Comments on: A vote for the GOP is a vote against the Earth

By: Stefan Jones

Stefan Jones — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 22:35:33 +0000

Well.

Mayor Bloomberg of NYC has endorsed Barack Obama, citing specifically the president’s stance on climate change.

And Businessweek’s cover story this week is remarkably blunt:

By: Bob Carver

Bob Carver — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:37:16 +0000

It’s 97% of climate scientists who say humans are raising temperatures on Earth (mostly in the oceans) and the remaining 3% simply admit they aren’t sure. But, Sandy is a slam-dunk. The probability of a blocking high over Greenland this time of year is only 5%. It set up there because of the Arctic ice melt this past summer. If that blocking high had not been there, Sandy would have spun out in the North Atlantic harmlessly. But, the fact that it was there directed the storm into the US and Canada. Also, temperatures in the North Atlantic were up to 5°F higher than normal. This was also a result of the warming in the Arctic. Finally, Sandy was “only” a Cat 1 hurricane, yet in terms of energy content, it was the most powerful storm in history.

By: Robert Nowall

Robert Nowall — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 14:26:14 +0000

I will not waste my time digging up and posting all the facts-in-dispute. But the whole point amounts to “give us the power to do [whatever] to fix it.” The key point isn’t “to fix it,” it’s “give us the power.” Be it the guy who foisted the “hockey stick” of temperature on us without providing the data to back it up, to the “watermelons” (Green on the outside, Red on the inside—note the capitalization) who took over the ecology movement, it’s power they want.

Twenty-five years ago it was “give us the power” so they could stop a new Ice Age. Why should I believe them now?

By: H. E. Parmer

H. E. Parmer — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 08:07:19 +0000

There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

But hey, what are 95% of the world’s climate scientists and a theory buttressed by an ever-increasing data set drawn from an ever-widening and ever-more-subtle array of sources, compared to a fount of … knowledge … like Rush Limbaugh. Poor Robert’s probably still smarting from Dick Muller’s widely-publicized defection from the ranks of the denialists. It must be getting pretty lonely over there.

Lord knows I am bitterly critical of the spineless, feckless Democrats, but there is only one major party which has resolutely turned its back on Science. And we all know who they are. Fergawdsake, they’re openly proud of it! It’s ridiculous to even try to pretend otherwise, when denying both anthropogenic global warming and Darwin have been signatures of movement conservatism for decades.

Post your disdainful little putdowns if you must, but let’s at least be honest about what’s at stake here with AGW: the only self-regenerating life support system we have for light-years around. You’re shooting craps with the survival of civilization, possibly even our species, in a vast, potentially irreversible experiment in just how badly we can stress the ecosystem before it collapses.

On the other hand, what’s the worse that can happen if we’re wrong? Seriously, name one possible outcome that’s even remotely as awful as what could happen if we continue to do nothing, and you’re wrong?

Not having any children, I don’t have a direct interest in the outcome, but for some unfathomable reason (which seems even less explicable when I see comments like Robert’s) I’m fond enough of the human race to wish us at least a few million years’ run at the universe. So yeah, I tend to get emotional — as in “fearful, deeply angry and resentful” — when I see the GOP behaving in this manner.

By: Shakatany

Shakatany — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 22:09:24 +0000

Well as a woman I wouldn’t vote for Rmoney and his fellow misogynists if they were the last people on Earth.

By: Robert Nowall

Robert Nowall — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:32:38 +0000

Talk about emotional blackmail—and incorrect emotional blackmail, at that.