsibility for your environment when it's just going to be nuked tomorrow and you'll be in heaven anyway? I know it's hard for us to believe here on piggington (where almost everyone is a reasonable individual, regardless of political affiliation), but there are lots of Duh-mericans who buy that malarkey. You'd really need to visit a Baptist church back in my home state to get a feel for what I'm talking about, or you could check out that documentary "Jesus Camp". I had flashbacks to my childhood watching that!

Submitted by lindismith on January 24, 2007 - 1:26pm.

Well in the last year, several prominent Evangelicals have stepped forward and said they do believe in global warming, and that as good Christians, they believe they have a duty to protect Earth and the environment. So, we're seeing some change in those circles.

I'd say the mere fact that the President even mentioned Climate Change last night in his speech is a good sign.

Submitted by jg on January 24, 2007 - 1:50pm.

President Bush is wrong on a guest worker program; he's wrong on words to the effect of 'finding a humane solution to the 11M illegal aliens living in our midst'; he's wrong on more insurance company solutions to rising health care costs; he's wrong on supporting ethanol and switch grass for fuel diversification. And, he's wrong on global warming.

But, he's right on Iraq.

Submitted by ucodegen on January 24, 2007 - 2:10pm.

First, I must mention that the domain of insults and personal attacks are the behavior of bullys and do not apply to the scientific method. I would have expected a more analytical approach along the lines of powayseller's style (complete with references, bookmarks, footnotes and supporting information) and along the general style of piggington.com

One thing I have noticed in the whole global warming debate (beyond what this blog page has), is that the pro (Carbon Dioxide {C02} as cause} camp has provided very little in terms of scientific proof or analysis. On the other hand, the anti (Carbon Dioxide {C02} as cause) have presented scientific arguments. Reading both the pro and anti global warming papers, you can detect the difference.

1) That being said, a person on this site asked for proof that there were as many articles debunking C02 as the cause as supporting (lindismith). Here it is.. first some background. The perception that CO2 as a cause of anthropogenic global warming is largely supported by the scientific community came out of a paper written by Naomi Oreskes. The methodology behind this study was found to be seriously flawed and possibly forged. The incorrect results of the study (called as a mistake) by the author were later admitted by the author. The following link references a copy of a letter from a professor at John Moores University, Liverpool UK.
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Sc...

2) Second point is that the old famous 'hocky stick' temperature diagram is incorrect. It was based on cherry picked or forged data. It leaves out the Midieval Warm Period (when C02 levels were significantly lower than they are presently). The following reference shows the corrected graph alongside the 'hockey stick' graph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht...
Scroll down almost half way, or search on the keyword 'hockey-stick'. The rest of the article is also important.

3) The pro global waming camp claim that the anti global warming camp are just shills for the oil companies. This is another form of name calling, and is not a valid scientific method. This claim also ignores the vested interests of the scientific community. If there is no 'crisis', there is no funding for studies. Now scientists are getting worried that they may have 'oversold' the global warming scenario which may lead to loss of their credibility.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/fron...
(NOTE: There may be an advertisment pre-page popping up... skip it, the article is titled "Climate scientists feeling the heat").

One of the better written papers on global warming is from this reference:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Wh...
This site is footnoted and has additional references... be prepared for math and having to crack open some of your old college texts..

I also have additional references...

Submitted by PerryChase on January 24, 2007 - 2:25pm.

Bush is becoming isolated.

He's loosing his base of religious voters for condoning the lesbian relationship of Mary Cheney who is having a baby.

He's loosing his base of business executives who want health care reform. Those business executives feel that American industry are unfairly asked to shoulder the health care cost of workers. Foreign company don't have that enormous cost.

He's slowly loosing the Republican military voters who see Iraq as a quagmire.

He's slowing loosing the Southern voters whose sons and daughters are sent to Iraq.

He's loosing the pro-development, bulldoze everything, crowd as the Real Estate market is in the dumps and there's no more money to be made. The electricians, pumbers and contractors who are loosing their jobs will soon turn against him.

Bush is trying to reclaim the center by talking about a humane solution to illegal immigration, health care, alternative fuels and global warming. Too little too late, Mister.

Bush's divide and conquer strategy are leaving him with no friends.

Submitted by zk on January 24, 2007 - 2:40pm.

The part of the speech I didn't get was the part where he said it's time to balance the budget. Why didn't he balance it when he had a congress that would do almost anything he wanted?

Submitted by lindismith on January 24, 2007 - 2:47pm.

ucodegen,
Actually, I asked for the source of where there has been a study showing there are exactly the same amount of papers debunking global warming as there are proving it. Thanks for looking though.

I'm glad you bring up Ms. Oreskes. I'm really interested in this whole subject, and a colleague of hers at UCSD took the time to write to me about her when I asked him some questions.

From one of his emails regarding denialists, and global warming:
"It is very important to realize that it is quite common and normal in science for new ideas and concepts to take hold unevenly and after considerable disagreement, and thus for some scientists to be left behind as science has progressed. Naomi Oreskes of UCSD has written eloquently and at great length about the history of how continental drift and plate tectonics eventually became settled science. It took a long time. There wasn't a uniform eureka moment at which everybody agreed on the new ideas, and some eminent experts in fact went to their graves without accepting them." ~ Richard Somerville, Phd.

You can see how the above applies to the field of climate change. Just as Bush was not on the band-wagon before, he's now willing to talk about it.

All you others better jump on Bush's band-wagon too. Perhaps with enough spin, you guys can claim you were the ones to first start solving the problem!

Submitted by PD on January 24, 2007 - 3:16pm.

Yeah, he can copy Al Gore. Remember when he claimed to have fathered the internet?

Perry, you had nothing relevant to say regarding global warming so you threw a bunch of mud at Republicans. I'm sorry, I just don't believe your claims that you were ever anything but a diehard liberal. Further, I do not remember a time when you have presented views other than the liberal party line (unlike me and JG who have have many views that are contrary to the republican party line).

Submitted by blahblahblah on January 24, 2007 - 3:24pm.

Yeah, he can copy Al Gore. Remember when he claimed to have fathered the internet?

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

-- Al Gore

"Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development."

-- Vinton Cerf, inventor of the Internet Protocol

This article gives a good overview of the "inventing the internet" story. Just keeping us all honest here...

Submitted by ucodegen on January 24, 2007 - 3:32pm.

lindismith,
With respect to the quantity of papers debunking global warming, I would guide you to the 2nd paragraph of the text on my first reference as well as lower under methodology of research. See results:
Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'...
34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years"...
44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.

Papers are available on ISI, which I don't presently have access to. I provided a indication that more disagree with the view that human activities are the main drivers of "observed warming...", than agree. Sorry if it is not exactly 50:50... It seems to support the 'denialists' more than the 'pro' camp.

I also do not like the use of the term "denialists". This is both an emotionally charged word as well as making the implicit assumption that those under that category are 'denying' something that is actually true (follow-on word to denialist often being delusional), and doing so without supporting proof. (Proof by innuendo?)

As for 'eloquent', I don't care. I want analysis that is supported, not eloquently written. I am quite disturbed by Ms Oreskes publication because it violates scientific method and it was not retracted with the same emphasis as it was presented when a significant mistake was found in it.. (reference again to results in the first link). Scientific method requires the experiment/test/analysis to be able to be performed by someone else under the same conditions and obtaining almost the exact same results. When the latter can not be done, the analysis is flawed to the point where it should not be published.

If you are interested in the subject, I would suggest you trace down the last link I had, read through as well as tracing down the links within the paper (some very interesting an critical work is being referenced in that paper).

As for Bush's bandwagon.. I think Bush's jumping on this bandwagon is a way to try to be relevant and gain supporters. As with real-estate, I DON'T jump on anyones bandwagon. I make up my mind for myself based upon evidence at hand. If I don't understand enough to make the decision, I study until I do (this means buying college texts in many cases).

Submitted by PD on January 24, 2007 - 3:44pm.

ucodeden, thank you for your posts. It is nice to see science rather than political or emotionally driven opinion.

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 24, 2007 - 4:04pm.

I never said there was a specific study based upon an exactitude of studies supporting both sides, I don't think I even implied it. Suppose there are 10,000 articles and publications questioning and/or denying it (with the premise that it is a solely man-made phenomenom). maybe there are 15,000 saying it is scientific fact (based upon those premises). Because it's adherents are more prolific writers means nothing in terms of validity.

I agree with the RS's first statement, as I read the rest of it I see it in the context that it is meant to have, about continental drift and plate tectonics, it doesn't address anything to the quotes supplied by ucodegen "the perception that CO2 as a cause of anthropogenic global warming is largely supported by the scientific community came out of a paper written by Naomi Oreskes. The methodology behind this study was found to be seriously flawed and possibly forged". Still, I can see how RS's statement applies to both sides of the climate change argument.

With all due respect, you (lindismith) don't supply anything that provides a truly valid argument. Again, you use the label denialists, as I said, dissenting opinions do not necessarily warrant that label. By using it you are closing the door on any type of objectivity that is supposed to be a basis for science.

Yes, Bush has jumped on the bandwagon, who knows why? I would find it unlikely he had an epiphany and has suddenly, unquestioningly embraced the "inconvenient truth" global warming rhetoric. IMHO, it's because he is trying to find something to give him a modicum of poltical revelence. It won't.

Now, tell me something more about the science behind our recent ice-age.......

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 24, 2007 - 3:55pm.

ucodegen, excellent post, makes my recent one both redundant
and insufficient.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.