[peeb]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/wa...=1&oref=slogin

"The White House in December refused to accept the Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, telling agency officials that an e-mail message containing the document would not be opened, senior E.P.A. officials said last week."

Note that not even Bush now disputes that climate change is happening, or that human activity is contributing to it. This is just cynical politicking to pander to big carbon and other profiteers who fund the Republican Party.

[tie]

...And everyone knows this.

Refusing to open emails that they disagree with? This administration is both childish and criminal, and should really be impeached. But it isn't going to happen, nobody is going to go to jail.

[besson3c]

Except maybe Martha Stewart.

[ironknee]

i know big oil/big business has bushie in their pockets

but is this refusal to accept climate change based in religion?

meaning nature is evil (fall of eden) and is suppose to be bad for us. and with a wink, jesus is coming soon anyways so why change our ways?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

but is this refusal to accept climate change based in religion?

At least on paper the Bush administration has now accepted the science, which almost makes it worse. At least you could claim that it was ignorance before, now it's just malice.

[ironknee]

yeah peep... it's sad to think bush is accepting this just so history can't paint him as anti environment president just because of this at the 11th hour.

further, I assume the ideas of protecting the environment, global warming, climate change, etc... is thought of as a liberal, tree hugging, earth day idea and that's a BIG reason not to acknowledge this crisis... dogma

if global warming were a religion, the conservatives would knock it down cause you could never prove it

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

i know big oil/big business has bushie in their pockets

but is this refusal to accept climate change based in religion?

meaning nature is evil (fall of eden) and is suppose to be bad for us. and with a wink, jesus is coming soon anyways so why change our ways?

Aactually it's a sin to destroy the environment... so no. Republicanism is about tricking people into fighting for their right to be piss drinking slaves to big business....not that the dems are much better.

by the way,
God loves you ironknee and wants nothing but the best for you

[peeb]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

it's sad to think bush is accepting this just so history can't paint him as anti environment president.

History will paint him as being 'anti environment president'.

He is accepting it because it's impossible to find anyone who will deny it with a straight face who is not taking a pay-check from Exxon.

[stupendousman]

History will show that Bush ignored knee-jerk speculative science and did his best to do what was right despite overwhelming pressure from a very popular environmental religious cult.

It's crazy to see people who complain that we should not drill for oil because it is speculated that it might help a teeny-tiny bit twenty years ago, but demand we take actions that will have the same general effect environmentally (if even that) which would have devastating economic effects.

Don't blame Bush and others for not drinking your Kool Aid.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

History will show that Bush ignored knee-jerk speculative science and did his best to do what was right despite overwhelming pressure from a very popular environmental religious cult.

It's crazy to see people who complain that we should not drill for oil because it is speculated that it might help a teeny-tiny bit twenty years ago, but demand we take actions that will have the same general effect environmentally (if even that) which would have devastating economic effects.

Don't blame Bush and others for not drinking your Kool Aid.

but...but... now he has accepted the science...

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Aactually it's a sin to destroy the environment... so no. Republicanism is about tricking people into fighting for their right to be piss drinking slaves to big business....not that the dems are much better.

by the way,
God loves you ironknee and wants nothing but the best for you

awww... how sweet

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

History will show that Bush ignored knee-jerk speculative science and did his best to do what was right despite overwhelming pressure from a very popular environmental religious cult.

It's crazy to see people who complain that we should not drill for oil because it is speculated that it might help a teeny-tiny bit twenty years ago, but demand we take actions that will have the same general effect environmentally (if even that) which would have devastating economic effects.

Don't blame Bush and others for not drinking your Kool Aid.

"Devastating economic effects"? Why do I get the feeling that you are a big oil company investor? So far history is showing us that the devastating economic effects will come from ignoring the science. If the government had acted sooner, then American car companies would be doing a lot better today. Instead, American manufacturing jobs keep on leaving, going to countries that have invested in modern clean technology. This trend isn't going to stop.

[peeb]

But we could prop up US Corporate Welfare for a few more years, couldn't we?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

"Devastating economic effects"? Why do I get the feeling that you are a big oil company investor?

Because you have to in order to assure yourself that you are right? I hold ZERO investments in any kind of energy investments and don't work for any energy concerns. I'm simply a survivor of the New Ice Age we were all told was certain about 30 years or so ago.

So far history is showing us that the devastating economic effects will come from ignoring the science. If the government had acted sooner, then American car companies would be doing a lot better today. Instead, American manufacturing jobs keep on leaving, going to countries that have invested in modern clean technology. This trend isn't going to stop.

Manufacturing jobs leave because of unions and lower labor costs overseas. You're right, the trend isn't likely to stop, but not for the illogical reasons you suggest.

[tie]

How is it illogical to state that manufacturing jobs leave the country when American manufacturing companies do poorly? (Okay, I know that foreign auto companies make some of their cars here in the US, so perhaps the statement needs some footnotes. But broadly speaking, I certainly wouldn't call it an illogical statement.)

Neither of us knows for sure. But again, the costs of climate change are projected to be "devastating" (in the sense that they could reduce standards of living rather dramatically). It is possible that climate change is now inevitable, since we've waited too long already to do anything. Then incurring dramatic costs today in order to give our children a more livable planet won't even work very well. My own feeling, though, is that we shouldn't give up; if we don't look at our problems positively, then we'd never solve any of them. And that even if some changes are inevitable, I think we can head off some of it, and that's the right thing to do.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

How is it illogical to state that manufacturing jobs leave the country when American manufacturing companies do poorly? (Okay, I know that foreign auto companies make some of their cars here in the US, so perhaps the statement needs some footnotes. But broadly speaking, I certainly wouldn't call it an illogical statement.)

It's illogical to suggest it's because they are "going to countries that have invested in modern clean technology". "Modern clean technology" has nothing to do with it. It's all about cheap labor.

Neither of us knows for sure. But again, the costs of climate change are projected to be "devastating" (in the sense that they could reduce standards of living rather dramatically).

I know. With the new coming ice age that was scientifically assured not long ago, we'll all have to start wearing heavy sweaters and maybe live in igloos

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's illogical to suggest it's because they are "going to countries that have invested in modern clean technology". "Modern clean technology" has nothing to do with it. It's all about cheap labor.

Yes, modern technology does have something to do with it. Look at American auto makers, shuttering plants because they are producing vehicles that nobody wants to buy. When American auto makers do poorly, the US loses manufacturing jobs. It works similarly with other manufacturing sectors. Cheap labor is a major factor, but it is certainly not "all about cheap labor."

I know. With the new coming ice age that was scientifically assured not long ago, we'll all have to start wearing heavy sweaters and maybe live in igloos

I think you must know that that coming ice age never had significant scientific support, even though it did have a few splashy magazine articles. But I remember from the oil thread that you have a problem evaluating sources, so maybe not.