Y2Kyoto: James Hansen Is Right About One Thing

That graph is mildly disturbing .... looks like someone is gonna get screwed ......

Bill D. wrote "That graph is mildly disturbing .... looks like someone is gonna get screwed ......"

I see where you are going and fully hope so but I think people are realizing bread on the table comes first.

Die, swampies, DIE!!

You are dross on the laboratory floor of reason; blobs of romantic nihilism that has no constituency; reviled by reason herself. Held in place on the laboratory floor by gravity alone.

How you even managed to escape the abortion tube of self-awareness amazes. But, no worries; you self-abort through your misanthropy. Worthless, lower than life specks of sputum.

Yech!

Poor choice of words on my part . Should have been ... looks like someones getting screwed .

Hey, did I ever tell you how I feel about enviro-mentalists?

Ooops. Mr. Hansen may be losing a major cog in the global warming wheel. According to this (http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/melting-antarctic-ice-part-natural-cycle) a report in Science indicates that there are two cycles in the Antarctic climate. One is 200 years and one is 2500 years and they account for the major ice losses in the western peninsula. Oh well, he can always go back to the hockey stick.

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/melting-antarctic-ice-part-natural-cycle

The people may rule...

the graphics could to be the old work of jim hensen but the names are similar. Its all puppets strings money and carbon. Does Gia not have an opinion.

I think those numbers are even worse news for the pro-Kyoto types than it first appears, because, first of all, at this point in time -- at the time this poll was taken --
the average person is absolutely unaware of what the costs of what the AGW proponents want would be to them financially, and in lifestyle terms. This understandable ignorance (it's not like the Al Gores' have been even slightly honest with Americans about the costs) makes it easier to opt for "the environment" over the economy --

"Of course I'm in favour of protecting the earth over the interests of fat-cat oil companies..."

"Okay, your heating bill will double, and a plane ticket will cost $2,000"

"Ahh, erm..."

And I think there's other reason that the actual pro-environment numbers might be overstated: while the phrase "protection of the environment" is now largely synonymous for "taking action to stop global warming," there are surely, among the pro-environment respondents, those who believe that that AGW is a scam but who, when they are asked about the environment, think of, say, healthy rivers and lakes, and/or safe drinking water for their families, etc.

Considering the extent to which the media has been portraying the AGW theory as a fact, and the way scared politicians have been nodding to the theory out of nothing more than pure political expediency, it's surprising -- heartening -- that the pro-economy numbers are as high as they are. The more that people learn about the costs of, er, fighting CO2, the less supportive they'll be of international GW "pacts."

The democratic process is moving in the direction of pure science.

The wisdom of the people has finally been articulated in the direction of proveable facts.

Hansen may be so feeble minded that he falls for corporate propaganda, which is also a commentary on his overall level of intellect, but to assume everyone is as dim-witted as he is also a clear indicator of his arrogance.
I believe nothing that corporations say. In fact, I find their messages insulting.
I believe nothing that politicians say. In fact, I find their statements condescending.
I believe nothing organized religion says. In fact, I find their philosophy hypocritical.
I believe almost nothing the MSM has to say until I have double checked with many other sources.
I absolutely believe nothing that advocacy groups say. In fact, I find their proselytizing to be untruthful, distorted, and dangerous to my well being.

Powell:

Thanks for your input, Mr. Perfect.

i say powell old man......

but surely you believe in the power of love to cure all the ills capitalists are heir to ?

Yeah, but some people vote for the economy, but feel guilty about it. Better than nothing, but we won't win until they stop feeling guilty about not being sufficiently green.

The ability to place the environment ahead of the economy relies heavily on a smug complacency fueled by two maybe three generations of simply marvelous disposable income.

Fortunately, our Democrats are working very hard to change this. Which brings to mind this catchy lyric:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_%27God_moves_in_mysterious_ways%27_come_from_the_Bible

That's scary that there's still 42% who think the environment should be the priority.

The question is a bit slanted though. Suggesting protection of the environment will curb economic growth, as though it would only be a short term effect and that eventually we'd arrive at the same economic outcome.

It would be interesting to see how people would feel specifically about Obama's environmental policy, versus the position of the republicans with respect to energy. Doubling the cost of energy will destroy the economy. And trying to fuel North America with ethanol crops subsidized by wind and solar will result in worldwide starvation and devastating damage to the environment. Hopefully we'd see more than 51% with some sense.

It's not easy being green...

People don't like being told what to do. We are funny that way.

This poll shows that at least 42% of people still have jobs.