PK shared this on Facebook and I wanted to share it.
A paper published in the
journal Science in August 1981 made several projections regarding future
climate change and anthropogenic global warming based on manmade CO2 emissions.
As it turns out, the authors’ projections have proven to be rather
accurate —
This video is well worth your time in watching.
Global Warming should not be a political issue but a universal area on
immediate concern.
It was not a political issue, until the Republican powers that be decided that science was the Party's enemy. Remember Cap and Trade? Republican idea. But like the health insurance mandate, they quickly abandoned it when the Dems began to show support. In current Republican polar ideology, the need for 'oppositeness' supercedes any need for actual progress in solving problems.
ReplyDeleteThe Kyoto accords quickly made it a political issue. Remember these? Kyoto actually had China increase greenhouse gases. That's pure politics, not science-based environmental policy.
Delete"Remember Cap and Trade? Republican idea. But like the health insurance mandate"
These were both always rather unpopular. Just because a Republican proposed them does not mean that there was any strong support.
"In current Republican polar ideology, the need for 'oppositeness' supercedes any need for actual progress in solving problems."
In the case of both of these, it wasn't oppositeness. It is consistency, and adherence to sound policy over the long term, and resisting these two nutty ideas. While it is true, though, that outtlyers like Mitt Romney, who did favor forcing people waste money to buy health insurance they didn't need, did flip-flop on the issue.
"In the case of both of these, it wasn't oppositeness. It is consistency, and adherence to sound policy over the long term and resisting these two nutty ideas."
DeleteThe fact that such ideas, posed by the party's older, more moderate and nearly extinct cohort is now regarded as 'nutty' is illustrative of just how far gone the party is today. Centrism, moderateness any efforts to find common ground are now regarded as 'nutty'. It's like the guy in the asylum who believes that he alone is sane.
The only thing the GOP is 'consistent' about these days is being consistently erratic. There are multiple instances now of GOP lawmakers being forced to turn against bills that they themselves have SPONSORED out of pure partisan pressure to be 'opposite', simply for the sake of oppositeness.
And 'Never had much support'? Please. The insurance mandate was originally touted as the common-sense conservative alternative to 'Hillarycare'. All the R's were ready to sign on to the mandate to save us all from Hillarycare, 14 years later it's embraced as part of 'Romneycare'. Suddenly 3 years after that it's rebranded as 'socialized medicine' solely because a Democrat embraced it. For it, then indifferent, then for it, then against it. Ehhh, whatever.
The GOP in its current state is now so polar and viciously anti-compromise that it is becoming incompatible with the sort of compromise and horse-trading required in a functioning, freely elected government; in its current polar ideological state the GOP can probably only function in a one-party system.
"The fact that such ideas, posed by the party's older, more moderate and nearly extinct cohort is now regarded as 'nutty' is illustrative of just how far gone the party is today."
DeleteSorry, I strongly disagree with you. The very idea of forcing hard-strapped families to buy expensive products they don't need is radical, not "moderate", and is unconstitutional and nutty.
"All the R's were ready to sign on to the mandate to save us all from Hillarycare,"
I'd like to see a list of those who were ready to do so.
"Suddenly 3 years after that it's rebranded as 'socialized medicine' solely because a Democrat embraced it."
People came to their senses about a very bad radical idea.
"The GOP in its current state is now so polar and viciously anti-compromise"
No more and no less than the Democrats. It all depends on which party view you tend to favor.
"The very idea of forcing hard-strapped families to buy expensive products they don't need -"
DeleteDon't need? When you get hurt or seriously ill, the need is rather urgent, actually. Try going without medical care next time you have appendicitis or a heart attack. You're gonna have a bad time. Trust me on this one.
How "radical" is the alternative of simply letting the uninsured die? This is the option that was actually CHEERED and applauded at the Republican presidential debates by the Tea Party attendees. Tell me that isn't "fringe." And the party's been bending over backwards to please them. Tell me that KILLING patients who don't have enough money for treatment is a "mainstream", "sound" or "centrist" policy suggestion.
"No more and no less than the Democrats. It all depends on which party view you tend to favor."
You're not being intellectually honest here. This is so obviously false to anyone who's been paying attention the last 20 years. Democrats, AND Republicans, used to be pretty good at compromising with each other - and not very long ago. There wasn't this fixation with Ultimatums and no-compromise stances and pledges to Grover Norquist and whatever other type of OCD insanity they could come up with.
Look at what's happened so far - yes there was Health Insurance Reform, based on conservative models, with no single payer, NO government option (none, nada, zilch, in a futile effort to appease conservatives on what was the major sticking point of healthcare reform) - there was the continuation of the Bush tax cuts (again, to appease conservatives) - and all budget discussions have basically subtle arguments about not, whether, but how much spending to cut and where.
So basically Obama has pretty much caved on every major issue or sub-issue since being elected. At some point, you would think that the Republicans might take 'yes' for an answer, but they won't have it. They don't accept surrender, and they don't take prisoners.