The term is loyal Bushies.

REPORT BY E.P.A. LEAVES OUT DATA ON CLIMATE CHANGE
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07EED81138F93AA25755C0A9659C8B 63
By ANDREW C. REVKIN WITH KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: June 19, 2003
Sometimes doing nothing is a fault.

Governance by neglect...............a repeating story.

That's just with you.

Well, this (PPOT) is the place to get these dangers assessed. We have guys here who know more than the scientists about such things. For example, much of the scientific world is still wondering whether humans are impacting global temperatures. I guess it will take a while for then to hear that some PPOT guys have already solved that puzzle. As it turns out, it is all just a liberal scare tactic.

It may be melting in Antarctica, but here in Massachusetts, I'll take some goddamn warming and soon. Forecast for snow again Friday.

Light snow / flurries, but still.

Supe is right. After all how could any of us dare to compete with Al Gore's cred's?

See, Supe, the problem for the fear-mongers, is logic. Logic is not on their side; and on so many levels. They are PUSHING a belief. THey have NOTHING solid to back-up their position. Yet, they insist that we must change or else...

I can't help but think of the times when guys of centuries past (who new an eclipse was coming) would make demands, insist that their demands be met else they would blot the sun from the sky.

So. . . How is this Gloabal warming thing different? ..I mean, other than the problem of the threat not actually materializing (getting colder, not warmer)

In fact yes they are, as they should be. But as you say - they are still wondering...

The thing is - the broad populations and chattering classes of many places are convinced that this is upon us - and they believe this with victorian certitude.

So - if you are selling to these groups (shell oil) or pandering to these groups (politicians) and are looking to sell more of what you sell, and have regulations bent in your favor or you are looking for more political power - yes, yes - you are going to go along, damning modern man and all his greed and contraptions!! It is not a liberal tactic, just a tactic the liberals use very well..

You just don't catch on. It's not about facts. It's about how you feel!:cool:

its all because of PENGUIN FARTS!


now the real test of global warming is if once again lil ol arizona continues to break summer heat temps.

or is it just la nina or el nino??????


hmmm .............seems to me some tree ring studies by da NAU FORESTRY DEPT. indicates a very large drought wayyy back when that had consequences for all da indian tribes here in da southwest. ie. mesa verde, canyon de chelly, and the salt river indian tribes to name a few that mysteriously vanished from their dwellings.

This is truly hilarious. Conservatives (During the GWB "administration") telling a liberal that politicians use fear to push their agendas. Sincerely, this is funny schit.

It's more accurate to call it the New Liberal Religion.

libslam?

Yep. Definitely a pot calling the kettle black situation.

clearly

So you think that an eclipse . . .er, global warming is more of a threat than terrorists? ...I've seen a whole lot more evidence of terrorism than by global warming.

Riiiiight..... I'm wondering if we've gotten to the point where we accept that perhaps a conservative, and maybe even a liberal, might both understand that fear is a very effective political tool. Well, either way.....

We've got terrorism and global warming. I guess fear SHOULD be used to motivate people to address terrorism but global warming is not sufficiently scary. The consequences of global warming do not present sufficient danger? Your guy's scare tactics are more appropriate than my guy's scare tactics?

No, global warming is not sufficiently scary. In fact because it is not even close to being a reality the "Global Warming" guys started a campaign to change the label to "Climate change." It's like the big event fizzled out, so they have to position for global cooling --wait, it it 1980 again?-- Or, maybe it could be warming . . either way they are covered now with "Climate Change."

But all of that aside, there exists the "what are you going to do about it?" Q.

Terrorism: we can and are handling it.

Earth's temp: uhm, yeah, let's control the ball o'fussion in the sky. ...because you sure as hell are not going to change this planet's temp with "carbon credits."

I honestly believe you know a lot of stuff, Island. For example, I believe you know about one or two events in our planet's history that virtually exterminated life here. Those were, as you are aware, temperature and climate change events.

And about this "We don't know the mechanism of temperature change and even if we did, maybe we'd still be helpless" attempt to stifle the discussion. You've been taught to ask questions. Should I expect you to be this dismissive? Why am I, a labor relations consultant, curious while you are not?

First of all:

There is no one statistic that viably says we are containing terrorism. What terrorism? Which type of terrorism? Nuclear, economic, environmental terrorism? There are many forms of terrorism, not just the exploding type that you wrap your arms around as "terrorism that is contained" -- which it's not. Look at Iran. Look at Russia. Look at Venezuela. Are they "contained?" Look at the violence erupting (again) in Iraq - not that Iraq was even a terrorist state.

Secondly,

in regard to global warming - the real terrorism - 30 yrs. was the last statistic I saw that was given to the Brazilian rain forest's time limit due to global warming and deforestation. Again, because of the medicinal ingredients that come from the rain forest, and how much oxygen it supplies earth, bodes well to see where true terror lies once those resources are gone.

You ask what will be done about it? Who knows. Global warming is a much more complicated threat than the threat in whose head one fires a bullet and calls it "containment."

hmmm, Supe ... why do you 'go personal' ...oh right; lack of counter arguments.

My point was, and is, we are not going to avoid 'climate change' via "carbon credits." ..."carbon credits" would not have kept the dinasours from extinction. --please counter or concede that point.

What ever happened to global cooling? I just awoke from a coma since 1968, and now I am confused. :confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling