A Republican Case for Climate Action

[GTWT]

William Ruckelshaus, Lee M. Thomas, William K. Reilly, & Christine Todd Whitman were heads of the EPA under Presidents Nixon, Reagan, G. H. W. Bush, & G. W. Bush. They are not a bunch of tree hugging liberals. On August 1st they published a call for action on climate change in the New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/a-republican-case-for-climate-action.html?_r=0

"There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm...."

"The costs of inaction are undeniable."

"President Obama's June climate action plan lays out achievable actions that will deliver real progress."

"Rather than argue against his proposals, our leaders in Congress should endorse them..."

"Climate change puts all our progresses and successes at risk."

"Mr. Obama's plan is just a start. More will be required. But we must continue efforsts to reduce the climate-altering pollutants that threaten our planet."

"What is most clear is that there is no time to waste."

[GreenBat]

The House will never back it. Obama suggested it. The conservative movement is fine with polluting the air and waters and giving Tax breaks to those who do.

[JesseMartin]

The only way anything can change is if voters change their minds and stop letting spin doctors convince them that allowing any business or individual to do whatever they want to the environment is an inherent human right. By equating the right of people and businesses to pollute to that of the right to bear arms or practice their religion, as well as claiming it's "part of the free market" and changing that will cause economic disaster, they've pulled in a bunch of people who would just as readily be against it if the issues were spun differently by the same talking heads.

[FirefightnRick]

There's never any time to waste. A crisis is always just around the corner. Typical leftism speak from this administration.

Lets see,

William Ruckelshaus..... Educated and spent most of his career as a lawyer before and after he was appointed as the first EPA director.

Lee. M. Thomas....Educated in the field of Psychology, appointed by Reagan to the EPA and sits on numerous boards of major corporations including Airgas Inc. and DuPont.

William K. Rielly......Educated in the field of History and Law, and a World Wildlife Fund advocate. Appointed by H.W. Bush to the EPA, later appointed by Barry to go find someone to hang over the B.P. Oil spill.

Christine Todd Whitman....A family member of a long line of politicians. Educated at Wheaton College, earned a B.A. in Government. Is the only woman governor of New Jersey, appointed to the EPA by G.W. Bush.

Two lawyers, a psychology major and a life timer politician dictating our air quality policies while assuredly knowing the SCIENCES of the quality of our air, atmosphere and planet.

Rick

Edited August 6, 2013 by FirefightnRick

[GTWT]

There's never any time to waste. A crisis is always just around the corner. Typical leftism speak from this administration.

Lets see,

William Ruckelshaus..... Educated and spent most of his career as a lawyer before and after he was appointed as the first EPA director.

Lee. M. Thomas....Educated in the field of Psychology, appointed by Reagan to the EPA and sits on numerous boards of major corporations including Airgas Inc. and DuPont.

William K. Rielly......Educated in the field of History and Law, and a World Wildlife Fund advocate. Appointed by H.W. Bush to the EPA, later appointed by Barry to go find someone to hang over the B.P. Oil spill.

Christine Todd Whitman....A family member of a long line of politicians. Educated at Wheaton College, earned a B.A. in Government. Is the only woman governor of New Jersey, appointed to the EPA by G.W. Bush.

Two lawyers, a psychology major and a life timer politician dictating our air quality policies while assuredly knowing the SCIENCES of the quality of our air, atmosphere and planet.

Rick

Rick,

Instead of attacking the messengers (yes, as you point out all four are educated), why not address the points made in the op-ed?

[FirefightnRick]

Rick,

Instead of attacking the messengers (yes, as you point out all four are educated), why not address the points made in the op-ed?

Why? Your point in pushing the message was to take it as a valid truth because 4 non-scientist individuals who were appointed by three republicans and one conservative says so.

Find me 4 scientists who are trained in the field and I'll give the message some consideration.

Rick

[glick1980]

Why? Your point in pushing the message was to take it as a valid truth because 4 non-scientist individuals who were appointed by three republicans and one conservative says so.

Find me 4 scientists who are trained in the field and I'll give the message some consideration.

Rick

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Instead of just 4, how about 97%?

[Censored by Laurie]

There's never any time to waste. A crisis is always just around the corner. Typical leftism speak from this administration.

Lets see,

William Ruckelshaus..... Educated and spent most of his career as a lawyer before and after he was appointed as the first EPA director.

Lee. M. Thomas....Educated in the field of Psychology, appointed by Reagan to the EPA and sits on numerous boards of major corporations including Airgas Inc. and DuPont.

William K. Rielly......Educated in the field of History and Law, and a World Wildlife Fund advocate. Appointed by H.W. Bush to the EPA, later appointed by Barry to go find someone to hang over the B.P. Oil spill.

Christine Todd Whitman....A family member of a long line of politicians. Educated at Wheaton College, earned a B.A. in Government. Is the only woman governor of New Jersey, appointed to the EPA by G.W. Bush.

Two lawyers, a psychology major and a life timer politician dictating our air quality policies while assuredly knowing the SCIENCES of the quality of our air, atmosphere and planet.

Rick

I bet all four have free run of football practices at their alma maters.

Wheaton College is passing us by!

[HoustonEagle]

I post this link to address the "consensus" question.

http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp?MR=1

I think highly of the Weather Underground and feel they did their due diligence putting together this compilation. All works are cited with links.

Please take a look. Thank you and good day.

Edited August 6, 2013 by HoustonEagle

[LongJim]

Can't the government take this much interest in something they are actually elected to do, instead of constantly siphoning off OUR $ to fund never-ending, manufactured fool's errands designed to enrich third parties? It is another distraction. Another shell game, and people keep on swallowing it hook line and sinker.

[FirefightnRick]

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Instead of just 4, how about 97%?

Yeah, and I could sit here ALL DAY and counter that with link after link as yyz28 and KingDL has already done so many times before...but I won't. Educating this audience with facts on certain subjects,...such as,..despite what a few individuals that blindly follow a program that hasn't had a winning season in 8 years may think,...many major football programs much more successful than ours do value open practices,...proves difficult at times.

But for giggles and grins, I'll refer again back to the last great climate hysteria that 98% of climate scientist tried to shove down our throats...

NEWSWEEK: THE COOLING WORLD, April 28, 1975

http://www.climategate.com/the-cooling-world-newsweek-1975

The next ice age was just around the corner. We were all going to freeze to death by the year 2000'.

And one of the solutions dreamed up? Melting the Polar Ice Caps.

Ha Ha! Can you imagine?

Rick

Edited August 6, 2013 by FirefightnRick

[FirefightnRick]

I bet all four have free run of football practices at their alma maters.

Wheaton College is passing us by!

LOL!!!!

Rick

[GTWT]

But for giggles and grins, I'll refer again back to the last great climate hysteria that 98% of climate scientist tried to shove down our throats...

NEWSWEEK: THE COOLING WORLD, April 28, 1975

http://www.climatega...d-newsweek-1975

The next ice age was just around the corner. We were all going to freeze to death by the year 2000'.

I'm sorry Rick, but that's just silly. The 'cooling world' hypothesis was suggested by very few climate scientists. Most scientists with expertise in relevant fields took a wait-and-see attitude - waiting for the data to become available that would test that hypothesis - it was rejected. That's the way science is supposed to work. The climate-change hypothesis similarly awaited the gathering of the data necessary to test it & the results of those tests have been clear - we can reject the null hypothesis - 'No change in global climate parameters' & we support the alternative hypothesis - the earth is warming. Our best explanation for this observed warming is the effects of green-house gases derived from releasing fossil carbon.

You reject the advice of the Republican heads of the EPA because - horrors - they're part of the educated elite. You reject the 97% of climate scientists who agree with the statement "climate change is real & man's behavior is at least partially to blame". What is the alternative to science, Rick? Ideology?

Edited August 6, 2013 by GTWT

[UNTLifer]

The conservative movement is fine with polluting the air and waters and giving Tax breaks to those who do.

Like a dog with a bone on those Liberal talking points. Don't forget that the conservatives hate women, the elderly, the poor, those in the minority, like to kick dogs, etc...

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--- When in Alaska a couple of years ago, our guide stated every glacier in Alaska is shrinking in size except four .... and they are located near river mouths at sea level and are getting more water down rivers from higher melting glaciers The rivers are is blocked by the glacier at sea level then Freezing in winter making those glaciers larger. Just look at photos of poles now and 50 years ago. Not the same. Apparently it is now possible for the first time ever (that we know of) for a ship to sail from Bering Strait to Greenland along Canada. Heard a comment about a month ago about NYC port being about one foot higher than it was earlier ( think they said 100 years ago.. ) The program I saw was not really about global warming but just a comment and just stating facts about NYC.

--- Make up your own mind... but it sure looks like global warming exists... just don't ignore real facts. Just because you don't want something to be true doesn't mean it isn't.

--- Industries that put a lot of pollutants into the air are fighting the claim so they don't have to spend more money to clean up their "act".... and it spills over to politicians that get contributions from them and their execs. Much of the well water south of Midland is so polluted humans and animals can't consume it (or irrigate with it to produce food since animals and people eat what is produced)... oil companies once just dumped chemicals on the ground until finally government forced them to stop. [ proper disposal is expensive and I am sure they fought that too ] Once in the aquifer it spreads to other places not dumped on and ruins water there too..

Edited August 6, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[FirefightnRick]

I'm sorry Rick, but that's just silly. The 'cooling world' hypothesis was suggested by very few climate scientists. Most scientists with expertise in relevant fields took a wait-and-see attitude - waiting for the data to become available that would test that hypothesis - it was rejected. That's the way science is supposed to work. The climate-change hypothesis similarly awaited the gathering of the data necessary to test it & the results of those tests have been clear - we can reject the null hypothesis - 'No change in global climate parameters' & we support the alternative hypothesis - the earth is warming. Our best explanation for this observed warming is the effects of green-house gases derived from releasing fossil carbon.

You reject the advice of the Republican heads of the EPA because - horrors - they're part of the educated elite. You reject the 97% of climate scientists who agree with the statement "climate change is real & man's behavior is at least partially to blame". What is the alternative to science, Rick? Ideology?

And they said the same thing you are now, back then. If you want to be a sucker for this after all that has happened then fine. I'm not. We cannot change the weather, never have, never will. But let's pretend we can. Then what is our governments' plan to change other governments behavior such as China, when right now we can't even protect our own embassy's in the middle east and North Africa after intercepting a simple al queda message?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130806/DA80D4382.html

We can't even talk Russia, our Space Station partner, into turning over our top most-wanted guy right now.

Rick

Edited August 6, 2013 by FirefightnRick

[FirefightnRick]

--- When in Alaska a couple of years ago, our guide stated every glacier in Alaska is shrinking in size except four .... and they are located near river mouths at sea level and are getting more water down rivers from higher melting glaciers The rivers are is blocked by the glacier at sea level then Freezing in winter making those glaciers larger. Just look at photos of poles now and 50 years ago. Not the same. Apparently it is now possible for the first time ever (that we know of) for a ship to sail from Bering Strait to Greenland along Canada.

--- Make up your own mind... but it sure looks like global warming exists... just don't ignore real facts. Just because you don't want something to be true doesn't mean it isn't.

.

Yes... because glaciers are suppose to always grow, right. They never shrink.

In the past 12 years I've lost three full sized post oaks in my backyard, out of 87,... possibly due to the drought of '2000. Look at photos from 50 years ago, there they were, saplings. Now their fire wood. Has there ever been a tree die from drought before? Probably not. When I first tuned up my 1966 Mustang I had to run it for a rather lengthy amount of time setting the timing, forcing so much carbon into the air over my house that I certainly led to the drought that killed my trees.

Just because you want something to be true doesn't mean it is.

Rick

[LongJim]

If you want to be a sucker for this after all that has happened then fine. I'm not. We cannot change the weather, never have, never will. But let's pretend we can. Then what is our governments' plan to change other governments behavior such as China...

Rick

I realize you are being somewhat facetious, but carrying it further--we're already on the hook to China. They would laugh in our face and mutter "Where's my money?" They will cash in their chips in US debt eventually.

But, we'll just keep on playing that fiddle tune while enjoying that comfy fire in the corner.

[GTWT]

Just because you want something to be true doesn't mean it is.

True. The corollary is that just because you want something to be false doesn't mean that it is.

There is no reason that conservatives have to be antiscience. You can believe in a balanced budget & still accept that the earth isn't flat. You can believe that government should be limited & still accept common descent by means of natural selection. You can believe that capitalism is the most effective economic system & still understand that the release of massive amounts of greenhouse gases will lead to global warming. You can admire Ronald Reagan & still accept reality.

That's what the Republicans who wrote 'A Republican Case for Climate Action' are trying to tell you. Try to understand. It's important.

[LongJim]

You can believe that capitalism is the most effective economic system & still understand that the release of massive amounts of greenhouse gases will lead to global warming. You can admire Ronald Reagan & still accept reality.

That's what the Republicans who wrote 'A Republican Case for Climate Action' are trying to tell you. Try to understand. It's important.

Yes, it is important. Except that the "massive" emissions of CO2 has not really risen very much, and has been fairly stable for over 20 years. The fluctuation is certainly not at a level worthy of this type of hysteria.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=7350

Also note the reduction in other types of emissions, which are much more substantial. Who do you believe? Because you know there's an angle in this mess somewhere.

http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html#emission

The culprit for CO2 emission--main one in the US--is fuel consumption to run power plants, as in the first link. Until we find a way to provide cleaner energy (thorium nuclear would solve a lot of this "issue") and a way to have fewer people to provide power for, people are going to burn things to provide fuel. The problem is not going to be fixed with tax increases or tax incentives, or wind or sun, because most of the "issue" has to do with the actions of OTHER COUNTRIES.

And, again, Washington cannot do anything about that, because China and Japan will tell them to shut up and go get their shinebox, so they will kick the can down the road and beat the US taxpayer over the head some more with this "issue" while doing nothing of substance.

And the masses will simply switch channels and go on playing Candy Crush.

Edited August 6, 2013 by LongJim

[FirefightnRick]

True. The corollary is that just because you want something to be false doesn't mean that it is.

There is no reason that conservatives have to be antiscience. You can believe in a balanced budget & still accept that the earth isn't flat. You can believe that government should be limited & still accept common descent by means of natural selection. You can believe that capitalism is the most effective economic system & still understand that the release of massive amounts of greenhouse gases will lead to global warming. You can admire Ronald Reagan & still accept reality.

That's what the Republicans who wrote 'A Republican Case for Climate Action' are trying to tell you. Try to understand. It's important.

I understand what your saying, and I understand what you want. I want the same thing, affordable, renewable energy and for everyone to take greater responsibility for the earth. And I think you would agree that the closer to the U.S. getting energy Independant the better off we all would be. But you know, as well as I that this isnt going to happen any time soon.

As LongJim pointed out, we have been much better stewards of the earth than in the past, and nuclear energy is one way to one up that. But Nuclear Energy is frowned on by this administration, they are not going to move on the Keystone any time soon, they have committed all out war on the coal industry and the solar scandals haven't helped their cause at all. So naturally Im skeptical at best.

Hey,... I'm the one with the alumn/buddy in Argyle who has the 30KW wind generator in his backyard and excitedly posted pictures of it here in the Eagle Nest cause I thought it was cool. The kids and I watched that sucker go for quite a bit when we visited after he first got it online. Like zombies in a Stephen King movie...staring up at it in amazement.

I'll tell you what, trace the money back to where it's going and if you can prove to me that those four liberal republicans (RINO's as we call them) aren't making a penny from the policies they are pushing for then I'll give it consideration.

Rick

Edited August 7, 2013 by FirefightnRick

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I understand what your saying, and I understand what you want. I want the same thing, affordable, renewable energy and for everyone to take greater responsibility for the earth. And I think you would agree that the closer to the U.S. getting energy Independant the better off we all would be. But you know, as well as I that this isnt going to happen any time soon.

As LongJim pointed out, we have been much better stewards of the earth than in the past, and nuclear energy is one way to one up that. But Nuclear Energy is frowned on by this administration, they are not going to move on the Keystone any time soon, they have committed all out war on the coal industry and the solar scandals haven't helped their cause at all. So naturally Im skeptical at best.

Hey,... I'm the one with the alumn/buddy in Argyle who has the 30KW wind generator in his backyard and excitedly posted pictures of it here in the Eagle Nest cause I thought it was cool. The kids and I watched that sucker go for quite a bit when we visited after he first got it online. Like zombies in a Stephen King movie...staring up at it in amazement.

I'll tell you what, trace the money back to where it's going and if you can prove to me that those four liberal republicans (RINO's as we call them) aren't making a penny from the policies they are pushing for then I'll give it consideration.

Rick

..

Keystone ... some oil companies don't want it... I find it odd that a pipeline from Permian Basin (West Texas oil fields) to West Coast was recently cancelled and not word of it hits the news or the political spectrum. It barely made news here... A lot of land-owners on that Keystone route don't want it plus it is the route is so political and not taken over the cheapest or shortest way. A lot of politicians wanted it to create jobs in THEIR area... which explains the nutty route.

--Nuclear energy ... the problem ... no one wants the "nuke waste" stored where they live..... and that includes us in far West Texas... There is fear it would contaminate the water below and we must have that water.... plus it has to be transported down interstates through towns or on railroads .. What if a train-wreak happened in Metroplex with that waste. There was fight recently here over some radio-active medical waste being stored near Andrews.. Does Weatherford or Ft. Worth want it near them.?? France has more nuclear generation than anyone.. I have no idea what they do with it ... deep in the Sahara?? Toss in accidents ... Chernoble Russia, Japans earthquake which made a lot of land (and towns) uninhabitable due to radiation from a destroyed plant, plus our "minor" accident at Three-mile Island. If you had a lot of physics you understand the problem of waste disposal....that material would be radio-active for centuries .. not just years. We dropped Atomic test bombs on Bikini Island in the Pacific after WWII... It is still so radio-active that people can only spend a few minutes there safely (50-60 years later) Generators produce so much of that material.

Edited August 7, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[FirefightnRick]

..

Keystone ... some oil companies don't want it... I find it odd that a pipeline from Permian Basin (West Texas oil fields) to West Coast was recently cancelled and not word of it hits the news or the political spectrum. It barely made news here... A lot of land-owners on that Keystone route don't want it plus it is the route is so political and not taken over the cheapest or shortest way. A lot of politicians wanted it to create jobs in THEIR area... which explains the nutty route.

--Nuclear energy ... the problem ... no one wants the "nuke waste" stored where they live..... and that includes us in far West Texas... There is fear it would contaminate the water below and we must have that water.... plus it has to be transported down interstates through towns or on railroads .. What if a train-wreak happened in Metroplex with that waste. There was fight recently here over some radio-active medical waste being stored near Andrews.. Does Weatherford or Ft. Worth want it near them.?? France has more nuclear generation than anyone.. I have no idea what they do with it ... deep in the Sahara?? Toss in accidents ... Chernoble Russia, Japans earthquake which made a lot of land (and towns) uninhabitable due to radiation, and our minor deal at Three-mile Island.

Which oil company doesn't want the Keystone?

And the crazed Nuclear accident what-ifs are endless...which seems to satisfy those on the left despite the fact there has been nuke waste transport for years without any major catastrophe in the U.S. that I recall?

So lets continue down the road we are on.

Rick

[JesseMartin]

Even before I read Rick's post that mentioned it, I was going to make this point. If you want ideological reasoning, here it is: God gave us stewardship over the planet that He created. Are we doing a good job of that? Per capita energy usage in the USA is higher than anywhere else, by a long shot. We also have more churches per capita, and those who attend them go more often than people in any other part of the world.

My point is that you can distrust the data from either side, but what is really troublesome is that the faithful appear to be less concerned with a responsibility bestowed by their Creator than they are with arguing against what they conceive to be a liberal agenda. I think that the divisions caused by the evolution vs. creation debate, and possibly the abortion issue, have caused a rift in the population of Christians to where they are more interested in siding with a political party against the "radical left" that sometimes supports scientific and/or medical means that are in opposition to their faith than they are in focusing on whether it might actually conflict with their faith. But instead of taking it on a case-by-case basis, many (not all, don't assume I'm calling out every conservative Christian but it is a large proportion) have flocked to the GOP's side over every issue without taking into consideration the fact that opposing what liberals laud may simply be a self-serving function of the party, and may be at odds with their spiritually-driven responsibilities.

I'm not trying to turn this into a religious debate, but wanted to point out that even if you do involve ideological standpoints, there is a compelling argument in favor of reducing our levels of pollution. And considering how many politicians run partially on the issue of faith, I find it more than a bit disturbing that so many opt to favor the "free market" over the application of spiritual ideals. He gave us dominion over the Earth and all its creatures, and we hope to be welcomed with, "Well done, my good and faithful servant," but there seems to be a disconnect in there for so many policies held close by many politicians, the companies they support, and the voters who continue to allow minimal restrictions and punishments for those who do great damage to ecological systems.

I try my best to avoid directly referencing spiritual concepts in favor of using conceptual imagery, and I think this is the first time I've mentioned anything specifically oriented to religion on this board. But again, even without scientific evidence (that has gotten stronger with the advancement of research tools and methods), there is a compelling faith-based argument that is alluded to (per Rick's previous post) but is rarely discussed in detail. And until voters who hold strongly to their Christian values begin to hold themselves, each other, and their elected representatives accountable, we aren't likely to see much of a political change regarding environmental issues until it becomes cost-effective for the companies who contribute to campaign funds to do so. The rest of the world may or may not follow suit, but the decision to be a responsible steward starts with each person, each community, and each electoral district first.

"Show me a man who rules his household well, and I'll show you a man fit to rule a kingdom." --Sophocles

[GTWT]

New report from NOAA - http://news.msn.com/science-technology/noaa-report-card-we-still-live-in-a-warming-world

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday issued a peer-reviewed 260-page report, which agency chief Kathryn Sullivan calls its annual "checking on the pulse of the planet." The report, written by 384 scientists around the world, compiles data already released, but it puts them in context of what's been happening to Earth over decades.

"It's critically important to compile a big picture," National Climatic Data Center director Tom Karl says. "The signs that we see are of a warming world."

On a related topic, Rush Limbaugh gives a young climate change denier a free ipad -

http://now.msn.com/rush-limbaugh-gives-ipad-to-boy-who-discounts-global-warming?ocid=msnnws