Blogcritics: Comments on Just one more (brief) point...

Comment by RJ

Sat, 6 Nov 2004 02:24:07 EST

Kyoto is a joke. Even if ratified, it exempts massive growing economies like India and Red China. And the positive environmental impact would be minor, while the negative economic impact would be major. The wise thing to do is invest heavily in hybrid cars and fuel-cell tech. Which is EXACTLY what Bush is doing. BTW, it's not called "global warming" anymore. It's "global climate change." The reason: Scientists have NO FUCKING IDEA what exactly the effects of it will be. Will it get colder? Maybe. Will it get hotter? Maybe. Will it rain more? Maybe. Will it rain less? Maybe. They DON'T FUCKING KNOW. Now, I'm a reasonable person. You simply cannot pump millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere over a few hundred years and expect there to be no change in the environment. But what's the alternative? Moving back into the caves?

Comment by copygodd

Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:07:47 EST

if i placed the blame on w, i'm sorry. that wasn't my intent. i think in the past, a lot of politicians simply didn't want to be labeled an extremist on this issue, as gore was. however, as the scientific evidence continues to build, i think bush has a unique opportunity to take a global lead role in this, especially now that the republicans have further solidified their control of everything government-related. if he tells the congress to jump, they'll only ask how high. if he says to ratify kyoto, they'll do it. i'm just afraid he won't do anything, though, which could have disasterous effects further down the road.

Comment by andy marsh

Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:48:16 EST

It was actually clinton and a democratic senate that refused to ratify Kyoto in '97. Saying it was a waste...that it was costly and unfair to the U.S. and that at best it would reduce global temps by 1/10th of a degree by 2050.

Comment by andy marsh

Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:39:46 EST

OK, but why is this W's fault? It was the ENTIRE congress (well 95-0 anyway)that refused to ratify Kyoto.

Comment by copygodd

Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:36:02 EST

Sure. Here's an article written by the AP, as well as the actual report itself. For those who don't want to read the entire report, and to show I'm trying to be objective about this, I'd like to point out that the Executive Summary does indicate that the authors have "created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible (my emphasis), and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately." In fact, the mechanism for the climate change in their study happened as recently as 8,200 years ago, when the ocean conveyor last collapsed. That particular incident only lasted around half a century, but the collapse which occurred in the Younger Dryas period (around 12,700 years ago) lasted almost 1,000 years. I only point this out to show that the study is based on scientific fact, which is exactly why the Pentagon should be studying how it could affect our national security. Surely we can agree on that much, at least. And while we obviously had no effect on the last two conveyor collapses, our actions today are most certainly speeding up the cycle of global warming; all we are in disagreement on is how much a role we are playing in this current cycle. But since we know we are playing a role, why is the administration refusing to consider ways to diminish that role? To bury one's head in the sand and ignore the historic record is just asking for trouble, in my opinion.

Comment by andy marsh

Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:44:29 EST

copy - any chance you couldsupply a better source than the guardian? Sorry, but I wouldn't believe that rag if they told me the sun rises in the east. Won't by the NYTimes either...or cBS.

Comment by copygodd

Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:41:44 EST

i know i'll never be able to convince anyone that creationism is not a valid scientific theory, but rather just an old myth, so i'll let that one go. however, as for Bush being the first president to fund stem cell research, i'll let WIRED address that: Bush and his campaigners have pointed out that he is the first president to fund any research on embryos. But because the first embryonic stem-cell research was published in 1998, no previous president had an opportunity to fund the research. And scientists complain that while Bush estimated 78 stem-cell lines would be eligible for federally funded research, only 22 are now available. The funding limits have greatly limited their progress toward ameliorating human suffering, scientists say. Also, global warming is not a theory. Scientists agree it is happening; they just don't agree on how much affect mankind's activities are having on it. However, while the administration continues to poo-poo it, the Pentagon is worried, which is why they released a study earlier this year predicting massive climate change as early as 2020, and how these changes would affect global politics and U.S. national security. You can read about it here.

Comment by RJ

Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:18:35 EST

"Any company/university remains free to cash in on the potential of this research using private money or the existing lines of cells." Exactly. And they are all going to be in California. Which, last time I checked, was still within the US of A...

Comment by JR

Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:01:02 EST

copygodd - all the things you listed are all pretty much theoretical, as is creationism. Doesn't make any of them wrong or right, just theories. No, creationism is no longer a theory, it is a thoroughly discredited myth. Creationism doesn't predict anything, nor does it give any rational context to our observations of the universe, it's only real use is as a political football.

Comment by vox populi

Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:47:21 EST

The jury is most definitely out on global warming. Evolution is a fact. Can you cite to the President questioning the validity of evolution? But he is not against stem cell research. He is the first president to provide any federal funding for stem cell research (including research using existing fetal stem cell lines), he has not and will not ban fetal stem cell research, he just won't fund new lines. Any company/university remains free to cash in on the potential of this research using private money or the existing lines of cells.

Comment by Kirsten

Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:42:13 EST

Exactly my point.

Comment by Kirsten

Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:40:40 EST

Well, yes, exactly. Quite right.

Comment by RJ

Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:40:35 EST

I agree that the whole evolution vs. creationism debate is silly. Of course evolution occurs, with or without a supreme being of some sort. Still, keep this in mind: BUSH WON! ;-D

Comment by andy marsh

Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:40:15 EST

copygodd - all the things you listed are all pretty much theoretical, as is creationism. Doesn't make any of them wrong or right, just theories.

Comment by copygodd

Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:32:55 EST

evolution, global warming, stem cell research...that's all junk science. but creationism, now there's a theory with irrefutable proof: a book.