Just another idiot and cowardly Texas Republican trying to score political points with his GOP girlfriends.

This loser is as bad as that sissy boy Tom DeLay.

test

The following is a long post -- I apologize -- but i think it's totally relevant. I just got this piece posted on www.democrats.us/ The stench from this Adminsitration and its allies on climate change just keeps getting worse...

I hope you like...

Dan

Earth to George by Daniel Moss

With great fanfare in January 2004, President Bush announced his initiative for a new manned mission to Mars. Alas, we haven’t heard much about this bold proposal since its unveiling and perhaps that’s a good thing, what with the full slate of serious problems facing the President on this planet – an Iraq mission which is very far from accomplished; his social security privatization scheme which seems to be going nowhere; record budget deficits; shortfalls in military recruiting; an explosive increase in terrorist acts; and growing nuclear threats in Iran and North Korea, to name a few.

The recently concluded G-8 Summit, however, gave President Bush a golden opportunity to address another earthly problem which is truly global in nature – that of global warming (or climate change.) British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the host of this year’s summit, put global warming – along with aid to Africa – at the top of the agenda. Of course, that agenda was upstaged by the horrific terrorist attacks in London, but the meeting still represented an opening for the President to confront an issue that much of the rest of the world cares passionately about.

That opportunity, unfortunately, was wasted. President Bush is almost singlehandedly responsible for the limited results on climate change that the summit did produce – a watered-down declaration which avoided setting targets or timetables for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The overwhelming body of scientific evidence suggests that global warming is occurring and will likely have devastating environmental consequences if not addressed. In early June, the national science academies of all of the G-8 countries, as well as those of Brazil, China and India, the three largest developing nations, confirmed as much. In a joint statement, the scientists declared that:

Climate change is real;
Human activities, through the increased concentration of greenhouse grasses, are causing temperatures to rise;
The causes of climate change need to be addressed; and
The negative consequences of climate change may be very severe.
For people like President Bush, who profess to be strong believers in “sound science,” such statements from a vast and diverse collection of scientific experts should be convincing. Unfortunately, however, they are not.

Apparently, an overwhelming majority of scientific evidence does not sufficiently meet the standard of ‘sound science’ for global warming critics. Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a staunch ally of President Bush, contended in a June 14 op-ed in USA Today that there is “a lack of scientific consensus” to justify actions to address climate change. The Senator dismissed those who do advocate such measures as “climate change alarmists” and charged that “some still seek to solve a problem even before it has been established one exists.” (Never one to alarm others, Senator Inhofe has also referred to global warming as “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”)

Of course, the Bush Administration’s idea of ‘sound science’ as it applies to global warming has never been particularly sound and has rarely been based on actual science. This, after all, is the Administration which eagerly censored its own Environmental Protection Agency’s comprehensive report on the environment to make it anything but comprehensive regarding climate change. And, most recently, the Administration’s ‘sound science’ credentials were diminished by the revelation that a former oil industry lobbyist was editing climate change reports – before resigning to take a job with Exxon.

For allies of President Bush and Senator Inhofe, there is insufficient evidence to support the notion of global warming (or of the theory of evolution, for that matter) but more than enough evidence to support ‘intelligent design’ – the concept which stresses the influence of a higher power in the development of our species.

The issue is NOT whether there is uncertainty related to the topic of climate change. As the international science academies readily acknowledged in their June statement, “There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate.” But the scientific academies cited the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and contended that “…a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous … interference with the climate system.”

In fact, the President himself has repeatedly demonstrated that “a lack of full scientific certainty” would not stand in the way of U.S. action on a variety of issues. For example, the lack of such certainty about the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction did not stop the President from invading Iraq. Nor has the lack of scientific certainty about the efficacy of abstinence-only education programs prevented this Administration from enthusiastically embracing them at the expense of more comprehensive sex education programs.

Fortunately, in spite of the glaring abdication of presidential leadership, some progress is being made in the United States on addressing global warming. State governments, in particular, have increasingly stepped into the policy void by aggressively seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their respective states. And on the federal level, at the end of June, the Senate passed a resolution in support of mandatory emission controls for greenhouse gases. Of course, this in many ways was a minimal step. It was a nonbinding resolution, and committed the Senate to absolutely nothing. Nonetheless, the resolution reflects changing attitudes in that legislative body, and a growing recognition that voluntary measures are not sufficient.

The fact remains, however, that the United States stands virtually alone on the international stage in its refusal to acknowledge the overwhelming body of scientific evidence on climate change and the need to aggressively act on that evidence. The man who offered such a bold plan of aiming for Mars, and who now loftily extols the promise of democracy in the Middle East (after the primary reason for invading Iraq didn’t work out so well) offers a global warming policy of timidity and tired rhetoric.

If the President truly valued ‘sound science,’ he would enthusiastically provide leadership on this global issue. But first, he must acknowledge that there is an issue at all. Unlike his proposed manned mission to Mars, climate change is not going away anytime soon.

Houston, we have a problem.

Testing. Have been unable to post.

Testing again. It kept me signed in for the first time in ages. Hope it is fixed.

collegednc,

You wouldn't happen to be in college and attending this weeks College Dems national convention would you?

If so I will be there and use a friendly face.

Republicans live on the planet they have, not the one they wish they could have.

I believe you want the last paragraph to read, "But facts are facts, and if Barton (not Boehlert) doesn't want global warming to be fact, he ought to use his power to work on a solution instead of denying the problem."

Hey just checking to see if I can post - haven't been able to for a week or so

The GOP is also intimidating judges, teachers, intelligence agents, and medical personnel. All those elitist professionals insist on following facts. Who do they think they are?

Global warming is a reality, and it's too late to stop it.

Sea levels are rising and swamping low lying areas and small islands around the world.

Ice sheets are disappearing, as is the polar ice in the arctic.

Vegetation is moving north into the tundra.

Glaciers are also disappearing, and at an accelerating pace.

The overall temperature of the earth is higher, and measurements have confirmed that. In fact, the past decade is the hottest on record.

Here in Arizona, when we have a fire, desert vegetation is now growing back further up the mountains, where you can still see charred tree stumps.

Also, here, while we are having a wet year, it is getting drier and hotter, as predicted by climatological models twenty years ago.

More and bigger Atlantic hurricanes are forming, also predicted by computer models twenty years ago.

It is no longer a debate about how to prevent global warming. We have had that day, and we lost the argument. It is now about 1) how much we can slow down, limit or ameliorate its effects, and 2) how well we can adjust to the new reality.

I am a life-long Democrat (voted for McGovern), but I am very disappointed in the currect path of the party. This site is a good example. Sure there are some positive statements in the "platform" section, but I see little discussion about ideas and programs that will win voters in 2006, 2008. I appreciate the articles above on Global Warming, as that is one of the areas we should really be tackling, and a topic that WILL sway voters.

Bush has left a giant hole in the areas of energy, stewardship, and even security. Why not talk about how we would do better?

Energy should be THE major issue, along with Global Warming (related). We should be demanding higher fuel efficiencies, much lighter vehicles, incentives to make these happen. No less than a "man-on-the-moon" effort by the entire nation is needed to improve our security situation.

Divide the $200B Iraq war costs by the number of new cars and divide the windfall of oil dollars resulting from the oil price escalation, and you have lots of money to apply toward this effort.

I could go on and on. Let's discuss our ideas, and then let us support ONLY those candidates that offer new ideas. You will never force bush out of office with attacks on Rove. You can get him out of office with a landslide victory based on new ideas.

dougbacker

dougbacker, energy should have been the main issue after the Oil Embargo back in the '70s. I hope the scientists in other countries confront this problem; because as long as there is one gallon of crude available, the neocons will not permit any scientist in this country to work on the problem funded with federal tax dollars.

It's going to take a major thrust by governments around the world to come up with alternatives to the growing needs for affordable energy. Kyoto was their first step and Bush has been blocking them at every turn. At some point, they will just ignore him...I hope.

This has been the pattern of this administration from the very beginning. If the facts don't suit their policy, they change the facts to fit their own agenda. They ignore what IS and create what isn't. Marcia

I'm not an American. I'm a Canadian, which means I have a vested interest in what happens in the U.S.- politically, economically, environmentally, etc.

I read information from this site and other more liberal sites because I want to see how you will get out of the mess you are in with your present administration.

Mr. Bush and all his Republican bosses are dangerous to the rest of the world. What is your plan to do something about this?

Many of the stated policies of vocal Democrats are not that different from Republicans (foreign policy, the 'war' on terrorism, Iraq, Medicare, Social Security, etc.)

You need to develop recognisably distinct policies from that of the Republican party to have any hope of changing the course of your badly misguided nation.

This whole issue stems from the corporate money that greases the wheels of what we now call democracy. If we could put an end to this corrupt system of campaign finance it would keep our leaders from doing these corporations (that are ruining our environment) favors. As long as Democrats and Republicans keep selling their souls to these ruthless entities, we will keep seeing the same problems arise again and again. What I find humorous is that the average person still thinks that your vote counts. Well, the average person does believe we need to do something about the environment, while at the same time, our president, who was supposedly elected by our votes, does nothing about this. He doesn't hear you unless you have enough money to buy one of his buddies his next office. Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans. We have to find a way, as citizens to reform this corrupt system. It's not just our environment we have to worry about here. With a sane process of electing our officials, we will also soon see sane policies.

This debate on global warming is crap. In the 70's it was global cooling. We need to quit over analyzing the earth, it has and will always be unpredictable, and we have zero control over it.

I m complety ok with the first idea

George Bush said that he was launching a War on Terra. Too bad the planet is the target.

More BS Racism from the GOP, its time for EVERY african american voter to be able to get out there and vote without any disenfranchisement.

Without anymore bullshit from the white racists in the GOP party, and put everything back on track.....WITH A PROGRESSIVE MAJORITY!!!!!

"But we have work do within our own community as well. We have been disturbed by reports of other unfortunate incidents during General Assembly within our own Unitarian Universalist family, in which some UU youth of color were made to feel that they were not welcome. There was an incident outside the hall during the closing ceremonies at the Fort Worth General Assembly. Based on the reports of witnesses, the incident involved several UU youth of color, a UU adult who questioned their right to be there, provoking an angry response from the youth, a UU minister who intervened in support of the adult, and another white youth who defended the youth of color and verbally attacked the minister, who responded in like fashion with similar inflammatory language. This was not the only incident. We have also heard that on several occasions in Fort Worth , white UUs assumed that UU youth of color were hotel service people and asked them to carry luggage or park cars. We are troubled that some UUs may have treated other UUs as if they did not belong among us. We can and must do better."
http://www.uua.org/TRUS/050706_letter.html

Republican bullshit hypocrisy once again, brought on by Ken Mehlman and the stupid super-racist flakes of the GOP.

nick

Global warming and climate change are important issues and need to be solved. Sadly, not enough Americans are concerned by them for our party to make it our main strategy of attack against the right wing. What we should be focusing on right now are issues like social security, the war in Iraq, the war on terror, and winning the elections in 06 an 08. Once we have more Democrats in office, we can focus more rigorously on laws protecting the environment. As of now, little would get done if we tried to make environmental laws. Not enough republicans would budge from the corporate stances on the environment. If we truly care about the environment, we should focus on the issues that are likely to get us elected and then make environmental laws when we could make significant progress.
-Floyd

nick-t for U.S Senate.

With rhetoric like his, we guarantee the election of Madame President, the current Secretary of State.

Yeah for the racist Repubs appointing more minorities to administrative positions than the Presidential god, Bill Clinton.

Keep it up!!!!

Ohhhhh of course we can't forget that the far right has 2% of minorities locked up, its amazing they even have colored skin in about 5 different positions!!!!!

A susual they brandy their rhetoric about and it only makes the community more sick, because they are aware of their racism and desires..

nick

Has there ever been an administration so clearly in the mafia style? Or is it the Fascist style? Or are they the same? I was born in 74, so someone tell me - was The Nixon Administration this way also, this bad? I know that Nixon/ Ford was the incubator for a lot of the "neocons". Sometimes I wonder if its really as bad as it appears to be. Because sometims I get really scared - and I love this country the most, in spite of everything, but I get really, really scared.

Sir,

Richard Nixon was bad-Very very bad. Nixon became worse than Hitler and trust me, we have seen bad in this country before. Reagan will never even come close to Nixon's legacy.

And guess who's back, the DimSON has totally repeated the Nixon trifecta!

nick

Thanks Nick , I feel better now. I think.

Poor scientists, so scared of the GOP. Get some backbone quit whinning. If the GOP is evil confront them. Stop calling them names and address their lies. Buck up.

By the way facts don't require consensus. The truth will stand on its own. Who needs scientists who are so unsure of themselves.

First, global warming is a fact. As protrayed in the film, "The Day After Tomorrrow", the long range consequences of global warming are another ice age, and yes I know that while the timetable of events in the film was greatly accelerated, it doesn't change the facts. The science behind the film was sound. What's UNsound, is a president who says that global warming is bad,while publishing an energy policy that is 30 years old, "drill for more oil at home and burn more coal"? what happened to the man of "bold ideas and broad visions" that the GOP advertized in the 2004 election?

To Dougbacker: I totally agree, complaints and criticism are not going to give us our country back. The Democratic party needs to talk about solutions and keep talking so that the GOP's LACK of solutions will become glaringly obvious.

To Shay: The truth IS, and doesnt have to prove itself,but the unfortunately reality of our world is that truth MUST be believe in order to be real. Sorry.

Ooooh...Holywood made a movie about it...it must be true!

Actually, as far as climate flicks go The Day After Tomorrow was by far the best and a step up from the horrible "Waterworld"

Strong arming climatologists and cutting research funding won't make the problem go away. The threat is real, sooner or later Earth will reach a tipping point, the north atlantic current will shut down and Earth will flip back to an ice age climate in a period of somewhere between 250 and 25 years, probably closer to 50.

The effects on civilization and lower and middle income citizens cannot begin to be overstated. Though the time table is way off in The Day After Tomorrow, the reality isn't excatly a rosy picture either. Assuming the North Atlantic current shuts down in 2025 the U.S. and Western Europe will expereince progressively colder and long winters, sometime into this process crops in Europe and the U.S. will start to fail, the effect on the world will be devastating as much of the world will also be experiencing desertification. Untold hundreds of millions could starve to death, compitition for agricultural lands could lead to widespread bloody armed conflict.

By the end of the process Texas would have a climate much like that of southern Canada, much of the industrial western world would be unsuitable for crops and great cities like New York and Chicago would be subjected to artic conditions. This is the future our children and grandchildren will suffer if we do not act now and act forcefully.

By ignoring global warming BushCo is sentancing our children and grandchildren to a future of poverty, hunger, conflict and hopelessness just as surely as if they lanched a massive Nuclear strike.

We cannot prevent global warming because it is here now, but we can mitigate it's effects by stopping the release of greenhouse gases and expanding carbon sinks such as forests to begin scrubbing the damage we have already done out of the atmosphere.

The technology exsists to stop global warming, it's just a matter of leadership. We can do it, it won't be easy and it won't be cheap, but the price of not acting is too high to ignore.

The GOP congress must be unseat by a strong progressive Democratic majority and a progressive democrat needs to be elected president before we will act on the federal level which we must.

INTERESTING INFO RE: SOCIAL SECURITY

WHY WAIT UNTIL 2008? THERE IS AN ELECTION IN 2006. I HEREWITH FIRMLY STATE THAT I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY POLITICIAN, REGARDLESS OF THE OTHER ISSUES, IF HE DOES NOT SPONSOR AND SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION. THAT INCLUDES EVERYONE STANDING FOR ELECTION IN 2006.

LET US SHOW OUR LEADERS IN WASHINGTON "PEOPLE POWER"AND THE POWER OF THE INTERNET. LET ME KNOW IF YOU ARE WITH ME ON THIS BY REPLYING AND FORWARDING TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT!
KEEP IT GOING!!!!
2008 Election Issue!!
GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC.
This must be an issue in "2008" Please! Keep it going.

SOCIAL SECURITY:
(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.
Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.
You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society.They felt they should have aspecial plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in theirown benefit plan.
In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.
For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments..
For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.
T his is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.
Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.
Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH....
This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;
"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"! From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into,-every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer)-we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per monthafter retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator! Bill Bradley's benefits!
Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.
That change would be to:
Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us
then sit back.....
and see how fast they would fix it.
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.
How many people CAN you send this to?
Better yet..... How many people WILL you send this to ?

INTERESTING INFO RE: SOCIAL SECURITY

INTERESTING INFO RE: SOCIAL SECURITY

WHY WAIT UNTIL 2008? THERE IS AN ELECTION IN 2006. I HEREWITH FIRMLY STATE THAT I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY POLITICIAN, REGARDLESS OF THE OTHER ISSUES, IF HE DOES NOT SPONSOR AND SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION. THAT INCLUDES EVERYONE STANDING FOR ELECTION IN 2006.

LET US SHOW OUR LEADERS IN WASHINGTON "PEOPLE POWER"AND THE POWER OF THE INTERNET. LET ME KNOW IF YOU ARE WITH ME ON THIS BY REPLYING AND FORWARDING TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT!
KEEP IT GOING!!!!
2008 Election Issue!!
GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC.
This must be an issue in "2008" Please! Keep it going.

SOCIAL SECURITY:
(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.
Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.
You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society.They felt they should have aspecial plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in theirown benefit plan.
In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.
For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments..
For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.
T his is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.
Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.
Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH....
This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;
"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"! From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into,-every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer)-we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per monthafter retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator! Bill Bradley's benefits!
Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.
That change would be to:
Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us
then sit back.....
and see how fast they would fix it.
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.
How many people CAN you send this to?
Better yet..... How many people WILL you send this to ?

INTERESTING INFO RE: SOCIAL SECURITY

I've noticed no one here has mentioned Peak Oil, yet. Interesting. The damage that increasing gas prices will cause to the economy will likely be more severe and happen before damage from climate change, yet no one in either party wants to talk about it yet. The democrats have an opportunity to be leaders with solutions to the energy problem - which would also help global warming. But do they have the guts to start talking about SOLUTIONS instead of just pointing fingers at the Bush administration. We all know they've really messed things up. What do the democrats have to offer that is better? HOW are they going to lead us out of this mess? Please give me some hope....

Global warming is a bunch of liberals screeming that the sky is falling. Well it is not and I have not seen one fact of evidence to sway anyone in this direction. Keep making movies about W and please keep losing elections.

DITTO'S to Mahha Rushie!

Hurricane Rita is becoming the Poster Child for Global Warming.

Just watching the weatherman pointing out the high temperatures on land, stating it is not cool enough to slow Rita down and then pointing out the temperature of the Gulf, which will cause Rita to grow and get stronger etc. is a visual that every CNN-viewing American can finally connect to Global Warming.

Hurricanes: increasing in size and strength and nothing can stop them.

Now is the time to make that connection, while everyone is watching and waiting: Rita (along with Katrina) is what happens when there is global warming.

In regards to global warming and such accused Republicans, didn't the Governator open one of the nations first hydrogen gas pumps in California. That is what we need, more hydrogen cars to slow global warming. No smog coming out is beneficial. I know that the Governator is not the so-called Representative from Texas but is he anti-global warming. We should have more invested interest with hydrogen-runned cars or hybrids at least.

The trouble with GOP solving the Warming Problem is: They aren't smart enough to solve such problems. It has been known for many years that the Democrats have more intellectual members than the GOP does. But the GOP has always claimed the people don't care about that? They claim if you are likable they will elect you to any chair! The Democrats claim the people want their elected officials to solve problems on the War, Foreign Affairs, Economy, and the atmosphere. We have the IQ but many time we aren't as likable. When you find a Democrat that is both likable and is brilliant then you have a Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Carter, and a Clinton. Then folks the GOP has to take a back seat and watch them roar!