I've been blocked from the question so I don't know if Jello posted a reference. Based on past experience I'm guessing not.
What actually happened was that some Georgia Republicans set up a biased panel to discuss the issue.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2007/08/20/sibleyed_0821.html
And the panelists (no surprise given who they are, see the article above) said it was false.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2007/08/22/warming_0822.html
But, there was no "resolution" as far as I can find out on the Net. And the above articles make clear that this is not a widely held position among Southern Republicans. It's not even clear what the Georgia legislature thinks about the issue.
Please correct me, with a reference, if I'm wrong.
2007-08-23 10:15:07 · 8 answers · asked by Bob 7 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
=^_^= - People get the respect they deserve. Look at my answers to DeusExMachina. He's a legitimate skeptic, who posts real questions, not disguised propaganda. And he gets very respectful answers from me. As does Marc G. Others are fountains of bad information, much of it simply made up, and richly deserve the "denier" label.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is a biased source? Compared to what?
2007-08-23 10:45:01 · update #1
GABY - It's one thing to express an opinion. It's quite another to flat out lie. There was NO Georgia resolution "dismissing global warming as hysteria". There was no Georgia resolution on global warming AT ALL.
2007-08-23 11:15:41 · update #2
he didn't block me yet, but i pointed out to him that across town, at georgia tech, there is no global warming debate:
http://search.gatech.edu/search?q=global+warming&site=default_collection&client=default_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=default_frontend
2007-08-23 10:32:19 · answer #1 · answered by PD 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Your second link is the reference used by Mr. Jello. I managed to see it and respond before he blocked this ID.
His question was the usual distortion of the facts. Gerogia voted against a resolution to allow California to enact tougher laws against greenhouse gas emissions (which is ironic, because conservatives are supposed to be all for states' rights), but Jello claimed that the State of Georgia had passed a resolution calling global warming a big fat lie.
He then concluded that because the GOVERNMENT of Georgia had passed this resolution (based purely on the testimony of the usual group of global warming skeptics/deniers), it must mean that global warming is purely a political issue rather than a scientific one.
Jello has got to be one of the most illogical people on the planet. Not to mention his penchant for distorting the truth.
2007-08-23 17:22:02 · answer #2 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 8⤊ 0⤋
Both you and Jello have given a biased account but I'm not even going into it. "Deniers," "Republicans," and all that other political junk should be kept in the politics section if you ask me. The environment is going to fall to ruin while everyone argues about it. It's pointless.
2007-08-23 17:22:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
In accepting the 'Georgia Resolution' it would benecessary to accept that politicians are climate change experts - quite clearly they're not.
If we are to accept the word of non experts as fact then logically we should also conclude that the world is flat, aliens are controlling us and Elvis works in the local supermarket.
Unfortunately I can't access Mr Jello's question as I too have been blocked.
2007-08-23 18:36:41 · answer #4 · answered by Trevor 7 · 8⤊ 0⤋
I think it is silly. Georgia reps. have a right to believe and say whatever they want to. Even the skeptics have a right to organize and try to convince people of their beliefs. It is up to the citizens to decide whether or not they agree or disagree with them.
I'm all for open discussion on both sides. Of course they are biased. That is what debate is all about. You are obviously biased.
Why is it you can spout your opinion, but when someone tries to argue their opinion, they are Liars?
2007-08-23 18:02:17 · answer #5 · answered by GABY 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
=^_^= - I understand your point. I think you should also consider just how much politics is wrapped up with environmental issues. In school when I was working on my geoscience degree a required course was Environmental Law.
2007-08-23 18:19:09 · answer #6 · answered by Gwenilynd 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
This isn't a position widely held by Republicans ANYWHERE.
2007-08-23 17:21:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Is being a denier similar to being a blasphimst in church?
2007-08-24 00:58:50 · answer #8 · answered by - 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋