Why is the climate change issue divided along party lines?

[nailer]

Let's get back to Global Warming which I call Global Cleansing, and the politicization of the issue.

Back in JH I recall reading a SF book about the end of an ice age and group of explorers/traders venturing forth to lands that had been previously inaccessible. That's about all I remember. The first Earth came when I was a 10th grader and I remember the school having an event. It was around this time that I recall becoming aware of how the Green House effect was going to bring on a new ice age. CO2 was branded a bad thing and suddenly the nuclear power industry had a new selling point. Then came TMI and nuclear power was demonized for no valid reason. In fact TMI showed how effective the plant's safeguards were, but that was lost in all the speculative media noise generated - The China Syndrome being a prime example. As a result we have higher CO2 levels today due to the politicization of nuclear power plants. By the early 1980s another take on the Green House effect arose.

The Green House Effect resulting in a cooling of the earth was pretty much scientific speculation and scientists started speculating in the opposite direction because ice cores were being pulled out of Antarctica and technology had advanced to a point that temperature and CO2 levels could be measured all the way back to our distant past. They were also able to more accurately measure temperature changes in the more recent past. Now there was an us/them dynamic in the scientific community. Around 1985 the ice agers were basically gone and we all found out about this Global Warming and that CO2 was the blame, oil being the prime scapegoat. The media naturally jump on the Global Warming issue and the bandwagon headed down the track with the left being a prime component because we had to save the world. The right took oil's side. Thus another us/them dynamic came into being politicizing the issue.

[Oerets]

I have come to realize fact.

Subconsciously it seems most in the USA feel it is to late to do easy fixes if any or would be to painful to endure the remedies required. So deny and or argue what is in front of them.

History will not be kind to us!

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by Oerets

I have come to realize fact.

Subconsciously it seems most in the USA feel it is to late to do easy fixes if any or would be to painful to endure the remedies required. So deny and or argue what is in front of them.

History will not be kind to us!

Though I agree completely, I don't think this is anything new. Here is an interesting fact: The black family was more intact before the civil rights act. Why is that?

I'm just stating a fact and asking the honest question regarding what caused that to be true? I don't know, but there must be an answer.

Race is just one of many issues with the human race. It is just another facet in the stone that condemns the human race when you take out the love of Jesus. These problems have been slowly reaching a boiling point since Adam bit the apple. it is obvious to any student of history that the day of reckoning for the whole human race is very near. The change has become worldwide and the rate of change exponential.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

Though I agree completely, I don't think this is anything new. Here is an interesting fact: The black family was more intact before the civil rights act. Why is that?

I'm just stating a fact and asking the honest question regarding what caused that to be true? I don't know, but there must be an answer.

Race is just one of many issues with the human race. It is just another facet in the stone that condemns the human race when you take out the love of Jesus. These problems have been slowly reaching a boiling point since Adam bit the apple. it is obvious to any student of history that the day of reckoning for the whole human race is very near. The change has become worldwide and the rate of change exponential.

Many black families are indeed less intact that prior to 1965, although many are not and they are typically better off educationally and financially than they would have been prior to the Civil Rights Movement.

Your third paragraph opinions are myth based.

[Oerets]

Could not the same be said of all families now?
I know from my experience when the boys were in school. Having both parents still married for the first time to each other was not the norm. Most were on a second if married at all. Kids with half brothers and sisters..

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by nailer

Your third paragraph opinions are myth based.

Opinions vary on that.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Could not the same be said of all families now?
I know from my experience when the boys were in school. Having both parents still married for the first time to each other was not the norm. Most were on a second if married at all. Kids with half brothers and sisters..

Though bastardy may be more prominent among blacks, it has increased for all races. And make no mistake, it's not being black that increases your chances of landing in prison. It's being "fatherless", regardless of race.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by nailer

Let's get back to Global Warming which I call Global Cleansing, and the politicization of the issue.

Back in JH I recall reading a SF book about the end of an ice age and group of explorers/traders venturing forth to lands that had been previously inaccessible. That's about all I remember. The first Earth came when I was a 10th grader and I remember the school having an event. It was around this time that I recall becoming aware of how the Green House effect was going to bring on a new ice age. CO2 was branded a bad thing and suddenly the nuclear power industry had a new selling point. Then came TMI and nuclear power was demonized for no valid reason. In fact TMI showed how effective the plant's safeguards were, but that was lost in all the speculative media noise generated - The China Syndrome being a prime example. As a result we have higher CO2 levels today due to the politicization of nuclear power plants. By the early 1980s another take on the Green House effect arose.

The Green House Effect resulting in a cooling of the earth was pretty much scientific speculation and scientists started speculating in the opposite direction because ice cores were being pulled out of Antarctica and technology had advanced to a point that temperature and CO2 levels could be measured all the way back to our distant past. They were also able to more accurately measure temperature changes in the more recent past. Now there was an us/them dynamic in the scientific community. Around 1985 the ice agers were basically gone and we all found out about this Global Warming and that CO2 was the blame, oil being the prime scapegoat. The media naturally jump on the Global Warming issue and the bandwagon headed down the track with the left being a prime component because we had to save the world. The right took oil's side. Thus another us/them dynamic came into being politicizing the issue.

You and I are in lockstep agreement - right up to the last few sentences.

The whole thing has been baloney. Now they are fudging figures all over the place, using unreliable earth stations and all sorts of other nonsense. Most of us deniers are not about "saving the oil companies". It's not about that. It's about this:

All human activity, right down to breathing, emits CO2. If the government can convince us that it is a thing to be regulated by the government, we have given them control over all aspects of our lives.

ALL.

We are not in a global warming period. That's why they renamed it "climate change". And the seas have not risen. And glaciers are not receding. What we are seeing is natural cycles. The GW alarmists are like a guy at sunrise telling us it's going to get hotter and we're all gonna burn up. Lunacy.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by nailer

Let's get back to Global Warming which I call Global Cleansing, and the politicization of the issue.

Back in JH I recall reading a SF book about the end of an ice age and group of explorers/traders venturing forth to lands that had been previously inaccessible. That's about all I remember. The first Earth came when I was a 10th grader and I remember the school having an event. It was around this time that I recall becoming aware of how the Green House effect was going to bring on a new ice age. CO2 was branded a bad thing and suddenly the nuclear power industry had a new selling point. Then came TMI and nuclear power was demonized for no valid reason. In fact TMI showed how effective the plant's safeguards were, but that was lost in all the speculative media noise generated - The China Syndrome being a prime example. As a result we have higher CO2 levels today due to the politicization of nuclear power plants. By the early 1980s another take on the Green House effect arose.

The Green House Effect resulting in a cooling of the earth was pretty much scientific speculation and scientists started speculating in the opposite direction because ice cores were being pulled out of Antarctica and technology had advanced to a point that temperature and CO2 levels could be measured all the way back to our distant past. They were also able to more accurately measure temperature changes in the more recent past. Now there was an us/them dynamic in the scientific community. Around 1985 the ice agers were basically gone and we all found out about this Global Warming and that CO2 was the blame, oil being the prime scapegoat. The media naturally jump on the Global Warming issue and the bandwagon headed down the track with the left being a prime component because we had to save the world. The right took oil's side. Thus another us/them dynamic came into being politicizing the issue.

Huh. So, your fuzzy junior high memories are the basis for your argument against the very well established scientific consensus (99% of actual climate scientists) on climate change. Got it.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Huh. So, your fuzzy junior high memories are the basis for your argument against the very well established scientific consensus (99% of actual climate scientists) on climate change. Got it.

I was not making an argument for or against Global Warming, but giving my take on how the issue became politicized and shared but one JH memory to set up the predicted coming ice age due to the Greenhouse effect. Prove me wrong and bold the parts of my post that: 1) argues against your GW consensus science and 2) sharing a second JH memory.