Pelosi: Democrats Will Save Civilization

I am truly starting to believe this woman is really a nut case. And I don't mean as an insult but as truly losing her mind. Our planet is not in any danger, if anything it's going thru it's normal cycles and the only reason our civilization would be in danger is because it's part of that cycle. Sure, we should try to save ourselves but not the way this woman describes it. Obama is not a God and they need to stop protraying him in that fashion.

While I agree with you this is the MO of the Dems.  They think that they know best about everything which is why they take every opportunity to bloat the government powers more and more because they simply can't let people think for themselves at all.

If you can look at the scientific evidence and honestly say that humans are not having an impact on the global environment then you are just naïve.  By making a huge issue about the thing is about the only way any true work for the cause will get done.

You do realize that the planetary climate cycles change due to the concentration of CO2 trapped in the atmosphere, right?  Natural cycle yes, but of course we are immensly aiding this current climate shift.  Things need to be done to make the planet a better place and sustain more for future generations, but nothing will ever get done if it the problem isn't acknowledged on any level of importance.

Guess I can't insert a pic that way.

Anyway this reminds me of a political cartoon from 4 years ago that quoted Edwards as saying that if elected, the democrats will continue their wrok and people in wheelchairs will get up and walk again. He used now-departed Chistopher Reeves as an example.

No one is denying that things need to be done to lower our impact on the environment the problem is that the government should NOT be the ones forcing that down our throats.  Let the free market do it, when oil shot up what happened to car purchases and driving habits?  They changed, people started buying more hybrids and less SUVs in addition to driving less and carpooling.  Let the free market work itself out.  The government is not supposed to be our collective social conscience forcing us to do whatever it is that they deem important.

And I believe it was the late George Carlin who said something along the following lines: "The earth is 4.5 billion years old.  Humans have been around for a few thousand.  The industrial revolution (when we really started burning fossil fuels regularly) was 150-200 years ago.  I think the earth will survive."

I am always curious about these comments like "if you can look at the evidence". You accuse others of not looking at the evidence that Global Warming (or Climate Changes as it's called now) is due to human intervention yet you yourself are ignoring the evidence that proves the contrary. Sounds kinda hypocritical for you to call others naive for doing the same thing you are doing.

You do realize this planet has gone thru several climate changes (some much, much worse than anything happening today), most if not all, without any human intervention of any kind? What you seem to fail to understand is that unless we actually make it our purpose to destroy this planet (something like the Matrix movie) even then we would have to push hard and waste all of our resources and even then after a few thousand years, the planet will self correct itself. Last I checked we are nowhere near such a Matrix type of world.

I got a kick out of the Global Warming marathon being canceled recently in Australia due to cold weather. Mother Nature has a sense of humor, Pelosi should take note.

Uh no, that's a hypothesis. Historically, CO2 has gone up only after the temperature has gone up, not before.  Before being so smug on an issue, you should probably research it a little more.  Watching An Inconvenient truth does not constitute research.

And as we have seen, it does not represent truth either.

But it does constitute laziness.

You are correct in what you said Draginol, and unfortunately now when we talk about climate changing it has the distinction of speaking specifically of the warming of the Earth.  I did not mention that CO2 created the heating of the planet.  It was not my entire intention to imply that CO2 levels completely dictate the changing of the climate either.  Please do not assume I get all of my information from Al Gore either.  Although it may seem like that because I support measures to change our environmental protection plans adamantly, I have learned a little more than what one politician and environmentalist will tell us.

Not specifically, but considering you said "but of course we are immensly aiding this current climate shift" meaning the CO2 is from us and the climate shift is from cool to hot, you basically said just that with a different set of words.

Well, when you can find a way to replace all types of transportation (boats, planes and vehicles) with something less damaging to the enviroment without backrupting or putting out of business every company depepndent on these types of vehicles, every person who needs a vehicle or public transportation to make it to work or replace every machine in this country (or the world for that matter) with a less poluting machine and find alternatives to all the products made from oil, then we can actaully agree on this. But to "adamantly" want to change something overnight that is not only part of our daily life, but the conrner stone of our economy (and the world as well), the blood that keeps this nation alive, one of the greatest necesities 2nd only to air and/or water, is being naive, ignorant and down right uneducated.

Again, calling me uneducated because I supposedly want to change the entirety of American energy policy overnight?  That is just something that I did not say.  I am a supporter of new environmental initiatives with the understanding that we need to pick at our energy development and consumption over the course of many years.  The CO2 increase in the current atmosphere IS coming from us more and more...however, I believe you are correct in that my use of "climate shift" does more-so imply temperature increases.  I should have said something along the lines of how we are aiding the environmental problems associated with increasing our CO2 concentrations, instead of relating it to our personal weather patterns and heat fluxes (which by the way I don't blame "global warming" for).  Areas that we are effecting with the increased CO2 emissions are things like the rising ocean acidity harming the oceanic environment.

Why do Republicans continue to say dems are big government people?  Look at the last 20 years Bush 1 made government bigger, Clinton shrunk it(to Thunderous republican applause in the state of the unions), and Bush 2 has increased it greater than any other president in history.  Republicans are the party of big government and there are some brave republicans that admit it.

on topic, there is simply no way you can tell me that all these chemicals we are letting into the air have no effect.  Even without science I can tell you that if you introduce something(a foriegn substance) to a object it will change it.  Good example.  The human body, we know that if you smoke cigarettes(spelling, sorry), it will cause cancer if you keep doing it.  If you live in a building with Asbestos in it you will get cancer eventually.  Its just a matter of time.  Simply put I think you have to agree that the MASS industrialization which this planet has never seen in its 4.5 billion years, is having a serious effect.  Changes are needed.

It is not only republicans, but many others as well.  Who wants to nationalize (i.e. give to government) 17% of the nations GDP?  Have you listened to the rhetoric yet?

That is not to say that Bush was not just as guilty.  But you are wrong about Clinton.  Government has not shrunk in my lifetime (if ever) and any "temporary" program ever created, is still around in one form or another.  Clinton did not shrink anything, he just could not grow it fast enough to eat up the surpluses that built up.

I will give you this.  Based upon recent history, Democrats are the honest party of Big Government (they say they want it).  Republicans are the dishonest party of big government.

The problem is your analogy.  The human body is a part of nature, but not all of it.  SO yes, there are parts of nature that are foreign.

The earth is all of nature.  So far, except for a few moon rocks, man has not introduced anything into this planet that was not already there in one form or another.  And nature has taken care of it - just not on a timetable acceptable to man.

Man is not accounting for a majority (not even close) of CO2.  The earth has done that herself.

The problem with all this religion about global warming and "destroying" the planet is the hysterics.  What we are doing (possibly) is killing ourselves, which we do have the capability to do.  But the dishonest want us to beleive we are killing the earth - which we cannot.  And some are even so insane as to say that man is the cancer on the planet.  And that the only solution is our erradication.  I am sure in time, that will happen.  But rending clothes and committing hari kiri to demonstrate your point may be good for your soul, but does nothing for the real issue, obfuscated as it is.

So you are offended for being told you may be uneducated but you had no problem calling others naive for having an opposing opinion to yours about our impact on the enviroment? "Do on to others" comes to mind right now.

You may not have said "overnight" specifically but it is obvious the results you seek should happen immediately because the longer we take to make these changes the more harm (according to you) we do to this planet so why would I believe you are not seeking for immediate results? The irony is that we have recently seen new concepts being put on the streets such as hybrids and electric cars and people have actually reduced they driving habits, but these things are not acknowledged. Why? Because, again, it's not happening fast enough and in large quantities, which basically goes against your "That is just something that I did not say".

Do you truly believe that we can change an entire planet (because it would be pointless for the US to be the only one not using oil) from oil to an alternative energy source in 4 to 8 years? Because according to Pelosi, Obama will be the salvation of this civilization, meaning he will be able to solve this energy problem within 4 to 8 years (depending on him getting a second term or not). Do you truly believe we can come up with a real solution within 4 to 8 years and change an entire industry without affecting the economy thru out the entire planet, all because we think (there is no real evidence that we are destroying the planet) we are destroying the planet?

Naivety does not imply that a person is uneducated.  I happen to know a little bit about vocabulary. 

You're refusing to acknowledge my statement that I believe this process should take many years.  You feel that I only support Obama because I agree with Pelosi in her charge that this "crisis" will be fixed during his presidency?  I do not agree with Pelosi's overhype of the situation nor do I believe that stopping use of oil in massive quanities all at once is even feasible.  You should believe I am not seeking IMMEDIATE results because I said nothing of the sort.  I believe that Obama's plan to create new jobs and resources in alternative energy for America can help reduce the emissions, lower use of oil overall, and create a cleaner environment over time.  If we can do something to improve the environment, why not act to set an even stronger example?

Why do you assume that I'm a Republican?  I am neither Republican nor Democrat I consider myself Libertarian if I must align with any party platform.  And the Democrats do want bigger government, what do you think universal healthcare is?  I don't deny that the Bush adminstration and the republican controlled congress saw government grow at rather quick rates, but the current crop of Dems out there want to do just that and more.

I'm sorry but this is just a little pet peeve of mine, there is a difference between a causal relationship and a strong correlation.  Smoking cigs is not guaranteed to cause cancer, it just increases your risk for cancer (a correlation not a causal relationship) and Asbestos is not guaranteed to give you cancer simply increase your risk for getting it.  I will agree that humans have an impact on the earth, but I am a firm believer that mother nature will survive no matter what we do, we may not be around to see it but mother nature will survive.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't seek out ways to lower our impact, we definitely should, but the problem is that our technology just isn't there yet, it needs more time.

Part of the reason many Republicans are disaffected - once a degree of control was achieved, they failed to follow through with action to match their rhetoric.  The Republican Party has lost its way, but even this allegedly bloated government isn't big enough for the Democrats - I don't believe they'll consider it big enough until at least 51% of our population is either employed by or totally dependent upon government.

If reducing the size of 'big government' is really important to you, you have no business voting for Obama.  At least there's a chance in hell with the Republicans.

The creation of Homeland Security perhaps? The Dem's don't like the "S" word so they don't mention it much. How big will the government be when health care is socialized? We can play the blame game all day, but what will it accomplish? Come January all the Bush haters should be able to dry their eyes, I know it will be hard to find someone else to blame, especially if Obama gets elected, but hey they can chalk it up to inexperience, right?