Yes. Can't imagine any candidate as the party's nominee that a enough Republicans would find less appealing than obumbles.hhfarang wrote:I'm not so sure that the Republicans will win the 2012 election as the party is pretty much split down the middle between traditional Republican ideology and Tea Party ideology which only overlap on about 50% of the issues... and they can't seem to find a candidate that doesn't somehow polarize or offend some large voting block. They need to put up a better candidate and find some party unity to beat Obama imho.
Peak Concern for global warming has Passed
Re: Peak Concern for global warming has Passed
- dtaai-maai
- Hero
- Posts: 14196
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:00 pm
- Location: UK, Robin Hood country
Re: Peak Concern for global warming has Passed
Sorry Homer, but try as I might I just can't work out what this sentence means!Homer wrote: Can't imagine any candidate as the party's nominee that a enough Republicans would find less appealing than obumbles.
This is the way
Re: Peak Concern for global warming has Passed
What! You can't read my mind, fill in the missing parts and remove the extra words?dtaai-maai wrote:Sorry Homer, but try as I might I just can't work out what this sentence means!Homer wrote: Can't imagine any candidate as the party's nominee that a enough Republicans would find less appealing than obumbles.
I was responded to:
What I meant to say was that any Republican who can win the nomination will beat obumbles. Some in the party may prefer obumbles to the republican candidate but they will be too few in number to matter.hhfarang wrote:They need to put up a better candidate and find some party unity to beat Obama imho.
Re: Peak Concern for global warming has Passed
I've got a flight to catch but here is another bit of anecdotal evidence to keep the thread going:
- Attachments
-
- Ag_Upsala_Glacier.jpg (38.88 KiB) Viewed 324 times
Re: Peak Concern for global warming has Passed
2004 looks much more beautiful and inviting... good job, climate change!
My brain is like an Internet browser; 12 tabs are open and 5 of them are not responding, there's a GIF playing in an endless loop,... and where is that annoying music coming from?
Re: Peak Concern for global warming has Passed
The main thing keeping this thread going is the people who: 1) Don't acknowledge that the climate alarmist's attempt to get public opinion in support of carbon control legislation has failed, and 2) They have no other response that to repeat more of the same arguments that failed to sway public opinion.STEVE G wrote:I've got a flight to catch but here is another bit of anecdotal evidence to keep the thread going:
It's like watching someone step on a lawn rake and get smacked in the face by the handle. Then the very next thing they do is locate the rake and intentionally step on it again.
- dtaai-maai
- Hero
- Posts: 14196
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:00 pm
- Location: UK, Robin Hood country
Re: Peak Concern for global warming has Passed
There have been quite a few references here and elsewhere to the 'left wing' by several US forum members, but I rather suspect that their definition of a left winger is rather different from that in Europe, where there really is a loony left!Super Joe wrote: But you seem to believe that climate change should somehow be a 'left' or 'right' issue,
This is the way
- redzonerocker
- Rock Star
- Posts: 4777
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:55 pm
- Location: England
Re: Peak Concern for global warming has Passed
Wonderful that 'natural' climate change, been happening since the beginning of timehhfarang wrote:2004 looks much more beautiful and inviting... good job, climate change!
Still doesn't provide any proof of 'manmade' global warming though
Remember, no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Re: Peak Concern for global warming has Passed
I know you as the OP have been posting comment about the issue of 'losing the debate to win over public opinion', but the thread has been discussing the actual issue of climate change, and that is what has kept the thread going from what I can tell. It would be hard to disagree with you that 'peak concern for global warming' hasn't already passed by Al Gore & co, and also it does seem time for him to consider 'hanging up his boots' so to speak.Homer wrote:The main thing keeping this thread going is the people who: 1) Don't acknowledge that the climate alarmist's attempt to get public opinion in support of carbon control legislation has failed, and 2) They have no other response that to repeat more of the same arguments that failed to sway public opinion.STEVE G wrote:I've got a flight to catch but here is another bit of anecdotal evidence to keep the thread going:
Governments have no problem introducing legislation that is deeply unpopular among large sections of the population anyway, and the issue is far from dead and I really can't see it's going to go away. At the end of the day love him or hate him, (I'm guessing the latter in yours & hhf's cases ), Al Gore has probably done more than anyone out there to bring the issue to the public fore. Among U.S. politicians there's obviously deep differences of opinion on the gravity of any threat to the planet, the extent of manmade involvement and about measure's should be taken from an economic point of view, but the end goal of climate change believers is this reduction of carbon emssions... and that goal is shared by the vast majority among all parties, isn't it? It's just a debate on how to get there.
The Republican party does seem to regard climate change as an issue that needs addressing, John Boehner has said they will be coming up with a policy to reduce GHG emissions...
Boehner: "I think most members think that climate change is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, the question is how do you address it."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=99653076
Interviewer: "You're suggesting it's not that big of a problem, even though the scientific consensus is that it has contributed to the climate change."
Boehner: "I think it is an issue. The question is, what is the proper answer and the responsible answer? And so we've got to find ways to work toward this solution to this problem without risking the future for our kids and grandkids. I think you'll see a plan from us."
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/ ... t-comical/
This is the environmental section the GOP's party platform for this current term...
2008 Republican Party Platform
Environmental Protection
By increasing our American energy supply and decreasing the long term demand for oil, we will be well positioned to address the challenge of climate change and continue our longstanding responsibility for stewardship over the environment.
Addressing Climate Change Responsibly:
The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and longterm consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment. Those steps, if consistent with our global competitiveness will also be good for our national security, our energy independence, and our economy. Any policies should be global in nature, based on sound science and technology, and should not harm the economy.
The Solution: Technology and the Market:
As part of a global climate change strategy, Republicans support technology-driven, marketbased solutions that will decrease emissions, reduce excess greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, increase energy efficiency, mitigate the impact of climate change where it occurs, and maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy.
To reduce emissions in the short run, we will rely upon the power of new technologies, as discussed above, especially zero-emission energy sources such as nuclear and other alternate power sources. But innovation must not be hamstrung by Washington bickering, regulatory briar patches, or obstructionist lawsuits. Empowering Washington will only lead to unintended consequences and unimagined economic and environmental pain; instead, we must unleash the power of scientific knowhow and competitive markets.
It strikes me there's common ground and shared concern over the climate change issue in principal, it's just a question of the degree of any action, and ofcourse the usual party politicking carry on. AG may have lost his cap-n-trade 'battle', but the wider 'war'........
SJ
- redzonerocker
- Rock Star
- Posts: 4777
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:55 pm
- Location: England
Re: Peak Concern for global warming has Passed
Yep, like a spectacular own goal.Super Joe wrote:Al Gore has probably done more than anyone out there to bring the issue to the public fore.
He made a tidy sum out of it though
Remember, no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Re: Peak Concern for global warming has Passed
Among who exactly? SJredzonerocker wrote:Yep, like a spectacular own goal.
- redzonerocker
- Rock Star
- Posts: 4777
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:55 pm
- Location: England
Re: Peak Concern for global warming has Passed
Super Joe wrote:Among who exactly?
The public!
Remember, no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Re: Peak Concern for global warming has Passed
Nobody wins the presidency without a majority of votes from the political center. Some of either party's platform is just there to for it's appeal to the center. Closer examination shows it's filled with weasel words. Furthermore, that platform statement was written by the wing of the party that messed their pants over the results of the 2010 mid term elections. The 2012 platform will be determined mostly by the party's candidate.Super Joe wrote: This is the environmental section the GOP's party platform for this current term...
....
To reduce emissions in the short run, we will rely upon the power of new technologies, as discussed above, especially zero-emission energy sources such as nuclear and other alternate power sources. But innovation must not be hamstrung by Washington bickering, regulatory briar patches, or obstructionist lawsuits. Empowering Washington will only lead to unintended consequences and unimagined economic and environmental pain; instead, we must unleash the power of scientific knowhow and competitive markets.
...
It strikes me there's common ground and shared concern over the climate change issue in principal, it's just a question of the degree of any action, and ofcourse the usual party politicking carry on. AG may have lost his cap-n-trade 'battle', but the wider 'war'........
The 2008 platform was a non-starter. It was written knowing it would be rejected. That way the party can say it's totally in support of doing something about the issue and blame the left for blocking their solution. The platform includes more nuclear power as part of the short term solution, any solution will be market based and Washington's involvement will be minimal. The left find all three abhorrent.
That leaves open a world of possibilities, including addressing the issue with a proper and responsible answer that says it's junk science and we don't have to do anything.Super Joe wrote: The Republican party does seem to regard climate change as an issue that needs addressing, John Boehner has said they will be coming up with a policy to reduce GHG emissions...
Boehner: "I think it is an issue. The question is, what is the proper answer and the responsible answer? And so we've got to find ways to work toward this solution to this problem without risking the future for our kids and grandkids. I think you'll see a plan from us."
Re: Peak Concern for global warming has Passed
I'd argue any own goal came from the hysteria around 'climategate' rather than any cock-up's Al Gore and his movie made, and I'm not suggesting the majority of the public are in favour/believe it. But my point in my longer post yesterday was that none of these 'hiccups' or 'own goals' be they Al Gore's or whoever's matter now, because there has been enough public awareness and support for climate change along the way for 191 countries to adopt climate change. There's been no mass protests against adopting it, I think the larger demonstrations have been about acting on it. But it's global policy now so fait acompli from what I can see.redzonerocker wrote:The public!
If however many million people are aware of a situation and you then go and convince 40% of them that's it's a real situation, while the other 60% believe you're a lying tw@t... you've succeeded haven't you. Because the believer's are going to go out and form action groups, hold seminars etc to push for government action, and the 60% generally are going to forget about it bar slagging it off in a chat down the pub or on forums. Elections are often won with just 35% of the vote aren't they, whoever went out and convinced those people helped win the day.
And as I said in that post government's will go ahead with issues against public opinion as we know, there's never gonna be protests against reducing GHG emissions, because at the end of the day whether people believe in manmade warming or not, they certainly believe reducing emissions and converting to clean energy is right.
SJ
Re: Peak Concern for global warming has Passed
This party platform mentions climate change FIFTEEN times, but they didn't really mean it!?!? It was in keeping with the party's presidential nomination's platform, John McCain's TV commercial described climate change skeptics as 'extremists' and stated... "I believe that climate change is real. It's not just a greenhouse gas issue. It's a national security issue. We have an obligation to future generations to take action and fix it. I'm John McCain and I approve this message."Homer wrote:Nobody wins the presidency without a majority of votes from the political center. Some of either party's platform is just there to for it's appeal to the center. Closer examination shows it's filled with weasel words. Furthermore, that platform statement was written by the wing of the party that messed their pants over the results of the 2010 mid term elections. The 2012 platform will be determined mostly by the party's candidate.
The 2008 platform was a non-starter. It was written knowing it would be rejected. That way the party can say it's totally in support of doing something about the issue and blame the left for blocking their solution. The platform includes more nuclear power as part of the short term solution, any solution will be market based and Washington's involvement will be minimal. The left find all three abhorrent.
They did mean it ofcourse because they have always been onboard with climate change and the need to reduce GHG emissions, and have committed large amounts of funds and acted upon reducing GHG emissions in honour of Al Gore, errr I mean in the name of climate change. This left vs right nonsense is just party politicking, a total side-issue to the climate change debate...
Republican action on climate change: In 2002, President George W. Bush established the Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology: "I reaffirm America's commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its central goal, to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate." - President George W. Bush, February 14, 2002
Republican action on climate change: The Energy Policy Act 2005, introduced by Republican members and signed into law by G.W.Bush announces the creation of a new 'Climate Change Technology Committee' who are to 'coordinate Federal climate change technology activities and programs'. The new law has a section on climate change and commits around US$10 billion (CBO) to clean, renewable energy sources, the reduction of GHG emissions and the capture of GHG emissions. It mentions 'emissions' 150 times. The law was passed with 208 out 230 Republican's voting in favour.
Republican action on climate change: The six strategic goals of the Climate Change Technology Program signed into law by George W. Bush in 2005:
As a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the United States shares with many other countries the UNFCCC's ultimate objective, that is, the stabilization of greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations. This Vision and Framework outlines six strategic goals: 1) Reduce Emissions from Energy End-Use and Infrastructure, 2) Reduce Emissions from Energy Supply, 3) Capture and Sequester Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
Bit of a stretch to draw 'we don't have to do anything about it' from "I think most members think that climate change is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, the question is how do you address it". One of the Yea votes for the 2005 Energy Act that commited billions of dollars to reduce GHG emssions in the name of climate changes... John Boehner.Homer wrote:That leaves open a world of possibilities, including addressing the issue with a proper and responsible answer that says it's junk science and we don't have to do anything.
SJ