Discussions
Can the Democrats stop/reverse global warming.
Posted by iyaayasmoderator • 5/11/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: Democrats, global warming
I saw on Fox this weekend a report that was blaming the increased signs of global warming on the practices conducted by the Republicans and it was suggested that with this new administration that it could be stopped and possibly even reversed.
Can the Dewmocrats really reverse or stop nature?
User Comments
-
"The Democratic Agenda"
"Democrats have a special commitment to America. We believe that every American, whatever their background or station in life, should have the chance to get a good education, to work at a good job with good wages, to raise and provide for a family, to live in safe surroundings, and to retire with dignity and security. We believe that quality and affordable health care is a basic right. We believe that each succeeding generation should have the opportunity, through hard work, service and sacrifice, to enjoy a brighter future than the last."
Anyone who wants to can research all the Democratic hype sites and see nothing on plans or efforts to stop/change global warming.
How can global warming be blamed on a particular party again, I missed the parts where some of us make no impact and others make all the impact on the enviroment, for better pr worse. -
"Can the Democrats stop/reverse global warming."
Answer: no.
Gifters, yes, they can.
www.ethericwarriors.com/ip/viewtopic.php?t=1731-
why imply that they can and without the Democrats we will spiral even further out of control?
-
?
your global warming is turning into global cooling
-
-
-
Again that is up to the American people and if they are willing to support those efforts (by both parties), proposals, bills etc.-
soooooo.............follow the money and see where that leads?
-
so it means, don't expect ONE party to be able to reverse or solve an issue that requires the efforts of everyone.
-
@ jafabrit.
Which is what I'm trying say/ask. I do not expect one country, much less one president or party, to be able to create the changes. Even if everyone on the planet did exactly as asked, could global warming be reversed tho, much less stopped? -
"Even if everyone on the planet did exactly as asked, could global warming be reversed tho, much less stopped?"
We won't know that unless we try and the problem is so many don't agree with the variety of measures the experts propose (either they don't believe there is a problem, or their are personal/political/financial conflicts with agreeing to the proposals).
Unless people are willing to put aside their political or financial agenda and work on it I don't see how. As it stands any efforts by one party or country will be part of a solution, but not THE solution. -
@ jafabrit.
How will people put their political or finacial agendas aside? Too many people want to know what is in it for them. I think the task is large. -
It would help if people could see through the rhetoric and see through the political underpinnings of undermining and sabotaging any efforts because they hate one party or another.
so yes, the task is large,but people have got to try, right? -
Peopl need to try. Will they try is the question.
-
@iyaas
You're simply spouting off a lot of words in the hopes of appearing intelligent in support of an indefensible position.
We harm the environment. End of story. Magic pixies didn't pour kerosene into the Cuyahoga River and flick a Bic lighter into it. The only question is the degree of damage we do: some people want to believe the damage is limited, others take a more pessimistic view. If you want to be a Polyanna, that's your affair. The old saying goes that the difference between a pessimist and an optimist is that the pessimist is better informed.
Finally, guilt is irrelevant. It's a question of making the right choices to plan for the future. If you know that you're going to screw up your children's plans for college, you don't blow your trust fund on an SUV today. Similarly if you want to ensure that we're living within our means, you make choices for renewable sources of energy and food, so that we're not dependent on something with obvious constraints, both environmentally and physically. -
@ greencurmudgeon
Your are absolutely right, only the over-educated need to have an opinion that counts. I don't need to appear any way to anyone. We may not read the same resources or see the the same news, and obviously that makes me some form of simpleton in your eyes. Well, you have all the answers. What are you doing with all that knowledge you have locked in your head? You probably just check in here on occassion to remind people that you have degrees and still have enough time to talk down to people. Keep up the good work.
-
-
When this planet went through it's different ice ages, wiping out creature and ancient man alike, who caused that. Ice ages are the result of global warming, did the methane gas from the dinosaurs cause it all then? or was it the open fires once that was discovered?
Why do people think it can be stopped or slowed, global warming is here, it will get to a point where this planet "refreshes" and everything starts over again.
Why would anyone say they have the cure for our planet?-
Some things are due to natural events, such as the ice age, but what of man made problems? what of human induced global warming. Those can be cured, corrected, yes? If scientists are saying we are contributing to global warming they why is that so questionable? and what harm is there in trying to cure problems we have created.
Pollution is down.
content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/360/4/376.pdf
"Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists."
www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html -
Global warming will not produce an ice age. -
@ jafabrit.
Are the scientists all right? Mostly right? What of those scientists who do not concur with the mainstream scientists? Can they be right on both sides?
Are pollutants the only problem we humans create? With such a delicate ozone, don't we risk also throwing our planet out of it's so called already wobbley orbit. Those same scientists also suggest the earth has a cycle it goes thru, warming and cooling, how do we stop nature from taking it's course? -
We're never going to prove to an absolute degree that man is responsible for global warming. There will always be wiggle room for people like you who want to believe otherwise.
However, it is irrational to believe that we can just burn fossil fuels or dig ore out of the ground or tear up our green spaces without it having some sort of effect; if you really believe that, I suggest you remember what happened the Cuyahoga River in the 1970's (it set fire). It is also irrational to not want to address climate change by taking man *out* of the equation: if we are doing something to the planet, then we owe it to our ourselves and our posterity to try and minimise our influence.
Furthermore, we have only one planet - and there is no such thing as an eternal supply of *anything*. We thus need to learn to live in balance with what we do have.
Are the "Democrats" going to solve this? No: it will take the voluntary co-operation of citizens to get this done. However this is going to require giving up the childish idea that somehow there is always more, and the even more childish idea that we can do whatever we want. -
"What of those scientists who do not concur with the mainstream scientists?"
How many of them don't agree with the findings of most scientists? What evidence have they presented that can refute the findings of most scientists? who are these scientists who don't concur? -
@ greencurmudgeon
Let's take "man" out of the equation for just a moment. Is the world now different? Unfortunately, you can't answer that question, no one can. Man is here and man, for greed or what ever else reason, has exploited the earth's resources. Did we need to survive? Both sides will argue with you that they are right.
This question was asked at the beginning, why do some need to assign a specific guilt of doing something to cause it and then not doing something to corrwct it sooner? Are humans not to blame as a whole? Or just a handful?
-
-
-
Maybe you should stop watching Fox "news." I haven't heard too many people say Republicans caused global warming, and if we eliminated all man-made greenhouse gas emissions right now, it would still take decades before it showed any effect. The issue is whether or not we want to leave a messed up world for future generations.-
So, do you want to leave it "messed up" for all the future generations? Do you think that if we could, say starting tommorrow at 0600 am, stop emmitting all greenhouse gases, that the human race would survive? It will also take decades for changing of what we use for energy. When it's in the news, everyone wants to be "green", why not everyday?
There are many channels I watch, that little comment about how the Republicans are the root to all evil known to man kind sparked an interest to stop and watch for a while.
Would you agree that if "money" or "credits" were not an issue, we would be much closer to a zero emmission planet? -
The new economic stimulus play has billions allocated for alternative energy R&D, which will help put us on track for a cleaner world. Right now, the technology isn't there to make a big difference. We have wind and solar powered generators, but they hardly make a dent in our greenhouse gas output. Companies are starting to introduce plug-in hybrids, which is a great idea, but they're expensive and unproven, so until the price comes down, you won't see that many of them on the road. But we're moving in the right direction. In ten or so years, it's possible that half the cars sold will be plug-in hybrids, which will make a tremendous difference in the generation of greenhouse gasses since most come from automobile emissions.
-
-
@iyaa
Temper, temper. It's not my fault that your argument is illogical and is not grounded in facts.-
What more facts would you like? Maybe twelve or thirteen more different definitions of what global warming truly is? Or that whoever is in charge blames those not in charge for their ways of running things? I got it, you didn't like Bush because he was a Texan, and we all know Texans are all uneducated steer wranglers without a clue there is anything beyond the borders of Texas.
I don't have the temper you assume. I just like to come to these "public" boards to have different discussions. You like to aggitate. Your opinion is that I'm making an argument one way or the other, I'm not. I just asked how come the Democrats demonize everything that doesn't fall into their agenda. If we all need to play together, we should start by first playing the same game.
You might get more done starting a discussion, talking about what you will, discard any other comments, and have the whole thing to yourself. But, you might have an issue with that also. Ever considered easing up on your opinion of people you don't know anything about?
I get it already, you can't go with the topic of the thread, you never can. Enough already, you are way to smart for me to talk to you. -
@iyaa
You're really way off the mark. I have nothing against Texans, and I didn't say a word about George W. Bush. I think he was a bad president, but I'm not the sort of person to tar all Texans with the same brush. Can the same lack of extrapolation be said to be a hallmark of your character? Given the assumptions you've laid at my door, I have to wonder.
As for agitation, I'm not the one who starts these threads. I'm perfectly peaceable if you actually show some sense. There are good arguments to be made, debates to be had - but the kind of threads you put out generate more heat than light, and this helps absolutely no one.
In terms of easing up on you - I really am not interested in being at the centre of your persecution complex. If you don't like the response you get, then there is a simple answer: don't put up threads like this, or alternatively, don't act defensive when you get replies you don't like.
Think about it.
-
-
Apparently we have individuals here with supranormal intellects. Firstly, can only the truth and the best of intent be procured from alternate news sources, such as MSNBC AND CNN? Your rebuttal is flaccid at best, so spare me. Iyaayasmoderator's statements have been marked as illogical and invalid, so, might we utilize anothers superior mental acuity and finally be served with some semblance of fidelity? Since Iyaayasmoderator has been marked as mentally stunted, who among you with the derisive ripostes can illuminate the rest of us primates with your obvious wisdom? Or to put it bluntly, I have seen the same troglodytes ridicule others by claiming their viewpoints as inferior, but do not provide an alternate position with a higher degree of accuracy. Either the other person cannot construct a valid argument, provides no facts, is temperamental, or has a childlike acumen. The next post should not be about me, but facts, pure and simple.-
Look, I pointed out several things, which have not been rebutted:
1. Man damages the environment. No one here seems willing to rebut the idea that the Cuyahoga River was set alight due to man polluting it. Again, no one wants to suggest that man doesn't harm the environment.
2. There are limits on resources. No one here seems willing to rebut that idea either.
3. We need to try and manage our resources like there is a tomorrow. No one has rebutted that either.
Instead, what the replies have been are fluff. It's not a matter of being intellectual, it's a matter of actually having something to say. If you want to blow smoke, go ahead. But it is smoke. Don't be upset if I point it out to you. If it's not me, it'll be someone else.
-
-
I do believe that the mention of Republicans "causing" "global warming" is a bit of a half truth being used to sell advertisement slots on the Fox network. If anyone has said anything about it - it probably has a lot more to do with lax regulations with regards to environmental standards during Republican administrations than individual Republicans emitting more pollution than individual Democrats.
-
The republicans are partially responsible for us still being so dependent on oil. Back in the '70s, Carter recognised the need for alternative fuel development and started programs to move us in that direction including putting solar panels on the White House. The first thing Regan did when he took office was to remove the panels. That shows you a little about Republican priorities.
-
Plenty of people in both parties have done and continue to do nothing
-
-
The Republicans did nothing to reduce US carbon emissions, in fact if anything their policies resulted in ever increasing emissions. In contrast the Democrats are taking this issue very seriously and their policies will result in a reduction in CO2 emissions.
In terms of a global reduction of emissions the USA taking it's responsibilities seriously is vital. Because of the greater costs incurred by US industry of implementing CO2 reduction the USA is going to take a dim view of trading with countries which do not take similar measures. This will mean that all countries, that have not already done so, will take action to reduce CO2.
Will these measure reverse or stop global warming? No, they will not. All we can hope is that reducing CO2 emissions will slow global warming and/ or prevent the worst case scenario. -
@greencurmudgeon: "You're simply spouting off a lot of words in the hopes of appearing intelligent in support of an indefensible position."
"I'm perfectly peaceable if you actually show some sense."
You're right, your approach to the matter is far superior.
1. As to the setting of this river aflame; could the lack of refutation infer that your position has been received as a truism, and therefore the need for a rebuttal you so vehemently requisitioned was negated? More than likely. Does man harm the planet? More than likely also, perhaps statistical severities could be provided to illustrate a "point."
2. Is it also likely that the lack of rebuttal is synonymous with the lack of information on the subject matter, and therefore to postulate one's position would only agitate the discussion?
3. I refer to the former.
There is an abundance of information out there, and depending upon who you subscribe to the information you receive will influence your opinion, and subsequently any action you take. This causal connection is unavoidable. If a reservoir exists that you go to self-educate please inform the rest of us, so that we may also partake in this knowledge. Most people watch media outlets, and with the extremism and polarization that occurs because of it, the information you will receive will be nothing more than a tainted byproduct.
So let us start anew; humankind needs energy, so where should it come from? Nuclear? Solar? Wind farms? Does anyone have a cost-benefit analysis to refer to support any of these positions? Conversely, if you posit that man's interference is minimal with respect to global warming, please explicate.
"If we all need to play together, we should start by first playing the same game."
An apt statement if there ever was one. Or, we could just leave posts calling each other stupid.-
Humanity needs to generate energy in a manner which generates as little CO2 as possible. Renewable energy sources such as wind, tidal and hydro have their place but not produce all the energy required. Nuclear fission and fusion power is vital for future energy requirements.
In terms of coal, oil and natural gas energy generation the use of carbon capture methods will allow these to continue to be used.
The cost analysis is simple, we can't afford to continue to pump more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. The market value of fossil fuels just does not reflect their true cost, a cost which if not realised in our lifetimes then certainly will be for future generations.
-
-
I can agree with polybore's second and third paragraphs. But let me get this straight, if we look at the voting record from 1970 to present, will we will be able to prescribe blame to only the Republicans? Okay, I will start doing some research to see how true this is.
-
Finally, civility. Okay, from our current position what form of energy, given the present resources to manufacture it, would you pursue first? Additionally, certain politicians will not allow new forms of energy (i.e. wind farms) to be placed in their back yard. How do we combat this? If we have a plan in action for better energy sources, but have problems placing them, where do we turn? Should, or could we, separate ourselves from the Saudis?
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
