The big issue of our time: Climate Change

[kpt018]

I think the left really needs to make this a front line issue in November. Not only is scientific evidence heavily weighted on their side, the consequences of inaction are dire.

As if we needed more evidence to convince us, here is a report released by the National Climate Assessment. Brief intro:

"A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences."

This study is not bullshit.

Here is the link:

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

If you don't care to read the report, here is a piece from Slate about it:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...ort_details_impacts_of_global_warming_on.html

The evidence at this point is simply overwhelming and the consequences are dire. I know that there is a very significant portion of the Republican party that denies the evidence and supports policies that worsen the outcome. These folks need to be sent packing in November.

 

[UpaLoompa]

The evidence at this point is simply overwhelming and the consequences are dire. I know that there is a very significant portion of the Republican party that denies the evidence and supports policies that worsen the outcome. These folks need to be sent packing in November.

I agree. Unfortunately "should" and "likely will" aren't even in the same ballpark right now.

 

[TheComebackKid]

I think the left really needs to make this a front line issue in November. Not only is scientific evidence heavily weighted on their side, the consequences of inaction are dire.

Sure if they want to lose

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Hysterical Alarmist Tactics are a great way to earn votes.

 

[Satsui Ryu]

I am in no way a Global Warming denier and heavily support efforts to mitigate the problem, but I honestly thought this thread was a joke. If not it sounds extremely over-dramatic.

 

[kpt018]

I agree. Unfortunately "should" and "likely will" aren't even in the same ballpark right now.

Very unfortunate indeed.

I suppose the political challenge is it's hard to convince people the top priority now is to combat something that will effect us decades from now (or at least the really severe effects will). Meanwhile, we have one party full of mouth breathers who not only deny the science but support policies that worsen the problem.

It should be a top issue, but like you said, whether it likely to be will be is another issue. Although, at some point (hopefully not too late) the issue is going to impact everyone's bottom line. I guess that's when the right will get on board - we need to give them an incentive to save the planet and everything living on it.

 

[kpt018]

Sure if they want to lose

Sadly, you're probably right.

 

[kpt018]

I am in no way a Global Warming denier and heavily support efforts to mitigate the problem, but I honestly thought this thread was a joke. If not it sounds extremely over-dramatic.

Look at the report and others. The predictions are that dire, I'm not making this up. Don't take my word for it, read what experts have to say.

So, do you only support that it's happening and don't think it's a big deal?

 

[kpt018]

Hysterical Alarmist Tactics are a great way to earn votes.

Unfortunately, this response is painful predictable from you.

 

[Diamond Jim]

A candidate would get crushed running on this platform. Unfortunately, most Americans vote on what can you do for me now. They aren't looking to make cuts and changes for something down the road.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Hysterical Alarmist Tactics are a great way to earn votes.

Typically you'd be right. After all those alarmist tactics got Bush reelected and helped Reagan and Bush I in no small way.

Unfortunately despite being far more grave, the alarmism here doesn't resonate as strongly with people.


(please note that I responded under the assumption that you're a sane poster as opposed to a poster that was moronically suggesting that the magnitude of climate change isn't immense)

 

[jackietreehorn8]

kpt, your heart is in the right place, but you are a political dunce if you think candidates or the party as a whole should put this front and center and begin campaigning and running elections based on it. Pretty much what Diamond Jim says, you get votes by convincing people you can help them with their situation and lot in life - not things like climate change that half your voters will never be around to see.

 

[afrdzak]

I agree. But it won't happen for the reasons already posted in here.

 

[7437]

kpt, your heart is in the right place, but you are a political dunce if you think candidates or the party as a whole should put this front and center and begin campaigning and running elections based on it. Pretty much what Diamond Jim says, you get votes by convincing people you can help them with their situation and lot in life - not things like climate change that half your voters will never be around to see.

no one over 60 is likely to see the effects, so they just will not care. and they turn out to vote, so it isn't a good platform.

 

[kpt018]

kpt, your heart is in the right place, but you are a political dunce if you think candidates or the party as a whole should put this front and center and begin campaigning and running elections based on it. Pretty much what Diamond Jim says, you get votes by convincing people you can help them with their situation and lot in life - not things like climate change that half your voters will never be around to see.

I fully admit there are huge political hurdles, I'm not naive. I just think it's that vital. A politician's stance on Climate change should be included in the important positions that are analyzed. We talk all the time about what kind of country we are going to leave our children, well, the answer may be there's nothing left if we don't do something about this.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Look at the report and others. The predictions are that dire, I'm not making this up. Don't take my word for it, read what experts have to say.

So, do you only support that it's happening and don't think it's a big deal?

The predictions may be dire, but that doesn't mean the predictions will come true. Priests predict all the time I will burn in hell if I do not turn to Christ. It doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Regardless of all this global warming fear mongering, I support protecting the environment through regulation and conservation because I believe the environment is important not because some environmentalists are attempting to frighten me into believing what they have to say.

Fear mongering isn't going to change how people view their role on the planet because how they see the earth and their role in it comes down to a deeply ingrained belief system. Fire and Brimstone don't bring people to God, climate change hysteria won't force people to start caring about the environment.

The average person is ecologically illiterate. Ecology is barely studied at any level in school.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

So long as we're discussing dire consequences and science:


Another Ice Age?
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html


"1 billion people will die in “carbon-dioxide induced famines” in a coming new ice age by 2020" - White House science czar John Holdren 1973



-"snow will become increasingly rare in middle latitudes especially in the big cities where warming would be greatest."



-The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

 

[kpt018]

no one over 60 is likely to see the effects, so they just will not care. and they turn out to vote, so it isn't a good platform.

Really? You don't think that older folks care about what they leave their children?

 

[Satsui Ryu]

Look at the report and others. The predictions are that dire, I'm not making this up. Don't take my word for it, read what experts have to say.

So, do you only support that it's happening and don't think it's a big deal?

Kind of misread your title, I thought you said the biggest issue should be climate change. I believe it is important, just not the most important.

The full impacts are hard to predict and frankly the solutions proposed have been pretty bad. Until these things are tightened up it will remain an issue that can very easily be disregarded.

 

[TheComebackKid]

So long as we're discussing dire consequences and science:


Another Ice Age?
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html


"1 billion people will die in