Gore speaks on global warming... on coldest day in 50 years?

[covermye]

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040115/dcth049_1.html

http://www.drudgereport.com/agwarm.htm

I know this is pretty "general" and the global warming activists here will say that the "extreme variations" (even extreme cold) are by-products of "global warming", but this is funny nonetheless.

Most hypocritical is the fact that his administrations never backed the (admittedly crappy) Kyoto treaty, and most idiotic is the quote of his that claims that, "The Bush policies are leading to weather extremes." LOL. Four years of Bush policies are changing the planet's weather patterns? What exactly is so different these past four years as far as policies from the Clinton administration that would sway weather patters of our entire globe?

 

[Natoma]

Maybe he should have waited until summer to give this speech. But seriously, the criticism regarding the timing of the speech really has no bearing on what he was saying. He could have given this same speech in the middle of the summer and it still would be pertinent.

P.s.: We're getting extremely cold weather because of a collapse of the Jet Stream at its normal latitude, which normally buffets us from the cold air in the arctic.

P.p.s.: The US is one of the signatories of the Kyoto Treaty, which came about in 1998 I think, or was it 1997? Anyways, if I recall correctly, it was also around the time of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. It's probable that Clinton didn't send it in front of the congress for ratification because he had no political capital with which to get it through a vote. It would have probably been defeated.

 

[RussSchultz]

Another explaination was the Clinton signed it knowing it would never be ratified.

He wins politically, and the republican controlled congress (or the next administration) gets left holding the bag.

 

[DemoCoder]

Signing Kyoto, and even abiding by it, would lead to no measurable impact in the climate. The change in temperature, even if everyone abided by Kyoto, is predicted by the same climate models used to alarm us, as 0.1-0.3 degrees, a number within the margin of error.

Every knows that Kyoto won't do anything, it's just the first part of a "slippery slope" to try and impose much more onerous limitations.

Full implementation of Kyoto for the US (7% below 1990), would cost us $300 billion and double energy prices in the short term. In short, there is no way in hell it will be implemented by 2008. What's more, it will just accelerate changes already underway for US manufacturing and services to be moved offshore to China, India, and other developing countries which are exempted from Kyoto controls If energy prices go up for me, I'll just move my factory to indonesia, and kill two birds with one stone: energy costs and labor costs.

In other words, it will make US manufacturing even more uncompetitive, since they'll face higher costs that Asian manufacturers won't. And it will raise the costs of living for those unemployed Americans left in the wake.
(California is a micro-cosm of this, with many companies leaving the state because of high energy costs.)

All because of a politically imposed deadline. How was the year 2008 computed? Is there really a difference between Kyoto being implemented 4 years from now, or making it alot more gradual with lower, more conservative targets, ramped up slowly from 2008 to 2020? We'd probably get half of Kyoto's requirements for free as hybrid cars get an uptake and more manufacturing moves offshore, but without the pain of a radical 4-8 year forced implementation.

 

[Clashman]

Kinda like how Bush went down to Martin Luther King's grave today on his birthday, when he has done nothing but vomit on his legacy and everything he ever stood for. Irony is great, isn't it.

 

[covermye]

What the hell?

Where the hell did this come from?? Please stay on topic, Clashman, which is the rather funny image of Al Gore speaking on global warming when it's -37 F outside.

 

[Clashman]

I brought it up because both are ironic, and it happened today.

 

[RussSchultz]

How has Bush "vomited on [Martin Luther King Jr's] legacy and everything he ever stood for"?

I mean, really. Does your blind hatred go that deep?

 

[Natoma]

Another explaination was the Clinton signed it knowing it would never be ratified.

He wins politically, and the republican controlled congress (or the next administration) gets left holding the bag.

Of course there's no way for us to know that.

I doubt that he was thinking that far ahead in 1997 to the next administration that would be republican in nature. I think that some of the mandates he passed in the, literally, last days of his administration were probably "poison pills" that were designed to make Bush look bad. But I think it's a stretch to make that same statement regarding legislature in 1997.

 

[RussSchultz]

Why would it matter if the next administration was republican? His successor would have had the republican controlled congress to blame.

The way it turned out was just "double plus good".

 

[Natoma]

Democoder,

As I've said in other threads, I agree Kyoto has some structural issues. That's why I felt that continued discussion on the matter was of the utmost importance. My problem with Bush was not the dismissal of Kyoto. It was the fact that he had nothing to offer at the time to replace it. Afterward I had hope because he promised an alternative to Kyoto that would be ready "soon". In the 3 years since, nothing has been proferred.

So yes, there is a bitterness about that bit, and frankly I think Gore was right on the mark in his criticism of that particular matter.

 

[Natoma]

Why would it matter if the next administration was republican? His successor would have had the republican controlled congress to blame.

The way it turned out was just "double plus good".

Not necessarily either. Remember the Democrats were coming off 40+ years of House domination when they lost the majority in the mid 90s. It wasn't necessarily sure that the Democrats wouldn't regain it. So I think that is spurious given the timing.

 

[Clashman]

Let's see russ,

Martin Luther King Jr- Champion of Non-Violence who fought, (non-violently mind you), for human rights and social justice.

Bush- Fought two wars killing 10's of thousands of people, (and I use the term fought very loosely here. Sent others to fight is a more accurate term). Champion of the death penalty. Seeks to roll back affirmative action and social welfare programs Dr. King worked to enact. Immediately followed his visit to Dr. Kings grave with a 2,000 dollar a plate dinner so that he can diminish the influence of poor and working people that Dr. King sought to empower during the next el'auction'.

And somehow I'm the one who's blind?

 

[RussSchultz]

In the 3 years since, nothing has been proferred.

Nothing? While you might not agree with it, the Clear Skies Initiative was passed.

 

[Natoma]

In the 3 years since, nothing has been proferred.

Nothing? While you might not agree with it, the Clear Skies Initiative was passed.

You've reminded me of the Clear Skies Initiative. I brushed up on it and found some problems with it. It would allow almost 2 million more tons of Sulphur Dioxide to be released into the atmosphere than is allowed under current law. Current law also states that mercury emission levels have to be reduced to 5-15 tons a year by 2008, roughly 90% reduction. The Initiative would allow that level to be 26 tons by 2010, roughly 45% reduction. Current law also states that mercury can't be "traded". Mercury as you know causes birth defects, as well as organ damage to "regular adults". If you allow the "trading" of mercury, you could have some communities be adversely affected by this moreso than others.

There are some very good things in the initiative upon first glance. But when you compare it to laws that are currently in effect and enforced by the EPA, you'll see that it really does amount to little more than nothing.

 

[RussSchultz]

And somehow I'm the one who's blind?

I see. And I guess Rice and Powell are just window dressing (or uncle Toms)?

If anything, affirmative action is against what Martin Luther King Jr. believed in:

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

You don't have any monopoly on the truth of moral righteousness, so get off your high horse.

 

[Natoma]

Russ,

King did speak on reparations to atone for the crime of slavery. Affirmative Action was not around when he was alive, but given what he said on the matter, he would have agreed with it.

I wouldn't use as strong language as Bush is vomiting on Dr. King's legacy, but he has done much in his term to undermine a lot of the things King fought for and spoke about.

 

[RussSchultz]

I'm going to have to disagree. Having a black secretary of state was unthinkable during King's time, and having a female black cabinet member was double unthinkable.

And I'll also have to disagree that King would believe that affirmative action is a righteous goal. It might have been an acceptable stepping stone to him, but ending it doesn't mean you're for oppressing the black man.

 

[Sariden]

Affirmative Action was not around when he was alive, but given what he said on the matter, he would have agreed with it

I suppose you could be right, but then again that would just make him an advocate of reverse discrimination... I suppose thats all good so long as its not you whos being discriminated against though eh?

 

[Clashman]

http://www.providenceri.com/RI_BlackHeritage/MLK/Martin-Luther-King-Biography.html

Poor People's Campaign


During the 1966 and 1967 King shifted the focus of his work to economic issues and poverty. King called for redistribution of the nation's economic wealth to overcome the limited means of many African-Americans. In 1967, King planned his Poor People's Campaign to pressure national politicians to address poverty and issues of economic justice.

If King would have been opposed to affirmative action, it would be because it was too little, not too much.