How convenient is this fact:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960409/site/newsweek/
2007-02-27 12:28:28 · 9 answers · asked by WJ 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
that's not a fact, it's an opinion column... not that Republicans know the difference... but even he says warming is happening...
he also says we're not sure if it's true or not...
so... he's not saying it's a lie... he's saying that we don't know and it may not be true...
do you see the difference...
2007-02-27 12:56:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
George Will bases his arguments on false premises. First of all, the planet was supporting many fewer humans when ice covered Chicago or when Vikings farmed Greenland (although Jared Diamond's excellent book, "Collapse" chronicles what happened to the Vikings when they failed to adapt ot their climate changes). Then Will goes off on a "blame China" rant that can only be properly understood in the context of the "tragedy of the commons" (if you are not familiar with this, I include a link below). And, in making the case for ethanol (Bush's preferred soultion) Will (correctly) enumerates the many problems therein. But he ignores truly alternative energy sources and the marvelous effects of conservation. For example, replacing light bulbs with flourescents (or better yet, LEDs, but that is still a few years away) would save huge amounts of electrical power. Electricty can be generated by the sun and wind, both becoming more efficient. And (my favorite) tidal energy can also be harnessed for electrical power. Talk about renewable and reliable and no CO2! GM recently showed off its Volt car and they say it will be in production by the end of the decade. 650 miles on a tank of gas! Many Americans could also switch to electric cars or hybrids (I drive a hybrid for my everyday commutes and rent pickups or SUVs when I actually need something larger). Then Will throws in his gratuitous bashing of Kerry and Boxer (why not mention a few of the GOP names, like McCain?). A lot has changed since that Senate vote was taken and the science is firmer than it was then (regardless of Will's imaginings) and while some might "stay the course" there is an inconvenient truth about refusing to re-examine one's position in the face of new scientific consensus (and there IS consensus . . . see the other link).
2007-02-27 21:04:59 · answer #2 · answered by foolrex 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Are Libs open-minded enough to listen to both sides?
Read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming."
Then decide.
2007-02-27 21:43:46 · answer #3 · answered by david 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, it's not a lie it's a natural occurrence. It happened before the last ice age too.
2007-02-27 22:07:47 · answer #4 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
whilei don't believe it's a lie, it's a great exaggeration. if you look through the years of historical data on the weather - you'll see were're just in the cycle -the one we were in generations ago. while i'm a republican, i do believe we need to stop wasting our resources - but until people start to look within themselves as to what they can do - it won't happen. al gore talks a good talk but his electric bill for one month is higher then mine for the year! oh and mine is electric and water combined!!
2007-02-27 20:37:35 · answer #5 · answered by Marysia 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
How is it a lie? Many scientists have been agreeing with the theory for decades!
2007-02-27 21:49:20 · answer #6 · answered by The_Thinker 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
so your new argument for disregarding global warming is that maybe things would be better if we were all back in the stone age?
2007-02-27 20:38:48 · answer #7 · answered by Nick F 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
theydont care about al gore flying around in his private jets and riding in his limos.
2007-02-27 21:10:46 · answer #8 · answered by rizinoutlaw 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
'global warming", is JUNK SCIENCE.
2007-02-27 20:44:20 · answer #9 · answered by bushfan88 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋