skierinvermont Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 1) No, the Bill won't make it through the Senate until 2012 when the Repubs get seats back & the new Presidential election.......still being passed afterward with no gauruntee!................If republicans were to sign this Amendment, it would undermine their political agenda regarding the EPA, lowering the chances of the bill passing. Either way, AGW is a hypothesis that does not require GHG regulations that will cripple the economy, when we're already in a recession. Adding an amendment recognizing the earth is warming does not lower the chance of the Bill passing. In fact if anything it would attract the support of some blue-collar Democrat congressmen who acknowledge we are warming, but oppose CO2 regulation because of the effect on jobs. 2) I've read everything, it says none of that. Show me one quote saying "the earth hasn't warmed" in regards to this amendment. That statement is a bunch of clusterf**k. 40% of republicans believe in AGW, there are some in the middle who believe in natural climate change/minor AGW, then there are the few crazies, like Inhofe. If you need to resort to Inhofe....well then...thats as far as I can go without lauhging my guts out. I brought up Inhofe because you stated unequivocally that no Republican had ever denied the earth is warming, which is patently false. Inhofe, a United States Senator no less, has denied it over and over and over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Sounds like he is not sure to me. Yet another GOP Congressman publicly denying the unequivocal warming that has occurred. This is precisely why we need the U.S. Congress to clarify its understanding of the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Adding an amendment recognizing the earth is warming does not lower the chance of the Bill passing. In fact if anything it would attract the support of some blue-collar Democrat congressmen who acknowledge we are warming, but oppose CO2 regulation because of the effect on jobs. I brought up Inhofe because you stated unequivocally that no Republican had ever denied the earth is warming, which is patently false. Inhofe, a United States Senator no less, has denied it over and over and over. slow down and think 1) Meaning no republican REGARDING THIS AMENDMENT said the earth hasn't warmed....I am correct. 2) No, it would undermine the argument to take away the EPA's right to regulate GHG emissions, dude,its so f*king obvious. You have been very solo in your opinions on the issue...saying the republicans rejected the amendment because they don't believe the Earth has warmed, when 40% of the repubs are AGWers.....again, it has nothing to do with them believeing the earth hasn't warmed...its political. Again, its the AGW hypothesis...it does not require any "amendments". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Yet another GOP Congressman publicly denying the unequivocal warming that has occurred. This is precisely why we need the U.S. Congress to clarify its understanding of the facts. Well the global temperature trends have been quite flat for awhile now...and have been cooling overall since 2002 as of FEB 2010... So no, the Earth is no longer warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 The reason for the amendment is 1) the bill prevents the EPA from regulating carbon and 2) GOP congressmen have denied global warming. Given 1) and 2) it would seem like an appropriate time to clarify the U.S. Congress' position on climate change. So the point of the amendment was to make it look like the GOP doesn't care if global warming is occurring, they still don't want carbon regulated. Which makes them look bad. Which is exactly what the Dems want. Clearly, the GOP is not a friend of the EPA overall. So the GOP doesn't want to give the EPA that power. And the Dems know the bill will pass, so they at least want to get something out of it - bingo. Pure political baiting. Not a stand for truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 No republican ever said the earth hasn't warmed...thats not why they rejected the Bill, show me one friggin quote saying such. slow down and think 1) Meaning no republican REGARDING THIS AMENDMENT said the earth hasn't warmed....I am correct. More lies. You only changed your mind and said 'regarding this amendment' after I provided quotes of GOP Senators denying the earth has warmed. Originally you said "no Republican EVER said the earth hasn't warmed." Direct quote. No republican ever said the earth hasn't warmed...thats not why they rejected the Bill, show me one friggin quote saying such. 2) No, it would undermine the argument to take away the EPA's right to regulate GHG emissions, dude,its so f*king obvious. You have been very solo in your opinions on the issue...saying the republicans rejected the amendment because they don't believe the Earth has warmed, when 40% of the repubs are AGWers.....again, it has nothing to do with them believeing the earth hasn't warmed...its political. Again, its the AGW hypothesis...it does not require any "amendments". It's not their constituents they are trying to please, it is the oil industry lobbyists whose campaign contributions they are dependent upon. It was perfectly possible to pass the Bill banning the EPA from regulating carbon, but simultaneously acknowledging the earth has warmed. They refused to include a statement acknowledging the earth has warmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 It was nothing more than putting the Republicans on record as not agreeing that the Earth has warmed. It was not a bargaining chip, the bill will pass the House in the form the Republicans want it to. They have a clear majority and there is nothing the Democrats can do to derail its passage. It probably won't fly in the Senate and Obama absolutely will veto it if it reaches his desk. Most of these politicians have little first hand knowledge of the science, they are advised by handlers, think tanks and the party bosses as to what their position should be. My own Senator Scott Brown when asked if he thought global warming was happening replied: “It’s interesting. I think the globe is always heating and cooling,’’ he said. “It’s a natural way of ebb and flow. The thing that concerns me lately is some of the information I’ve heard about potential tampering with some of the information.’’ Brown continued, saying: “I just want to make sure if in fact . . . the earth is heating up, that we have accurate information, and it’s unbiased by scientists with no agenda. Once that’s done, then I think we can really move forward with a good plan.’’ Sounds like he is not sure to me. The main gist of what he is saying is that he wants to make sure the information is accurate. The rest of his answer is non black/white because he is a politician and that is how they talk. You will see a lot of "if in facts" in any politician's response to anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 So the point of the amendment was to make it look like the GOP doesn't care if global warming is occurring, they still don't want carbon regulated. Which makes them look bad. Which is exactly what the Dems want. Clearly, the GOP is not a friend of the EPA overall. So the GOP doesn't want to give the EPA that power. And the Dems know the bill will pass, so they at least want to get something out of it - bingo. Pure political baiting. Not a stand for truth. If anything, acknowledging basic facts like the earth has warmed, but arguing that CO2 regulation is not the way to fix it would have far more appeal to most of the American public, and carry far more weight in policy debates, than denying the earth has warmed. The only reason they vote against the amendments is to pander to anti-intellectuals in the GOP far-right base, and to please oil industry lobbyists. Pandering to either of these groups is reprehensible in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Yet another GOP Congressman publicly denying the unequivocal warming that has occurred. This is precisely why we need the U.S. Congress to clarify its understanding of the facts. He never denied warming is occurring. Look at the whole context of what he is saying. He doesn't really directly answer the question, he mainly expresses interest in making sure we have good information before moving forward, but he certainly does not outright deny global warming as you claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 The main gist of what he is saying is that he wants to make sure the information is accurate. The rest of his answer is non black/white because he is a politician and that is how they talk. The information is accurate. The national academy of science says so. The IPCC says so. The EPA says so. Who is he to question? It is obvious pandering to anti-intellectuals and a bid for lobbyist money. Don't be so naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 He never denied warming is occurring. Look at the whole context of what he is saying. He doesn't really directly answer the question, he mainly expresses interest in making sure we have good information before moving forward, but he certainly does not outright deny global warming as you claim. I didn't say he denied the warming is occurring. I said he denied that the warming is unequivocal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 If anything, acknowledging basic facts like the earth has warmed, but arguing that CO2 regulation is not the way to fix it would have far more appeal to most of the American public, and carry far more weight in policy debates, than denying the earth has warmed. The only reason they vote against the amendments is to pander to anti-intellectuals in the GOP far-right base, and to please oil industry lobbyists. Pandering to either of these groups is reprehensible in my opinion. No, it's because they don't like the Democrat's agenda, and the amendment was a Democrat idea and a clear attempt to win some sort of battle within the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 The information is accurate. The national academy of science says so. The IPCC says so. The EPA says so. Who is he to question? It is obvious pandering to anti-intellectuals and a bid for lobbyist money. Don't be so naive. Yeah except the planet has warmed much less than these agencies expected since 1998. Much, much less if you use the satellites. Can the IPCC really be trusted when they're using false citations about Himalayan Glaciers at 25k melting in 20 years? Can the IPCC really be trusted when every effort to model the Earth's temperature trend has fallen short? Sure it is pandering, but so is the idea of having the amendments. They are being used by the Democrats to make the GOP look bad, and they don't serve any real purpose. And the warming has certainly not been unequivocal, in fact it's been far less than expected despite numerous attempts to cover this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I didn't say he denied the warming is occurring. I said he denied that the warming is unequivocal. By voting against the amendment? No, that just means he voted against the amendment because he's a Republican and it was a move by the Democrats. Doesn't mean he's denying anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 The information is accurate. The national academy of science says so. The IPCC says so. The EPA says so. Who is he to question? It is obvious pandering to anti-intellectuals and a bid for lobbyist money. Don't be so naive. Who are you to know the exact motives for a random/vague blurb by some politician? The answer he gave is the exact same sort of non-definitive, "don't want to offend ANYONE" answer that you'll hear from most politicians when asked about anything. They are trained to toe the gray line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 More lies. You only changed your mind and said 'regarding this amendment' after I provided quotes of GOP Senators denying the earth has warmed. Originally you said "no Republican EVER said the earth hasn't warmed." Direct quote. It's not their constituents they are trying to please, it is the oil industry lobbyists whose campaign contributions they are dependent upon. It was perfectly possible to pass the Bill banning the EPA from regulating carbon, but simultaneously acknowledging the earth has warmed. They refused to include a statement acknowledging the earth has warmed. Don't you Ever put words in my mouth again, you hear? You purposely took my statement out of context...we were never discussing the 2009 Senate, and you know it, you're turning into a manipulating dipsh*t, quoting Inhofes comment frm 2009.....just cram it. Manipulating and spitting out a creamy clusterf**k of BS is what you've turned into? You must be a f**king mindreader....You have yet to provide any Evidence for your Conspiracy claims, no quotes, no evidence....the bill will not make it past the Senate! Are you friggin kidding me The Democrats have Them Greenies Lobbiest groups, just as much Funding as Oil industry for the Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted March 22, 2011 Author Share Posted March 22, 2011 slow down and think 1) Meaning no republican REGARDING THIS AMENDMENT said the earth hasn't warmed....I am correct. 2) No, it would undermine the argument to take away the EPA's right to regulate GHG emissions, dude,its so f*king obvious. You have been very solo in your opinions on the issue...saying the republicans rejected the amendment because they don't believe the Earth has warmed, when 40% of the repubs are AGWers.....again, it has nothing to do with them believeing the earth hasn't warmed...its political. Again, its the AGW hypothesis...it does not require any "amendments". So the ends justify the means? The Republican legislators have no idea whether the Earth has warmed or not. They are personally ignorant of the facts just like most people anywhere else. They are also, like my Senator Scott Brown, confused by climategate and the rest of the anti-science disinformation machine. You too! They are following the party line, pure and simple. How many times do you have to be told the amendment in question has nothing to do with AGW. You make it sound as if Republicans are blatantly lying so as not to jeopardize the bigger picture. The ends justify the means? I don't think they are necessarily lying, more like they are just ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted March 22, 2011 Author Share Posted March 22, 2011 So the point of the amendment was to make it look like the GOP doesn't care if global warming is occurring, they still don't want carbon regulated. Which makes them look bad. Which is exactly what the Dems want. Clearly, the GOP is not a friend of the EPA overall. So the GOP doesn't want to give the EPA that power. And the Dems know the bill will pass, so they at least want to get something out of it - bingo. Pure political baiting. Not a stand for truth. Only the facts can make them look bad. Denying warming does makes them look bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Only the facts can make them look bad. Denying warming does makes them look bad. It's not denying warming. That's exactly what the other party wants you to believe. But it's not that black and white. They simply didn't like the amendment because it was a Democrat-sponsored political move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted March 23, 2011 Author Share Posted March 23, 2011 He never denied warming is occurring. Look at the whole context of what he is saying. He doesn't really directly answer the question, he mainly expresses interest in making sure we have good information before moving forward, but he certainly does not outright deny global warming as you claim. He is denying that warming is "unequivocal". In other words he is not sure. He may have heard that the world has warmed, but he questions the integrity of the science, which is just the desired outcome of the disinformation machine. The Grand Strategy that led to success for the Climate Change Denialists was developed by the American Petroleum Institute, and leaked in 1998 to the New York Times in the form of a memo that stated: “Victory will be achieved when…recognition of uncertainty becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’” It was the same strategy used by tobacco companies to fight the fact that smoking causes lung cancer. A tobacco company memo from the late 1960s, which observed: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 "He is denying that warming is "unequivocal. In other words he is not sure. He may have heard that the world has warmed, but he questions the integrity of the science, which is just the desired outcome of the disinformation machine. The Grand Strategy that led to success for the Climate Change Denialists was developed by the American Petroleum Institute, and leaked in 1998 to the New York Times in the form of a memo that stated: “Victory will be achieved when…recognition of uncertainty becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’” It was the same strategy used by tobacco companies to fight the fact that smoking causes lung cancer. A tobacco company memo from the late 1960s, which observed: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” Where did he say this? Quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Let me break it down one last time... 1) Republicans don't want to give control of carbon emissions to the EPA 2) Democrats can't stop the passage of this bill, so they decide to create an amendment just to "put the Republicans on record" 3) Republicans are not too keen with this move, so they unanimously vote against the amendment Conclusion: The Republican Party does not believe global warming has occurred? No. Simply put, the Republicans and Democrats don't like each other and will do whatever they can to prevent the opposing party from "winning". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted March 23, 2011 Author Share Posted March 23, 2011 Let me break it down one last time... 1) Republicans don't want to give control of carbon emissions to the EPA 2) Democrats can't stop the passage of this bill, so they decide to create an amendment just to "put the Republicans on record" 3) Republicans are not too keen with this move, so they unanimously vote against the amendment Conclusion: The Republican Party does not believe global warming has occurred? No. Simply put, the Republicans and Democrats don't like each other and will do whatever they can to prevent the opposing party from "winning". Ya, that's about the size of it with one caveat. I'm positive the Republicans are personally not sure how to answer the question. Quit possibly neither are the Democrats. Inhofe, the Republican leader on this issue, is sure AGW is a hoax. Most Republican legislators doubt the reality of consequential AGW, just like most of the posters here....and you nice folks are far more involved in this investigation than they are. Most Dems are likely to trust and accept the science while most Republicans are not as inclined. It's ideologically driven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 By voting against the amendment? No, that just means he voted against the amendment because he's a Republican and it was a move by the Democrats. Doesn't mean he's denying anything. It's not denying warming. That's exactly what the other party wants you to believe. But it's not that black and white. They simply didn't like the amendment because it was a Democrat-sponsored political move. Let me break it down one last time... 1) Republicans don't want to give control of carbon emissions to the EPA 2) Democrats can't stop the passage of this bill, so they decide to create an amendment just to "put the Republicans on record" 3) Republicans are not too keen with this move, so they unanimously vote against the amendment Conclusion: The Republican Party does not believe global warming has occurred? No. Simply put, the Republicans and Democrats don't like each other and will do whatever they can to prevent the opposing party from "winning". Come on tacoman.. read the actual comments of the GOP on the amendments themselves.. they objected to the actual content of the amendments not the mere fact that the amendments were proposed. There's no upside to voting down the amendments... voting down the amendments looks anti-science.. it looks like they are denying basic facts... EXCEPT that's exactly how they want to look.. because they want to pander to their anti-intellectual tea party base and to the oil industry lobbyists. They wouldn't have voted down the amendments just because the Democrats proposed it.. there has to be a political upside to voting down the amendments. The political upside is pandering to anti-intellectuals and getting oil industry lobbyist money. The Democrats proposed the amendments partially in an attempt to establish the truth but also because they get to go back to their liberal bases and call the GOP anti-intellectual... the GOP voted down the amendments because they get to go back to their anti-intellectual conservative districts who love the move, and because they'll get more lobbyist money. It makes both parties happy. And we also know from their own statements that many of them actually do object to the content of the amendments. ALL of them publicly verbally objected to the amendments which say humans have contributed (which everyone here knows to be a fact to some degree). And some of them have equivocated publicly whether the earth has warmed at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Ya, that's about the size of it with one caveat. I'm positive the Republicans are personally not sure how to answer the question. Quit possibly neither are the Democrats. Inhofe, the Republican leader on this issue, is sure AGW is a hoax. Most Republican legislators doubt the reality of consequential AGW, just like most of the posters here....and you nice folks are far more involved in this investigation than they are. Most Dems are likely to trust and accept the science while most Republicans are not as inclined. It's ideologically driven. For the most part, I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Come on tacoman.. read the actual comments of the GOP on the amendments themselves.. they objected to the actual content of the amendments not the mere fact that the amendments were proposed. There's no upside to voting down the amendments... voting down the amendments looks anti-science.. it looks like they are denying basic facts... EXCEPT that's exactly how they want to look.. because they want to pander to their anti-intellectual tea party base and to the oil industry lobbyists. They wouldn't have voted down the amendments just because the Democrats proposed it.. there has to be a political upside to voting down the amendments. The political upside is pandering to anti-intellectuals and getting oil industry lobbyist money. The Democrats proposed the amendments partially in an attempt to establish the truth but also because they get to go back to their liberal bases and call the GOP anti-intellectual... the GOP voted down the amendments because they get to go back to their anti-intellectual conservative districts who love the move, and because they'll get more lobbyist money. It makes both parties happy. And we also know from their own statements that many of them actually do object to the content of the amendments. ALL of them publicly verbally objected to the amendments which say humans have contributed (which everyone here knows to be a fact to some degree). And some of them have equivocated publicly whether the earth has warmed at all. You are making way too many generalizations here I think. All I know is that this is politics in America. It often is a mistake to read too much into political moves, as they often don't seem to make sense to average individuals like you and me. Why is it that the Republicans and Democrats are always going to such great lengths to criticize each other and block each other's efforts? Does it always make sense? No, a lot of the time it doesn't seem to. Like I said, the Democrat strategy was clearly to make the Republicans look bad, either way they voted. It's easy to see why the Republicans didn't like the amendment, regardless of how they personally felt about global warming. To make statements like: "This proves the Republican party is anti-science" is just silly. Politics are a lot more complicated than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 "This proves the Republican party is anti-science" is just silly. Politics are a lot more complicated than that. This vote alone doesn't. All of the statements they've made denying unequivocal warming and/or man's involvement do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 This vote alone doesn't. All of the statements they've made denying unequivocal warming and/or man's involvement do. That's just singling out the most vocal/extreme on that issue. It's no more fair to say a few statements represent the Republican party anymore than it would be to say Al Gore and his statements represented the Democrat party. You can bet there are plenty of other members of both parties who are more moderate than either of these. That's not what this amendment was really about. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 That's just singling out the most vocal/extreme on that issue. It's no more fair to say a few statements represent the Republican party anymore than it would be to say Al Gore and his statements represented the Democrat party. You can bet there are plenty of other members of both parties who are more moderate than either of these. That's not what this amendment was really about. . I'm talking about dozens of statements by people on the committee. Although to some extent I'm sure they acted as a bloc, the congressmen on the energy committee are more conservative than others and tend to have lots of big industry lobbying money not blaming the whole GOP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I'm talking about dozens of statements by people on the committee. Although to some extent I'm sure they acted as a bloc, the congressmen on the energy committee are more conservative than others and tend to have lots of big industry lobbying money not blaming the whole GOP can you please link some of these? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.