Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Greg Fischel is one of the more respected meteorologists in the country, and has led technology on many issues. As a Republican for 30+ years, and a denier most of those years, I don't think it was easy for him to write this.
Even more than his points about GW, I think the bigger point (and both parties need to pay attention here!!!!) is that we are a partisan nation, and while we sit back and bicker like children, the rest of the world is not only catching up, but passing us on a number of issues and leaving us behind.
My beliefs have always slanted towards conservation which happens to fall on the same side as climate change science. It's the fact that they treat the public like children and have to make up this global warming boogie man. Most of their solutions make sense to me outside of shutting down coal burning power plants. But not for this warming sham. I don't need gimmicks to see the benefits of using less and increasing efficiency.
My beliefs have always slanted towards conservation which happens to fall on the same side as climate change science. It's the fact that they treat the public like children and have to make up this global warming boogie man. Most of their solutions make sense to me outside of shutting down coal burning power plants. But not for this warming sham. I don't need gimmicks to see the benefits of using less and increasing efficiency.
Agreee. I guess I think both ways on it. I don't need gimicks to see the benefits, but I also have to filter them out, because I don't want to let the fact that gimmicks and hokus pokus are present to prevent me from doing the common sense thing.
Totally agree though, too bad both sides can't just debate the facts without all the drama.....
I'm not sure how this thread "isn't as partisan as the title suggests". If anyone decides to bother they could post numerous examples of scientists who have gone the other way, so the implication being made is a biased and partisan one. And before anybody asks, no I will not be bothering to look up the examples, I just know I have seen such examples in the past. If those who are preparing to dismiss my claim on that basis are being honest with themselves, they know they have seen such examples as well. I understand that the partisan nature of this kind of discussion prevents people from acknowledging that internal honesty however.
I'm not sure how this thread "isn't as partisan as the title suggests". If anyone decides to bother they could post numerous examples of scientists who have gone the other way, so the implication being made is a biased and partisan one. And before anybody asks, no I will not be bothering to look up the examples, I just know I have seen such examples in the past. If those who are preparing to dismiss my claim on that basis are being honest with themselves, they know they have seen such examples as well. I understand that the partisan nature of this kind of discussion prevents people from acknowledging that internal honesty however.
If you read the article, he talks specifcally about how the partisan issues cause non-action, but HIS change was based on science. It is not partisan to use facts or examples to make a point.
And you, or anyone else is free to agree, disagree, or consider whichever "facts" you like.
I felt it was significant and informative that someone who had long-been a denier changed his mind. It isn't meant to "prove" anything.
"It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change],” he said, in an interview with The Register. “I'm 100 percent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.”
Greg Fischel is one of the more respected meteorologists in the country, and has led technology on many issues. As a Republican for 30+ years, and a denier most of those years, I don't think it was easy for him to write this.
Even more than his points about GW, I think the bigger point (and both parties need to pay attention here!!!!) is that we are a partisan nation, and while we sit back and bicker like children, the rest of the world is not only catching up, but passing us on a number of issues and leaving us behind.
Is that what we really want?
Great article. It's refreshing to see that some people can admit they were wrong and move forward.
If you read the article, he talks specifcally about how the partisan issues cause non-action, but HIS change was based on science. It is not partisan to use facts or examples to make a point.
And you, or anyone else is free to agree, disagree, or consider whichever "facts" you like.
I felt it was significant and informative that someone who had long-been a denier changed his mind. It isn't meant to "prove" anything.
I'm sure he does. The implication being made there and in this thread is very partisan in nature however, and as I said there are numerous examples of scientists going in the opposite direction who were equally sure partisanship had no bearing on their change of mind. Also, using the term "denier" is about as partisan as it gets(and also eerily religious in a way), and makes your declaration that your thread is not intended to be partisan in nature ring hollow. This topic is always partisan, there is no getting around it. Once the left decided it could use this issue as a way to force their pre-existing economic agenda on the rest of us, it became impossible for it to be anything else but partisan.
I'm sure he does. The implication being made there and in this thread is very partisan in nature however, and as I said there are numerous examples of scientists going in the opposite direction who were equally sure partisanship had no bearing on their change of mind. Also, using the term "denier" is about as partisan as it gets(and also eerily religious in a way), and makes your declaration that your thread is not intended to be partisan in nature ring hollow. This topic is always partisan, there is no getting around it. Once the left decided it could use this issue as a way to force their pre-existing economic agenda on the rest of us, it became impossible for it to be anything else but partisan.
Then leave the discussion. Partisan (usually) refers to political affiliation. This article is about one person who did not believe the science supporting GW, and then changed his mind and now does. It really DOES NOT GET INTO PARTISAN POLITICS, and people on all sides of the issues come from all political background.
"Supporter" and "denier" are pretty standard terms in this topic.
Anyway, call it partisan if you want, but if you don't haven anything relative to the discussion, then why even reply?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
