Those conservatives, they like the "feel bad about themselves" programs.... Firs jem claims liberals are self loathing, AAA claims they just want to feel good about themselves... Lots of confusion in that Grand Old Party....
LMAO You provide your own selective anectodal evidence, and claim others are talking out of their ass. You can't really be an attorney can you? Oh well, I guess someone had to finish at the bottom their class...
The fact is the conservatives are in the pockets of the utilities and oil companies. The administration has staffed the EPA with former lobbyists from the power industry and the Pres and his VP are former oil industry executives. Policies premised upon carbon caused climate change would cause too much damage to these industries, thier leaders feel. And they don't have to change. They are the policy makers now. So what can the rank and file conservative say but deny that fossil fuel burning contributes to climate change? They can't turn against thier bosses and the last thing they will do is admit they are wrong.
I did and don't see what you are referring to, which link and which section of the link has the information re. warming of the arctic? The first link refers to the Antarctic so that can't be it. And its author says this: "Even in the Arctic I am sceptical of some claims that 40 per cent of the sea ice has already vanished, and that what remains is drastically thinning. "Sparse data from subs in some parts of the Arctic do seem to show a thinning trend, but our preliminary observations using satellite data point to large growth and decay from year to year and place to place, by as much a meter in just a few years. Here too natural variability is considerable. No one doubts that the ultimate fate of Arctic ice looks a grim one, but I believe we have too few data to be confident of how fast it will meet its fate." So to me this link contradicts you or I think it does as the author seems in doubt over what if or even if there is any thinning of the arctic ice. The second link: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa011802a.htm?iam=savvy&terms=+doran++antarctica has as its lead paragraph: " Supporters of the global warming theory got a bit of a chill when researchers announced that Antarctica, long considered a dependable predictor of a global warming trend, is actually getting colder. " So this link seems to be saying there are doubts about GW and nothing about the arctic. The 3rd link: http://www.solcomhouse.com/ElninoLanina.htm Explains that El Nino and La Nina impact the Anarctic Sea Ice dipole and that the dipole affects global climate but it did not have any commentary as to how that would explain the disparity of the climate models predicting warming at the polar regions but that warming is not seen in Anartica. Another comment from the 2nd link: "The findings seem to contradict previous predictions that polar regions would respond first and most rapidly to increases in global temperature." So, IMO the links you provided really show little support for GW as predicted by the models and seem to mostly show the models do not predict what is observed. Granted the models may get better but will they really or will this modelling effort become an entrenched bureaucracy that gobbles up money and concludes that more studies are needed. I'm surprised you did not comment on soot that the NASA researchers believe cause 25% of GW. If this is true everyone is missing a major potential causer. Also, it seems to be one of the key reason for the disparity in the arctic. DS
ZZZ you were the one who posted this after asserting that evangelicals do not not care about the earth because they are expecting the rapture. I pointed out that you did not know what you were talking about because evangelicals preach on the subject of being a good steward of the earth. I think you probably confused evangelicals with Rush Limbaugh. Then you made you list of stupid question I pointed out that in my experience plenty of evangelicals participate in environmental causes and I know that many of them care about eating organic food because there are people making money giving lectures on the subject. To be objective I admitted that this was not the best potential evidence as I would prefer a poll taken of environmental groups. But again it is way more substantial than any of the crap you have provided in the last few months. In fact you arguments have been so lacking in substance lately I think you are starting to go over the falls. You are starting to rely on rhetorical tricks again to make up for you lack of substance.
This is worth reading from this months SciAm: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0001D260-6966-12B9-9A2C83414B7F0000 Too bad they make you pay to read most of the articles. Oh well, everyone should have a subscription to SciAm anyway. nitro
"Too bad they make you pay to read most of the articles. Oh well, everyone should have a subscription to SciAm anyway." Dogmatism.
The Sierra Club is the standard by which one should judge their concern for the environment?!? I have had the unfortunate experience of having to listen to their lies year after year in my job, and let me tell you, they epitomize the concept of raising money by creating controversy that is unsubstantiated by science. ROFLMAO!!