REP JOHN SHIMKUS (R-IL): It's plant food ... So if we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere? ... So all our good intentions could be for naught. In fact, we could be doing just the opposite of what the people who want to save the world are saying.

At this point, the GOP fight against global warming is purely reactionary. It may have started as protectionism for corporate polluters, and they hate science of course, but now the thing most driving them is that liberals are for it so they have to be against it. I can't think of anything else that accounts for such a deep level of mind-numbing stupidity.

Holy. Shit. Is that scary. This asshole has the gaul to think plants need people? Republicans are scary. I can't imagine hating everything but money.

Could you change the thread title to "Global warming deniers reach rising levels of stupid"?

There's a ton of people on both sides who are stupid. Why focus on them?

Why not, for instance, put up an article about one of the world's most renowned scientists, who happens to be skeptical about the science behind AGW theory and uses rational thinking instead of appeal to emotion to present his point? Would that be too "inconvenient"?

The Civil Heretic

Thats some extreme treehugging.

What global warming?

14 - 20 ° C sind nicht wirklich kalt, oder?

The stupid people in this case are not some fringe, they are the bulk of the GOP and their leadership. These guys are responsible for important policy decisions regarding climate change and they are stalling it at every opportunity based on the kind of stupidity demonstrated by Shimkus. I'd say that's a good reason to focus on them.

It's like asking why we focus on the school boards in Texas or Kansas regarding Creationism being taught in public schools. Because their influence is far-reaching and dangerous, that's why.

I guarantee that the vast majority of the Democratic leadership is just as clueless on Global Warming as Republicans.

Except that the Creationism issue is far different from AGW. Skepticism on AGW is warranted from a scientific point of view, while it's not on the Creationism issue.

The ice caps. What kind of harm could the application of anti-global warming measures cause in comparison to an ecological assrape that'll affect the whole planet, including humans? Even if it turns out they don't work too well...

Hundreds of billions of dollars per year spent on anti-GW measures that could otherwise go on more pressing needs, such as fighting malaria, malnutrition, AIDS, etc?

More than anything, the issue of Global Warming is an economic one; there is an enormous opportunity cost associated with implementing Kyoto and other proposed measures.

You could say that about a ton of government or international expenditures, though.

Just because we already waste a lot of money on such programs, doesn't justify Kyoto expenditures.

On top of this, there are very few, if any, programs as expensive as Kyoto over a long period of time.