Have libs created a lie so large that it threatens their credibility when it come to the enviroment?

Question

if i may answer my own question.....YES!!!

Answer 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Answer 2

I have a very different opinion to yours.

Global warming isn't something that the 'liberals' have 'invented'. Global warming (or cooling) in it's natural form has always been around, the human factor is a much more recent event but is one that was first speculated as far back as 1811 and then scientifically documented by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 - so it's far from a new concept.

It's not just liberals that are 'on the bandwagon' so to speak but the majority of the world's population. In the latest survey (April 2007 conducted by World Opinion), 92% of the population view global warming as a serious threat (84% in the US).

You don't say why you beleive it to be a lie, if you did I may have been able to address your specific concerns.

One thing worth pointing out is that the US is the only country where there are 'sides' to the debate, largely I beleive because it's been politicised to such an extent. Outside of the US it's immaterial where a persons leanings are, be it extreme left, extreme right or anywhere inbetween. Consequently the US is the only country where there's any finger pointing going on.

Answer 3

Yeah, you make a lot of sense: if something that is a natural cyclical event 'inconveniences' you, blame it on the 'liberals'! You might be surprised to know that scientists of all political, religious and sexual persuasions tend to agree that our human-generated industrial revolution has caused the natural cycle of global warming and cooling to accelerate.
That means we've allowed far too many vehicle emissions and smoke-belching factories to pollute our air and water for far too long. That results in polar ice caps melting at a far faster rate than Nature would intend. That means polar bears and isolated Eskimo tribes might become extinct in a very short time. That also means that sea levels will rise which will cause horrendous hurricanes, phenomenal flooding, and all kinds of bizarre weather patterns which will affect our way of life. That means your grandchildren or great-grandchildren might not be able to breathe fresh air without wearing a gas mask, or might not be able to find enough clean drinking water.
There's no way you can blame this on the "libs" or the "cons" - we all share the blame for this environmental disaster. And if you fail to recognize what a serious threat this is to the delicate ecological balance between man, plants and all animals on Earth, you're simply burying your head in the sand. Instead of blaming it (and everything else) on your political enemies, why not stop listening to Rush Limbaugh's toxic poison and investigate the facts for yourself? If you have any intelligence left after being brainwashed with all of Limbaugh's lies, fabrications, hate mongering, bias, distortions, cruelty, and inaccuracies, why not try thinking for yourself - or for your grandkids?? -RKO- 05/28/07

Answer 4

I think the mistake you're making is assuming that "Liberals" are a specific group, who intentionally lie to get something else.

And that's a little crazy.

People are "liberal" because they believe in "liberal" causes. Liberals aren't going to lie about the environment, they are going to tell what they believe is the truth about the environment but might over-react to some danger. Just like Conservatives aren't going to lie about the environment, but they may under-react.

In the process, one side might lie about specific details, but more often than not they believe.

It is just like how Bush really did believe that invading Iraq, was a good idea, even though every president before him thought it was a bad idea. He didn't lie about WMDs, he was just so over-reacting to his fear of Islamic people that he believed that there might have been weapons.

Anyways, it's a little like that.

Answer 5

You mean "libs" like these?

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

"the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere"

Newt Gingrich, former Republican Speaker of the House

“With overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is adversely impacting the health of our planet, the time has come for the Congress to take action.”

Senator Olympia Snowe, Republican, Maine

"The overwhelming majority of atmospheric scientists around the world and our own National Academy of Sciences are in essential agreement on the facts of global warming and the significant contribution of human activity to that trend."

Russell E. Train, Republican, former environmental official under Presidents Nixon and Ford

"I agree with you (Gore) that the debate over climate change is over."

Rep. Dennis Hastert, Republican, Illinois

"Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed."

Lee Scott, CEO, Wal-Mart

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

Senator John McCain, Republican, Arizona

"I'm trying to learn [about greenhouse gases and global warming]. The more I learn, the bigger believer I become."

Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican, South Carolina

“DuPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate."

Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont

BECAUSE OF THE DATA global warming is accepted scientific fact. Every major scientific organization says so.

"Regardless of these spats, the fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the AGU or EGU meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists (not the famous ones, the ones at your local university or federal lab). I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts at the Fall meeting (the biggest confernce in the US on this topic) that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

Dr. James Baker - NOAA

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics. Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 6

How? They didn't create the science, anyone who thinks such is a fool.

They didn't create it, they merely embraced the science, nothing more.

Answer 7

no they haven't. i am a liberal. i am also a biologist, rainforest guide and specialist in breeding endangered species. i have lived over 17 years and done research in costa rica.
here are some ideas for those who don't agree with the credibility of many of us liberals, if that is what you want to call me. actually i am not so liberal on all thoughts but regarding the evironment that i have had years of experience dealing with i am.
Over 80% of the dry tropical forests from northern Costa Rica to Mexico have been cut down. Areas of this size and larger have been cut down throughout the world including the Amazon, Indonesia, the Congo and other rain forests. The Caribbean side of Costa Rica has also been decimated with deforestation. The temperature after removing the
rain forest has risen dramatically in these large tracts of land. The weather pattern also changes from this deforestation in each locality and they become drier. When these huge
areas have their trees removed, erosion dumps millions of tons of sediment into the rivers that flow into the oceans. This sediment slowly suffocates the polyps of the precious coral reefs in the tropics. What is the main reason for cutting these rain forests down? The main reason is to make room to raise cattle, not logging as many people think. With logging they generally cut down large hardwoods. To raise cow meat they cut down everything. In Central America
much of the beef is exported to the United States. The cattle industry, over all, causes more global warming than car emissions do. What can the average person do? eat soy, legumes and nuts as a protein source. This is a better way to practice sustainability. If the beef is grown in the United States sorry that isn't sustainable either. A person who eats cow meat (beef) as their main protein source requires about 20 acres of land each year and over 2000 gallons of precious water to raise that steer for protein. That is not sustainability. A person eating soy for their main source of protein only requires one acre of land and about 40 gallons of water each year to grow it. Also, soy doesn't add millions of tons of methane gas each year to our atmosphere. it actually absorbs co2. cows do produce over 100 million tons of this global warming methane gas in the U.S. alone. Cattle excrement also is adding to major pollution problems in our water systems today. Stop eating beef! Or if you absolutely can't stop eating beef, cut back to once a week or once a month. if you must eat a meat chicken is much less destructive to the environment than beef, here in the tropics. Besides, refraining from eating beef is healthier in the long run.
Here is another important environmental disaster, 90% percent of the shrimp served in the U.S. and in other countries comes from the tropics. It is harvested in non-sustainable ways. I have witnessed in one month over 190 sea turtles wash up on shore with their fins cut off, dead from drowning by shrimpers in the osa penninsula. Along with that, for every pound of shrimp harvested, about ten pounds of other creatures are killed and thrown overboard. Yes, much shrimp is farmed. The farms are generally constructed where mangrove swamps, another very important and fragile ecosystem, have been cut down for this purpose and ponds are made to raise the shrimp. After the shrimp are harvested from these ponds the water in them is released into the mangroves. Unfortunately the nitrate level is so high that many of the mangrove fish and other underwater creatures die. So eating shrimp is not sustainable either for our planet. If you want to take responsibility in helping save our planet from global warming, deforestation of the rain forests, dying coral reefs there are many other eating alternatives. please, eat to live, don't live to eat.
For our children's sake and the sake of the rain forests, coral reefs and the entire planet we need to step up and do something other than practice over indulgence. Cavemen had to hunt to get their protein and that was ok. Then we started raising animals to get our protein and that was needed. Now we know how to get all of the protein we need from plants. So it is time to evolve another step and stop the senseless cruelty to raising animals for food and also help control global warming and its effects at the same time.
henry

Answer 8

YES, THAY HAVE.