Comments on: Anti-science conservatives must be stopped

By: Phillip Huggan

Phillip Huggan — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 02:53:25 +0000

I can’t believe this report was released thirty years ago. I just figured out now what that initial group of scientists did, and what IPCC has yet to do, that Global Warming will be devastating for agri-yields. I can’t believe a member of the organization would side with R.Reagan and imperil the planet for trade purposes!! They should’ve gone public with the backstabbing as soon the Berlin Wall fell; other nations could’ve fought the good fight.
And people called H.Clinton a bitch. Meanwhile Palin is going around telling everyone climate change is man-made. In Canada we have this S.Harper guy who is doing the same thing.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ tol/ news/ environment/ article4690900.ece
I wonder what sort of infrastructures can be drafted to prevent this sort of advance warning from being ignored in the future, assuming Democrats and Liberals win the next elections. There will be many future threats that won’t be as forgiving, and we as a species are already on the cusp of failing climate change.
R.Reagan ignored this warning for political purposes?! Was he losing his mind?

By: BadgerSouth

BadgerSouth — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:01:07 +0000

Memo to HumansFirst EarthSecond:

1. Even the professional anti-AGW bloggers acknowledge that climate change is occuring. Your assertion that the “earth cools” is patently absurd.

2. There is no Planet B for the human race.

Have a great day!

By: BadgerSouth

BadgerSouth — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:51:59 +0000

I’m old enough to remember how the tobacco industry fought tooth and nail against the medical and scientific community over the causal effect between cigarette smoking and cancer. It’s no secret that Big Oil, Big Coal, right wing-nuts like Rush Limbaugh, Libertarians, and others have used the tobacco industry’s tactics to cast doubt on the validity of what the scientific community has concluded about the causal effect between climate change and the release of greenhouse gases by mankind. Many Americans died because of Big Tobacco’s greed and selfishness. This time around, the stakes are much higher. For the sake of our children and future generations, we need to take action now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate against the climate change consequences that have already been set in motion.

By: Dano

Dano — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:00:53 +0000

I like the dipsh*t logic of the dipsh*t troll’s name: “it doesn’t matter if we have nowhere to live!! *heart!!!*”.

This is the best they can do, folks: string together long-ago refuted talking points and strawmen. They have nothing else.

Best,

By: HumansFirst EarthSecond

HumansFirst EarthSecond — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:04:51 +0000

The science, and I use that term loosely, of global warming was never settled. The political science was settled, because that is all it is. It is pure, 100% alarmist BS. Day after day we hear from you more wacko predictions of tipping points, preposterous statements like …”global warming will lead to cannibalism, etc. You guys have lost all credibility…….you never had any to start with.

And meanwhile the earth cools………lol.

By: hapa

hapa — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:00:56 +0000

getting into the heads of the supporters

By: Donald B

Donald B — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:09:14 +0000

Maybe the deniers are so confident they would take up an offer: They put up some large amount of their net worth (let them try to find an insurance company to cover that amount) where if they are wrong, the value goes to a charity of Joe’s (or somegroup that opposes the deniers) choosing and it they are right, they get to choose a charity to recieve an equal amount from the global warming group. The decision could be in 15 years or 20 years, but my guess is that unless it was one year or so (so they could continue the obfuscation and refuse to agree that the decision was legitimate), they will not take it up. It would be nice if the amount could be made large enough to bankrupt them when they lose, but unless they tried to set the amount so high that GW advocates could not equal it, they will not risk much money.

By: John Hartz

John Hartz — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:28:10 +0000

It is imperative that environmentalists who have a deep and abiding concern about AGW post well-reasoned rebuttals to the anti-AGW postings that appear almost instantaneously after article about climate change are posted by the mainstream media and by other websites. (For example, see the postings about this matter on today’s GristBlog summary of this article.) The anti-AGW crowd is well financed and extremely active. The primary goal is not to win debates, but rather to make sure that casual readers of the posts see that there are people like you and me who care deeply about the fate of our children, grandchildren and future generations.

By: Greg N

Greg N — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:45:42 +0000

The reason I feel 1998-2008 was the wasted decade, is that 1998 was such an awful climate year around the world for millions of people (for the reasons we all know about). 1998 should have been a “wake up year”, there being no further genuine dispute about the likely course of global heating in the 21st Century.

There’s often an assumption that worsening extreme weather in the coming years will be a “wake up”. My concern is that the response to a future extreme year will just be another replay of 1998 – i.e. BAU economics and energy policies continue without a hitch.

Why should extreme weather events finally change policy, when they didn’t in 1998?

By: Richard Pauli

Richard Pauli — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 01:13:53 +0000

Conservatives just want government to stay out of climate issues – hence not interfere with their brand of unbridled capitalism.

I would hope that any enlightened capitalist would welcome government actions that are derived from both science and smart public policy. For a stable world is the best market for any capitalist.

Smart government intervention in global warming protection helps avoid the breakdown of the state into lawless chaos; something any state deserves if it fails to protect its citizens. All the more so for citizens of the planet.

Protestations otherwise seem shrill and dangerous.