How Much "More Science" Needed about Climate Change?

Tobacco company propaganda (4.00 / 2)

Christie and his ilk are using the same technique successfully used by tobacco companies and their lobbyists and propaganda machine for decades - say that there's no proof that smoking causes cancer,  and that more study is needed because there's still a dispute -notwithstanding 50,000 studies to the contrary.  In the case of global warming, there is no dispute among every legit. scientist that humans cause or contribute strongly to global warming.  The only legit. dispute is the amount of time it will take to flood the whole planet. The few scientists on the other side are being paid handsomely by the polluters.

Leslie

---

by: leslie6042 @ Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 21:54:53 PM UTC

leslie6042 (0.00 / 0)

Exactly what I was thinking. The cigarettes don't cause cancer mass manipulation. How much did that cost us? My mother just died of lung cancer. I know what it cost her.  

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 22:30:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

great post (0.00 / 0)

Although I feel an overwhelming urge to make a  "Gravity Probe B" comment after than comment about Relativity.  :)

(Move along, non-nerds.)

 

Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

---

by: Hopeful @ Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 21:57:58 PM UTC

Hopeful (4.00 / 1)

Popular Science calls Holt Capitol Hill's Nerd in Chief.

Maybe you should be Blue Jersey's Nerd in Chief.

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 22:33:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right on (0.00 / 0)

Human induced climate change needs to be addressed--the Governor is playing to the far right outside of NJ instead of focusing on ensuring our state leads the world in finding solutions for our energy crisis.

---

by: Ed Potosnak @ Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 23:10:30 PM UTC

Well, Doctor Holt, I was pleased to vote (0.00 / 0)

for you and I have always considered it an honor to have been one of those absentee ballots in 2000 that helped you to defeat Dick Zimmer, but to be perfectly honest, your position on climate change leaves me a little cold.

You say that you oppose nuclear energy on the grounds that "no one has ever convinced you that nuclear materials diversion to weapons is impossible."

This is a most disingenous statement, especially from someone who knows what an expectation value is.

Actually, nuclear wars are not observed.   Oil wars are.   In fact, the very first - and only nuclear war - started, as far as the Japanese and the Americans were concerned, and quite possiibly where the Russians and the Germans were concerned - as an oil war.

Climate change is a dangerous fossil fuel waste problem, which means that nuclear energy's so called "waste" problem is trivial, since used nuclear fuel can be contained indefinitely.

Nuclear energy is the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy.

It has been the fastest growing form of climate change gas free energy for more than 40 years, even in this country.

China announced a $180 billion dollar in new reactors, has 24 under construction and plans 80 before this decade is out, 200 in 20 years, and 400 in 40 years.   The amount being proposed is actually larger than their annual military budget.

In other words, they plan to emulate France.   Everybody whines about their coal, but they will phase out coal long before we do.

Great Democratic Scientists including Glenn Seaborg adamantly supported nuclear energy.   He iwas, possibly even more than Gibbs, the greatest American physical chemist ever.   Afterall the periodic table looks like it does because of Glenn Seaborg.

George Olah supports nuclear energy.

Hans Bethe supported it.

If you cannot support nuclear energy, I wish you would at least extend the same criteria to oil.   Specifically, I wish that you would declare that unless one can convince you that it cannot be diverted to weapons of mass destruction - something that is constantly observed - it be banned.

That would be a fine day.

---

by: NNadir @ Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 00:41:11 AM UTC

NNadir (0.00 / 0)

Help me out, here. Your comment leaves me lost. I can't find where in the post Rep. Holt says these things. Could you help us out with a link?  

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 00:58:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

NNadir #2 (0.00 / 0)

You might mean this in the New York Times?

Fair question. Let's see if he will answer it when he stops in to read comments.  

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 01:55:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dependence on Beligerence (4.00 / 2)

It isn't surprising that Mr. Christie takes this stance as he is in ideological opposition with any idea that has even the remotest tinge of being a liberal agenda item.

It doesn't matter that any progress towards a greener, cleaner environment only improves living conditions and long term economic growth. All that matter is that no right leaning politician be caught in agreement with anything even narrowly perceived as being liberal. It would be a deviation from the mandated platform of belligerence and intractable defiance that defines the Republican party.

If we don't stand together, we fall alone
That didn't last long.

---

by: Couch Potato Politics @ Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 04:23:47 AM UTC

You'd think (0.00 / 0)

a man with his own gravitational pull would have more of a belief in science.

As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.

---

by: Jersey Shore John @ Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 14:37:22 PM UTC